Carbon Emissions since 2000
Comments
-
The economic side was never part of my argument. I was hitting back on the reality of climate change. That's what this is about. It's real as it gets and the effects actually will be an economic disaster if steps aren't taken. If you genuinely read the landmark study I posted the other day, you'd understand what that means. This isn't like a nuke. It's a creeping disaster. These effects take a very long time to present themselves. Whoever said NYC would be underwater by now, please source that so I can laugh.
Not only can we largely avoid this slowly creeping physical and economic disaster, we can create an economic surge for a greater good. It's serious stuff, not to be taken lightly. There's no reason why fossil fuel consumption can't be dialed down while renewables are dialed up. The sum of the parts is the same. That can never happen if it's not developed. People need to be adaptable to change. It will hurt some people and it will help others. This is the price of change. I won't go into big solutions. You know where to find those. Something needs to change. That's the big takeaway.
Perhaps you don't deny climate change but I can't speak for your brothers.
-
Post your facts Jack! It's 5 degrees cooler than when Jesus walked the earth ya know!
-
The climate changes. The earth is billions of years old and the climate changes millions of times
And?
The economic impact of the retarded mitigation is the only thing that matters
-
Carbon is the most efficient energy source that we know of. Your solutions require carbon energy.
When something better comes along it won't be because of a tax. And we'll all know it
In the meantime you and Greta need to chill. Most people don't believe you because they aren't retards
-
Welp
Science
-
Race, I'm not denying natural cycles. That's why it's called human accelerated climate change. It's not normal and the prognosis is quite dire for future generations. Does that really not matter to you? Something bigger than yourself? A greater good even though when we're dead and gone? That's what this is about, old man. I'd hate to have you think differently on your deathbed. I'm quite serious.
The "efficiency" of carbon is not relevant. It's the effects. A shift has to be made and sometimes you need to take some lumps (of coal?) before it gets better again. It's kind of like getting a new head coach or starting a true freshman. It's crazy to me that y'all can't think like that. I genuinely think our brains are built different and I'm sure you agree.
-
Also, I, and other serious scientists are not suggesting completely removing fossil fuels. It should still be a widely used form of energy. Just not as much. Any publication or pundit you see who is trying to kill the fossil fuel industry blah blah blah is extreme. That's not reality. Fossil fuels will still exist. It just can't be our # 1 source of energy for much longer if anyone cares about the future.
-
It actually can.
But that’s not where the gubmint money is these days.
-
So we need to take lumps but not the rest of the world? You weren’t kidding when you said you didn’t understand the economics.
-
I said I wasn't arguing the economic side, but just threw out some big picture ideas since you were focused on it. And clearly I'm talking about everyone, not just America, as I have been since the beginning.
