Posted on 11/22/2016 10:08:39 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both houses have terrified environmentalists and climate campaigners, who have declared that the next four years will be a “disaster.”
Fear is understandable. We have much to learn about the new administration’s plans. But perhaps surprisingly, what little we know offers some cause for hope.
It should not need to be restated in 2016 that climate change is real and mostly man-made. It is hard to know whether Trump will acknowledge this. He has called global warming a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese, but stated that this was a joke; he denied the existence of climate change during the campaign, but supported global warming action as recently as 2009.
What really matters is not rhetoric but policy. So far, we know that President Trump will drop the Paris climate change treaty. This is far from the world-ending event that some suggest and offers an opportunity for a smarter approach.
Even ardent supporters acknowledge that the Paris treaty by itself will do little to rein in global warming. The United Nations estimates that if every country were to make every single promised carbon cut between 2016 and 2030 to the fullest extent and there was no cheating, carbon dioxide emissions would still only be cut by one-hundredth of what is needed to keep temperature rises below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius). The Paris treaty’s 2016-2030 pledges would reduce temperature rises around 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. If maintained throughout the rest of the century, temperature rises would be cut by 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit.
At the same time, these promises will be costly. Trying to cut carbon dioxide, even with an efficient tax, makes cheap energy more expensive — and this slows economic growth.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Wrong. The climate is changing on its own, and man has almost no ability to stop it from changing, except inside very small volumes like houses and buildings.
Crap like this shows why the legacy lying media is now mostly irrelevant. Like mankind is mostly irrelevant to climate change.
I’d say his plan is YUGELY, BIGLY, excellent. Hey, if it’s got the u.n. skerred, it must be ALLSOME!
what in the holy hell, a kernel of truth from Wapo? hmm The Trump effect is having far-reaching uh uh effects!
Furthermore, Lomborg says that proposed reactions to global warming are either too expensive / not technologically feasible or they are not very effective. Lomborg's basic conclusion was that there are much more cost effective ways to improve the world than tackling global warming. Providing low-cost immunizations to millions in developing countries would, in Lomborg's opinion, provide much more bang for the buck.
Since actual results are cost prohibitive, the only reason to maintain it is to have an outlet for transferring wealth to other pockets.
If one truly wanted actual results, quickly, one would have to dismantle the air industry. The air itself would be cleaned up in a week. Proof? easy. The air cleared up when all flights were grounded during 911 and the week after that.
There was a lot less noise pollution, too. The sudden quiet was audible.
This is very much in line with Trump’s campaign promise of “investment in research and development across the broad landscape of academia” and with its suggestion that we could develop “energy sources and power production that alleviates the need for dependence on fossil fuels.”
If Trump is smart, he will play rope-a-dope with the alarmists, appearing to support the junk science, but playing off the poor nations against the rich in the background. This is the conflict that has stalled this theater production over the years.
I disagree with Mr. Lomborg's premise that global-warming is real, and caused by man, however - unusual for Global Warming religionists - he seems to be sane. He acknowledges that a Quixotic attempt to 'slay' this Global Warming dragon (myth) is a foolish use of man's resources, and they could be better spent (e.g., providing low-cost immunizations, or pesticide spraying, in third-world countries).
So fie on Mr. Lomborg's religious belief, but kudos to his sane comments.
Lomborg may or may not be correct, and while I like his approach, he misses the point. The point about climate change is not to change the climate. The point is to institute world-wide rationing of resources based on a political, not economic, construct.
If you read the European, and particularly British, publications on global warming, this goal becomes quite clear. Even when they talk about how much China pollutes, they always come back to per capita energy and resource consumption in the United States, which they say has to be decreased.
The mantra of climate change/global warming is only one facet of the socialist globalist world order that they are trying to foist on us. Through “climate regulation” you will see a standard world-wide per capita “energy ration” for every person on the face of the earth. And energy is not the only thing they intend to ration. We will also have rations for food, clothing, housing, transportation, education, employment, entertainment, and....wait for it...
...information. Yes, the socialist world order will decide what information is true, and just how much and what form we receive it, and more importantly, what “infomation” we are allowed to disseminate.
The key to global control is the institution of global rationing. People who are subject to rationing are not free.
Lomborg actually moves the discussion to its proper place, policy as opposed to science. I have no problem saying that climate change is real and to an extent man-made. The global average temperature has risen slightly over the past century, and while I believe that natural causes are probably the main reason, it’s also true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we’ve put more of it into the atmosphere, thus some degree of warming can be attributed to human activity.
But the question is how significant is it? If natural variation in temperature absolutely dwarfs our own contributions to it (and the geological record demonstrates that it does), and if the actual threat that warming presents to our living standards is absolutely dwarfed by the threats that the proposed solutions would present (there really is no way to argue otherwise, given that even the most radical proposals don’t affect the projects of temperatures increases very much), then it stands to reason that “climate change” is meaningless in terms of public policy, save for “no regrets” strategies such as R&D that we should do anyways, whether not climate change is a risk.
Basically, Lomborg has persuasively argued that it’s not that the “science is wrong”, it’s that the “scientists” (i.e. climate change alarmists) lack perspective on the scope and scale of the problem relative to other priorities. It’s as if we are proposing to bankrupt ourselves in order to buy insurance against an event that is not only unlikely, but also even at worst would be significantly less costly than the sum total of the premiums to be paid, and what’s worse the policy on its face only covers 5% of the estimated damages.
This happens to also neatly coincide with how most people according to polling I’ve seen look at it, they believe “the science” but aren’t concerned enough about it to favor any actions that would materially impact their lives. Which is smart!
Good comments - thanks.
He can 're-state' it all he wants; doesn't make it true.
What really matters is not rhetoric but policy. So far, we know that President Trump will drop the Paris climate change treaty. This is far from the world-ending event that some suggest and offers an opportunity for a smarter approach. Even ardent supporters acknowledge that the Paris treaty by itself will do little to rein in global warming.
Note: this topic is from . Thanks SeekAndFind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.