Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

Yes, no question that
nitro said:
May we vaya con Dios.


Paris Climate Pact: Too Little, Too Late?

When 195 nations clinched the Paris Agreement in December, it was heralded by some as a monumental achievement—the beginning of a process that would roll back the poisonous fruit of humankind's shortsightedness. Others viewed it as too little, too late.

As officials converge on the United Nations for this week's signing, ominous reports in the four months since have buttressed the doubters: Global warming may hit geological hyperspeed in decades. NASA is projecting that 2016 will break the annual heat record for the third year running; Greenland's ice sheet is experiencing springtime melt weeks earlier than average; and much of West Antarctica is at risk of slipping into the Southern Ocean by 2100, adding a meter to global sea levels. Coastal cities home to millions of people may be underwater during the lifetimes of those born today.

QUICKTAKEA Global Push to Save the Planet


The pact “might not be enough, especially in terms of sea-level rise,” said Rob DeConto, a geoscientist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. DeConto co-wrote the Nature study in March warning of Antarctica's fate. “We really need to go to zero emissions as soon as possible.”

The earth is almost 1 degree centigrade (1.4 Fahrenheit) warmer than it was before the industrial revolution. The Paris accord, at its heart, is about how much warmer we will allow it to become as we retrofit economies to burn less fossil fuel. The negotiators agreed to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees centigrade.”

Scientific disagreements remain, but whether to act isn't one of them. The most important point of contention is precisely how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide. The answer will determine how much time we have left to avoid excessive risk of catastrophe (or, in fact, whether there is any time left at all). Climate Action Tracker is a research group funded by the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and ClimateWorks. In December, its analysts published estimates of what the national climate pledges in Paris add up to. The answer? Not enough.

The world handily overshoots the potentially dangerous “safe” zone of 2 centigrade warming; the lower target of 1.5 centigrade is fantasy.

View attachment 163682

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/paris-climate-pact-too-little-too-late
More...



Oh yeah. We're (meaning people living after us) are screwed. We're whistling in the dark. Not only is not enough being done to reduce emissions, but the positive feedback mechanisms are either being ignored or being underestimated. This is becoming more and more obvious.
 
"Seattle (CNN) Yoram Bauman learned about the idea that would change his life, and the course of the world, as a nerdy undergraduate at Reed College.

The economics professor's pitch was so simple he couldn't shake it.

  • We should make bad stuff more expensive.
  • And, by doing that, make good stuff cheaper.

"I remember thinking that it was such an intellectually beautiful idea," he told me.

It is beautiful. And, as it turns out, this old theory, which dates back at least to the 1920s and an economist named Arthur Pigou, is essential to fixing one of the world's biggest problems.

Bauman, who now is a PhD economist and stand-up comedian (more on that later; and, yes, he does jokes on the Laffer curve), is the force behind a proposal on the ballot this fall in Washington state that would turn this old, elegant concept into what could be the country's smartest climate change policy..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/opinions/sutter-carbon-tax-washington-british-columbia/index.html
 
nitro said:
"Seattle (CNN) Yoram Bauman learned about the idea that would change his life, and the course of the world, as a nerdy undergraduate at Reed College.

The economics professor's pitch was so simple he couldn't shake it.

  • We should make bad stuff more expensive.
  • And, by doing that, make good stuff cheaper.

"I remember thinking that it was such an intellectually beautiful idea," he told me.

It is beautiful. And, as it turns out, this old theory, which dates back at least to the 1920s and an economist named Arthur Pigou, is essential to fixing one of the world's biggest problems.

Bauman, who now is a PhD economist and stand-up comedian (more on that later; and, yes, he does jokes on the Laffer curve), is the force behind a proposal on the ballot this fall in Washington state that would turn this old, elegant concept into what could be the country's smartest climate change policy..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/opinions/sutter-carbon-tax-washington-british-columbia/index.html
More...
When that is done in the private sector it is called price fixing and the companies doing it would be prosecuted under the antitrust laws.
 
fhl said:
Money down the rathole of alternative energy. Nothing but losses. And all based on a scam.

Obama-backed green energy failures leave taxpayers with ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obama-backed-gre...The Washington Times
Apr 27, 2015 - Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole .... was poised to face $4 billion in losses from the loan guarantees. ..... The Gov't didn't even do a proper risk assessment, according to the facts listed in the ...
More...


