If Canada or even the United States slowed carbon fuel consumption it wouldn't have any impact on the amount of carbon released into the environment. China and India would consume the savings and more. To make matters worse these countries have far lower emission standards. This will mean a net increase in carbon emissions which kind of defeats the purpose. Every barrel of oil that is produced this year will be burned by someone. Purposely slowing our economies might effect the price of carbon fuel to a small degree but not consumption. What B.C. did recently with their carbon tax was effectively the same as someone grabbing a bucket on the Titanic and starting to bail. It might feel good to be doing something but, your not helping.
There are three ways our governments could effect carbon emissions. The first would be to set about developing a consensus with Europe on emission standards for products that enter their borders. Nations that don't abide by these standards in manufacturing will lose the privilege of trade with our nations. You don't need every nation to be on board. Just enough that the loss of those markets would be significant to exporters. California has been able to increase emission standards all across the states simply by raising their own. The manufacturers had to retool or risk losing a significant market. The same could occur on a world wide scale. It won't happen if all we do is weaken our own industries by requiring them to meet standards their competitors don't have.
Secondly, our governments should invest in research into alternate fuels. I know they are doing this to some extent now but, I do question how smartly they are going about it. We need something to replace oil that is just as efficient. We don't need to subsidize industries that have no hope of ever being more efficient than oil. That won't slow/stop the oil wells from pumping. The world needs a competitive alternative.
Lastly, our nations should continue support of research into ways of curbing emissions. Once a world standard is set and in place it should be revisited and revised as technology permits.
I've gone on record here and still believe that man's effect on global warming is minimal and we are just experiencing a warming cycle. That doesn't mean that I'm against a cleaner environment. What I'm opposed to is the government turning this into a tax grab. The only reason you or I have influence is our wealth. We chose what we consume and don't consume. The buyer is always right. The government taking our wealth and slowing our economy(our ability to generate wealth) does nothing for the environment and in fact weakens our voice on the world stage.
|