We should adopt a "Carbon Credit" system.
IamFry said 03/12, 12:00 AM
The following link for more carbon credit information:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/24/brother_can_you_spare_a_carbon_credit/
Based on the "carbon footprint" concept, the carbon credit system allots a standard amount of estimated greenhouse gas emission per person per year. Environmentally responsible people will then be able to sell their credits or roll them over to the next year, and people who choose to over-consume will have to shell out for more.
Of course, the exact details of a potential cc plan couldn't possibly be outlined here, as there are many mind-boggling levels of consideration. The plan would certainly have to be introduced in several phases, but the bottom line is that every person would have an equal stake in the health of our ecosystem; the plan would reward and promote environmental responsibility.
fortyfourth said 03/12, 12:35 AM
While I do feel as though something needs to be done soon about our carbon footprint, the only way it can be done is to start from the top (the federal government). I would call it a "trickle-down" theory of environmental protection. The argument that my opponent states above makes sense, but, like Communism, it is an idealistic view that only works in theory. To turn each person's carbon usage into a quantitative value would be mind-blowingly slow and inefficient.
The first thing that needs to be done is for the government to greatly increase the tax breaks on people who drive hybrid vehicles, or do not drive a vehicle at all. This would create a stronger impetus for the individual to spend a little more money on his hybrid vehicle, because he knows that the difference will be made up in his tax breaks. Because more people will be buying green vehicles, the competition between auto makers will increase, and the prices for these vehicles will decrease. Once the prices for green cars decreases below the prices for non-green cars, even more people will buy them, leading to a cycle that will make the green car the mainstay of the automobile industry.
IamFry said 03/12, 02:03 PM
Carbon credits are not an impractical, Communism-like solution; in fact the system is far less complicated than the US tax code, and it's being formally researched as a practical solution in Europe today. Communities throughout Canada and the US are currently issuing "carbon tax" laws. Ireland, the world's fastest-growing economy, is preparing to adopt a cap on vehicular emissions, and the carbon credit program is gaining support in the US.
Issuing tax breaks is not a cost-effective solution for the US government, nor does it ensure that individuals who purchase hybrid vehicles will in fact curb their personal use of fossil fuels. You can buy a hybrid car and use half as much gas per year, but consume ten times as much fuel heating your McMansion as the typical, non-ostentatious person.
The carbon credit system will effectively limit our true individual carbon usage and genuinely reward those who act responsibly - like air miles for people who travel the LEAST. While it will be a pain to limit our individual greenhouse emissions, it is the responsible thing to do.
Comments
Add Your Comment
So many scientists believe global warming is not an issue, yet so many scientists call it the biggest issue in generations. It is hard to decide what is truth and what is not, especially when both sides of the argument can be called naive by the other. However, it just seems more logical that the emissions of the last 100 years or so could be very harmful to the environment. No matter what you say, there are direct correlations between temperature increase, icecap melting, and changing weather patterns and our carbon footprint. I agree that the extent of it is greatly exaggerated, but something still needs to be done.
fortyfourth | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
I disagree with fortyfourth completely. You began your comment by saying that it is hard to decide the truth about global warming because both sides have scientific proof and could be called naive. Then you go onto say that it seems more logical that emmissions could be harmful to the environment without any facts to support your idea, notice the word could. The very next sentence you begin by saying, "no matter what you say, there are direct correlations between temp/etc. and carbon footprinting." As if you had any evidence to support your claim that you said was so hard to come to. It seems to me like you had a pretty time ignoring every peice of evidence and went with what you thought, just like most people who believe in global warming do. There are very few direct correlations between global warming and carbon footprinting. Not to mention, if there is a problem, the outcome will be so minute that we won't even notice.
shrek | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
I support Iamfry all the way. Anyone who is arguing about the science of climate change needs a remedial environmental science course.
Progressive | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
The earth and weather patterns go in cycles. That is not to say that man has no impact. It's just that this is an issue the far left has a huge stake in being completely right about, especially former V.P. Al Gore and his cronies.
Rightonthispoint | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
Wow, nice try Progressive! Perhaps you should take a look at all the facts before you start shouting out things like that. Maybe you need a remedial environtmental science course!
shrek | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
The link got cut off in my opening; here it is: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/24/brother_can_you_spare_a_carbon_credit/
IamFry | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
I believe my opponent and I agree that man-induced global warming is an issue; the debate over whether or not it's 'real' is for another time.
IamFry | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
This debate is, "Carbon credits are the best immediate solution" vs. "No, there are better solutions"
IamFry | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
You convinced me. I do think there are other ways to reduce our footprint, but carbon credit may actually be the best.
fortyfourth | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment
Post A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
I hate to bust the bubble of the global warming theory, but most prominant scientists refute this theory as man-made. Most of the 0.8 degree temperature increase was before 1940, and most of the new carbon dioxide was added after 1960. Would you trust a "scientist" who said the result came before the cause? We're running out of crude oil, so these major corporations have to replace one money machine with another. What other way to do it than by evoking fear. Come on, "global warming measures" will soon be the next .com boom, making people billions, and Al Gore will lead the way flying his carbon emitting personal jet all the way to the bank.
ShawnF | 03/12/08
Report Offensive Comment