Who are the main polluters on the planet, and what can be done about them? In stead of focusing on countries only, we have to look at the type of activity as well.

Coal Power Plants

Statistics for different countries and pollutants (such as dioxides of carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen) vary considerably. It seems that power plants emit about 40% and automobiles about 30% of the world's carbon dioxide.

If all internal combustion engines would change to electric motors, driven by batteries charged by "dirty" electricity, the power plants would have to double their output (and pollution). It will only exacerbate the world's pollution problem.

Regions already suffering from power blackouts, will double their problem if automobiles would tap into the already insufficient resource. As battery-powered cars can drive about 100 km on one charge, it will be naive to assume that most charging will take place over-night.

Countries

Although the USA and Canada have been labeled as the big polluters, India and China are catching up fast. However, single power plants (in Europe, America, Canada, South Africa, and Australia) have been identified as the dirtiest in the world.

Governments can and should play a role in policy making that will encourage clean energy production. The main pillar of such policy must be the reduction of fossil fuel use, accompanied by a concerted effort in the right direction.

Carbon Tax

Carbon tax schemes try to reduce harmful emissions by taxing the big polluters, forgetting that big business usually passes extra cost on to the consumer. The ordinary family -- already burdened by surging fuel and food prices -- will eventually be strangulated by the well meant carbon tax. It will make the public feel victimized and exploited, leaving them disillusioned and disgruntled.

The EU is still divided on the extent of carbon tax. Some want to calculate the "carbon footprint" of every single item on the market. Some nerds will determine how much carbon dioxide is emitted in the production of an item (such as meat, fruit, vegetables, grain, clothes, shoes, etc.), convert it to tax, and add it to the price of the item. You need not be an economist to realize the administration of this scheme will cost billions.

Instead of motivating people in the right direction with rewards, the carbon tax approach penalizes people for buying the necessities of life. Will they go so far as to measure the amount of methane emitted at the front and rear end of a cow per day, convert it to tax, and add it to the price of milk? Such pettiness will inevitably lead to a lot of witch-hunting. In the "carrot-and-stick" philosophy, this approach obviously relies heavily on the stick, not on the carrot.

The Hydrogen Alternative

Hydrogen can bring immediate relief regarding harmful emissions as well as fuel and food prices. Switching to hydrogen will use the carrot-approach to motivate people in the right direction with obvious rewards.

Option A: run power plants on hydrogen, and run cars on electricity generated by these hydrogen power plants. This option eliminates the problems regarding storage and transport of hydrogen for individual cars. Because existing gasoline cars will still be used for a long time, the immediate decrease of power plant emissions will only be 40%.

Option B: run both power plants and cars on hydrogen, eliminating within a few years 70% of pollution. This option also ends the monopoly of fossil fuels for transport propulsion, resulting in lower fuel and food prices.

**********