In the way that climate bills are typically formulated, no. The only precedent for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions have been policies directly cutting the emissions, or forcing companies to operate at less than capacity in some way. From an economist point of view, this is bad–millions or billions of dollars lost, in economic terms, has impacts on everyone who is part of that economy.
This makes it difficult to ask countries like China or India, who have weak economies (people starving, burning tires for heat) to cut carbon emissions. Since they have huge parts of the country that have no food, they are unwilling to lose potentially billions of dollars within their economy by cutting emissions. It is an unrealistic problem for them, since they have to worry about day to day problems like finding food or shelter.
There are environmentalists who believe the most effective “climate bills” would be ones aimed at stimulating a new energy form that emits less carbon that fossil fuels. Basically, instead of making oil so expensive that no one wants to use it, making another form of energy that is so cheap and effective that everyone wants to use it.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC