4 thoughts on “Republicans And Climate Change”

  2. A few of the comments are more interesting than the advice. For example,

    BECOMING A BEGGAR? OR MOVING 10 MILES SOUTH?

    If all the industrialized countries reduced their CO2 emissions by 100% by 2050, then according to the IPCC last published climate sensitivity of 3C, we would avert by 2100 a temperature rise of 0.28C.

    Which rise of 0.28C, compared to the way average temperature increases, is equivalent to moving 10 miles south.

    See a calculator here
    http://tinyurl.com/lx3yduc
    The models used are all due to IPCC.

    A 100% CO2 reduction would imply stopping most economic activity.
    In all industrialized countries.

    And sending most everyone, adults, children and grandchildren, as street beggars in, say, India. Which would keep developing.

    The idea is that our grandchildren would thank us for that.
    Since we did it for them.

    *****

    Wouldn’t YOU become a beggar?

    Rather than adapt in 100 years to the endemic disease, famine and natural disasters 10 miles south of where you live?

    *****

    If our politicians explained climate change mitigation in such simple terms, they would get to know the opinions of an informed public on it.
    Before they passed laws.

    Else you end up like in Australia.
    Where people found it all out by themselves.

    The ruling party had to change premiers.
    Its greenest member, as premier, last week, repealed its carbon tax policies.
    In the hope to avoid a rout to the opposition, which pledged an “oath of blood” to repeal all climate based measures.

    I think the “10 miles south” figure is off by a bit, but otherwise that is a solid observation. Note this is based on the assumption that the developing world, particularly China and India don’t do anything to change their increasing CO2 emissions.

  3. …that approach helped us tackle major environmental challenges to our nation and the world: the pollution of our rivers, dramatized when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire in 1969; the hole in the ozone layer; and the devastation wrought by acid rain.

    The case for an anthropomorphic contribution to these particular examples is much stronger than for anthropomorphic climate change.

  4. Karl, the carbon tax got replaced by an emissions trading system. The opposition believes in AGW too as it has a “direct action” policy. This country has gone bughouse nuts but I don’t see that things are any better elsewhere.
    Now we’re having a federal election on September 7. Hopefully a few adults will get elected.

Comments are closed.