John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Is there a way the aughts could have seen real action by the US on Climate Change (under President Gore, McCain, or even Bush), despite the Byrd-Hagel Resolution?
Last edited:
It didn't help that the developing countries (Brazil, India, and China, mostly) threw a fit about getting carbon caps slapped on them. They wanted the 1st world to pay for retrofitting to Kyoto Protocol compliance.
The US balked b/c to the GOP and farm-belters of any persuasion of being a foreign -aid ripoff subsidizing our competitors.![]()
Could the US have tried to tackle this distinction unilaterally, independently of signing Kyoto? What about tackling carbon emissions, combined with "carbon tariffs"?
It's going to take some VERY strong leadership coming from Congress or the White House...
The only way you're going to beat that is with a powerhouse in the White House, in charge of Congress, or with massive populist outcry... you'd need a modern TR in the White House or the most aggressive Congress since the 19th century.
You know, as it happens, I was thinking President McCain could fit the bill here (he may not be as ecologically conscious as Gore, but aside from that, I'd say he's got the kind of personality I think we're talking about here).
My professor in a class on unfree labor in America put it the best, I think, when she said environmentalism and climate change are the 21st century equivalent of the abolitionist debate: justified by moral and practical necessity but to implement would require upsetting a powerful, well-established socio-economic elite.
Carbon cap legislation is highly unlikely.
What about a carbon tax? Or any other action on climate change?