A Decarbonized U.S. by 2050 Is Probably Impossible, But Here's What It Might Look Like

realclearwire.com ^ | 9/26/2022 | Ross Pomeroy

[rktman]

How much will all of this cost? Doesn't matter obviously. The elites will keep chugging along while the rest of us see our standard of living reduced to sub saharan levels. In search of that magic 500 million world wide population number is gonna cost some folks some stuff. Hard to imagine there are so many people of influence that have bought into this 😵‍💫💩. Anyone else seen the citibank ad where they claim to be ponying up a trillion dollars for chasing the sustainability unicorn? (S)elections do indeed have consequences. Scary to admit we know some folks that are just fine with the current set up.

[Raycpa]

Becoming a billionaire by 2023 is probably impossible but here is what it would look like:

[OttawaFreeper]

But carbon is a naturally occurring thing in our environment. How can it be otherwise? Talking to these people must be like the way Captain Kirk talked to the Landru computer near the end of the Return of the Archons episode.

[Pollard]

Here's what it might look like

[ClearCase_guy]

GMTA

[ansel12]

[Antoninus]

Compared to what places like Pittsburgh looked like in the 1940s and 50s, we are already decarbonized.

All the climate lies of today are about effecting unwanted political change by attempting to scare people.

[cranked]

It’s going to look like the trailers piled up one on top the other like in ‘Ready Player One’ and where most are obviously living off of some sort of Universal Basic Income Program spending all their time within a Meta type VR world.

Awesome sauce. /s

[dfwgator]

Watch an episode of The Flintstones.

[BobL]

“The annual cost of decarbonization is at most on the order of 1% of GDP.”

Tell that to Europe this winter.

[bert]

Here's the carbon saving reality in Portland

[Leaning Right]

Quite unfortunately, most folks have confused man-made climate change with natural climate change. The latter exists. The former does not.

This would not be such a big deal if we were allowed to debate the issue, with both sides presenting evidence in open forums. That’s the way science is supposed to work. But no debate is permitted. And anyone who tries will be cancelled. It’s all very fascist.

So back to the Dark Ages we go.

[rktman]

And a lot of the youngsters are skerred at this point. Science? We don’t need no steenkin’ science! Wasn’t that long ago in the scheme of things that glaciers WERE nyc, chicongo etc........... Anyone missing some glaciers? Dung fires weren’t responsible for their demise.

[I want the USA back]

Seeing that living organisms consist of complex molecules in which carbon plays a major part, there will be no “decarbonization.”

[Pollard]

Blue is a calming, soothing color. Must be why tarps are blue.

[zeestephen]

Re: "But carbon is a naturally occurring thing in our environment."

Carbon is also 17% of the average human body.

Almost every life form on Earth is constructed on a scaffold of carbon atoms.

Organic chemistry is the study of carbon based molecules.

[Salman]

Absurd. There won't be a United States in 2050.

Some part of what used to be the USA might be livable and free.

[goodnesswins]

Exactly...decarbonization means devolving to 3rd world status

[Jacquerie]

<>How much will all of this cost? Doesn’t matter obviously<>

Did you read the article you posted?

[oldasrocks]

A few nukes will level the problem out nicely. Once everything is dead.