[quote=SD Realtor]Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to.[/quote]
Again I agree with everything you’ve said, but it all goes back to my original point that it’s impractical to think that all countries can implement the same plan. In an ideal world all countries would be on the same playing field and a universal plan would make sense. But not all countries put out the same amount of CO2 (whether you use the total output or per capita). It only makes sense that the countries who put out the most CO2 should have to work harder to reduce their output than those countries who put out less CO2. It is a heck of a lot easier for developed countries to transition towards cleaner technologies than it is for developing countries. You see these types of improvements as an unfair expense on the developed countries, but to me it’s only fair to pay for what you put out. I guess our definition of “fair” is what differs here.
As for whether tax dollars should be used, I say yes. Either the problem is too big for the private sector to solve — think the Interstate Highway system, or putting a man on the moon — or it is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to consider. I think that in this situation we have a little of both. The whole point of public investment is to drive down the initial costs to the point that the private sector can jump in and take the ball and run with it — for example the Internet, researched and developed by our precocious tax dollars (I’d say that was a good investment). Another example: satellite technology. Clearly developed by taxpayer investment, but currently used to generate billions in the private sector. I think people tend to believe that public/private operate at the extremes, but there are many examples where they have worked together in a strange synergy with amazing results.
Otherwise, why would private industry ever even consider environmental improvements when all it does is harm their bottom line? At what point is the environment destroyed enough so that private industry puts the well being of the environment above company profits? It never does, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a case in history where it ever has. The whole point of private industry is to make money — not protect the environment. And if private industry won’t protect the environment, who will? The government will — it’s their job.
I think where you and I will both agree is that the optimal setup is to be able to protect the environment and make money doing it. Unfortunately I don’t think that private industry has the foresight or the will to get that ball rolling. It just needs a little push from the mean old taxman to get it started. Sucks for us, but hopefully it will pay off in the long run — like the expensive Interstate Highway system and satellite technology of yore.
