|
|
 Originally Posted by CoccoBill
What you're in essence saying, is that not all of those methods are viable or economical, so we shouldn't do anything.
This isn't my point. I think doing what you propose is not economical and taking a handful of measures that the typical environmentalist doesn't like are the economical ones and would have positive benefit on the AGW issue.
I might be in agreement that it's starting to be too late avoid a shitty outcome
It isn't too late. The "outcome" hasn't been assessed by those who claim it's coming. Additionally, it's important to weigh both outcomes. As far as I can tell, the outcomes that would come from the proposed solutions would be a far greater disaster than what it seems could possibly happen in a worst-case scenario.
Well, I see it differently. "My side" acknowledges a problem that needs addressing, the "other side" does not.
The proposals by your side don't address the problem. This is why I call it Pyrrhic. The other side tends to not think there is a problem that needs addressing. Some of this comes from ignorance and some comes from not wanting to fan the flames of your side's fervor in addressing the problem wrongly. Where the other side is largely ignorant on the existence of climate change, your side is largely ignorant on effective measures to deal with it.
Replace coal and natural gas with nuclear, solar, geothermal, wind etc.
This can work in only small ways. At this point, it would make the economies and a large number of people in the West significantly worse off and it would make billions in developing countries so much worse than that that westerns would have a hard time fathoming it.
Cap and trade has benefit here, but carbon taxes do not. Cap and trade can provide incentive to economize on energy in ways that could put a minor dent (but a dent nonetheless) in global emissions. A carbon tax would result in a reduction of living standards for the average person and a transfer of wealth and power to those whose behavior is not cost prohibitive from the tax.
Emission and fuel economy regulations
These tend to result in higher indirect emissions and many unintended consequences. Here is a video claiming that electric cars create a greater negative externality than gas cars. This is only one small aspect of the topic you mentioned.
This would be great, but environmentalists would cringe at what it would take to actually get this done. Sadly, they probably wouldn't cringe at how much worse off their proposed methods would make people in developing countries. In developed countries, reforestation can be a thing, but it's not on the environmentalism radar. If you would like my opinion on why, I can give it, but I'm not giving it now because it involves insulting the typical environmentalist for their ignorance.
Carbon harvesting and storage
This is ungodly expensive. It's not hyperbole to say that doing this to any effective level would throw the modern world into chaos and living standards would plunge to depths not know for a long, long time.
The only real hope regarding sequestration would be an economy so robust and advanced that it develops the technology to do so. Creating an unending crisis in the economy won't do that.
|
Reply With Quote
