John Kerry's Straw Man Arguments for Wasting Money on Climate Change

Mish

It's cheaper to deal with the crisis of climate than it is to ignore it, says John Kerry. Let's explore his thought process.

Cheaper to Deal With It Now

Kerry's Comments

  • "There are countless economic analyses now that show it's now cheaper to deal with the crisis of climate than it is to ignore it."
  • "We spent $265 billion 2 years ago on 3 storms, Irma, Harvey, and Maria. Maria destroyed Puerto Rico. Harvey dropped more water on Houston in five days than goes over Niagara Falls in a year. And Irma had the first recorded winds of 185 miles an hour for 24 sustained hours."
  • "All of them were exacerbated by the last four years. Now we have to try to make up for that. That is a hard pull but this president is capable of doing it."

Straw Man Fallacies

Implied in Kerry's straw man analysis is implicit belief that addressing "climate change" would have prevented Irma, Harvey, Maria, and the wildfires in California.

Where is the CO2 coming from? 

Annual CO2 Emissions2

CO2 Stats

  • Please note that the US reduced its carbon footprint from 6.13 billion tons in 2007 to 5.28 billion tons in 2019.
  • Meanwhile, China increased its footprint from 6.86 billion tons in 2019 to 10.17 billion tons in 2019.
  • In the same timeframe, global output rose from 31.29 billion tons to 36.44 billion tons.
  • In 2007, the US accounted for 19.6% of the total global carbon footprint.
  • In 2019, the US accounted for only 14.5% of the total global footprint.

The above stats are from Our World CO2 Emissions.

The US could eliminate its entire carbon footprint tomorrow and it would not even matter (except of course, the entire global economy would crash).

How Much Money is Needed?

Kerry did not say how much money he needed, only that we have to make up for the last four years. Lovely.

The implied assumption is we will quickly stop hurricanes by throwing money at the problem.

We better hurry too, because we lost four years. What a hoot.

AOC's Green New Deal Pricetag

Please recall AOC's Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing

Climate Change Religion

Climate change is a religion. I doubt I can change any minds about what is happening,

But politicians don't solve problems so it is unwise to have any faith in their proposed solutions. If there is a solution, the free market will find it.

If after reading this, you think the US can spend enough to stop hurricanes that have been happening for billions of years, you need to have your head examined.

What You Can Do

At the personal level, if you are still devoted to addressing climate change, I have some practical suggestions: Don't fly; don't drive; don't have kids; Don't eat and don't breathe.

The latter is especially important. CO2 comes out with every breath. Having kids is the single worst thing you can do.

Are you still committed to the cause?

Reader Q&A

Where I Stand

Mish

Comments (236)
No. 1-50
Clearbox
Clearbox

Mish, I completely understand your math above and I agree with it. Overall, if other countries (China) are threatening the global carbon footprint, what can America (I'm Canadian) do obectively to influence this situation. Forget Kerry and PR, I'm talking about tangible things that entrepreneurs and other can do to change the landscape? Economically does it make sense for us to put the power of capitalism to work, and make viable technologies that are more carbon efficient, create new carbon storage capabilities? What is the economic solution here? I don't see carbon pricing as anything more than a tax. Your argument doesn't seem to be that there isn't a carbon problem, it's that spending tons of money on unkown programs are bad... If I'm wrong correct me and grateful to hear your thoughts.

Clearbox
Clearbox

Mish, I completely understand your math above and I agree with it. Overall, if other countries (China) are threatening the global carbon footprint, what can America (I'm Canadian) do obectively to influence this situation. Forget Kerry and PR, I'm talking about tangible things that entrepreneurs and other can do to change the landscape? Economically does it make sense for us to put the power of capitalism to work, and make viable technologies that are more carbon efficient, create new carbon storage capabilities? What is the economic solution here? I don't see carbon pricing as anything more than a tax. Your argument doesn't seem to be that there isn't a carbon problem, it's that spending tons of money on unkown programs are bad... If I'm wrong correct me and grateful to hear your thoughts.

PecuniaNonOlet
PecuniaNonOlet

“ Don't fly; don't drive; don't have kids; Don't eat and don't breathe.”

All those things you listed are the same for ridding ourselves of coronavirus. Are you doing those things to end rona?

Unless some miracle technology shows up in the next decade for co2, the planet is beyond the point of repair.

I laughed at Al Gore back in 2000, today I am crying. How long before people reach the same point, that will illustrate intelligence level.

amigator
amigator

Great numbers Mish excellent work.

While we were not in the Paris Climate Accord our numbers seem to have stabilized if not even dropped a bit. Do we have any dollars it is costing us to be part of this accord? What is everyone else contributing. Note we are below Europe! Hopefully contributions are based on the carbon footprints of the participants the bigger the foot print the bigger the contribution!

The are setting up for a TAX that will be with us well beyond anything that can be attributed to climate change.

Scooot
Scooot

“Don't fly; don't drive; don't have kids; Don't eat and don't breathe.”

Maybe I’m mistaken but I thought some Co2 was good? They’re not trying to eradicate it completely.

Quanta
Quanta

I haven't seen more disagreeable economic analysis that the one presented on climate change here. Let's all jump into planet destruction abyss, just because China isn't doing enough right now. Developing suitable technology , at lower cost, takes time. Someone has to take the lead and invest the money, whether U.S. or EU or both. China will catch up given time, there are progressives in China too. When people start dying in the billions from climate change, let's not forget that China has 1.4Billion people ready to start dying from it too.

Just because renewable technologies are more expensive, doesn't mean that some countries don't need to "take it for the team" initially, such as U.S. Within a few decades the problem will become more urgent, and even those countries not doing sufficiently right now will need to take action (China).

Eddie_T
Eddie_T

I spent months last year figuring out what is real and what isn’t with regards to climate change. There are almost no analysts who get it right. Everybody is partisan, on one side or the other....with a few notable exceptions.

I read the summaries of ALL the IPCC reports..back to the beginning, and looked at all the scenarios, and then looked at the 30 years of data that have come out since the beginning.

MY take....climate change is real and ongoing.....although the worst case models are not playing out....but it’s bad enough.

My best takeaway.....it's the tipping points that matter. At some point climate change that leads to human extinction becomes literally baked into the cake. And even though we know a lot....nobody in climate science...nobody at all in fact....knows exactly where the tipping points are that lead to irreversible warming.

The fear being sold.....that famines are imminent due to climate change.....that sea level rise is going to destroy all the coastal cities......blah, blah....it’s all rubbish. All the really bad things won’t happen for some time....but if we don’t do something...and something meaningful.....such a time will come. A few hundred years is not that long a time.....

With that said, it seems to make sense to reduce carbon emissions insomuch as it’s possible without crashing civilization.

How we do it? Therein lies the rub. The Green New Deal is pork. Whatever we do is likely to include a lot of pork.....because it’s really pork that drives the political class.

"Don’t fly”

There do seem to be ways to reduce carbon emission for air travel that will make a difference.

“Don’t drive.”

This is the single worst one....and really the easiiet to change, when it comes down to it.....but it won’t happen on our watch, unless we live to great old age. Humans are addicted to the convenience of cars. EV’s are not a complete solution, but they do help.

"Don’t have kids.”

Too late. I had lots of kids. I wanted for there to be some people in the next generation like us....meaning intelligent and thoughtful and capable of making a difference. The stupid people reproduce like rabbits......it’s the only thing they’re good at....sorry if this sounds elitist.....but it is absolutely true.....and that’s what survival of the fittest means, actually.....the lines survive that reproduce.

So to me it’s quite ironic that people choose to not have children....and feel good about saving the planet. It begs the question of....who exactly are they saving it for?..

“Don’t eat”

You can make that argument for being vegan. It makes some sense from a climate change perspective., other than that our bodies never evolved for that, and it does create certain health problems.

Me? I live for prime rib. Every Friday night.....it’s one of my most important rituals. Talk about religion. Once again, if you have to give up everything that makes life sweet, what’s the point?

“Don’t breathe.”

I think we can discount that one as a primary driver of climate change....so breathe deep. Breathing is underrated......air is the best drug there is....and almost nobody realizes it.....it’s like the joke about the two fish...

TanksAndSpartans
TanksAndSpartans

"Don't fly; don't drive; don't have kids; Don't eat and don't breathe."

