On Regulation of Air Pollution
When asked for our opinion on cap-and-trade and the Copenhagen convention:
There is no conceivable constitutional justification for a treaty which takes US tax funds and gives them to other countries as a matter of legal obligation. Gifts and loans are something we can reasonably discuss, but I do not and can not support any treaty which obligates the federal government to effectively tax us for the benefit of an entirely separate country, without any imagined or suggested benefit to the US in return.
Further, while I believe the federal government should play a role in limiting air pollution in much the same way it plays a role in regulating navigable waterways, I do not believe that this regulation should be for the express purpose of controlling global warming. While I am reasonably convinced that global warming is occurring, if only from the continually shrinking snowcover of various mountains across the world, I am not yet convinced as to the degree of human contribution to this warming, or as to the degree we can make any significant impact at this juncture. Until such answers are firm, any air pollution limitations should be for reasons that we all clearly benefit from: cleaner air makes everyone healthier.
As to whether the Cap and Trade bill, or a similar emissions trading system, is a reasonable way to put limits on air pollution, there are too many conflicting studies for me to have a firm conclusion as yet. I don't have any reason to believe one group of experts over another, meaning I'm just going to have to study the matter myself. That's going to take time. My instinct says that there may be better ways to control air pollution, but it's worth noting that other countries have implemented similar systems without the utter destruction of their economies some predict.
Now, there are other aspects of the bill as a whole, besides the cap-and-trade portion, which I quite like. I like that the bill apparently includes tariffs on Chinese goods. I like the emphasis on renewable energy, electric vehicles, and basic R&D, which has been greatly lacking in recent years. And I like that it at least tries to pay for those things, instead of spending more money we don't have. The questions I need answers to are, who ends up paying for all this? And what effects will cap-and-trade actually have? And at this point, I'm not sure I trust anyone to give me accurate answers to those questions.
There is no conceivable constitutional justification for a treaty which takes US tax funds and gives them to other countries as a matter of legal obligation. Gifts and loans are something we can reasonably discuss, but I do not and can not support any treaty which obligates the federal government to effectively tax us for the benefit of an entirely separate country, without any imagined or suggested benefit to the US in return.
Further, while I believe the federal government should play a role in limiting air pollution in much the same way it plays a role in regulating navigable waterways, I do not believe that this regulation should be for the express purpose of controlling global warming. While I am reasonably convinced that global warming is occurring, if only from the continually shrinking snowcover of various mountains across the world, I am not yet convinced as to the degree of human contribution to this warming, or as to the degree we can make any significant impact at this juncture. Until such answers are firm, any air pollution limitations should be for reasons that we all clearly benefit from: cleaner air makes everyone healthier.
As to whether the Cap and Trade bill, or a similar emissions trading system, is a reasonable way to put limits on air pollution, there are too many conflicting studies for me to have a firm conclusion as yet. I don't have any reason to believe one group of experts over another, meaning I'm just going to have to study the matter myself. That's going to take time. My instinct says that there may be better ways to control air pollution, but it's worth noting that other countries have implemented similar systems without the utter destruction of their economies some predict.
Now, there are other aspects of the bill as a whole, besides the cap-and-trade portion, which I quite like. I like that the bill apparently includes tariffs on Chinese goods. I like the emphasis on renewable energy, electric vehicles, and basic R&D, which has been greatly lacking in recent years. And I like that it at least tries to pay for those things, instead of spending more money we don't have. The questions I need answers to are, who ends up paying for all this? And what effects will cap-and-trade actually have? And at this point, I'm not sure I trust anyone to give me accurate answers to those questions.
posted by Stephen Collings at
9:13 AM
1 Comments:
Air is the most important element of human environment. Man can't live a single moments without air. But we don't think that it is we who pollute this most vital element. Clean air is essential for life. Air is polluted in many ways. Smoke pollutes air. Man makes fires to cook his food.To make bricks burns refuse, melts pitch for road construction and burns wood. All these things produce heavy smoke and this smoke pollutes air. Railway engies, power houses, mills and factories use coal and oil. buses, tucks and cars use petrol and diesel oil. Again all these things create smoke and cause air pollution. The most serious air pollution occurs in big industrial areas where there are many mills and factories. serious air pollution also occurs in big cities where there are many buses, trucks and cars plying the street everyday. Sometimes men in big industrial area become so sick by inhaling polluted air that they cannot be cued. So proper measures and steps should be taken to prevent air pollution.
Post a Comment
<< Home