yes, it boils down to this:
1. climate change, anthropogenic or not, will not make the earth uninhabitable. So shrill representation to the effect that it will does not add credibility to the effort to control it,
2. climate change, anthropogenic or not, impose a gradation of costs depending on its severity and speed of its onset. but effort to control it also has gradation of direct economic and indirect opportunity costs somewhat proportional to its probability of success, effectiveness if successful, and time it takes to succeed.
A pursuasive strategy needs to show it minimizes not only the cost of global warming, but the combined cost of global warming AND the effort to minimize it.
Dismissing the cost of efforts to minimize impact of global warming, rethoricalky brushing it under the rug, or otherwise trivializing by exaggerating the cost of not doing anything does not help build the necessary case.
once a case is made for a particular approach, or family of approaches, as being optimal in her sense of minimizing the combined cost of global warming and efforts to control it, there remain the issue of who should pay for the cost of combating global warming.
Some people is harms less by uncontrolled global warming than others, should they therefore pay less towards the effort to combat it? Some people have already done decades of wanton polluting but are comparatively clean now, should they be made to pay for their past pollution or does the recent work to reduce carbon foot print obsolve them of the CO2 they’ve left in the air?
no matter how much irresponsible climate advocates claim low carbon foot print equates to higher growth, voluminous evidence shows this is completely false. so for developing countries that would its people to become better off, should they be allowed to enlarge their carbon foot print on the principle that well off countries got rich by leaving behind enormous carbon foot prints?
These are all issues which needs to be addressed to the satisfaction of highly self interested parties who are no fools for airy rethorics if effective global climate actions is to be undertaken.
1. climate change, anthropogenic or not, will not make the earth uninhabitable. So shrill representation to the effect that it will does not add credibility to the effort to control it,
2. climate change, anthropogenic or not, impose a gradation of costs depending on its severity and speed of its onset. but effort to control it also has gradation of direct economic and indirect opportunity costs somewhat proportional to its probability of success, effectiveness if successful, and time it takes to succeed.
A pursuasive strategy needs to show it minimizes not only the cost of global warming, but the combined cost of global warming AND the effort to minimize it.
Dismissing the cost of efforts to minimize impact of global warming, rethoricalky brushing it under the rug, or otherwise trivializing by exaggerating the cost of not doing anything does not help build the necessary case.
once a case is made for a particular approach, or family of approaches, as being optimal in her sense of minimizing the combined cost of global warming and efforts to control it, there remain the issue of who should pay for the cost of combating global warming.
Some people is harms less by uncontrolled global warming than others, should they therefore pay less towards the effort to combat it? Some people have already done decades of wanton polluting but are comparatively clean now, should they be made to pay for their past pollution or does the recent work to reduce carbon foot print obsolve them of the CO2 they’ve left in the air?
no matter how much irresponsible climate advocates claim low carbon foot print equates to higher growth, voluminous evidence shows this is completely false. so for developing countries that would its people to become better off, should they be allowed to enlarge their carbon foot print on the principle that well off countries got rich by leaving behind enormous carbon foot prints?
These are all issues which needs to be addressed to the satisfaction of highly self interested parties who are no fools for airy rethorics if effective global climate actions is to be undertaken.
