Climate Change

World "leaders" are meeting in Copenhagen to discuss the future of the world. The goal of these climate summits is to sign an agreement that will bind every nation to cutting carbon dioxide emissions. There are so many aspects to this issue and it is portrayed incredibly simplistically. The argument for cutting emissions is incredibly flawed. The Obama Administration's goal for emission cuts is 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. This is equal to America's CO2 emissions of 1910! However, there were 92 million people in 1910; by 2050 there will be around 420 million Americans. This means that per capita emissions will be at 1875 levels! This is virtually impossible. What costs would this drastic cut impose? How could we get to this level in 40 years?

• Devoting almost all of America's resources to uneconomical alternative energy sources? As of now, we do not have the technology to meet our goal, and I doubt that a centrally controlled federal plan would allow for sufficient innovation of alternative energy sources. How expensive would this cut be? It would literally kill the American economy. No doubt about it. I think it is impossible to reach Obama's lofty goal through the development and implementation of alternative energy sources alone--at least without devastating economic consequences.
  
• Eugenics? Some groups already propose and advocate forced abortions because newborns will have a large, future carbon footprint. The problem with making the emission cuts is that they would hurt economically per capita. If the population were a 5th of today's population, we would have little problem getting to a 5th of carbon dioxide emissions. But this solution is evil! It is the same Malthusian tendencies that got Malthus worried about population growth on food supply and Paul Ehrlich worried about the same and about natural resources. It is proven time and time again that these worries are unfounded; the human species is remarkably adaptive, and will continue to adapt to a changing world. This is not an immediate danger but I would continue to watch out for this. What will be the next suggestion once the centrally planned alternative energy schemes are ineffective? This is a dangerous tendency that seems to be resurrected from time to time.
• Nationalize or "Internationalize" carbon dioxide emitting energy sources. What if the U.S. nationalized the nations' fossil fuels supply? Or the U.N. doing the same for the world's supply? It could be effective. All the fuel would be used by the government in the form of a police state that would make sure that nobody was going over their incredibly stringent quota. It is a scary thought experiment. Fear of a global government is not irrational.

There are other centralized solutions that do not involve emission cuts--like those proposed in Super Freakonomics, but these will not be considered because environmentalism's primary goal is to end capitalism and material prosperity. It is in all of their rhetoric: take a listen. I do not endorse these solutions, but the fervent criticism of these solutions by environmentalists reveals their true anti-capitalist agenda.
By the way, this all assumes that global warming is a problem to begin with.

Whatever comes out of Copenhagen will do anything to stop global warming because China and India will not sign on. THIS WON'T HAPPEN!! Nothing good can come out of these Copenhagen conferences.