Editor and General Manager
President Obama did the right thing—the smart and the responsible thing—in announcing new goals to reduce carbon emissions. The science is complete, and the results, while they may be added to, will not be found wanting.
Using the EPA and clean-air mandates to sidestep legislative inertia is the only open path at the moment. It is mind boggling to try to comprehend objections to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Even economic arguments are poor—going forward, clean energy is going to be one of the most important and largest economic drivers in the world.
In addition to clean air and at least some reduction in the degree to which climate change will impact the world, it’s good business. New technologies—like solar cells, batteries, fusion and smart grids—will only grow from year to year, along with research and development, product manufacture and installation. The only way that objecting could make sense is if the aim is to protect entrenched business interests, that is, coal, oil and their suppliers. That’s not capitalism, its cronyism. If energy companies today are not investing in “green” energy development, then they should suffer the consequences as the market shifts. That sounds more like capitalism.
Germany is a world leader in installing what used to be called alternative energy technologies with very ambitious greenhouse gas emission goals, goals they are well on their way to achieving, and they are an economic powerhouse. There is no excuse.
Steve Ernst is editor and general manager, American Laboratory/Labcompare; [email protected]
Related Products