If they are not doing both, then they are not doing their job.
Looking toward history, we see that whenever government proposes to protect you by destroying your freedoms, that the people are not protected and just become slaves of the government.
Those who would sacrifice freedoms for 'promised' security deserve neither.
-----------------------
The EPA could already do inspections of energy usage of households through the electricity providers. Not sure why they would visit your house ... a more likely scenario would be that households are given quotas (for energy use) and if they exceed that quota your charge goes up significantly. In some countries there are similar schemes to this in relation to diesel quotas (e.g. NZ and UK).
Not sure how they could enforce any limits of the food you eat. As another suggested through market forces and legislation they could artifically raise the price of meat (and other products). Currently in our market we call them 'luxury' items. I probably see the focus shift more to buy local, that is it becomes cheaper to buy local meat and produce than produce that has to be transported across the country or between countries.
Some cities already "enforce" car pooling with the use of transit lanes. The planning of cities has also shifted to decrease the reliance on cars (e.g. urban consolidation, public transport, bike paths, walkable catchments). Perhaps again through the market they could "encourage" a shift, i.e. charge tolls for using roads (you pay per vehicle not how many passengers you have) ... may have to increase these charges, as many roads currently do this.
What freedoms would I give up? Mmm ... not sure if it is so much freedoms we would have to give up, but choices (changes) we would be willing to make. If we chose to car pool (ride a bike, walk, use pubic transport, live closer to where we work, shop, play) then there is no need to lose any freedoms. If we choose to be energy efficient or increase the solar passive designs of our homes or choose to be conscience of leaving a light on then there is no need to lose any freedoms. Similarly if we choose to buy local produce, perhaps even grow our own to an extent, support local businesses and farmers, etc. then again there is no need to lose any freedoms.
The government would only relate to limiting freedoms if people do not choose to act in the best interests of the whole community. That is the government's responsibility to ensure that the whole community is 'happy' NOT just the individual.
"Would you let the EPA do unannounced inspections of your home to insure you're not wasting energy?
Would you support laws forcing you to eat meat just once a week? "
Those things have little to no impact on GW.
"Would you support forced car pooling? "
That makes even less sense compared to telecommuting
I wouldn't mind:
1. Placing major restrictions on the consumption of beef to the point where it becomes uneconomical for a staple meat.
2. Replace all coal fired, natural gas, or other fossil fuel power plants with any of the numerous other alternatives. At that point, electric vehicles will really start having an impact
3. Place sanctions against countries that practice clear-cutting and deforestation of land that wasn't being used to farm trees
Those other ideas you posted just sound like fearmongering.
I agree with the approach advocated by citizensclimatelobby.org, a carbon fee and dividend plan. That way, no freedoms are taken away except the right to use fossil fuels at an unrealistically cheap price. Compensate households for the increase in prices through dividend checks from the tax collected from oil wells, mines and ports of entry.
The freedom to spew pollutants into the air without paying for it somehow. If it costs $10 to clean up the mess from burning a gallon of gasoline, I'd expect to pay at least that to buy the gas.
The freedom to listen to all the lies that say that mankind is responsible for global warming.
do you really think people who are flooded want the freedom to left alone from government 'interference'? I wonder who the alarmists are.
Would you let the EPA do unannounced inspections of your home to insure you're not wasting energy?
Would you support laws forcing you to eat meat just once a week?
Would you support forced car pooling?
What freedoms would you be willing to lose to protect the planet?
