Reply #12: Disputing climate change?

[sweetheart]

The fact of the receeding arctic ice sheet is quite striking, as
clearly the planet's eco-system is buffering the effects of this
pollution.

Clearly where you live, the effects of climate change are minimal,
in some parts of the world, like the UK, the effects are already
quite intense with flooding and less snow fall, that certain crops
are now cultivatable further north in britian due to the warming.
It seems the only people who will dispute the climate change are
those who don't need silly things like evidence to base claims on.

Were my administration to focus on this area, i would demand another
summitt and a comprehensive accord that includes china and india.
In this accord, we would create a market for pollution credits and
environmental footprints, that would be required from all corporations
who are polluting this planet.

This would involve particular charges for waste and irresponsible
pollution, "pollution tax" to recoup the public costs of the issue
and to make it unprofitable to be a polluter. All corporations that
wish to do business in the US, would be required to follow that rule.

I, unlike many at DU, believe that a progressive sales tax is the
solution. This would allow certain supply chains that have excessive
damage to the public environment; that these are charged the tax,
and not the clean supply chains. An obvious factor of that, would
be the gasoline tax, that would, overnight, charge at the pump the
full cost that the taxpayer subsidizes for petrol. This would make
humvee drivers pay for wars, tankers, refineries and all the tax free
goodies that the lobbiests have bought their standard oil buddies
over the past century.

To be frank, i don't think any change needs be made except tweaking
the tax code to remove artificial support for polluting industries.
I would also revise the sarbanes oxley sculduggery with something
substantial. Corporate results should report the full scope of
environmental variables, including the emissions and energy usage
of the company, (and all buildings)... that public ratings allow
the stock markets to punish abusers using markets, and not politics.

So, yes, i don't support kyoto either, but i do have an alternative
that would work much better, and would lead the world by example,
as the US should be doing given its economic poll position of times
past. We should be leading the world in this regard, as otherwise,
one has to be totally cynical to suggest how 9 billion people of
a few decades will be able to get on with climate change if its
a problem with today's 6 billion. The problem is overpopulation
at root, and letting certain supply chains that enforce the wrong
methodology run roughshod over the public common is criminal.