Whether or not you accept AGW, how would you want to reach this goal, Politics?

For the moment, let's leave aside the question of whether anthropogenic global warming is real and/or harmful. Whatever skeptics and denialists may think, scientists have pretty much concluded that both of these things are, in fact, the case. Let's talk methods.

Assume, for the moment, that you are to make a plan with the goal of reducing your country's CO2 emissions. Specifically, you have the targets of stopping any increase in net emissions (that is, emissions minus sequestration) in the next 10 years, cutting net emissions in half in the next 30 years, and cutting net emissions to zero or near zero in 50 years. Assume other countries (all of the major emitters, at least) have agreed to reach similar goals, and that reducing "exported" emissions (eg emissions from the manufacture and transport of manufactured goods that your country imports) counts towards your goal. And assume you can use any generally legal methods to achieve this (new or changed taxes, subsidies, laws restricting certain behaviors and/or technologies, and the like). And remember that you need to deal with both vehicle emissions, and power-plant emissions.

What, roughly, would your plan look like?

Update:

So far, only one of you has answered *the question I actually asked*. <sigh>

3 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    First I would completely socialize the power companies and start shutting down coal plants to build nuclear, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric plants. Second I would end all oil subsidies and preferential treatments so that the true cost of oil will be revealed. Third I would allow any auto-manufacturers who can't compete fail, reducing the number of gas-guzzling trucks on the market and allowing competition and the free market to produce fuel efficient cars and eventually full electric or fuel cell cars.

  • 5 years ago

    the "scientists" who you claim have so concluded do not include the editors of the major journals in the area. I've got to believe that these editors know more about the balance of facts than anyone else.

    as to how to do it -- bomb China and India back into the Stone Age. Nothing less is going to have any impact at all -- their combined five year increase in emissions exceeds all emissions in the US, so even zero emissions here wouldn't make any difference in the long run

    • ChemFlunky
      Lv 7
      5 years agoReport

      Please note the assumptions for this scenario. You're making the plan for your country, and *other countries are doing about the same*. Meaning, India and China are also aiming for net 0 emissions.

  • Robert
    Lv 7
    5 years ago

    http://junkscience.com/2013/08/21/new-documents-sh... http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/feds-charge-epas-climat... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/0... Funny how everything is called "corrupt" in government but not the EPA, a wing of that government. And giving $6 billion to the UN stops it how? And why is Lamoille Glacier 35 miles south of Elko, NEVADA, still there after 10,000 years when the "ice caps are melting"... oh, and its winter there now so are we just going to ignore that they are getting BIGGER now that its winter? My plan: NOTHING. The things done already have had its effect; I suggest you look at old photos of LA from like 1987 and compare them to today.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.