| |
BGonline.org Forums
Y2K and Warming
Posted By: mamabear In Response To: Y2K and Warming (Daniel Murphy)
Date: Friday, 25 April 2008, at 8:12 p.m.
When comparing different nations' GHG emissions and comparing to GNP, some adjustment must be made for what industries predominate in each country. I'm not necessarily disputing Dan's conclusion that the US is producing too much GHG for the value obtained, just saying the point isn't proved with those numbers. But no matter what the best numbers eventually show, there are plenty of "directionally correct" steps we can take here in the US as individuals and as a nation to reduce waste and decrease our GHG footprint (to mix a metaphor). None of them will bankrupt the country--it takes useless wars to do that.
We can always trot out Singapore as an example of just about anything we want to prove, and this is no exception. I'm sure its GHG emissions are extremely low by measures of absolute, per capita and per unit of GDP; but we can't all become bankers and have nobody mine metals, produce steel, build airplanes, or farm. I've also seen Singapore used as an example of how a high population density doesn't necessarily lead to poverty and hunger. The writer didn't explain how an entire world populated at their density level would survive, or where its food would come from.
I hope future President McCain isn't serious about rolling back the gasoline tax. That's the last thing on earth we should do! I have already written to my Republican congressman saying if we must increase a tax to balance the federal budget, IMO it should be the gasoline tax. Inducing people to drive less, a little slower, and do it in smaller vehicles, would provide more than environmental benefits. It would also enhance national security, because it would reduce our dependence on foreigners.
(OK we could also roll back the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest citizens, but you know about how far that idea will get. The Republicans have no motivation to do it, and the Dems are the same gutless wonders they've been for as long as I can remember.)
If we want to help the lowest-paid people in the country, let's instead increase food stamp allowances, and let them figure out how to cut back on driving the same as everyone else. If we want to help people people further up the food chain, so to speak, let's expand access to food stamps to include some people who don't quite qualify now. One thing I really like about food stamps is that they aren't fungible--they can't be used for liquor, cigarettes or drugs. The new card system makes it much harder to barter them for any of the above.
Even Libertarians must see the enlightened self-interest of making sure students, workers, and future cannon fodder aren't going hungry in the wealthiest nation the world has ever known. Or so I hope. We'll see >>
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.