To ward off massive damage to the global economy for centuries, it is necessary not just to stabilize emissions (the change (increase) in greenhouse gas levels) but the levels themselves. Doing that will probably take more than just higher carbon prices, ESPECIALLY since we have wasted DECADES already, since the science became clear in the early '90s, while coddling anti-science crackpots lying massively about the science.
I lived near I-5 when gas skyrocketed up to $5/gal a few years ago. At night it was like I was living in the deep woods again- no constant roar of vehicle traffic. Then prices went down to "just" $3.50 or so. More traffic now than there was when it was only $2/gallon. As long as prices drop a little after going up a lot, people will continue to ignore fuel prices.
But this is killing people. Sure it doesn't affect us in the wealthy western world, but what about people in Africa, India and China? When oil goes from $60 to $100 a barrel, its pain in the *** for us. For them, it could mean the difference between heating your home, or cooking food, or purifying water and being freezing, hungry and drinking water dirty enough to kill you. This is genocide by proxy. Its regressive because it obviously hits them first because the poorer nations get priced out of the market first. Raising fuel prices, when there are already billions of people who can barely afford the fuel they need just to live, in the name of "slowing global warming" is reprehensibly evil.
There is more to it than this. Anthropogenic Global Warming consists of more than just the burning of fossil fuels that raises the atmospheric levels of CO2. Deforestation, agricultural practices, the destruction of wetlands and human expansion contribute to AGW as well. The burning of fossil fuels is the biggest contributor to AGW and there would be some relief from the addition of CO2 by fossil fuels being more costly to use. I know that fossil fuels will eventually price themselves out of the market as they become more scarce. This is not likely to happen before we have burned enough fossil fuels for tipping points to be reached and it would no longer matter what mitigation efforts we take then. It would simply be too late to alter the course we have placed ourselves on.
It will not significantly slow the output of CO2 because the energy demands of an ever industrializing world - i.e., people in places like India moving out of abject rural poverty. If you really want to curb CO2 production, you have to look at energy sources that permit this growth without the CO2. Wind and solar are just not ready for prime time. If we were serious about this, and not just interested in paying lip service to environmentalists to buy votes while paying off political players who own "alternative energy" interests, we would be looking at nuclear power while investing a lot of $ in fusion research.
Probably not anytime soon. If you raise oil prices, it will encourage more drilling.
The bulk of oil is used for road and air transport. As developing countries grow, this use will increase.
Unless there is a huge jump in prices, most people will not give up their cars or stop flying.
Global Warming ended in 2012, confirmed by our Satelites reports 11/28/2012. Earth's weather is like it was in the 1970's before Global Warming. I suggest you get used to it. Mike
No it won't be enough to keep China and India from developing technologically and continuing to spew more CO2 than ever before.
The economies slowed mostly because of really bad policies from leftists in the US that dominates the world economies, first Bush who at least tried to stem some of the reckless banking policies, to Obama later who outright declared war on the energy sector and bragged about wanting to make energy more expensive.
The high energy costs certainly played a role in the development of fracking which was an unintended consequence which undermined the fascist attacks on fossil fuels. It didn't stop Obama from claiming the credit from Fracking while he was undermining to the best of his ability. I don't think Obama cares one way or anther about AGW or petroleum except in how he can use it to push his brand of statism.
No. The transportation sector is only responsible for about 20% of Co2 emissions. You need to handle power generation to stop global warming. Produce an energy source that is cheaper than coal, and other countries will flock to it, and the problem of global warming will largely disappear.
It is already cheaper to run a car on CNG then on petrol[1]. And the greatest obstacle to electric vehicles right now is battery storage cost, although those costs are expected to drop dramatically now production is being ramped up [2]
After 2008 the economy slowed for a number of reasons, but the high oil prices certainly played a part. The slow recovery has seen a reduction in CO2, but now as oil pushes past $100 a barrel will this be enough to reduce greenhouse gasses.
Raising fuel prices will have the same effect of slowing global warming as increasing the price of house plants. Humans cannot control the climate, never have never will. The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years and will continue to do so with or without taxes and high fuel prices.
Global warming is certainly a concern.
Can you imagine what the Piltdown men must have been thinking as global warming skyrocketed 130,000 years ago. They must have been out of their minds with fear. They must have cowered in their caves for decades, afraid to go out, until the warming spell passed.
Today, we know we can just take another Zoloft and go about our daily lives.
Raising fuel prices will destroy the economy put people into poverty fester violence etc.
So, Go ahead and do it. Eventually someone will bring back the Guillotine.
Since there is no global warming. Nothing will slow it down, as it has already stopped.
There is no man made global warming. There is no excessive natural warming.
you can't slow something that doesn't exist.
