Other-Nation Argument

I know it's been a very long time since I have e-mailed out any of my thoughts on various political issues but I seriously thought that this topic was worth it.

As some of you may know, on July 26^th, the House passed the Waxman-Markey Bill which is essentially a huge tax increase on energy, specifically energy resources that utilize fossil fuels (coal and natural gas). If it passes the Senate then Americans will see an unprecedented increase in their taxes and energy bills. The bill was sold on false premises that,

1. It will not cost anything

2. It will create jobs

3. It will increase green energy investment

4. It will save the environment

While these are false given the studies that have come out from Spain and other European countries, there is an argument that I want to discuss which is coming from those that oppose the Waxman-Markey Bill. I will entitle the argument the “Other Nations Argument”, abbreviated ONA, and ONA is essentially stated as the following:

ONA: We should not pass the Waxman-Markey Bill because it only attempts to cut back on the environmental impact of the United States and not other industrializing nations such as China and India. Since China and India are going to continue polluting there will not be any significant global environmental change for the better; therefore, the Waxman-Markey Bill should not be passed.

I am completely against the Waxman-Markey Bill because I think it is bad for the economy and is built upon false premises as shown above. However, I think the ONA is a terrible argument and can easily be responded to by the following counterargument. Consider the following thought-experiment:

There are three households, Household A, B, and C, and they are pumping their sewage into a nearby river. Someone within Household A sees that what the activity of pumping the sewage into the river is a bad thing and thus proposes that Household A stop doing what they are doing. The head of Household A goes to the other Households and proposes that they too stop pumping their sewage into the river but they reject it and say that they are going to increase the amount they pump into the river. Therefore, the head of Household A says, “Well, since B and C are not going to stop, I guess we won’t either.” Is this sound reasoning? I do not believe so.

So my recommendation is to reject ONA all together because it is based upon faulty reasoning. Thankfully, the opponents to the Waxman-Markey Bill have much more powerful arguments than the ONA. One of the most potent arguments is that the science behind man-made global warming as been seriously attacked and has shown in many cases to be faulty. Furthermore, the Waxman-Markey Bill will lead to a serious economic downturn in the United States. There are better ways of going about lessening the United States’ environmental impact (what little impact we have) then enacting terrible legislation which in the end will do nothing to save the planet.