2008 Woodie Awards
Global warming a clever disguise
Darwyyn Deyo
Issue date: 3/20/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Just about everybody agrees that the world is getting warmer. The controversy comes with the responses to it.
Scientists have teamed up with politicians and actors to persuade Americans that global warming is dangerous and should be counteracted by controlling the greenhouse gases that the world emits. To this effect the Kyoto Protocol went into force in 2005. To this effect, states such as California have begun legislation to regulate the amount of industrial carbon emissions.
But who benefits?
The Kyoto Protocol first benefits those countries which can most easily transition away from industries which emit greenhouse gases. Those countries would be America, Europe, Canada. The losers would be those developing countries which, until they actually can transition away from polluting industries, will be reliant on developed countries for funding and outsourcing. While we fret about the pollution over Los Angeles, developing countries at least see their pollution as a sign that, in years to come, they will be more economically independent.
If states sign legislation controlling carbon emissions, this will probably cause some industries to invest in environmental technology. The tax revenues it will generate, in addition, would fund the development of new energy sources. However, this is merely a redistribution of wealth and those receiving funding for new projects would already have capital, making them eligible.
Energy is an expensive business, so while ripping off carbon-based industries, we fund solar, wind, and water. Who would own the beach-front housing that would be at risk with rising water levels anyway? The working class guy-or the tax-revenue benefited guy?
Before the costs and benefits have been redistributed, we should examine legislation is necessary. Industries have sprung up without the tax-funded aid and there is money to be made in them. Even worse for global-warming-is-bad is evidence that it is not only natural, but…good. The most recent incident of global warming was in Europe from 800 to 1300, with a mini-Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. Strange that that first period corresponds with cultural and political growth, while the early part of the second period is characterized by pestilence and feudalism.
If the natural state of the earth is, in fact, a colder climate, global warming would be the first line of defense. This, however, doesn't receive attention because it doesn't redistribute wealth.
Scientists have teamed up with politicians and actors to persuade Americans that global warming is dangerous and should be counteracted by controlling the greenhouse gases that the world emits. To this effect the Kyoto Protocol went into force in 2005. To this effect, states such as California have begun legislation to regulate the amount of industrial carbon emissions.
But who benefits?
The Kyoto Protocol first benefits those countries which can most easily transition away from industries which emit greenhouse gases. Those countries would be America, Europe, Canada. The losers would be those developing countries which, until they actually can transition away from polluting industries, will be reliant on developed countries for funding and outsourcing. While we fret about the pollution over Los Angeles, developing countries at least see their pollution as a sign that, in years to come, they will be more economically independent.
If states sign legislation controlling carbon emissions, this will probably cause some industries to invest in environmental technology. The tax revenues it will generate, in addition, would fund the development of new energy sources. However, this is merely a redistribution of wealth and those receiving funding for new projects would already have capital, making them eligible.
Energy is an expensive business, so while ripping off carbon-based industries, we fund solar, wind, and water. Who would own the beach-front housing that would be at risk with rising water levels anyway? The working class guy-or the tax-revenue benefited guy?
Before the costs and benefits have been redistributed, we should examine legislation is necessary. Industries have sprung up without the tax-funded aid and there is money to be made in them. Even worse for global-warming-is-bad is evidence that it is not only natural, but…good. The most recent incident of global warming was in Europe from 800 to 1300, with a mini-Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. Strange that that first period corresponds with cultural and political growth, while the early part of the second period is characterized by pestilence and feudalism.
If the natural state of the earth is, in fact, a colder climate, global warming would be the first line of defense. This, however, doesn't receive attention because it doesn't redistribute wealth.