I agree and disagree. I disagree that we cannot do anything about it. It is very true that we’re not doing as much as we could, and I have no disillusions that that will change any time soon. I guess you could say Im not terribly optimistic on that front. That doesn’t mean I think we should simply throw in the towel only because a minority of our population is resistant to combating warming trends.
I very much agree that part of the issue described above is largely due to a perceived lack of urgency. That is, unless the return on something can be realized almost immediately, there’s a fair portion of people out there that simply do not care. If they don’t see the benefit now, they either don’t believe it, or simply don’t care about it. In addition, while a lot of people will focus on a solution like a carbon tax and speak to the direct costs of implementing such a solution, for whatever reason, those same people omit the indirect costs of doing nothing (or not enough), when the consequence of inaction absolutely results in damages that can be quantified monetarily. But you’re correct, there is little political will to do anything. On the right, they (mostly) straight up deny climate change or man’s contribution, and on the left, you have politicians paying lip service to it, but very few that legitimately understand it. As a result, those on the right either willfully do nothing or at times impede progress being made, while on the left you end up with people like AOC that continue to do a disservice to the subject by being far too hyperbolic and over-the-top with their rhetoric. And at the end of the day, most average Joes are more invested in the political circus surrounding AGW, rather than actually looking into the vast amount of data and research readily available out there.
Ultimately, I think our way forward is a combination of continuing to try and curb additional CO2 loading and also adapting to a changing climate. At this point, I think we’re beyond the tipping point and will come to realize some of the more consequential portions of this changing environment due to insufficient action taken to date. Due to the lifespan of CO2 lingering in the atmosphere, it’s only inevitable. But I still believe in continuing down the road of trying to curtail emissions. I don’t believe in a radical overhaul of our economy by suddenly transitioning to renewables, it simply isn’t feasible at this time. But I do encourage continuing to move down that path to one day realize that goal.
Interesting. There is a way forward, if in my opinion it is remote. There is a lot of money to be made on transitioning to a better energy future, but there are vested interests in obstructing that future. I believe the United States should be in a position to lead. We have in the past, but have now withdrawn from the world stage. Great exchange, but as usual, it’s bedtime for bonzo. Catch you on the flip side.
Fully agree. And yes, plenty of money to be made in this arena… that should be a popular topic with the right. Have a good night… catch you in here later.
Heard Watters say something tonight i agree with. “What is the difference between a climate scientist and a fortune teller? Sometimes the Fortune Teller is right!”
It’s all for naught unless you bring China, India, and Russia to heel.
Why does everyone in the west think we can do anything that will counter the massive growth in the east, and the emissions being pushed out. This will not be solved by the Americans or countries of the EU. One can’t ignore the biggest emitter of emissions as if it was just a minor detail. For the record I believe in AGW but it’s pretty obvious from the data we’re the major emissions are coming from, not one candidate in these climate hall events address this.
The climate is going to change no matter what we do.
During interglacial periods ice melts and seas rise, it’s happened regularly throughout recorded history and we’re nowhere near the highest levels ever recorded now.
Perhaps the most cynical, alienated, conspiracy theory ridden post in a while.
Could there not be some truth in the notion GW poses a threat, is partially manmade and correctable by our efforts? And some truth that the consultant community is unethically making money off the problem?
Why must partisans flee into simplistic all right/all wrong approach to complex issues. Such a mindset offers nothing to the discussion.
Grappling with complexity? Not for the faint of heart.
At most about .1-.3 of the warming over the last 300 years can be attributed to human activity and there’s nothing we can do that’s going to stop the natural warming without risking a complete climate catastrophe such as triggering a new Ice Age that will kill Billions.
In other climate science news: Michael Mann of “hockey stick” and climate gate fame, lost his 9 yr defamation lawsuit because he refused to provide his data or modeling algorithms.
