View Single Post
  #66  
Old September 24th 17, 02:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-09-22 20:36, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Well, it's certainly not a good reason for us to hurt ourselves
economically. Categorizing something as a 'pollutant' for political
reasons is, well merely political.


The costs of repairing damage from weather is far greater. The cost to
argiculture industry due to either excessive flooding or drought is greater.

The cost of rebuilding tunnels in New York because salt water got in and
ruined everything is greater (and impacts people during the years it
takes - note, one subway tunnel has ior is soopmn closing in NYC causing
lots of transit headaches).


Well, when you have a model with actual predictive power outside the
range it was tuned over and have some evidence that the storms you
want to cite have ANYTHING to do with global warming (and you'd have
to differ with the folks who study hurricanes to make that statement)
do get back to me.


Global warming isn't just about the waters not feeling so cold when it
first reaches your toes on the beach. There are real consequences to the
economy


Not so far as anyone can demonstrate, no.


Climate deniers only look at oil/coal company short term profits.


Bull****.


There level is also increasing faster than ours and the Paris Accord
contains NOTHING that requires them to reduce it.


They are reducing the intensity, not the net amount. If the USA has the
right to polute x based on its GDP, then every other nation has the
right to raise its polliution intensity to match the USA's.


China's "pollution intensity" is currently double ours.


During the Bush Jr era, developping nations all pointed to the USA not
having ratified Kyoto as excuse to not participate in climate talks.


This was because without the US giving them money there was nothing in
it for them. Well, there's nothing in it for us.


This is why it was very important for the USA to get on board in order
to get countries whose potential to pollute is far greater than the
USA's to agree to limit themselves to at least the USA's levels. (and
the lower the USA agrees to move its own levels, the less developping
nations can grow theirs).


But that's not true. China (or any other 'less developed' country is
allowed to do pretty much whatever they want. We're not required to
reduce 'intensity'. We're required to reduce actual levels, which
means we're required to reduce our share of global GDP. We're also
required to throw billions of dollars into a black hole at the same
time. So where's the up side for us, again?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn