Here's a thoughtful response to my recent blog on the EPA's decision to rule that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health:
"I would have hoped that your piece would have included a direct call for an high energy tax on energy generation of all kinds (equivilent to $1.50 gal on gasoline/diesel) with proceeds 100% dedicated to alternative energy development,technology and subsidies for poor as necessary. Cap and Trade is just a way to create revenue for government-sponsored social programs, and since when is any pollution OK, able to obtain a "license" for polluting? We should be seeking zero pollution footprint in any of our society's development, institutions, and industrial production processes. An accidental or indirect minimal polluter is only doing or achieving what should be a normal position in society; to reward them with monies for non-pollution by selling their "credits" to polluters is just wrong, and contrary to belief doesn't really encourage conservation.
"The real crime is assuming that any polution is authorized, allowed, or continued. The human footprint on earth should be as close to zero as possible. Unrealistic, not even close.
"Most of today's polluting processes that are caused by industry and society can be treated to negligibility, transferred, or otherwise eliminated or minimized by technology.
"That should be our goal. And I'm not some wild-eyed environmentlaist; I am a 67 year-old Republican (now Independent) that wants to pass on a viable earth to my children and grandchildren."
The writer is right, of course. We do have the technologies to stop most of the current pollution. It will take years and billions of dollars to deploy globally but it will provide jobs, reduce health problems and perhaps curtail global warming. We understand spening money on bridges, sewer plantes, canals and dams--all to help us manage water. So why not on systems and infrastructure that enable us to maintain a healthy air supply?