Posted on 03/03/2020 6:42:23 AM PST by rktman
Jeff Bezos’ $10 billion commitment to fight climate change, which he announced last week, brings to mind an episode of “South Park” that aired during the financial crisis. A succession of characters put their money into the market only to see it go instantly to zero before their eyes.
Based on the best science, or at least the most officially condoned, Mr. Bezos would have only the vaguest idea what he was getting for his money. That’s because scientists can estimate only within a giant, squishy margin of error how much warming might be avoided from a given cut in emissions. Plus the atmosphere is just so big: If he spent the entire sum to take 10 million cars off the road (at $1,000 a pop) and somehow make sure they weren’t replaced, the effect on future warming would be practically zero.
In more indirect fashion, maybe Mr. Bezos could use his money to change the public appetite for climate policy the way Mike Bloomberg has used his millions to change (briefly) its appetite for him as president. But the risk of this approach is one Mr. Bloomberg is now discovering: Mr. Bloomberg’s spending is suddenly having the opposite of the desired effect on Democratic politics and Donald Trump’s re-election chances.
Since Mr. Bezos’ motive is partly to improve his reputation and his company’s, he would likely direct his money to the existing climate crowd. That is, to groups and politicians whose outstanding feature is their complete failure, over many decades, to deliver meaningful climate policy. In politics, when you fail so big for so long, it isn’t merely because your efforts are unproductive but because they are counterproductive, driving away the public, turning potential allies into enemies.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
Get back to us when you're done. Fookin' uber rich idjit.
When are we going to put these deranged people that believe thy can “Control the Weather” worldwide in Pyschiatric Institutions for electric shock therapy and a frontal lobotomy??
Only a Truly Insane Person would believe they can “Control the Weather”
He could junk his private planes. That would be a big help. No don’t sell them, junk them. If he sold them they’d still contribute to ‘climate crisis’ because someone else would be flying them.
Ditto opening up his ginormous house for ‘refugees’. Who needs that much space anyways? Wasteful.
When he reduces HIS ‘carbon footprint’ to that of the average middle class human I’ll believe he’s serious about ‘climate crisis’ and not just some random ahole who wants to control humanity because he’s a ‘snake in a suit’.
I want $10 billion.
I could improve a lot of lives with cash like that.
:: If he spent the entire sum to take 10 million cars off the road (at $1,000 a pop) and somehow make sure they weren’t replaced, the effect on future warming would be practically zero. ::
Briliant!
Where does the WSJ get these great ideas?
Bezos could call it Dollars for Clunkers or Clunkers for cash.
So smart, they are.
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.