Simply put, if you think that global warming from the 40% increase of the greenhouse gas CO2 is a scam, you are a colossal idiot. Or a conservative, same thing. You idiots are abetting the destruction of the earth's biosphere and mankind. All because of narrow minded political stupidity.
 
nitro said:
"Seattle (CNN) Yoram Bauman learned about the idea that would change his life, and the course of the world, as a nerdy undergraduate at Reed College.

The economics professor's pitch was so simple he couldn't shake it.

  • We should make bad stuff more expensive.
  • And, by doing that, make good stuff cheaper.

"I remember thinking that it was such an intellectually beautiful idea," he told me.

It is beautiful. And, as it turns out, this old theory, which dates back at least to the 1920s and an economist named Arthur Pigou, is essential to fixing one of the world's biggest problems.

Bauman, who now is a PhD economist and stand-up comedian (more on that later; and, yes, he does jokes on the Laffer curve), is the force behind a proposal on the ballot this fall in Washington state that would turn this old, elegant concept into what could be the country's smartest climate change policy..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/opinions/sutter-carbon-tax-washington-british-columbia/index.html
More...

Yes. Right now we are not paying for the true destructive results of CO2 emissions. The equation is missing a factor. Once carbon is taxed to reflect it's true cost the other sources will quickly fill the void and become cheaper and the result of the equation will be correct.
 
fhl said:
Money down the rathole of alternative energy. Nothing but losses. And all based on a scam.

Obama-backed green energy failures leave taxpayers with ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obama-backed-gre...The Washington Times
Apr 27, 2015 - Obama clean energy loans leave taxpayers in $2.2 billion hole .... was poised to face $4 billion in losses from the loan guarantees. ..... The Gov't didn't even do a proper risk assessment, according to the facts listed in the ...
More...

Obama's funding of "green energy" companies is one of the biggest examples of crony capitalism in the history of the United States. The deals were all structured so that the federal government would take the entire hit if the companies failed with the other investors completely bailed out & profitable. If the company succeeded then the federal government would participate in none of the upside and all the profit went to the other investors. Of course the private investors, venture partners, and company officers in these deals were all friends and buddies of Obama or other Washington insiders.
 
nitro said:
"Seattle (CNN) Yoram Bauman learned about the idea that would change his life, and the course of the world, as a nerdy undergraduate at Reed College.

The economics professor's pitch was so simple he couldn't shake it.

  • We should make bad stuff more expensive.
  • And, by doing that, make good stuff cheaper.

"I remember thinking that it was such an intellectually beautiful idea," he told me.

It is beautiful. And, as it turns out, this old theory, which dates back at least to the 1920s and an economist named Arthur Pigou, is essential to fixing one of the world's biggest problems.

Bauman, who now is a PhD economist and stand-up comedian (more on that later; and, yes, he does jokes on the Laffer curve), is the force behind a proposal on the ballot this fall in Washington state that would turn this old, elegant concept into what could be the country's smartest climate change policy..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/opinions/sutter-carbon-tax-washington-british-columbia/index.html
More...
There is of course nothing new in this idea. And it works. For example, Western European nations have for many decades heavily taxed gasoline and used the proceeds to subsidize far more efficient mass transit. This kind of socialist thinking is not likely to catch on in the U.S. until there is some kind of crisis. It's just that it is not an attractive idea to some special interests in the U.S. such as car manufacturers, the oil industry, and the airlines. In the U.S, we are more likely to turn such ideas on their head. For example, cash for clunkers. This program was sold as improving car mileage, which it did to a small extent, as cars and pickups with poorer mileage were scraped and traded for new cars and pickups with somewhat better mileage, but in the end the program as a whole was hugely energy inefficient. It did help get the U.S. automobile manufacturing industry back on its feet however. Cash for clunkers is the opposite direction one should go in if one is interested in the environment and energy efficiency.
 
gwb-trading said:
Obama's funding of "green energy" companies is one of the biggest examples of crony capitalism in the history of the United States. The deals were all structured so that the federal government would take the entire hit if the companies failed with the other investors completely bailed out & profitable. If the company succeeded then the federal government would participate in none of the upside and all the profit went to the other investors. Of course the private investors, venture partners, and company officers in these deals were all friends and buddies of Obama or other Washington insiders.
More...
At a few billion it is probably dwarfed by more pernicious forms of corporate welfare. That of course is not a justification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top