We could address global warming in a more effective way than the Kyoto Protocol, and we could help and not harm our economy in the process.

First of all, let me explain my general position on global warming. Does global warming exist? Yes. Science has shown that the world’s temperature has gone up about one degree in the last 30 years.

Are we causing it? Maybe. Although some warming may be anthropogenic, it appears that an increase in solar activity is also responsible. Similar warming is happening on Mars, and the warming on earth is directly proportionate to graphs of recent sunspot activity.

Is global warming a problem? Yes and no. Although some of its effects will be bad, not everything will be adversely affected.

One thing we often forget is that although the preservation of the environment is a complex system, complex systems have a way of reaching new equilibriums fairly quickly after being tipped out of balance. Nevertheless, although I do not believe in environmental fear-mongering, I do think it would be a good idea to do something about it, just to be on the safe side.

The problem I have is that many of the actions proposed would be impractical, or would cause serious damage to our economy. For example, many people, eschewing nuclear power, think we should use solar or wind power to replace petroleum.

I for one don’t think this is a great idea unless you want to paper over the entire state of Rhode Island with solar panels.

However, the primary thing brought up in regards to dealing with global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. Proponents of it say that we should sign on to it and reduce our carbon emissions accordingly.

The problem I have with this is that it doesn’t treat America fairly in regard to competitor nations such as China or India. If adopted, it would impose unequal regulations on the United States.

We would have to cut our share of emissions but would also be required to pull the weight of other countries’ emissions as they would not be required to regulate their emissions at all.

A friend of mine who went to China last summer mentioned that the cities there were so full of smog that you literally couldn’t see the tops of buildings. Even though China, which has signed the Kyoto Protocol, now produces more carbon emissions than we do, it is not required to cap any of its emissions. We are expected to pull their slack for them.

I smell something that suspiciously has the flavor of watermelons. No, I don’t mean the fruit. I mean someone who is “green,” or environmentalist, on the outside but “red,” or communist, on the inside and uses environmental issues for the purposes of wealth redistribution.

If the focus truly were on climate change it would make sense to have China regulate its emissions, seeing as how it is now leading the world in carbon emissions.

However, I don’t believe that is the whole focus. I suspect part of the focus is to put other countries on an economic par with the United States by making it easier for them to compete with us. In a way you could view it as a sort of global welfare system.

So here’s my idea: Let’s put a global warming tariff on all goods imported from China and India. The tariff would encourage China and India to adopt regulations on their emission standards, and we could then use the extra money gained from these tariffs to boost our economy at home.

We could address global warming in a more effective way than the Kyoto Protocol, and we could help and not harm our economy in the process. It would be a win-win solution on both sides.

> Comments