Thread Content
Undoubtedly, the United States’ new president, Barack Obama, and the U.S. Congress controlled by his party will adopt certain tax measures to limit carbon emissions; however, the opposing Republican Party accuses global warming of being a lie, claiming that both carbon emission taxes and carbon cap-and-trade systems will impose unacceptable burdens on the U.S. economy. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal stated that the Republicans have now adjusted their strategy of opposition, focusing their attacks on the worst outcomes that carbon emission legislation could bring about – namely, the use of revenues from carbon emission taxes to fund research and development in renewable energy sources with uncertain prospects. Perhaps we won’t know in the next fifty years whether global warming will become a reality, but there are indeed some signs of it, such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap, increasing warmth in Alaska, and some unusual changes in the global climate. However, skeptics of global warming argue that global temperatures have not risen since 1998, and that the weather has recently become unseasonably cold. Of course, this doesn’t mean we can still continue to release billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without restraint. A tax of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions would raise the price of gasoline by 25 cents per gallon, which would accelerate our shift to hybrid electric vehicles and enable us to abandon imported oil. The same tax burden will also increase electricity costs by 10 percentage points, which will encourage us to use fewer fossil fuels and also prompt us to be more frugal. However, the Republicans claim that a carbon emissions tax will not return the proceeds to consumers; **the party-controlled Congress will use those taxes to subsidize aggressive development of certain energy sources, particularly wind power and biofuels. They say that when deciding which new energy sources to prioritize, wind energy development is the one most likely to lead people down the wrong path; the idea that wind power can replace coal or natural gas power generation is nothing but a fantasy. The Republicans claim that wind power can only convert 25% of its energy into electricity, and its output level changes constantly. The modern power system is a highly coordinated system, whose voltage cannot be changed by even a small percentage, as this could otherwise cause electrical equipment to fail or get damaged. Under current technological conditions, wind is still merely a nuisance, far from being a source of energy. However, wind energy is currently the fastest-growing method of electricity generation, as both the U.S. federal government and various states are funding the development of this renewable energy source, **requiring utility companies to build wind power facilities. In a few years, we will find that we are just like Denmark, with wind turbines everywhere, yet not a single fossil fuel power plant has been shut down. Biofuels have also turned out to be a greater disaster: they have consumed 30% of our food crop production and destroyed large areas of tropical rainforests, yet they have only replaced 3% of oil demand. In addition, solar energy has the advantage of enabling carbon emissions to be reduced without the need for additional subsidies. But aside from the benefits of zero carbon emissions, solar power generation relies heavily on the sunlight in hot summers; therefore, during peak electricity demand, expensive gas turbines are still needed to supply energy. Nuclear energy is likely to be the biggest beneficiary under the carbon reduction framework, say Republicans. Nuclear power companies have submitted 18 applications to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 28 new nuclear reactors, and a revival of nuclear power seems imminent. Although it seems that many environmentalists within Obama’s support base would lay themselves in the path of bulldozers to prevent the construction of new nuclear reactors and a revival of nuclear energy, Obama’s own stance is more nuanced; after all, he comes from Illinois, where 45% of the electricity generated comes from nuclear reactors. Perhaps for Republicans, a more cautious stance would be: “Carbon restrictions, no problem.” ； Subsidies for new energy? No way. ” They believe that if the revenues generated from introducing a carbon tax or auctioning carbon allowances and trading permits are used to reduce taxes in other areas, it will not harm economic development ； What needs to be avoided is a barbaric, Congress-manipulated speculative boom in alternative energy. As Jesse Ausubel, head of the Human Environment Program at Rockefeller University, said: “Renewable energy will be the next subprime mortgage to collapse.” ”(Chang Xumin)