Mish,

I like what you said about markets better than the hyperbole above. But will the market find a solution without changing the incentives not to subsidize companies that add to the problem? What about nuclear?

Neoliberal Elitist
Neoliberal Elitist

The climate change argument can be broken down into two basic camps.

Camp 1 argues that the planet is for those who are alive today, and it’s okay to leave a wrecked planet behind and live it up today because we won’t survive to see the worst.

Camp 2 argues that we have an obligation to preserve a livrable planet for future generations, and should do more to improve our prospects by making modest investments to shift to a zero-carbon world.

I’m in camp 2.

Eddie_T
Eddie_T

I meant to mention that I really like Mallen Baker on climate change. I’ve never heard him say anything that I strongly disagreed with on this subject.

TexasTim65
TexasTim65

Excellent article Mish. It seems some people don't get the tongue in cheek 4 point comments at the end in the manner in which you intended.

A lot of that carbon increase since 1950 mirrors world population increase (2 billion - 7.8) with a lot of the rest being China/India industrializing (joining the modern world to live the American lifestyle). If forecasts are right and population is going to 9+ billion by 2100 imagine how much higher carbon is going even if we don't increase by anything (and Africa is definitely going to increase a lot in coming decades).

The biggest problem is there is zero plan. I know a bunch of people will say there is a plan but all I read right now are plans to tax (or credits) with the idea that the tax will go to climate change. I want to see an actual plan (just as my boss would want to see a plan if I said I wanted to spend 100K on something I said was amiss) that says we are going to do X and it will reduce by Y.

Also note that renewables (wind/solar) are really just replaceables because they have to be replaced in 10-20 years. That means endless mining of materials which uses lots of fossil fuels. The carbon costs on these are just hidden instead of coming directly out of your tailpipe.

Ultimately the problem will solve itself if left alone. We'll overpopulate until disease/war/famine wipe out billions or fossil fuels will deplete. Either one will reduce carbon emissions.

Frilton Miedman
Frilton Miedman

I'd like to be wrong here, but this bears mention.

We cannot get existing atmospheric carbon out, global warming isn't going to slow enough to stop a chain reaction currently in place.

There's a layer of C12 in the Earth from the Permian-Triassic extinction, C12 can only come from methane.

The trigger for the Permian-Triassic event was a super-volcano, this then heated the planet enough to melt global Methane-Hydrate deposits, this accounts for that layer of C!2.

Channel surfing a year ago, I bumped into the Science Channel's "What on Earth", a show that uses satellite footage of strange anomalies.

This episode featured a strange, recent effect in Siberia, lakes "boiling".

They had researchers visit one, turns out the boiling effect is methane seeping up from melted deposits.

Methane is conservatively estimated as 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2, there are literally gigatons of it frozen in oceans and permafrost layers globally.

My point, yes it's a great idea to reduce emissions, but more so we need to start prepping for a global temperature increase specifically for agriculture.

South America is already experiencing mass droughts, this is a large factor in the "caravans" of immigrants from Guatemala & Honduras.

.We need to start looking at farming alternatives for climates they are about to dramatically change, rain patterns, temperature increases will all change agriculture.

We need scientists in D.C., not oil lobbyists.

njbr
njbr

You do realize the US has outsourced it's CO2 production to places like China?

Things you buy from China have a carbon footprint that does trace back to the US.

njbr
njbr

The other largely undiscussed MAJOR co2 and methane sources that are controlled in the US are unconventional oil gas and oil production practices (fracking).

Billions of cubic feet of natural gas are flared off from operating drill sites. Much more leaks out at abandoned drill sites. Now this is not only polluting and increasing the carbon load in the atmosphere, it is economically wasteful.

That's energy and chemical resources that are being allowed to dissipate into the atmosphere or burned off.

Capturing and eliminating that waste of resources is where resources should be placed, and yes, money is required to do so.

....In 2018, the oil and gas industry operating in North Dakota’s Bakken Shale burned off record amounts of natural gas, largely obtained via hydraulic fracturing (fracking). This process, known as flaring, costs the industry money — it literally burns one of the products being pumped out of the ground — but more importantly, the resulting release of globe-warming emissions of carbon dioxide and methane spells disaster for the climate.

