Exactly this. Even if all of the climate hysteria was not exaggerated, this kind of thing requires global commitment. Does not make sense to seriously cripple our economy over the most likely possibility that we see very little benefit from it.
How? If you're talking about innovating cheap, renewable, effective vast amounts of green energy... there's nothing stopping us from doing that now if it's possible.
IF it costs us Trillions to do it then is that worth the cost when we have a pretty good idea that China, India, Russia, Iran and most of the Middle East won't do anything to stop using fossil fuels? That's the question. It does matter what those countries do as it affects our planet. I want the US to be trying to find new ways to make green energy more scalable long term. I think it's a no-brainer once we advance solar to have all houses have solar roofs built that not only produce energy but also are economically feasible for all.
That's a bit of false dichotomy, don't you think? Certainly there are options between crippling our economy and doing nothing. In fact, who actually says we need to cripple our economy to do our part? Fighting climate change is a collective action problem. As a world influencer and one of the largest economies, we are doomed to a sub-optimal outcome if we don't lead, IMO. "First, the scope of contributors to climate change vastly exceeds the scope for any other environmental problem. Climate change is a collective action problem on steroids. It not only is a global environmental problem requiring cooperation across many nations, but it is a deeply individually sourced problem to which virtually everyone contributes. In fundamental ways, the problem stems from actions each of us takes to secure shelter, provide food, and satisfy transportation needs. Even if the contribution of any one person is de minimus in its own right, each individual’s impact adds up. Solving the climate problem requires coordinating behavioral change across the vast majority of the world’s population. Each nation, as with each individual, will have an incentive to free ride on the efforts of others. Or they will at least ask themselves why they should accept the burden of reducing greenhouse gases when doing so will not yield substantial benefits until everyone else does the same." Solving Climate Risk Requires Normative Change Lastly, "climate hysteria" is a strawman that distorts the actual consensus of scientists across many disciplines on the topic.
It’s one thing to ignore man made global warming (stupid), but quite another to debate what to do about it. You’re right, if the two most populated countries don’t fully buy in, our efforts would be futile. Still, we should stay the course on what we’re doing now IMO.
And you can't lead if you don't lead by example. Pressure will mount on countries that don't do their part. Also, the cost of green energy will come down as the market share for green energy increases, making it easier for other countries to afford it.
I believe in global warming and I am optimistic that we will solve this while maintaining our current growth rates. More or less
I know most people know Travis Taylor as just a TV personality but the guy does have some pretty brilliant ideas and certainly has the background and credentials in several fields of science. I heard Taylor in a speech once mention that a fellow student in grad school at Alabama asked the professor a question about global warming. The professor answered I could give you an answer but it might cost the department a lot of grant money. I think Taylor's point was that a lot of studies are funded and are going to slant their results so as to keep the money coming.
Yeah? Well, you go ahead a stake your position on an Alabama anecdote and see who takes you seriously.
He’s def not a crank. I’m guessing that video is 20+ years old though. He looks nothing like that today. Basically I heard him say it’s tough to definitively prove man-made GW. And while the data has piled up since, it still remains next to impossible to dunk it home. Which is another reason that it being a master plan for global control is silly. Of all the options “they” chose something that makes grandpa spitting mad at the mere mention of it, and that is so complex that no one can understand it much less embrace would-be talking points and cede all liberty. “They” should have just chosen one of the thousands of doable strategies, like, say, gerrymander themselves into permanent minority rule, then use that power to take over the other levers like election laws and the judiciary, and then just impose all their minority views on everyone without the worry over checks and balances. But that is crazy talk, who would ever conceive of that? No, much better to threaten the most powerful entities on Earth with reduced profit and have socially awkward eggheads talk about gases measured in the hundred parts per million to trick everyone. Although now that I typed it out it does indeed sound like exactly how the DNC chooses what knife to bring to the aircraft carrier battle.
Often these things need funding to really get off the ground. Before a technology is proven it’s often not profitable for a company to sink millions/billions with no payoff. This is where often government funding, direct or indirect, is what gives it momentum, after which the private sector can make it competitive. Likely in a decade or two technology drives the incremental cost of energy, most of it green, towards zero. It’s already on the way. But it probably either doesn’t happen or it takes a lot longer without government incentives. So I in no way do I think pursuing green energy is going to kill the economy. Actually the opposite. Having said that, we have to have a realistic transition plan because this stuff won’t happen overnight.
If we hold all the patents on the new energy sources while everyone else is fighting over a dwindling resource we win. We also win when we can tell the entire Middle East and other bad actors with oil to bend over and kiss their own arse because we don’t need them for anything. And we win when at that point if we are a massive net exporter of oil and our net trade deficit goes down. Not to mention the savings environmentally. It goes way beyond global warming.
Were there cars... and other industrialization effecting the atmosphere in either time? Lol... my point is made. Thank you for playing.
Especially when the other 5 biggest global, so called "polluters," are exempt from any such draconian impositions..
Do you ever look at historical news article on Global Warming? It's been doomsday predictions about global warming for over 100 years and counting. You have to be these most uninformed poster on this subject.
