Sign up and stay connected to your favorite communities.
It is warming of the globe, but that doesn't mean warming of everywhere on the globe at the same time or rate.
Climate change and weather anomalies are not the same thing. People still don't understand it and get further ruffled when they are asked to pay extra taxes because of it and now, they wonder what exactly the taxes are paying for except carbon offset trade markets that may or may not effect output of CO2 and other pollutants that create havoc with our atmosphere.
It would be easier to legislate controls and regulations on carbon output than to create more taxes an pretend it's going to go away because the market will correct it. The market won't correct anything. Legislative action needs to be taken and it isn't. Politicians are weak willed for the most part an that's why nothing has been done of any real merit since we started to really notice back 40 years ago.
It's been a bit more than 40 years. People have been discussing these changes since at least the 60's. I still agree that nothing has been done and it really picked up momentum around the 70's and 80's, but the fact that this is in no way a new issue and we still have people saying it doesn't exist is or was invented by the Liberal Agenda in 2002.
The fact that people think there is a liberal agenda is a problem. I'm so sick of this "us vs. them" mentality.
The real issue is the fucking profiteers. All the 'faces' of AGW are living in mansions that use more power than my apartment building and have beach homes on the coast. If Al Gore took the money from "An Inconvenient Truth" and spent it on one of those wacky-looking houses that don't require much heating or cooling and stuck some solar panels on the outside, people might be more inclined to listen.
When non-scientists see people pushing science that happens to personally enrich them, they tend to reject it wholesale.
Runners up: the Nuclear NIMBY Brigade. The USA could've been off oil and coal 40 years ago.
I don't even know why your response is to my comment. I don't disagree with you, but it's not really in context to what I stated.
I agree with you both, but he was responding to your first sentence:
Climate change and weather anomalies are not the same thing.
I think they're just adding on to your comment, not disagreeing with it.
The market will absolutely correct for it, if the market is guided correctly.
We don't work people to death or expose the workers to carcinogens or dangerous conditions the way we used to because wrongful death lawsuits are a thing. It is not economically viable to sacrifice workers in the US, so we don't, and mild hazards are controlled by OSHA to mitigate the rate of accidents and injuries. Hazard pay and elevated wages take care of the rest. It might not be perfect, but it is a huge improvement over what had been the status quo for ages.
If we get a reasonable sense of the economic value of the natural world, and the current climatic stability, and we charge individuals and businesses for their disruption of that value, we will be fine. The problem is that a large portion of current business practice is not economically viable with externalities accounted for, which means big disruptions to the economic stability, and engaging in that voluntarily will deeply wound the economies that do it relative to the ones that abstain. We need to find a way to set things up so that a large block of the global economy engages in the transition simultaneously. Some states like Germany are forging ahead in spite of a lack of coalition, but they aren't doing enough themselves and it is hurting them compared to the states that are doing next to nothing, like the US.
Unfortunately I think that until we have fusion power working, no major steps will be taken. Best case scenario is that fusion tech comes online in the US first, and the US uses it to establish agreements with Europe about low carbon economies, which would diminish Russian power in Europe and globally. If the US doesn't beat the rest of the world to fusion, I think we will drag our feet and have a hissy fit about it.
If we do though, we can replace all shipping with fusion, we can transition away from Europe buying energy from Iran and Russia. We can exclude economies that don't use low carbon energy without hurting ourselves domestically. Both Lockheed Martin and some smaller groups are working on small scale semi portable fusion that would make fusion powered heavy freight and shipping possible. The DPF fusion tech is probably the most promising for saving the world, but the Lockheed tech would be a big step in the right direction too.
I don't think the tech is necessary, actually, but I think it makes the transition more likely than anything else that is happening these days. People are resistant to economic disruption, especially the people who run the economy and governments.
A place for major news from around the world, excluding US-internal news.