CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:31 am
 


I don't personally agree with everything about this opinion but I found it interesting so thought I'd share it.

Climate change activists are focused on all the wrong solutions



"As it is becoming obvious that political responses to global warming such as the Paris treaty are not working, environmentalists are urging us to consider the climate impact of our personal actions. Don’t eat meat, don’t drive a gasoline-powered car and don’t fly, they say. But these individual actions won’t make a substantial difference to our planet, and such demands divert attention away from the solutions that are needed.

Even if all 4.5 billion flights this year were stopped from taking off, and the same happened every year until 2100, temperatures would be reduced by just 0.054 degrees, using mainstream climate models — equivalent to delaying climate change by less than one year by 2100.

Nor will we solve global warming by giving up meat. Going vegetarian is difficult — one US survey shows 84 percent fail, most in less than a year. Those who succeed will only reduce their personal emissions by about 2 percent.

And electric cars are not the answer. Globally, there are just 5 million fully electric cars on the road. Even if this climbs massively to 130 million in 11 years, the International Energy Agency finds CO₂ equivalent emissions would be reduced by a mere 0.4 percent globally.

Put simply: The solution to climate change cannot be found in personal changes in the homes of the middle classes of rich countries.

The Paris treaty cannot do much — just like the Rio and Kyoto pacts mostly failed before it — because this approach requires rich countries to promise future economic hardship to achieve very little.

The real reason for this: Most of the 21st century emissions are not being emitted by the rich world. Indeed, if every single rich country stopped all CO₂ emissions today and for the rest of the century — no plane trips, no meat consumption, no gasoline-powered cars, no heating or cooling with fossil fuels, no artificial fertilizer — the difference would be just 0.72 degrees°F by end-of-century

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.

This would bring forward the day when green-energy alternatives are cheaper and more attractive than fossil fuels not just for the elite but for the entire world.

Right now, despite all the rhetoric about the importance of global warming, we are not ramping up this spending. On the sidelines of the 2015 Paris climate summit, more than 20 world leaders made a promise to double green-energy research and development by 2020. But spending has only inched up from $16 billion in 2015 to $17 billion in 2018. This is a broken promise that matters.

After 30 years of pursuing the wrong solution to climate change, we need to change the script.


https://nypost.com/2019/10/12/climate-c ... solutions/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 14747
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:42 am
 


Apparently the key to making climate change disappear is for rich countries and their populations to be made poor by taking away their polluting privilege and lifestyle and then, make those dirt poor 3rd world developing nations with no viable economy like China and India rich by allowing them pollute at will.

Makes perfect sense to me if you ascribe to Edenhofer and the UN's philosophy that climate change isn't about the climate but about wealth redistribution. :roll:

$1:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."


https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... ing-scare/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15244
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:57 pm
 


What the OP and FOG are missing is that much or most of those emissions in developing countries are used to produce goods for the wealthy western countries. So when we curb our consumption of those products they will be forced to change. Those countries also use machinery and products owned by businesses from wealthy countries (e.g Apple, Android, Boeing, Toyota, etc). So these developing nations like China, India et al will have pressure on both the supply side and demand side that will force them to come in board if they try to hold out on emissions.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 33561
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:07 pm
 


The only real solution to any of these problems is to cut the human population of the planet to less than three billion worldwide within one hundred years, preferably through the next generation choosing to go childless. There is really no other fix. Good luck getting any of the "be fruitful and multiply" morons from the odious major religions to go along with it though.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4039
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:19 pm
 


Thanos Thanos:
The only real solution to any of these problems is to cut the human population of the planet to less than three billion worldwide within one hundred years, preferably through the next generation choosing to go childless. There is really no other fix. Good luck getting any of the "be fruitful and multiply" morons from the odious major religions to go along with it though.


Or, we just get rid of all the climate alarmist nutters and left-wingers. That should reduce the global temperatures quickly, what with all that hot air gone....

:lol:


-J.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18770
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:46 am
 


CDN_PATRIOT CDN_PATRIOT:
Thanos Thanos:
The only real solution to any of these problems is to cut the human population of the planet to less than three billion worldwide within one hundred years, preferably through the next generation choosing to go childless. There is really no other fix. Good luck getting any of the "be fruitful and multiply" morons from the odious major religions to go along with it though.


Or, we just get rid of all the climate alarmist nutters and left-wingers. That should reduce the global temperatures quickly, what with all that hot air gone....

:lol:


-J.



We could just eat the babies. :P


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12398
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:00 pm
 




Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 26145
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:44 pm
 


Oh oh, Progressive Socialists and soothsayers of climate doom, better get some cancel culture warriors down to Liz Wheeler's house.

A Conservative is deprogramming the youth.



Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21619
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:25 pm
 


$1:
The solution to climate change cannot be found in personal changes in the homes of the middle classes of rich countries.

Cool, I agree.

71% from 100.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.