Con: Americans must make painful sacrifices now to stop Earth’s rush to climate Armageddon
WASHINGTON EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, Is President Obama’s cap-and-trade plan for carbon emissions to reduce global warming too costly and inefficient?
On the evening of March 28, starting from New Zealand’s remote Chatham Islands on the International Dateline in the Pacific and ending with the Hawaiian Islands, the planet marked “Earth Hour.” Lights were turned out at the Sydney Opera House, Big Ben the Pyramids of Giza, the Eiffel Tower, and the Empire State Building in a campaign designed to bring international public attention to the ravages of global climate change.
Noble gestures all, but it will take much more than a publicity gimmick to reverse course on rapidly advancing climate change. In fact, it is almost too late to reverse a course that threatens to plunge the world into a condition red of perpetual extreme weather conditions.
Without an abrupt about face, scientists warn that we can expect coastal inundation caused by rising sea levels, the destruction of millions of acres of arable farmland, extinction of thousands of species and a massive human death toll.
At a time when the United States is faced with an anemic economy, a carbon cap-and-trade system is sorely needed to mitigate the devastating effects of climate change resulting from industrial and vehicle pollution.
Those companies that reduce their carbon-dioxide emissions below government-mandated caps will be able to sell or trade carbon credits to those companies that fail to achieve their goals.
The thinking is that companies that use their carbon credits to invest in green technology, thus creating “green collar” jobs during the economic recession and high unemployment, can make a profit for themselves while creating new markets and jobs. There may be a better way to create a green economy while turning a profit, but an effective alternative has not yet been developed that satisfies the needs of environmentalists and industry.
President Obama’s overall goal is to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It is an ambitious goal and one that cannot be achieved without the market incentive of cap and trade.
Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade plan in his first budget foresees $650 billion in revenues for the cash-strapped federal government between 2012 and 2019. Even though the carbon cap-and-trade system would generate much-needed revenues for the federal government, the plan is vigorously opposed by congressional representatives from Big Oil and Big Coal states such as Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The cap-and-trade proposal is merely bringing the federal government into line with measures already taken by California, New York and few other pioneering states to curb greenhouse gas emissions. California’s enterprising climate change programs already have sparked creation of a new “green economy,” and Obama obviously sees the California model as one way to jump-start the national economy from its present stall.
In addition to the cap-and-trade system, Obama set aside funds for development of clean energy programs in his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Along with putting teeth back into the Clean Air Act, Obama hopes to present a new American global commitment to combat climate change at this December’s U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen.
It is not an easy task for our new president. Not only does he face opposition from congressional shills for Big Business, but he also must overcome skepticism of the world’s two most populous nations, China and India.
To set the stage for successful action at Copenhagen, President Obama is to host a climate change conference in Washington later this month. By seeking a broad new mandate for carbon cap-and-trade, green economy investments and tougher regulations for clean air, the White House hopes to make dealing with global climate change more than a mere token annual gesture to turn off the planet’s lights for an hour every March.
All thoughtful Americans should wish him Godspeed.
Wayne Madsen is a contributing writer to the progressive Online Journal (www.onlinejournal.com). Readers may write to him c/o National Press Club, Front Desk, 529 14th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20045.

Apr 11, 2009 at 6 p.m.
Suggest removal
what do the libs want? global freezing??? is that what would make them happy? figure it out, change is always in motion. that is what keeps the earth fresh, with or without human beings.
Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ice core research shows that CO2 concentration *lags* global temperatures by 800 years +/- 200 years. C02 concentration does not drive global temperature. We still don't know what is driving the temperature change but based on this research it is faulty to assume CO2 emissions are the problem.
In addition, a cap and trade system will result in higher electricity rates predominantly in those states that use coal to produce electricity. Although one could argue that natural gas fired power plants will solve this problem, we will need to construct additional main and lateral gas pipelines in this and other states. Additionally, natural gas is already more expensive than coal and it will become more so as demand increases and supply tightens. Higher wholesale and retail electricity prices are definitely in our future with a cap-and-trade system, hurting both the home-owner and businesses.
It is better go slow, seeking a better understanding of this temperature change phenomenon, which may be natural variation, while allowing new technologies to be developed that will more cost effectively address the problem, if a solution is even necessary.
We shouldn't let people speaking a language of "armageddon" scare us into making unnecessary, sweeping changes that significantly impact our economy.
Apr 11, 2009 at 1:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
The world's emissions of the main planet-warming gas carbon dioxide will rise over 50 percent to more than 42 billion tonnes per year from 2005 to 2030 as China leads a rise in burning coal, the U.S. government forecast on Wednesday. China's coal demand will rise 3.2 percent annually from 2005 to 2030, the Energy Information Administration said in its International Energy Outlook 2008. --Reuters, 26 June 2008
Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:
"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008
But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon d ioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."
"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.