JULIETTE KAYYEM’S call to recognize the reality of climate change and prepare for extreme weather (“Dark clouds in State of the Union,” Op-ed, Feb. 14) is fundamentally correct, but misses the ethical issue.
Spending money on defenses against the inevitable damage from global warming will only provide local protection. But, as Kayyem notes, climate change is displacing people worldwide. The ethical challenge is this: if we have billions to spend protecting New York’s subways, is it not better to spend those funds reducing the carbon emissions that are causing the problem, thus protecting everyone in the world from Far Rockaway to Bangladesh? Isn’t that the greatest good for the greatest number?
Comments
Ted, simple answer to your question, NO, it is not better to spend those funds reducing our carbon emissions.
We have already sacrificed our manufacturing capability in this country. Now the "carbon-nazis" would have us believe that we should engage in a global warming battle single handedly. Gee, that is nice, as we further reduce our ability to compete globally, countries like China continue to pollute with abandon.
Think of it this way, as our cleaner manufacturing leaves, it goes to places like China and actually becomes dirtier. That is because as we clean up our "carbon footprint", our companies cannot compete with those who do not due to higher costs. It COSTS to run cleaner, there are no free lunches.
Obama can stand around all day yapping about how we are going to become green and compete in a global economy. Obama obviously does not shop in Wal Mart.
Is China going to continue with abandon? Maybe not.
English.news.cn 2013-02-19 21:05:55
BEIJING, Feb. 19 (Xinhua) -- China will proactively introduce a set of new taxation policies designed to preserve the environment, including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, according to a senior official with the Ministry of Finance (MOF).
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/19/c_132178898.htm