Politics, News & Issues >
Climate Change
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the U.S. enact tough new environmental regulations to combat global warming?
Results so far:
| Yes | 63% | 146 votes | Total: 230 votes | |
| No | 37% | 84 votes |
Yes
by Trish Austin
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesYes, the U.S. should enact tough new environmental regulations to combat global warming. However, just because I believe that the government should enact regulations does not mean there will be great changes overnight. Sweeping changes never happen in a Democracy. There are checks and balances that have been in place since the beginning of our country. Bold changes are seen in Dictatorships. Our system is suppose to be move slowly. I know I seem to be writing for the wrong side. But, I do believe that the government should enact tough environmental regulations. However, I am reasonable enough to know that this will not happen.Instead changes will be made slowly. To the environments detriment? To our detriment? I do not know. There are so many issues that have to be addressed that contribute to global warming.
First, emissions. emissions from factories,manufactur ing plants, automobiles, delivery vehicles, trucks and more. We need another form of fuel or energy source. With the poor economy, how could the auto-manufacturers survive if they had to stop making gas powered vehicles? Our economy would get so bad. That the way it is now would seem like a party.
We need sweeping changes in the way builders, residential and commercial, plow down trees with out any thought. They may replace them. But, the replacements are not as good as the original trees. Trees, bushes and all plant life around us are the source of our oxygen. The source of our clean oxygen. Trees etc. filter the air we breath. They create the air we breath. So, less trees means less air and definitely less filtering. If you live in a big city, the air you breath is as bad as a person who smokes, but lives out in the country.
Another area is recycling. Recycling is an issue that Americans have bought hook line and sinker. I am not against recycling. But, there is no way today of recycling anything that does not create a waste that is harmful to the environment. I am told that when dealing with a "responsible" recycling company they use methods that are the least harmful to the environment. Apparently, the recycling industry is not one that is watched closely. I have also learned that when recycling most products chemicals are used to disinfect them. Are these chemicals harmful to us? Even when recycling paper, aside from corrugated boxes, chemicals are used to rid the paper of ink. So, when something is packaged in 90% post consumer waste. There is no guarantee that the plant was a "responsible" recycling facility. And, the chemicals used to disinfect the old paper may be harmful to people. Then, there is the additional concern about the chemicals used to extract the ink from old paper leaving remnants behind in, for example, cereal boxes or paper plates. Is this healthy for the consumer?
When the five major manufacturers of baby bottles take their own sweet time to eliminate BPA from their baby bottles. This is after the chemical had been shown to be harmful. We are talking about babies. These companies want to be green, but their green is money. It reminds me of the famous or infamous Ford Pinto case where Ford executives sat knowing that the Pintos design was lethal. They looked at the people who died as just a monetary loss. Ford decided that they would make more money by settling suits for killing drivers than by taking the car off the market. Now, eventually this was discovered and that is why the case is in most Tort law school text books. But, Ford's mistake was documenting these meetings. It is a terrible thing to think that this goes on today. However greed has only grown over the years, I am sure these "meetings" go on all the time. Big business just knows not to leave a trace of the meetings.
I want sweeping changes. But, I also want to be informed. I notice the press likes to blame us. Not to say that we do not contribute enormously to global warming, but there is only so much we can do as consumers. In a popular magazine, they stated that using a hairdryer for ten minutes everyday for a year takes two trees ten years to undo the damage to the environment. Now, that may be true. But, if using a hairdryer for ten minutes does all that damage, what do the manufacturing plants do running nonstop and sending all kinds of toxins into the air?
In the mean time, I'm planting trees in my neighborhood. That is the one definitive thing that helps us and helps reduce global warming. More plants means more clean air .
Learn more about this author, Trish Austin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
There are two ways to move businesses in the direction that government wishes to go. It is the old fashioned carrot and stick approach and if the government provides the proper incentives they can achieve the desired results without impacting on some basic freedom of choices. While there are many who proclaim that global warming is the next great disaster, there seems to be a lack of consensus as to the magnitude of man's actions in this matter and even to the extent of the consequences. Perhaps at some point we will see that this was the great moral dilemma of our times.
While many people and organizations seem to be operating more on emotion, there seems to be little effort in organized planning to achieve the desired results. The federal and state governments have an opportunity to provide incentives to reduce global warming, reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce use of coal and assist individuals and businesses in achieving lower energy costs.
So how is this achieved? Provide substantial tax credits to builders who build houses that use as little as 10 percent of the energy as a regular house. The technology is called "passive house" and it was perfected in Germany and has been so well received that the US Army is using the technology for some of the buildings they are constructing in Germany. Other products include an extreme weather heat pump that works well as low as -20F that when used in conjunction with passive house technology applied to older homes can significantly reduce the air pollution in neighborhoods from oil furnaces and remove the threat of gas leaks by going to an all electric house or building.
With all electric buildings, which many will deplore due to the old inefficient resistance heating systems, these newer systems reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce air pollution and can potentially eliminate the effects of greenhouse gases from homes and businesses. This can be an important aspect of reducing emissions as 20 percent of all greenhouse gases come from homes and a full 40 percent of greenhouse gases come from homes and other buildings.
The industrial aspects of greenhouse gases require a slightly different perspective. While coal is currently king in terms of power production and greenhouse gases, there are alternatives. These include nuclear, wind and solar. While nuclear is always a hot button issue, it is very clean with regards to greenhouse gases and could easily reduce the number of coal plants in the next 15-20 years. During that time we could continue to expand the use of wind and solar, especially at the level of residential application so that the consumer can see a smaller utility bill on a routine basis and therefore have more money for other things in order to sustain the economic engine that is the lifeblood of America.
We didn't get to where we are now overnight and it will take time to get to where we need to be in the future. Providing tax incentives creates jobs and opportunities whereas the proposed cap and trade plan proposed by the current administration results in expenses being passed on to all consumers including those least able to pay: the elderly and the poor. While the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program is a good start, it pales in energy conservation measures to the passive house design. If all newer homes were built with passive house technology and older homes were converted, including low income housing for the elderly and the poor, the energy savings would enable us to provide more services to these groups for less money.
The choice is clear: Provide an incentive to reduce greenhouse gases, reduce pollution and reduce dependence on foreign oil or use heavy handed regulations that drive up costs, squeeze consumers and keep polluting for many years to come. The first choice puts money in the pockets of consumers and creates jobs that in turn create more jobs while cleaning up the air and the environment. The second taxes businesses that pollute who in turn pass the tax increase on to the consumer and further drive everyday people closer to financial ruin.
Learn more about this author, Mark Butler.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Climate Change
- Are floods in Kansas and Texas the result of regular seasonal events or new climate changes due to global warming?
- Who should regulate greenhouse emission standards: The States or the EPA?
- Is our planet really dying?
- Can climate change be confronted without active leadership on the part of the federal government?
- Is global warming a hoax?
- Is the prospect of cooling the planet through geoengineering an alternative we should consider?
