The point is that none of those things required people really to sacrifice. People didn't have to give up air conditioning, driving, or whatnot. The change was by industry. CO2 is such a fundamental output of so many human activities - flying, driving, industry, building, foods. Now it would require people to actually sacrifice and it has to be done enmasse to be effective - en masse around the globe. Forget about just one nation being able to do it and the politics against it, but the entire globe. It's not realistic is my point. I think the key is to find solutions that don't negatively impact consumers. Gov'ts should be focused on accelerating fusion power over any other green tech.
That's cool. A theoretical physicist who has zero work in the field of climate science though I admit his field at least gives him an understanding of the math involved who gets paid by the Mercer family, one of the famous right wing conservative families of America, to be part of the "CO2 coalition" that literally states that carbon emissions has no effect in climate. It's a pretty open propaganda machine pushed by a right wing family and oil and gas execs.
@AroundTheWorld Here are all the people who are paying Dr John Clauser to say what he says: Donor 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2011 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $30,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $40,000 $70,000 $420,000 Sarah Scaife Foundation $132,000 $135,000 $150,000 $417,000 George C. Marshall Institute $364,985 $364,985 Mercer Family Foundation $150,000 $170,000 $320,000 Thomas W Smith Foundation $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $225,000 Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation $75,000 $125,000 $9,126 $209,126 Searle Freedom Trust $50,000 $75,000 $75,000 $200,000 The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 The Randolph Foundation $40,000 $20,000 $60,000 Achelis and Bodman Foundations $50,000 $50,000 Charles Koch Institute $13,126 $33,283 $8,000 $54,409 Science and Environmental Policy Project $25,000 $25,000 EOG Resources $5,000 $5,000 The same Koch Brothers who have polluted so many parts of the Texas gulf coast with their refineries.
Giving up lead wasn't quite that simple since it was very widely used. Opposition to giving up lead was similar to the oppostion we see now and we still use lead in a lot of products. It was improvements in technology driven by regulations that encouraged markets is what allowed us to give up lead. We already see things like that happening regarding greenhouse gases. All of the alarmist talk that we won't be able to drive or cook food is overblown rhetoric. Yes the costs are going to be great to vastly reduce climate change but the technology already exists to have largely the same standard of living, even better, free of fossil fuels. What's preventing it is inertia in economics, physical infrastructure, and politics.
What sacrifice did consumers make going from leaded to unleaded gasoline? How was the public negatively affected? Same with CFC's. How was the public negatively affected? And let's keep in mind this was pre-social media, prior to the age where banning anything results in the far right going nuts.
Since I just went through this decision 3 years ago... The CFC regulation has increased costs. R22 has gone from a few $ per pound to $100/lbs, and it will continue to rise since it can no longer be produced. Many consumers choose to replace their AC units instead of repairing them and using the scarce R22.
If only Biden reduced the size of his motorcade and flew a smaller Jet, the climate crisis would be averted.
If you go against consensus on climate change, you will not receive any government research funding. Likewise, the more alarmist you are, the more likely you are to get attention and receive research grants from the government. Bitcoin fixes this by turning off the money printer. Few understand.
this solution doesn't involve controlling people's behavior and restricting their energy use, so it isn't popular with politicians the solution to climate change is to produce more energy that allows us to adapt to it. Not to foolishly try and control the climate. producing and consuming more energy is anathema to leftists (themselves excluded of course) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale A type I civilization is able to access all the energy available on its planet and store it for consumption. Hypothetically, they should also be able to control natural events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. A type II civilization can directly consume the energy of a star, most likely through the use of a Dyson sphere. A type III civilization is able to capture all the energy emitted by its galaxy, including energy from any objects in that galaxy, such as every star, black holes, etc.
Since you've gone full into science fiction, I should remind you that people are NOT advocating on restricting people's energy use, but instead reducing the amount of CO2. Energy use is not the same and releasing CO2
this is a naive statement. One of the arguments Pielke makes in the interview I posted earlier is that climate change policy IS energy policy, and should be re-imagined as such.
CO2 is the pretense. There's a reason the greenies also oppose nuclear even though it doesn't have CO2 emissions. It's a solution that doesn't restrict energy use. Also, CO2 is plant food, and fossil fuels are a wonderful energy storage device (cheap, portable, reliable, long-lasting, energy dense) naturally created in nature from organic matter. The idea that we wouldn't make us of them is madness.
