The political history, players, drama, attempts, obfuscation, deceit and failures surrounding U.S. inaction on global warming. It's fascinating, informative and sobering. Many have tried to create federal action to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
(Produced in April 2007 -- just under one hour -- click on "Watch the Full Program Online" on the right side)
On Wednesday I attended a discussion of the Bali conference at the UW Law School. The report is not good. Since the Kyoto Treaty, GHG emissions have increased even faster than before. Of the many nations that promised a reduction, only two have actually reduced them: Germany and England.
Germany because West and East Germany united, and the under-developed East had a lot of old Soviet style power plants shut down.
And England because Margret Thatcher shifted the economy from coal to natural gas from the North Sea. Her critics say the she was not being "green", but breaking the powerful coal miner union. But whatever...
Anyway there is a strong movement to replace the old "quotas and pledges" (typically promises to reduce emissions at some future date after the current leadership's terms are up). But to replace them with what? Still undecided.
The lawyers at the meeting were inclined to favor law suits against emissions and to have the EPA regulate CO2 as a pollutant.
I (of course) suggested that if they were serious it would be with a GHG emissions tax that would start low but increase each year until the emission targets were met. And that would be politically more acceptable if the money collected were to be rebated back to the population on a equal per capita basis, so about half the population would benefit from the system, and could be convinced to support it.
It will be interesting to see what happens. Reply to this
In one sense, it's amazing that any countries are taking ANY actions to reduce their GHG emissions given that the U.S. is doing next to nothing. As you know, until recently we were the largest GHG emitter in the world. We're still the biggest per capita for large countries. It shows great foresight, commitment and world leadership on their part.
I think that to talk about replacing "quotas and targets' without having an alternative is a bad idea that could lead to................stalling. Like any tragedy of the commons problem - an AGREEMENT is needed. Carrots/sticks could help.
Suggesting a tax on the 'bad stuff' with a rebate........great, another push on the rock up the hill.
