Yes, some industries will be hit more than others. What about economies based around those industries? They will be destroyed.
Name me one economy - or hell, one INDUSTRY - that is so dependent on the burning of CO2 producing fuels that they cannot lower CO2 emissions and still remain viable.
Because honestly, I cannot think of a single one.
And even if there is one - so what? Industries, economies, they get screwed over for doing the wrong thing ALL THE TIME. Or, hell, even the right thing. And regardless of whether or not climate change is an imminent threat, pollution of any kind, including the production of greenhouse gases, is an externality which those responsible for need to pay up to.
Well gee, the auto industry sure is taking a big hit due to all of the greenhouse gas regulations and 'emission free' vehicle requirements bing placed upon them. The power industry, similarly, burns things to generate power. Burning things creates greenhouse gases. Those two industries fuel my local economy. To place even more regulations and environmental regulations on them would pretty much cripple the area and create quite a bit of poverty.
So there are two, the former being pretty common and the second being everywhere...
Also, the entire US Economy, being the home of three of the top 5 auto makers in the world would be affected pretty negatively. The higher cost associated with more money being spent on reducing emissions also has a negative impact on economy...
You failed entirely just there. Seriously.
Just because CURRENTLY those industries rely on the inefficient use of combustion fuels - and therefore the production of CO
2 - does not mean that they need to, as a nature of the business.
Cars? Get them to run on other stuff, or just decrease the amount of CO
2 they produce. By providing financial incentives to people for using more efficient transport - lower car taxes to those who produce less CO
2, for instance - then demand for efficient cars increases; car companies sell more cars, and make up for the losses incurred in the research and development of these new vehicles. As more people will be replacing their cars than before, then more cars will need to be made - employment in the factories goes up, unemployment locally falls, and a multiplier effect results; people who were previously unemployed now have jobs, are demanding goods and services, and create employment elsewhere.
Not to mention that spending more on research and development is good for the economy; high spending on R&D, especially in new areas, encourages companies to employ more people, so employment rises, leading to the aforementioned multiplier effect, and the obvious increase in GDP that results from higher employment, and especially since these are likely to be skilled workers, demand for higher education (in order to be qualified for these jobs) is likely to rise by a small amount, which, once more, leads to more employment, as people become teachers as they see the high demand for teachers qualified to teach these things.
EXACTLY the same thing goes for the power industry. Alternative sources of power exist in many forms, and although CEOs and big shareholders would hate to lower their own profits from spending more on R&D, doing so would benefit the whole economy.
Think about it, it's actually an opportunity to not only create some wealth redistribution (from those very richest, at the top of companies, down to the people working for them), but also to expand the entire economy, by forcing those stakeholders at the highest point in firms to lower their own personal utility by a small amount to benefit everyone else in society. Which, to be honest, they wouldn't do otherwise.
Author
Topic: The greenhouse effect :P (Read 7532 times)