Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
First, with respect to cap and trade, I have a fundamental issue with the idea that an appropriate resolution for issues of environmental degradation is to buy, sell and trade licenses to pollute.
|
As unsavory as it may be at face value, cap and trade was wildly successful in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The Economist called it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002)
That said, I think a fairly compelling argument can be made that the cost of achieving meaningful CO2 emissions reductions could be better spent directly on reducing illness/death in the developing world through inoculations, AIDS prevention, clean water, and agricultural technology support. The cost per life saved pursuing these initiatives would be orders of magnitude less than those saved by reducing global warming (if it were even possible given geopolitical considerations).