Now's the Time to Cut Emissions

Although I don't think the case for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been adequately established, it is plausible. Therefore, it would be a good idea to develop a portfolio of techniques to decrease, eliminate, or counteract "greenhouse gas" emissions. If such techniques should later turn out to be inappropriate, it ought to be easy to "switch gears" and emit lots of such gases.

Other than for cosmic forces, only humans are in charge of this so far as can be detected, and thus we need to learn how to be in charge.

I think you need to go to this thread and watch the video. Also, you are missing the greater problem of ocean acidification.

To keep this on topic, I have seen reports of Duke Energy and other energy companies switching from coal to natural gas in a preemptive attempt to avoid GHG regulations. Companies like Walmart (even though I consider it greenwashing) are trying to calculate their GHG emissions. Landfills have been required to flare the methane for years and are now using to generate power. Wastewater treatment plants are starting to use their methane emissions to generate power as well.

I think it is a good thing. Industry will continue to do business as usual until regulations force change. Yes there is a cost, but I don't think an addition $15-20 a month per household is going to bankrupt anyone. Those who can't afford it should find ways to use less energy.

I am not opposed to efficient use of resources. However, there are people in the US who are not able to afford $15 to $20 a month as it is now. Besides that, it starts at $15-$20 per month...then goes up from there. Politicians (those controlling the regulations) have no problem whatsoever increasing fees that are rolled buried into products as the politicians are insulated from the voters by way of industry (1. tax industry, 2. industry passes costs to the public, or lays off workers, or reduces profits hence reduces payments to stock holders, 3. voters mad at industry....not their senators/representatives).

Look at Social Security...it started as just 2% of taxable income...now it's 12.4%.

Medicare - voters were told in 1965 that Medicare would only cost $9 billion in 1990, actual costs in 1990, $67 billion.

Medicaid Special Hospital subsidy - in 1987 voters were told the subsidy would only cost $100 million in 1992, actual cost in 1992,$11 billion

Medicare Home care program - voters were told in 1988 that the program would cost $4 billion in 1993, actual cost in 1993, $10 billion.

So when we talk about small cost meant to help us in the future, I'm a bit skeptical of the cost/benefit predictions. So $15/month may not be much now...in 10 years what will it be?

Well, no, I didn't particularly need to go watch that video. The overall strategy I suggested would be suitable for acidification issues as well. Study it. Find some techniques that work in either direction. Measure further and apply accordingly.

Unidirectional approaches, whether emanating from industry shills or pseudo-environmental chicken-littles, are about equally useless.