Revenue neutral price on CO2 (see 'climate lobby's conservative caucus' lead by Grant Couch) as one example. I'm sure there are plenty of other ideas. This is a big failure of the political right. There are market based ideas from conservative, but they don't get a voice because the political right was too busy denying science. Now that they have moved on from denying (for the most part), they are too busy saying it's not a big deal. Worse, almost everyone (except for the extreme political left) are now either too busy saying or bought into the idea that nothing can be done, it's too late. And with that, the only voice left is extreme left ideas - the new green deal, other national and international ideas that is based on large centralize institutional and infrastructure, that the right, center and even left are freaked out or weary of. I think this isn't a science issue, or even a technological issue but simply a political issue. I think there is no way to force a solution onto people until they literally see destruction right in front of them. The only political solution has to be a market based solution or some incentive-based solution with the goals of maintaining a good life without carbon. I don't believe that's not achievable. If the political right, center (and left) work together on this basic goal of maintaining a good life without carbon, they will come up with something. All the energy wasted on denying, giving up, or fighting being re-directed onto this basic goal will substantially improve our chance to solve this issue, or at minimize dampen the effect and reduce the risks.
You do realize fuel emissions aren't the only factor threatening our quality of life? The raw materials to build this stuff - all of which are based on limited resources, require fossil fuels, destroy habitats, and emit toxic residues that create their own set of problems for US. Growth has to slow down because it is not based on sustainability, which government will have the balls to say that? https://www.gatesnotes.com/2019-Annual-Letter
Carbon covers more than just fuel emissions. Your point might be CO2 isn't the only human-related factor to global warming, and that would be correct. Although I'm talking specifically about carbon here, the basic goals of having a good life while transitioning away from carbon-based energy could be attempted to any other greenhouse gas other than CO2. I'm not proposing any specific solution to global warming, nor am I rejecting any other (though very tempting). That's for much smarter people. I'm stating that the political right has not brought anything to the table and they have a golden opportunity to. And two, I believe that an incentive based or market based solution is the much more realistic approach to a global problem. In addition, I think when you incentive away from carbon and into non-carbon energy, people will respond and the top ideas will naturally bubble up to the top. That might still be some type of regulation approach, or what ever other creative ideas that come out. p.s. Gates states what we already know and they are important. I don't think he's proposing that we wait for a solution that can tackle them all to start doing something. He probably knows well that perfection is the enemy of progress.
GOP: solution is to double the CO2 output because we hate nerdy scientists and rising oceans will hit mostly brown people and liberals.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/2...m-paying-risk-based-flood-insurance-premiums/ excerpt: Senator Schumer Protects Wealthy Landowners from Paying Risk-Based Flood Insurance Premiums Effective climate adaptation depends upon effective price signals. So why is the Senate Majority Leader standing in the way? JONATHAN H. ADLER | 3.25.2021 10:53 PM The New York Times reported last week that Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer discouraged the Federal Emergency Management Administration from rolling out new policies that would ensure coastal landowners pay risk-related flood insurance premiums. This policy change would have been particularly worthwhile given the threat of climate change and would have helped address concerns that the federal government is subsidizing construction in harm's way. But apparently it would also have increased insurance rates for a small percentage of affected property owners with outsized political influence, so Senator Schumer swung into action. From the NYT report: Senator Schumer objected to the flood-insurance overhaul when it was first announced in 2019, citing its potential to raise costs for people on Long Island. The new system would mean steeper rates for some high-value homes, and the southern shore of Long Island includes the Hamptons, which have some of the most expensive real estate in the country. Senator Schumer's office told FEMA that the new rates could have a "severe impact" on some communities in New York, according to a person familiar with the conversation. . . . As detailed in the NYT story, the policy change would actually save money for some homeowners, but would also have a significant effect on a small percentage of "higher-cost homes" in places like the Hamptons. In other words, Senator Schumer seems to oppose those climate policies that might impose greater costs on the rich. more at the link
I don't think anyone here will disagree that Schumer bats for donors and the wealthy plenty of times. Many of us would love to move on from the Schumers and Pelosis of the world.
Also in the NYT article there was this: "When FEMA announced the change, in 2019, the new rates were supposed to take effect in October 2020. But the Trump administration pushed back the new rates until this year, worried in part that increasing premiums shortly before the election would hurt President Donald J. Trump politically, according to a person familiar with the discussions." No surprise this issue cuts across partisan lines as while NY and CA benefit from not raising Flood Insurance rates FL, NC, SC and every state along the Gulf coast benefits from it too.
