Capitalism Save The Earth

(Continued from the previous article, EPA Declares Greenhouse Gases a Danger)
If regulation and taxation are not the answer for improving our environment, What makes our environment better?

The answer is capitalism and free market.

Whether the global warming theory is true or false, many people around the world care about the environment. The problem is that they seek answers from governments or global organizations like the United Nations.  Usually their ideas are regulations of industries and global taxation.

On the other hand, We have been improving our environment from capitalism and free market because we value our private property and natural resources. We develop our technology to use our natural resources efficently. Instead of just dumping waste materials, We create many useful materials. For example, many useful products have been created using oil such as gasoline, plastics, asphalt, diesel fuel, fuel oils, Kerosene, Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), Lubricating oils, Paraffin wax, Tar, propane, aviation jet fuel, artificial fiber, synthetic detergent, rubber, Cosmetics, medical supply, paint, ink, nylon, agricultural chemicals and Styrofoam.

Secondly, rather than reducing the carbon dioxide by spending billions of dollars, we should make higher standard of living for people in the developing countries by spreading capitalism and freemarket. The following article in the Wall Street Journal proves my point.

According to the Oxfam, if rich nations diverted $50 billion to climate change, at least 4.5 million children could die and 8.6 million fewer people could have access to HIV/AIDS treatment. And what would we get for that $50 billion? Well, spending that much on Kyoto-style carbon-emissions cuts would reduce temperatures by all of one-thousandth of one degree Fahrenheit over the next hundred years. Money spent on carbon cuts is money we can't use for effective investments in food aid, micronutrients, HIV/Aids prevention, health and education infrastructure, and clean water and sanitation. This does not mean that we should ignore global warming. But it does raise serious questions about our dogmatic pursuit of a strategy that can only be described as breathtakingly expensive and woefully ineffective.

The Wall Street Journal: Time for a Smarter Approach to Global Warming