dippin

Ignore his post as much as you've ignored post number 8 on this very thread?

Now, let's look at this "if we push for more environmental regulations, our economy will suffer" argument in its historical context.

It has been the argument of choice, for example, for GM, Ford and others as they prevented congress from enacting fuel efficiency legislation. Meanwhile, Europe and Japan were much more aggressive in this. Tell me, again, which car companies are failing and one of the main reasons for that?

As far as the assertion that the CBO did not look at any potential GDP reduction while looking at the costs, it is also true that they did not look at the costs of the gas emissions themselves.

Because, as its been said at least twice in this thread (talk about ignoring posts), these gases are not only related to global warming and have real health consequences, all that come with a price. Health issues, reduced agricultural crops, altered sea alkalinity, etc.

On top of that, there is the very real reduction in GDP that comes from global warming itself. Most recent MIT studies show an increase in temperatures of 9 degrees by the end of the century, and sea levels are estimated to increase by 80 to 130 centimeters in one century.

Of course, I know all about the "OMG, its global warming is a HUGE conspiracy" crowd. But I would love to get any sort of real evidence from them, either disproving global warming or proving the conspiracy. Saying "jeez, there is that one time Science rejected our open letter written by a theologian in a southern baptist seminar" is really no proof of anything other than Science is not about to let quacks use it for political purposes.


Finally, for all the doom and gloom, cap and trade is only a federal level extension of something several states have adopted. And cap and trade systems have been implemented with regards to other gases, such as nitrous oxides and sulfuric dioxide. And in the case of cap and trade in those gases, they were far more successful than anticipated, at a fraction of the cost critics estimated.

Green house gases have real negative consequences, that go beyond global warming (go read on how low level ozone is formed and how it impacts health and crops). Being able to produce it with impunity is basically free riding and infringing on other people's health and property rights. A market for those gases is certainly the most "free market" way to control them.

Of course, given how often you've completely ignored other posts here, Im sure soon you will post yet another column by former Bush aides on how 700 scientists disagree with global warming.