Lawmakers will need to be very carefull. Alot of economic damage can be done with the stroke of the pen.

If you think a hydrogen highway is spendy wait till you see the pricetag on this;/

Nick "I want my descendants to inherit something like the beautiful and bountiful Earth I grew up in."

Then I suggest you start buying acreage. At least it's a good time to buy. My house is in the burbs, 25 miles from downtown. When I was a teen my neighborhood is where we used to hunt, It was scrub land in the middle of nowhere. Now it's considered in the inner loop, the new houses are 20 miles further out. We are adding a net 220,000 mouthes per day. Take a good look around, in 2 more decades, there will not be much open space left.

It really will not matter what North America does if China and India don't follow suit.

I like the idea of a "net-zero" emissions policy. It would go something like this:

-The amount of land in the United States would be calculated.
-Private firms would review satillite photos to determine what sort of folliage is on an individual's land holdings. These firms would be subject to outside review and harsh penalties.
-Whatever U.S. soil sequesters in a year would be our (eventual) limit for CO2 emissions.
-We would phase in to this: emit 4x,3x,2x...

The advantages of such a strategy are pretty clear:

People can argue global warming, cooling, or man's inability to have an impact on the climate. It is very difficult to argue that it's not a good idea to have zero impact on the planet's climate systems.

An enormous amount of new jobs would be created, and, more importantly, new feedback loops would be created in the economy. The name of the game is money velocity. How many hands touch a dollar before it returns... the more the merrier.

Land owners would finally get paid (albeit not much) to let their land just sit. It's about time! Coal fired plants have been using oxygen from my trees for free for decades! As an aside, national parks could probably pay for themselves as the government would recieve payments from emitters of CO2.

What do you guys think?

This is long overdue. Make it a rebate program, which rewards those that pollute the least.

Many strokes of the pen have happened in the previous 8 years which have resulted in economic chaos. This won't be one of those blunders.

Joseph

Regulations are not the end of the market, exactly the opposite, de-regulation is the suicide of the markets, regulations are stimulus that oblige us to innovate. There will no green jobs if there is no regulations to justify them. So welcome to regulations that intend to protect environment.

Msr Goracle don't talk about socialism, you have no idea what socialism is so you are just ridiculous, as always

@ToppaTom

But simple works!

Trees naturally sequester CO2. So does prarie (to a much lesser degree) and we can speed this up through the use of bio-char.

-Yes, any of the private firms that audit land to assess how many CO2 credits are generated by said land would be subject to outside and/or government review.

-CO2 emissions would be limited to whatever our soils sequester naturally. Now, that still allows for carbon capture and sequestration (the CO2 is never "emitted") and it also allows for offests via reforestation.

-New jobs created: CO2 sequestration assesor (awkard title), support jobs for these people, along with an increase in demand for people in forest management, energy conservation specialists, and renewable energy generation as they would all be "economically viable."

I disagree with you that we cannot have zero impact on our climate without draconian measures. In fact I believe humans can thrive while having no impact on the earth. There are many technologies and agricultural techniques that could allow us to actually make the environment BETTER than it is naturally. Biochar is just one example.

The way I look about it, it's all about entropy. The universe as a whole must continually fall into dissaray (except for in some really exotic branches of physics)but fortunately, here on earth, we receive enough energy in the form of low entropy sunlight that we should be able to lower the entropy of out own planet (make things better).

Yes, simple is good. Tax on gas is simple. Unintended consequences (tough on truckers and taxi drivers) can be blunted. Tax on miles driven is more complex, with unknown consequences = bad.

Converting trees and grass to bio-char and expecting zero impact on the planet may be simplistic. But maybe it is close enough to zero.

CO2 sequestration assessor, support jobs for these assessors, along with an increase in demand for people in forest management, energy conservation specialists is all lost labor.
Without them you assume we lose the planet; OK. With them we save the planet but produce nothing new, that’s lost wages, just like all the airport security people, maybe necessary, but they produce no goods. If we could assume their is no threat and they make something, that is not lost wages.

If renewable energy generation is economically viable and we are smart enough to force it, are we not smart enough to do it willingly?

I hope we don't have to shift to conspiracy theories to complete this picture.

Humankind alters the biosphere, for good or for worse for some species or ecosystems.

First came the fire, which employed by native tribes significantly alter the terrestrial ecosystems.

Second came agriculture, which diverted about 30% of habitable land into fields and pastures. If one wants to reverse it, Europe should be holocausted and reverted to pristine forests, as it was the case 2000 years ago. Any takers?

Next came artificial nitrogen fertilizers, which while consuming 3-5% of World natural gas production DOUBLED Earth global supply of nitrogen to biosphere. One could only wonder how all living creatures should praise Humankind for Huber process.

Next was combustion of fossil fuels, which put sorely needed by plants carbon dioxide (othervice known by biologists as “elixir of life”) into atmosphere.

Now human-hating losers want to destroy prosperous human civilization, and in process to choke the biosphere: stop emissions of elixir of life, stop application of nitrogen fertilizers, stop extremely beneficial extracontinental gene diversity transfer (also known as species invasion), stop biosphere genefond enrichment via genetic engineering, etc.

Luddites, genocidal nazis, nature haters, do you know what are you doing?

"... to whom oil is the "elixir of life" will discover the hard way that it's decreasing production will mean radical changes in priorities and lifestyles. Those that understand that will go on to lead fulfilling lives. Those that don't will pine away about the 'good old days' and lead lives of disappointment. ..."

