First, I would like to present you this nice video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnxtITOzug

Then, simply want to argue a little about it. This is NOT, I repeat, NOT about "Global Warming is True", so please no arguments hammering that it doesn't exist (Paladin77, I'm looking at u). This is rather considering the alternate possibilities of:

1) Acting while Climat Change is real
2) Not acting while it's real
3) Acting while it's false
4) Not acting while it's false

Ok. First, let's consider the consequences of: not acting

Duh. Off course there are no changes to our actual economic situation. This is the point of some negationists. Status quo, everybody happy. (if it's not true)


Then, the consequences of acting.

What WILL happen: For sure, some economical sectors (like polluting energy-productions or SUV sales) will probably be harmed. It is mostly doubtful that the average citizen itself will be taxed, except, off course, through increased prices on some products.

Not to say that there won't be major economical repercussions on some levels, but I think Europeans countries managed to prove that it is possible to set some reasonnable goals and meet them with minimum harm to the economy. There ARE business-friendly ways to reduce CO2 emmission, which could even lead to a hypothetical de-polluting-dedicated industry.

Which means innovation will be favored, while dinosaurs will economicly dies. Isn't it the American way? Promoting and favoring innovation or the small businesses, making the people who are clever and cunning gaining a buck or two with it?

Simply putting taxes on carbon-emmission will maybe cut some CO2 emmission (through harming, with REPRESSION, polluting industries), but the whole carbon-credit market has the potential to give opportunities to EARN MONEY to companies and inventors. The best thing is, except for some administrations, it would cost a minimum of the taxpayer's money to impliment such system, since the de-pollution would be paid by the polluters themselves. And the polluters would be able to CHOOSE to whom they pay their overpollutions, rather than be forced to pay tax to an innefficient governement.

Not to forget that, while it is TRUE that energy-efficient cars and other patents are more expensive right now, if the business had a really HUGE incentive (exemple: making a lot of money out of it) by making efficient car, they will put a lot of ressource on developping the most cost-efficient way of lowering pollution. I am sure that it will take only a little time for the market to adapt, and the consumers to turn toward these cheaper, green products.

Some people would say that "since China is not doing it, it's useless to cut our own carbon emmission". You have to realise that China does not have the capital (nor the incentive) to develop such industry. New patents have almost always been created in N. America and Europe, so it's up to US to develop de-polluting technologies, and energy-efficient procedures.

China, actually, is developping an industry trying to rival America's, and as long as America will not be trying to change its polluting policy, they won't see any reason to slow down their own. Worse, they will think America will simply fuck them (sorry) economicly if they actually do.

America is a huge inspiration to a lot of country (economicly speaking). Chinese leader can say what they want about evil imperialist american dogs, but they are promoting business (and corruption... ...) in their system, in order to beat the U.S.A. on it's own field. The same with a lot of developping countries, India, Vietnam, etc...

All of these countries don't really care to try to limit their pollution if they don't see America doing it first. They would feel less threatened economicly (and see less disadvantages) if America lowered it's gun first (figuratly).

So... I don't have any arguments that is "against" "not acting" (meaning, I don't see any downside to "not acting", but I am sure the downsides of actings can be MUCH less worse than what some people are saying they would be.


On the long run, all this depolluting can only be good, even if global warming is just an elaborate plot by socialists. It is a good thing to promote green technology-businesses, and a good thing to promote energy efficiency on the largest scale possible, while leaving the market itself to decide HOW it would attain such goal.

Less smog in our cities, probably less lung cancer in our societies. And.. I don't know, I am sure you can imagine good consequences of having the greenest industry possible.