Question Earthority!

I’m skeptical of government attempts — regulations, treaties, etc. — to cut greenhouse emissions.

For one thing, the use of force (which is inherent to government) usually just doesn’t work as well as incentives (and when government uses incentives, it has to get them from somewhere — by force).

For another, while support for greenhouse cuts exists, it is more inchoate and more blunted by the desire for goods and services that require the generation of pollution to provide that opposition, which is funded by entities — businesses which produce the emissions or produce the products that produce the emissions — which are very clear on their priorities (i.e. profit). Even a “pro-business” libertarian recognizes that enterprise and industry are better organized to influence legislation than unaffiliated individuals.

Still, at least to the extent of targeting, treaties might have a place — if the details can be worked out. This article goes into one of those hairy details: How do the various nations split out “their shares” of emissions reductions?

It’s easy to say that since the US produces a lot of greenhouse gases, it should carry a heavier reduction burden. But that ignores the fact that the US also already balances out most of the greenhouse gases it produces: Our large ecosphere is abundant in carbon-absorbing trees and such. As the article points out, Japan produces about half as much carbon emission as the US … but absorbs about 1/7th of what it produces compared to the US absorbing almost all of its own carbon.

It also ignores the fact that the US has generally led the charge in developing technologies which produce less carbon. Many countries could easily reduce their own emissions by adopting technologies already in use in the US. The US itself, however, is already near or at the limit of reduction through adoption of those technologies. It has to develop new ones, which is more difficult than adopting old ones. It’s hardly fair (a word I don’t use very often) to place the burden of further reduction on a low net carbon producer which produces innovations that promise to further reduce emissions for everyone.

The goal is to reduce emissions and to get them as close as possible to “neutrality,” i.e. to a situation where most or all human-created carbon emissions are offset and there’s no net increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity. The “low-hanging fruit” in achieving that goal is getting countries which produce multiples of the amount of carbon they absorb down to a US-like ratio, not demanding that the US reduce its emissions to a below-”neutral” standard while other countries continue on their way.