Interesting. And so we are here at the nub of it.

As one who drives occasionally, transits now and again, and is increasingly biking as weather improves, I believe i represent the 'rational complex middle', the 'reasonable bringing-together of all lifestyles without unliveable compromise', indulgently with some shame: 'a bare attempt at the role model'. I believe that this is the 'inclusive' middle road we need to walk in order to embrace a more sustainable world but not lose our intense, dynamic, and fulfilling lives. As someone who works in the building industry as architect and engineer, I am constantly subject to the pressure from all sides. Regulatory, business, and special-interest - and.. as what seems to be little known or expressed (for some reason, perhaps the nature of this blog) actually very close to the main issues of what really is the main source of pollution, energy use, and environmental degradation - far more that vehicles, though they have a disproportionate amount of attention -- the building and building operations industry.

Now the response to Will S: I am not convinced that you know what a well-balanced and meaningful life really is. I'm not sure that you have the requisite experiences to make rational comments about what a fulfilling life could be. If I recall from the past (and I certainly may be wrong, for which I apologize), you almost never drive and haven't owned a car. In my opinion, that makes you unqualified to have an opinion on car issues. That is like saying you 'know' people but yet have never traveled and 'lived' within other foreign cultures. Though, every person has the 'right' to express opinions, it doesn't mean they hold equal weight or are valid to furthering of society. This is the rallying cry of the naive and dis-enfranchised - the teenagers or shut-ins or those others so unfortunate to have not traveled; lived both high and low levels of wealth; lived in city, country, and suburb; and had 'true friends' (as opposed to allies, cronies, or network 'friends)' who are environmentalist, business-oriented, AND utterly indifferent. Don't let your passion for some issue cloud your ability to see people that are happy despite having different value systems than yours. They all deserve to pursue their happiness (if it truly is happiness, of course). Though, i do laugh (without malice, just at the simple-mindedness) at one of those american legalisms: ".. That all men ... have certain inherent rights, ... namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness..." Noble at one level i am sure. Just so 'simple' (in a negative way).

The thing is, I have known very few strict 'environmentalists' (veg, no car, rabid demonstrator, etc.) who I would consider as well-rounded, happy, and positively contributing to the furthering of society. They are typically angry, emotionally-unbalanced, incapable of having rational debate, single-minded in their execution of every aspect of life, not community minded (out of their own circle of values), have dysfunctional kids and/or dependents. I would imagine that many psychologists would consider them as having a certain 'pathology'. Perhaps they consider themselves soldiers for the planet. But they just appear to be empty husks who have wasted their lives on an extreme form of lifestyle that I doubt they would do over if they could - especially if that same passion had been re-directed early enough toward environmental engineering or biology or some other rational pursuit. A shame. I think the same about strict ultra-capitalist business people (though, i don't pay attention to the meanings of all the 'isms', libertarian-, etc.). The bottom line is that the world needs happy balanced people in conjunction with 'reasonable' approaches to energy use and optimization. I think you are in for some serious disappointment and regret if you think we really have to work that super hard and sacrifice so much to pull the planet and its people through these crises. You may wake up one day and realize you could have had more experiences and lived more if you allowed yourself the 'belief' that people are inherently trying to optimize their behavior and given the right options (which business hasn't allowed them fast enough, in my opinion) will do the 'right' things and all will be well (enough). The key is to not buy into all the media hype and actually do some peer-reviewed research at the underlying assumptions and not just pick and choose what theories that happen to align with your knee-jerk reaction value system. Being well-balanced is hard and is very high maintenance, but once you get the momentum going it is easy and even boring, some might say.
Of course, if there was more data out there, we could actually measure our lifestyles and act with more confidence and independence (where are the energy meters at each outlet, mechanical system, building, car, and centralized, and recording over time?). But a simple but comprehensive metric is not out here. Carbon footprint is limited and the data is replete with general assumptions. Energy use is not accurate enough typically to detail source, etc. Life cycle assessment is the closest 'full picture' we have and that is still in its infancy as so many doctoral programs are intended on furthering it. The lack of data is likely leading to overly emotional debate as facts are scarce and passions high. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry think they are qualified to lead us out of this mess (like me hehe). No one wants to be told that they live either an unsustainable life or a wasted, ineffectual one. If you disabuse yourself of the media around you (somewhat) and pursue a behavior that makes you happy/ content/ empowered in the short AND middle AND long term - i think you'll find that you are more accepting of others, harbor no regrets, are moderate in attitude, and will find yourself having an optimism which is just as important to all our future successes as all the technology and expertise out there. Peace, acceptance, and moderation in all things (even occasionally moderation).

Newly proposed legislation to change the name of EPA to:

Extremely Pathetic Agency

toppatom, josepht and reel$$ are against people working together to solve problems. Just abolish the government and let everyone act on their own best interest... is that how it goes?

With this thinking mankind can return to the stone age. Did you three enjoy the tea bag party in your town?

.

I have known very few strict 'environmentalists' (veg, no car, rabid demonstrator, etc.) who I would consider as well-rounded, happy, and positively contributing to the furthering of society. They are typically angry, emotionally-unbalanced, incapable of having rational debate, single-minded in their execution of every aspect of life, not community minded (out of their own circle of values), have dysfunctional kids and/or dependents. I would imagine that many psychologists would consider them as having a certain 'pathology'.

Wow! A more true statement could not have been said.

.