Laslo Weger - Environment
<< Laslo Weger
Topics
Alternative Energy
Environmental Protection Agency
Global Warming
Kyoto Protocol
Logging
Natural Disasters
Oil Dependence
Pollution
Waste Management
Wildlife
Opinions
The U.S. government should not increase the national gas mileage standard. With the oil prices constantly rising, the market will take care of that. If that too long to wait, just increase the gas tax, the effect will be the same. Just don't create new federal bureaucracy to enforce yet another set of regulations.
The U.S. should not have signed the Kyoto Treaty. The article posted by @Montalvo resonates with my feelings exactly.
The benefits of recycling outweigh the costs. There is a neat analysis of environmental cost for paper, new versus recycled, at an
environmental impact web site
. So yes, if we consider all the costs, including the impact on environment, of production and disposal of "stuff".
It is inconclusive to say there is a link between global warming and the rising intensity of natural disasters. This is a malformed question. There is no evidence that there is "rising intensity of natural disasters" in the first place.
Plastic grocery bags should not be banned. They actually use less resources to produce, and create less pollution. Click here
Paper or plastic?
for details.
States should be allowed to adopt tougher fuel efficiency regulations than the federal standard. I am pretty much for less federal involvement in everything. We are United STATES after all, not federales uber alles.
Congress should raise the gas tax. The gas is too cheap - higher gas prices would force US out of the Oil Age. And tax is just perfect way of doing that - the money stays in US instead of flowing to OPEC.
The European Union should tax imports from countries that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. This is one of a very few ways to give the Kyoto any teeth whatsoever. And so, if they said A, they should say B.
Car alarms should not be banned. The minimal nuisance they introduce does not warrant yet another governmental control of our lives.
Congress should not lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. I postulate keeping "our" oil in the ground as long as possible. We should use other countries' oil first, and only then turn to using our reserves. The high prices of oil are - in a sense - good for us: they will force more conservation, and in general,
The government should regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Unfortunately, the "tragedy of commons" situations are only fixed by a disaster or by governmental regulations. Even if it seems, at least for now, that the two are indistinguishable, I still prefer the government.
The federal government should not release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Strategic Reserve is exactly that: reserve, to be released only in dire need (real war, natural disaster, etc.)
The U.S. government should not provide incentives for manufacturers to build fuel-efficient cars. Free market takes care of that.
The U.S. should not allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (ANWR). We should use resources of others first, before we start using ours... I wrote a piece on that in my blog: http://laslo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/02/case-for-not-drilling-in-anwr-yet.html
It is inconclusive to say there is a link between global warming and the rising intensity of natural disasters. This is a malformed question. There is no evidence that there is "rising intensity of natural disasters" in the first place.
The benefits of recycling outweigh the costs. There is a neat analysis of environmental cost for paper, new versus recycled, at an
environmental impact web site
. So yes, if we consider all the costs, including the impact on environment, of production and disposal of "stuff".
UNKNOWN: Which plan would be more effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Congress should not lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. I postulate keeping "our" oil in the ground as long as possible. We should use other countries' oil first, and only then turn to using our reserves. The high prices of oil are - in a sense - good for us: they will force more conservation, and in general,
UNKNOWN: Is global warming a problem primarily caused by humans?
UNKNOWN: Is global warming a problem that humans must take actions to address?
UNKNOWN: Should polar bears be listed under the Endangered Species Act?
UNKNOWN: Should the U.S. expand oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?
UNKNOWN: Can global warming be stopped?
UNKNOWN: Does the EPA effectively protect the environment?
UNKNOWN: What effect will expanded ethanol production have on the economy?
UNKNOWN: Can the U.S. meet all of its energy demands within 10 years through carbon-free sources?
UNKNOWN: What effect will climate change have on the economy?
UNKNOWN: Should U.S permit commercial logging in national forests?
UNKNOWN: What overall impact will expanded ethanol production have on the environment?
UNKNOWN: Prior to Katrina, did the local and federal authorities know the breaching of the levees was possible?
UNKNOWN: Should governments create mandatory recycling programs?
UNKNOWN: Is reducing meat consumption an effective way to combat global warming?
UNKNOWN: Has racism affected the government response to Katrina?
UNKNOWN: Was the government well-prepared to respond to Katrina?
UNKNOWN: Should landfills be privatized?
UNKNOWN: Should current air pollution laws be changed?
UNKNOWN: Should government regulate mercury levels in the environment?
UNKNOWN: What effect do air pollution laws have on the economy?
UNKNOWN: Should Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize?
UNKNOWN: Should the U.S. Bureau of Land Management euthanize wild horses to curb overpopulation?