<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The Western Climate Initiative’s first proposal ducks biggest climate problem]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by human power http://www.grist.org/article/whats-wrong-with-the-wci/ Sat, 08 Mar 2008 05:36:57 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/whats-wrong-with-the-wci/1 WCI is too little, too late. Quotas NOW!

The entire basis for corporate-based cap and trade is that, when faced with an increased cost of polluting, the corporations that have created the problem will clean up their act and their enablers (end users) will pay increased costs for the product. The only problem with this approach in a capitalist/fascist system is that wealthy end users will continue to use unsustainable amouonts of fossil fuel while nonwealthy people will be priced out of the basics of life.

If climate change is truly a menace to our very existence, why are we not willing to put forth a program to fight it that shares the burdens equitably? As far as I can see, the only way to share this burden fairly across the population is to do as our grandparents did while fighting the Nazis: we need to put individual quotas on carbon dioxide equivalents generated. Yes, this means calculating the CO2 released during the production and transportation of every good on the market, but that is quite doable. Of course, there will be high resistance from that portion of the public that wants to live unsustainably no matter the consequences (that would be most of the public), but since current estimates hold that we need to cut our carbon footprints by 80-90% in the next fifteen years to avoid various tipping points, it is time we stopped playing feel-good with this issue and started being honest about the level of change required.

The future will not have cars or air conditioning. The only question is whether it will have people or not.

]]> WCI is too little, too late. Quotas NOW!

The entire basis for corporate-based cap and trade is that, when faced with an increased cost of polluting, the corporations that have created the problem will clean up their act and their enablers (end users) will pay increased costs for the product. The only problem with this approach in a capitalist/fascist system is that wealthy end users will continue to use unsustainable amouonts of fossil fuel while nonwealthy people will be priced out of the basics of life.

If climate change is truly a menace to our very existence, why are we not willing to put forth a program to fight it that shares the burdens equitably? As far as I can see, the only way to share this burden fairly across the population is to do as our grandparents did while fighting the Nazis: we need to put individual quotas on carbon dioxide equivalents generated. Yes, this means calculating the CO2 released during the production and transportation of every good on the market, but that is quite doable. Of course, there will be high resistance from that portion of the public that wants to live unsustainably no matter the consequences (that would be most of the public), but since current estimates hold that we need to cut our carbon footprints by 80-90% in the next fifteen years to avoid various tipping points, it is time we stopped playing feel-good with this issue and started being honest about the level of change required.

The future will not have cars or air conditioning. The only question is whether it will have people or not.

]]>