Posted on 10/13/2019 9:26:29 AM PDT by Libloather
As it is becoming obvious that political responses to global warming such as the Paris treaty are not working...
**SNIP**
Solving climate change, in fact, requires getting China, India and all the other developing countries on board to cut emissions. But of course, their goal is to lift their populations out of poverty with cheap and reliable energy. How do we square that?
A carbon tax can play a limited but important role in factoring the costs of climate change into fossil-fuel use. Nobel laureate climate economist William Nordhaus has shown that implementing a small but rising global carbon tax will realistically cut some of the most damaging climate impacts at rather low costs.
This, however, will not solve most of the climate challenge. We must look at how we solved past major challenges — through innovation. The starvation catastrophes in developing nations in the 1960s to ’80s weren’t fixed by asking people to consume less food but through the Green Revolution in which innovation developed higher-yielding varieties that produced more plentiful food.
Similarly, the climate challenge will not be solved by asking people to use less (and more expensive) green energy. Instead, we should dramatically ramp up spending on research and development into green energy.
The Copenhagen Consensus Center asked 27 of the world’s top climate economists to examine policy options for responding to climate change. This analysis showed that the best investment is in green-energy R&D. For every dollar spent, $11 of climate damages would be avoided.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Once they get your loot, they get to live at their beachfront mansion - just like Hussein and Algore.
Why do we need to pay $30 billion a year just to learn that nuclear is the only viable alternative to coal? We already know that.
Climate change is a hoax.
People will always try to get their agenda and power grab past the public.
I Thank God for President Trump and pray for him every day.
If you think the Income Tax code is huge, complex and undecipherable just wait for the Carbon Tax code. The lawyers and accountants are salivating.
Why not just plant more trees. They absorb CO2 and release oxygen via photosynthesis?
Their goal is not for industrialized countries to find the optimal “solution”.
Their goal is to cripple industrialized countries by pressuring their leaders to commit economic suicide by abandoning the use of fossil fuels when no other viable alternatives exist. Then to replace those leaders with leftist totalitarians who will redistribute whatever scarce resources are left.
Global taxation is inherently regressive. A fellow in France in the business of making toasters pays a carbon tax in order to do so, and recovers the money from his customers because there isn't any other place to recover it from. His German customers pay the tax for him and so do his customers in Burkina Faso, who pay proportionately more because they're poorer. Do they recover more than their German counterparts in terms of redistribution? Sure. Do they recover as much as they paid? Nope.
There is another problem as well. Climate change activists are not only focused on the wrong solutions, they're focused on the wrong problem. Long-term warming doesn't kill but short-term cooling does. Crops and people can adjust to the former; in the latter there is starvation, and this isn't theory, it's historical fact. "Years without summer" due to volcanic activity are easy to find in history, and famine is even easier. Are we ready for a year with little or no harvest? Two, three? Is anybody other than a handful of laughed-at preppers even considering it?
CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant.
Spending incredible sums combatting a fantasy will change nothing.
Control the Sun and you can control the climate.
This ‘more tree’ thing was actually suggested by a Swiss think-tank back in early summer. They did an entire research paper, and laid out the numbers/facts. They even proved with the numbers that this was the cheapest and simplest way to reach the goals in less than thirty years.
But after looking at the idea, the one problem I saw....we weren’t talking about just more trees....but a massive number. You could have had everyone in America planting 30 trees everyday for the rest of their natural lives to reach this level for their ‘impact’.
I do agree that it’d be far simpler for us to accept this idea and fund the program. But you’d have to have hundreds of thousands of people across the globe dedicated to planting trees for a living.
No, climate change is real and it's been part of the earth's makeup since the very beginning. Anthropogenic climate change is the great hoax of our time.
IOW, he doesn't even bother disputing the IPCC's assumptions. He just shows that all the public policy responses flowing therefrom, are bogus.
He ultimtely comes down on the side of "adaptation" solutions. Beginning with, don't build on flood-exposed shoreline properties. And be prepared for a now wine-grape industry in the British Isles.
This article here is one of his weaker arguments, because it assumes that govt. $$ spent on green energy will really work in reducing CO2 levels. He's much stronger when he assumes CO2 is not a problem, but a new resource to work with.
Both the stupidity and hubris of this phrase are remarkable.
Here’s the thing solar does work - and hydrogen does work
and we should be doing these things
but we don’t need to scare people into doing it!
They seem to be working without any new or added tax. The warming has stopped. We had a really cold winter last year. This year winter arrived early and is shaping up to be another cold one.
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.