And a new analysis of satellite evidence indicates the industry is likely underreporting how much gas it is actually flaring in the Permian Shale, with implications for other oil fields.

According to the Bismarck Tribune, the amount of gas flared in North Dakota in October was enough to heat 4.25 million homes in America. And while the fracking industry in North Dakota is flaring the most gas in the nation, it's not the only place this is a growing issue. Flaring reportedly also doubled in 2018 in the booming Permian Shale in Texas and New Mexico, with an estimated $1 million a day of gas burned off.

In addition, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) recently analyzed satellite data and concluded that the industry is likely underreporting the actual volumes of gas flared in the Permian. EDF says that the real numbers are closer to double what the industry reports......

lurkin Lurch
lurkin Lurch

Hey folks if you want to know if Climate Change is real just ask your fellow citizens who live in Alaska. The so-called 'permafrost' i.e. the frozen ground that hasn't melted in about 100,000 years is now melting and wreaking havoc with real people and the environment. Not too mention releasing lots of methane which is actually worse than CO2.
If you think all climate scientists are politically motivated you are living in the same kind of bubble as the QANON folks.

Doug78
Doug78

Bacteria love to eat methane so they take it up and spit out CO2 fairly quickly.

Sechel
Sechel

There's plenty of low hanging fruit such as ending flaring , embracing co-gen and tri-gen etc. Cogen and Trigen can actually save huge amounts of money in the right circumstances.

I guess you either believe the data or you don't in terms of global warming. You don't.

As far as China's concerned. They need to do more as well. I don't buy the argument that the U.S. shouldn't act responsibly because China isn't. That's like saying you want to jump off the roo because your friend is. Kerry has it right, set the right example and engage China. I think China does want to do more. China and the U.S. can certainly compartmentalize our discussions and being military adverarsaries doesn't mean we can't cooperate on the environment.

Sechel
Sechel

U.S. continued to make progress despite Trump rom 2016-2020. States still made efforts and corporation did as well because of shareholder activim. Beore 2016 we were still coming out of a financial crisis. I'm not sure what you think your data proves. Trump actually tried to sue GM for trying to reduce emissions. It was absurd.

Doug78
Doug78

I am with Mish on this one. Third world countries will continue to use oil and coal a while longer so CO2 will go up no matter what we do. Nevertheless we should limit our CO2 as a matter of course. The rub is that it would price our products above those of countries who do not limit themselves so a rather sever monitoring of imports from them has to be put in place.

I do not adhere to the apocalypse scenarios one often sees. We could put everyone on Earth in an area the size of Texas and each having a yard and a house so pure space is not a problem when you think about it. Population growth rates are falling just about everywhere. Same thing for food. There are start-ups in the US and elsewhere producing indoor fruit and vegetables giving a yield 18 times that of regular farming without using pesticides and 90% less water so I don't think food will be a problem. If the seas rise then we move back as humanity has always done. Temperatures will rise somewhat but people seem to like hot places like Phoenix or Florida because they like the weather. There will just be more places like that. Energy is everywhere in different forms. It's just a matter of price and that itself is a matter of technology. We can adapt and will do it if we have some leaders that are competent. Kerry unfortunately isn't one of them but I think he is there to just do a song and dance to keep the reporters happy while the real work gets done out of sight.

AnotherJoe
AnotherJoe

Mish how about posting the per capita/country CO₂ emissions just to be fair.

Eddie_T
Eddie_T

I like to read qualified critics...of “accepted” broad scientific consensus opinions.

I didn’t say deniers.....I didn’t say skeptics....but anytime widely held beliefs are strong enough to actually influence science to the point of silencing legitimate voices....and I do that is true in climate science these days...I like to look for reasonable voices of dissent.

When it comes to climate, I think there is one who stands out....and who is really a good scientist.....and that one is Judith Curry. When I was studying climate change, I read her blog all the time. Here lately I haven’t been.....looks like she has a lot to say about COVID too.

Whatever she says, her conclusions are always driven by data....and she is very capable of critiquing the design of research studies. She is retired now, and posts a lot of things on her blog by people who are critical of mainstream climate science...with her notes and critiques...I have found her well worth reading.

