The rest of us seem to get what the experts don’t: that doing
something about the economy and taking steps to stem global climate
change can both happen at the same time.
Following news accounts that suggested that global warming will
have to take a back seat to rescuing the economy, respondents to a
poll conducted through www.SFGate.com overwhelmingly opined that
one need not preclude the other.
The rest of us seem to get what the experts don’t: that doing something about the economy and taking steps to stem global climate change can both happen at the same time.
Following news accounts that suggested that global warming will have to take a back seat to rescuing the economy, respondents to a poll conducted through www.SFGate.com overwhelmingly opined that one need not preclude the other.
With both presidential candidates pledging to make cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions a top priority, opportunity for meaningful progress seemed assured.
A declining economy of itself might reduce greenhouse gas emissions as consumption of manufactured goods and energy is reduced. It would seem that the hand-wringing being done by some environmental leaders may be a little premarture.
The scientific evidence pointing to the need to act on climate change is mounting. A month ago, scientists said man-made carbon dioxide emissions rose by 2.5 percent last year, four times faster than a decade ago and faster than worst-case predictions indicated. The rise was fueled (pun intended) by India and China, according to SFGate.
Here’s something to ponder: in the last decade, the worldwide consumption of petroleum has swallowed 25 percent of all the petroleum ever consumed in human history.
Climate scientists have said that if global emissions do not peak by 2015 and drop by 50 percent or more by 2050, temperatures could rise 3.6 degrees. That’s the point that scientists agree the most severe impacts would be felt.
Both presidential candidates are backing a cap-and-trade system in which emissions are limited and major polluters must trade credits to emit greenhouse gases. It’s similar to a plan already approved by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature that requires getting emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020.
A good faith dedication to reversing climate change could be a powerful economic stimulus. New technologies intended to replace old fossil fuel-fired industries cannot help but create new jobs. Cap-and-trade will move more money through the economy.
Climate change or the economy? For once, we can have our cake and eat it too.
