[serious];66928419 said:
Well, to make this thread more politics appropriate, you could always approach it like this:
What should be the governmental response to the continuing rise of global temperatures?
It would need to be a radical government which does not buy into the notion of infinite growth. It would need to be a radical government which does not measure success by GDP and economic metrics but rather measures success by the health of the environment and its citizens.
I feel like commoditizing CO2 (such as carbon tax or cap-and-trade) just makes the situation worse because it makes it marketable. It will probably only make the situation worse.
These sorts of issues plague many environmental actions. I'm reminded of the situation where a local government gave gift cards to households which had the most curb side recycling by weight. Its absolutely idiotic on several levels. First it encourages more consumerism (with the gift cards), second, it encourages more consumption because you are measuring the recycled material by weight. The program was cut when it was discovered that some households were going out and buying flats of bottled water, emptying them down the drain and then putting the empties in their recycling bin.
Commoditizing the environment is the wrong way to go. Commoditizing pollution/garbage/waste is the wrong way to go.
A radical government would cut all subsidies to the oil and gas industry as well as an company which was found to be polluting the air or water systems with any heavy metal or plastics.
A radical government would pour billions of dollars into research into alternative energy systems as well as alternatives to plastic, heavy metals, etc.
A radical government would pour billions of dollars into building a fast and efficient passenger rail network and public transit system.
A radical government would ban large trucks unless it could be proven that the owner needed it regularly to haul equipment or drive in remote, rugged locations.
A radical government would have a one-car-per-household policy and encourage cycling (even in winter) as well as public transit.
A radical government would demand that corporations only be allowed to produce new products if it could be shown that the new product was made of better materials, used less resources in manufacturing, was recyclable, involved minimal heavy metals in production, and was able to last for years or decades. No more planned obsolescence.
A radical government would demand that all new houses built had composting toilets with grey water recirculation.
A radical government would ban clear cutting and demand reforestation projects.
Maybe not all these ideas are good ones and not all of them have to do with climate change. But I find that the climate change debate has somewhat overshadowed other pressing environmental concerns.
