Barkley - It is, of course, depressing how awful the
entire US political establishment has been on this issue.
But there is one thing I think we need to be clear on.
Emissions from highway transportation constitute
less than 20% of US CO2 emissions - and much of that
is from trucks, not passenger vehicles. SUVs are awful.
They are a symbol of everything that is wrong with
US environmental and transportation policy. But they
are not the major problem. I disagree that soccer moms
constitute the real opposiition to Kyoto. (Not that I'm
accusing you of saying this!) I know lots of SUV drivers
who really don't appreciate the environmental impact of
SUVs because NOBODY EVER TALKS ABOUT IT. Nobody
talks about it, because, until very recently, the Global
Climate Coalition came down like a ton of bricks on any
journalist who mentioned global warming, without
giving equal time to the "skeptic" position. When the
Kyoto protocol went before the Senate, who were the
Senators hearing from? The oil, coal, auto, electicity
industries. Not the public.
Industry is changing its tune, but slowly, slowly.
Most emissions are from electricity generation (half of
which comes from burning coal) and industry. The Department
of Energy study and other studies I have seen propose a mix of policies --
carbon trading permits for utilities and industry with
progressively more stringent caps; miniimum content standards for
renewable sources; efficiency requirements for buildings and
appliances; auto fuel efficiency standards, etc. The DoE also
presumed that subsidies and tax breaks now offered to
fossil fuel development would be redeployed to renewables.
These policies are opposed by the coal and oil lobbies, not
by the public.
In today's NYtimes, Krugman writes that the solution to
GW is a carbon tax. In fact, nobody is seriously proposing
this. Carbon taxes, besides being regressive, simply don't
get the job done. Demand is not elastic and alternatives
need to be made available. But alternatives will gradually
take the profit out of owning a coal mine or an oil well.
Ellen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Ellen,
> But the US Senate by an unanimous resolution
>demands that non-Annex I countries must share in
>those reductions. Their absurd resolution also
>demanded that there be "no harm to the US economy."
> I agree that the pain of the initial reductions
>would not be as great as many think it would be. It
>may well be that the hidden ally here may yet be the
>emerging corporate supporters. I suspect that the
>positions of GM and Ford must reflect that they are
>about to come out with hybrid SUV's. A serious
>push without upsetting mall obsessions and soccer
>moms would involve replacing most of the current
>SUVs with hybrids. But Toyota has the edge on this
>with its Prius for now, although that is not an SUV.
>Barkley Rosser
>
