Trump Announces Withdrawal From Paris Climate Deal. What Happens Now?
Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago to Science
I think withdrawing from the Paris Accord is very bad. The linked article shows the numbers and my view on them:
- Reducing carbon emissions won't solve the problem (problem = costs of global warming)
- Reducing carbon emissions is all we have now, which is why I think doing nothing is horrible.
- The real answer is geo-engineering or other answers we haven't thought of. "Technological innovation and wealth creation" will make those things possible. In the end, economic growth is answer.
In the linked article, Mr. Bailey links to another article that I found interesting: http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/ron...
- Reducing carbon emissions won't solve the problem (problem = costs of global warming)
- Reducing carbon emissions is all we have now, which is why I think doing nothing is horrible.
- The real answer is geo-engineering or other answers we haven't thought of. "Technological innovation and wealth creation" will make those things possible. In the end, economic growth is answer.
In the linked article, Mr. Bailey links to another article that I found interesting: http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/ron...
Although I'll put in a plug for Thorium reactors as a low waste 24/7 0 CO2 energy source with virtually unlimited supply. But hey, let's fill the land with windmills instead.
I would take climate 'believers' more seriously if the same people weren't advocating closing nuclear plants and tearing down dams.
That's a good point about dealing with the costs of global warming when they come. I mentioned this in another comment: if burning fuel generates 1 unit of wealth today but costs 2 units of wealth in 50 years, it makes sense to burn the fuel because that wealth will grow to 4 units in 50 years. This is all difficult to calculate because we don't know what percentage of global warming is caused by which activities, exactly how much the changes will cost, and how much wealth will grow over the long-term.
From a practical standpoint, your notion of paying to mitigate the effects is exactly what will happen, regardless of what policies we implement. There's no solution that will stop AGW cold. It's just a question of how much effort now vs. later, and trying not to be penny wise and pound foolish.
As soon as we realized carbon emissions were likely incurring long-term costs, we should have immediately eased restrictions on nuclear power as you say.
Your arguments include no supportable factual data, and now you are trying to insult the people who wisely require that you provide (a) factual evidence of a problem, (b) the evidence of the cause of the problem (if any), and (c) the practical solution of such a problem in that order.
Since you have been given ample opportunities here to provide these things and you have chosen instead to ignore the evidence, take your insulting rubbish to some socialist progressive website where you can find a welcome audience for irrational rubbish, and leave the Gulch to people who can think rationally.
You have repeatedly shown by your irrational posts and your irrational voting history that you do not belong in the Gulch. It is apparent that in nearly 4 years you have learned nothing by being here.