Doug78
Doug78

I'll believe it when I see it. Talk is cheap and that is all we have had from China.

Doug78
Doug78

Do you know what happened to the Amazon during the Ice Age? It collapsed down to a few refuges but expanded back when conditions got warmer. That what climate does. It is never static.

strataland
strataland

A great portion of the world population lives in poverty or is hungry. These people don't give a rip about climate change. They and their leaders want what you and I have, food, shelter, clean water, heat, opportunity. They will use fossil fuels to get there without reservation, just like we and our forefathers did to get us here. Perhaps the best thing we can do is raise as many people out of poverty, hunger and thirst to increase the numbers that care bout the issue.

PecuniaNonOlet
PecuniaNonOlet

Lots of interesting ideas and comments. Let me summarize:

  1. The free market will save us! Too bad it hasnt saved us these past 75 years of rising co2
  2. Government will save us! Too bad that hasnt solved anything either!
  3. The science is not real! Too bad co2 in atmosphere keeps rising for it being fake.
  4. Science will save us! Science hasnt done a damn thing to fix problem
  5. Nothing bad will happen! You havent been paying attention.

As you can see from all the comments, there is little hope. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

Doug78
Doug78

Top 5 richest people:
-Elon Musk
-Jeff Bezos
-Bill Gates
-Bernard Arnault
-Retard6969

Sechel
Sechel

Hyperbole? It's not about stopping hurricanes which only black sharpies can do but reducing the frequency.

If after reading this, you think the US can spend enough to stop hurricanes that have been happening for billions of years, you need to have your head examined.

What You Can Do

Or we can design vehicles that consume less fuel or use renewables which also benefits airline costs. Same for trains and automobiles More strawman and hyperbole or rant

At the personal level, if you are still devoted to addressing climate change, I have some practical suggestions: Don't fly; don't drive; don't have kids; Don't eat and don't breathe.

Corvinus
Corvinus

if the earth really is getting warmer then doesn't that mean alot more land in northern latitudes gets more viable for farming? Like Canadian tundra and a large swath of northern Russia?

numike
numike

Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get
Robert Heinlein

Jojo
Jojo

We can kill global warming by switching to hydrogen power for everything. Electric batteries isn't the answer. Hydrogen is.

numike
numike

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Robert Frost

Dodge Demon
Dodge Demon

Great. Lets get the big wind turbines installed tip-to-tip just off the coasts around the whole county, including Martha’s Vineyard, The Hamptons, Puget Sound, etc. We already have them in Lafayette Indiana.

Call_me_Al
Call_me_Al

The emphasis on CO2 levels is a result of certain interests trying to monetize this aspect of the environmental movement. Cap-and-trade and other proposals are first about extracting $ from a new source. The planetary climate is a complex system of complex systems so it's foolish to think that one variable is the key to all this.

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is important, the increased load of aerosols (black, gray, brown, etc) is important, land use change is important (and underappreciated), and so are many more things that are known and unknown to us at this time.

If Kerry cared about the issue, he'd walk the walk and not just talk the talk as this generation's Gore. He's just another politician spokesman.

MacPacAttack
MacPacAttack

Great piece Mish! The heretics are called "deniers" and the UN Climate Czars are the high priests of this new religion, promoted to enrich the global elite at the cost of enslaving and impoverishing the masses.

Realist
Realist

I wish I had time to respond earlier. And I wish I had more time now as well.

The science is clear. Global warming and climate change is an accelerating problem, which is going to cause a lot of economic and human stress.

It is a global problem, which requires a global solution, which requires global cooperation. As such, I hold out very little hope that we will do much about it. Therefore it will continue to get much worse throughout my lifetime and the lifetimes of my children and grandchildren.

You can see the difficulty of this issue in the variety of comments above. Everyone wants someone else to solve problem and blames everyone else.

Just like Trump's approach to the pandemic, ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

MacPacAttack
MacPacAttack

The climate is always changing my friend, always has and always will. it has nothing to do with anything we do as humans. The planet is infinitely capable of absorbing massive infusions of pollutants such as when a volcano erupts. I suggest you find a different hobby, or perhaps take a time-out to learn how real science works.

