Posted by
BLOGASSAULT on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 6:56:33 PM
This article by
Michael Gerson from the Washington Post is actually very good. Centrist ideas and thought don't flow from the Post on any type of regular basis. But Mr. Gerson seems to understand that there is a middle ground to be taken on global warming, and the envoronment in general.
Los Angeles has broken the ozone standard set in California only 27 times in 2007 compared with 192 times in 1975. This has been accomplished by a mixture of technology and governmental pressure.
In 1975, Los Angeles exceeded the ozone standard 192 days out of the year -- meaning the choking smog was so bad that children, the elderly and the infirm were better off avoiding the risky practice of outdoor breathing. In 2005, the ozone standard was exceeded on just 27 days. Los Angeles has had 30 years of consistent improvement in reducing smog.
As conservatives would expect, these gains were largely the result of technology -- the catalytic converter in automobiles and reformulated gasoline -- and not by pedaling to work or undoing the Industrial Revolution. Smog was reduced mainly by innovation, not austerity.
But liberals are correct about something else: This technological progress would not have taken place as a result of the free market alone. Easterbrook argues that as long as producing pollution is a free good -- without cost to the polluter -- there is little economic incentive to produce new methods to restrict it. Federal and state regulations on auto emissions and air quality created an environment in which the invention of new technologies was economically necessary.
Technology has to be "helped along" into the free market place by government to get the ball rolling on technology. That has been my position all along. With out it, oil and coal will always be are fuel of choice because we have no incentive to choose any alternative.
He also talks about cap-and-trade programs, which he admits can be misused and corrupt, but overall can produce positive effects.
There are some common sense ways of dealing with this issue without wrecking the economy or stepping on too many toes in the free market.