The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Problem number 2: Politicians ALWAYS operate in reactive mode. The question is whether, in 2020, it will be too late to apply massive amounts of money to reverse a problem that could have been reversed a lot more cheaply in 2008.
Problem number 3: The "solution" to climate change involves consideration of some global issues that the West hasn't seen fit to consider up until now. For example, plenty of people live in poverty in South Asia. Why is it more of a problem for them to be living in poverty as a result of climate change in the future than it is for them to be living in poverty right now?
Summary: There's lots of coal. If the sea level rises we'll build dikes. If it gets hot, we'll install air conditioning. If the Colorado River dries up, we'll build electric desalination plants.
This is also the UAW position. OTOH the manufacturers are still solidly lined up with the Heritage Foundation et al, who reject the underlying idea of problems associated with hydrocarbon fuels, let alone the CAFE standards in question.
It is a slight exaggeration to say that Dingell "represents Detroit union labor" without mentioning Detroit's automobile manufacturing establishment. In this case, though, it may be true - which is 'to the good', even if insufficient.
If carbon emissions were capped (good luck!), CO2 levels would continue to rise. If If carbon emissions were stopped (dreaming, here...), CO2 levels would take a long time to fall. Global temperatures would continue to rise because the oceans, which moderate climate, will take a decade or more to warm to equilibrium with the present atmosphere. Moreover, Arctic ice would continue to melt, light-colored tundra would continue to darken, etc.
A barely credible hope for 2008 would be slow the rate of increase of emissions, slowing the acceleration of the rise in CO2.
There are ways to stop or reverse warming, but fighting CO2 emissions, even with great success, won't do it in this generation.
Does anyone know of facts that invalidate the above?
If not, then they need to be in our reality base.
Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats nor the various parties in Europe--except the Greens--propose such drastic action. That is, they are arguing amongst themselves about how the deck chairs should be arranged. I suppose that having the chairs piled up in a sort of pyramid or tower so that a few of us will last a few minutes longer would be better; at least, that's the position of the so-called Left in the West.
by gmoke - Jul 4
by Oui - Jul 3 1 comment
by Oui - Jun 30 26 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 24 16 comments
by Oui - Jun 25 51 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 16 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 15 14 comments
by Oui - Jul 6
by Oui - Jul 68 comments
by Oui - Jul 55 comments
by gmoke - Jul 4
by Oui - Jul 3
by Oui - Jul 31 comment
by gmoke - Jul 2
by Oui - Jun 3026 comments
by Oui - Jun 302 comments
by Oui - Jun 297 comments
by Oui - Jun 2736 comments
by Oui - Jun 2551 comments
by IdiotSavant - Jun 2416 comments
by Oui - Jun 2310 comments
by Oui - Jun 2313 comments
by gmoke - Jun 22
by Oui - Jun 20
by Oui - Jun 1916 comments
by asdf - Jun 184 comments
by Oui - Jun 184 comments