Do you see a problem with switching to lower emission standards? Maybe replacing old Coal plants with nuclear plants, Subsidizing Solar Panel implementation and development, Wind Farms?
Would it hurt to require new vehicles to have far greater gas mileage and reduced emissions?
I think these are things we should start on.
I also think **Paul ** is right in that we should start planning where and how to build Dikes and where we should plan on abandonment.
The government should possibly tax incandescent light bulbs to help subsidize Compact Fluorescent and Diode lighting.
Perhaps failure to meet Energy Star compliance could result in a Waste Tax and the money could be applied to either rebates on High efficiency models or more research.
This is just a list of ideas, please shoot down and add at will.
Martin, there is disaster and there is disaster. We can not avert significant climate change and without doubt our continued emissions will make that future change much worse. We can limit the extent of the disaster. My oil refinery analogy again: any fire is a disaster and we are past the point of averting the fire. Buildings will come down. Will all the buildings burn up or some of them? Will some equipment be destroyed or the whole place melt to the ground?
there is a curious disconnect in the arguments raised by temporizers who first contend that action now would be precipitous because, after all, we are not sure of the anthropogenisis, and then flip to, hey, it’s already too late, no point in changing our feckless ways, let’s just buy sea front property in the Delaware Water Gap…
Someone needs to contact Wiki and post this as THE classic example of ‘strawman’. Plus its actually kind of lucid…for Alaric on a sunday that is.
Seriously, the disconnect is with people who conflate what we know (global climactic change seems to be happening), with theories as to why (i.e. this is caused either solely or mainly by anthropogenisis), with theories on what it will mean (mini-Ice age, global warming with huge ice melts and rising seas, both, neither, something else entirely), with pure conjecture (i.e. there is actually anything we can reasonably do about it short of going back to the caves and giving up on this whole ‘technology’ stuff…see, I can do ‘strawman’ too ). The science just isn’t there (IMHO) to warrent a major disruption in our economy that would take place if we tried to cut our emmissions to the point it would actually make a difference…if it even WOULD make a difference, which I tend to doubt.
That’s a might big claim to hang on such a small word as “if.” Why not go the next step and actually see if such is actually the case, cause as far as I see, only Paul and his familiar (that would be you) are making it.
Paul’s raised this false dichotomy on several occasions and has so far taken the “Aldebaran defense” (“my word is my cite”).
So, pretty please… with sugar on top… gimme a taste… just a little taste… of a “fact-supported claim that there’s nothing we can do to avert disaster.”
Otherwise, as long as you’re pulling things from a dark and moist orifice, let me know if you find the remote to my TV. Haven’t seen it in days.
The science just isn’t there (IMHO) to warrent a major disruption in our economy that would take place if we tried to cut our emmissions to the point it would actually make a difference…if it even WOULD make a difference, which I tend to doubt.*
I don’t understand how you game this out. It seems to me that we can construct an outcome matrix as follows.
So, am I to take it that the US conservative position has changed (or is in the process of changing) from “there is no anthropogenic (man made) climate change” to “we’re now too far along to do anything whatsoever about it”?
Christ, that was quick.
Incidentally, stabilising CO[sub]2[/sub] levels at somewhere below the dangerous ‘tipping point’ of around 500ppm (we’re now at 378ppm and rising by 3ppm per year) is not impossible. But we have to start somewhere.
Indeed, if climate change is such a threat to US national security, might we see island nations who would be wiped out by rising sea levels take it upon themselves to forcibly limit big emitters like airports by sending operatives to bomb one every other week? After all, what have they got to lose?
Some good suggestions by What Exit? there. Vastly increased energy efficiency, with resulting lower CO2 emissions, is both doable, and a win-win from every perspective. Think of it the Republican way – it’s like a big tax cut for everyone. So why wait?
Ironic indeed, by the way, that the White House is willing to invest a trillion in the speculation that Iraq can be made over as a democracy, but not willing to invest a trillion to save Florida from becoming a strictly underwater civilization.
If you are commenting on my comments, I claim innocence. I have never heard anyone but me asking about what proportion of resources ought to go to reduce pollution and how much for buying sandbags and bilge pumps.
I admit I could be the sharp edge of a new Conservative argument, but if I am, I want a dime every time they ask my questions.
I for one would be happy to know which course of action would be the best.
Don’t quit your job just yet. This just ripped from today’s headlines:
Aparently it’s not a matter of resources, but of political will. In anticipation of ** Paul**'s inevitable contention that something will have to be sacrificed for such largess, I would suggest the subsidy on SUVs as a good place to start.
). The science just isn’t there (IMHO) to warrent a major disruption in our economy that would take place if we tried to cut our emmissions to the point it would actually make a difference…if it even WOULD make a difference, which I tend to doubt.