Steelcurtain67
Steelcurtain67

There is NO doubt that humans are contributing to global warming. The science is 100% experimentally proven.

  1. Humans burn fossil fuels which produces carbon dioxide.
  2. The earth cools by emitting infrared radiation.
  3. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it absorbs and then emits infrared radiation) at some of the same wavelengths that the earth emits.
  4. Infrared radiation absorbed by a is quickly re-emitted by gases in all directions so some of the absorbed photons are emitted back to earth which thus is warmed.

This was never a controversial fact until it became clear that the amount of CO2 being released was enough to heat the earth sufficiently to cause problems. It has been known for over a century.

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. Since he was Swedish he thought it might be a good thing. Google the title below to get a PDF of his paper published in 1896.

Arrhenius, Svante (1896). "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" (PDF). The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. 41 (251): 237–276.

Call_me_Al
Call_me_Al

It really is a shame that the subject of anthropogenic influence on global climate is just a political football. Way too many people tend to process 'new' information by determining how it aligns with their preexisting viewpoint and then praise or condemn/ignore said information accordingly.

Here's an open question - when was the last time you came across an article or data set that caused you to thoughtfully adjust your personal viewpoint on the subject of human-related climate change and what was the subject matter?

Democritus
Democritus

Mish,
Free market solves a whole lot of problems but not common meadow problems. The atmosphere is a common meadow. If only one could give chop the atmosphere into pieces, starting 100 pieces per human, then the free market would do the rest.

ToInfinityandBeyond
ToInfinityandBeyond

I have to disagree with you on this one Mish. There is no doubt that average temperatures throughout the world are on an upward trajectory. Polar ice is melting and Antarctica glaciers are spawning sizable icebergs. All this has dire implications for rising sea levels, storm intensities and disruption of world agriculture. Doing nothing will only exacerbate and accelerate the problem. Spending money responsibly can be somewhat of a stimulus to the US economy although I do have misgivings about the government spending any of our tax dollars. Burying our heads in the sand and hoping things don’t get worse is not a solution. As the old saying going - every little helps. It is not as though we have a Plan(et) B.

Steelcurtain67
Steelcurtain67

Regenerative Agriculture and Global Warming

Since a lot of people are interested in this topic I thought I should post some links that show how to stop global warming while sequestering the excess CO2 in the air. The first link below is to one of Gabe Browns talks, he is a speaker at many soil health conferences. He has developed the/a regenerative approach to farming his 5000 acres in Bismark North Dakota. He uses no fertilizer, pesticides or fungicides and gets above average yields.
The second video is by Dr. David C Johnson of the New Mexico State University. He presents the scientific basis for much of what Gabe Brown has done.
This is a real solution to global warming that would increase from income, increase crop yields and provide much more nutritional food. However, as it would eliminate the chemical fertilizer and pesticide agro-industrial complex, don’t expect it to happen any time soon.

Gabe Brown: Keys To Building a Healthy Soil

Static Pile Fungal Compost Presentation

Maybe you could look into this Mish and do a post on it. Would eliminate the need for Kerry to spend all those billions!

Steelcurtain67
Steelcurtain67

Arggh I posted a comment with some text only and it's showing up with links to the middle of the presentations. I don't know how to fix, sorry.

asforecasts
asforecasts

Mish,
What will be the impact on my electric bill? I am thinking about buying lithium batteries before the price hikes begin...

renewableguy
renewableguy

[At the personal level, if you are still devoted to addressing climate change, I have some practical suggestions: Don't fly; don't drive; don't have kids; Don't eat and don't breathe.

The latter is especially important. CO2 comes out with every breath. Having kids is the single worst thing you can do.]

This comment does not take into account the natural carbon cycle. Cars can be electric, this works very well. Heating homes can be heated with heat pumps. Electric flying is in its infancy, yet comercial flying has already started on short trips. Battery electric flying is way cheaper than running on fossil fuels. This weekend I will be driving 185 miles in my electric car to see my family for the week. A charging port is set up so that I can charge off my family's house. One step at a time and I can get off of fossil fuels.

renewableguy
renewableguy

[Climate Change Religion

Climate change is a religion. I doubt I can change any minds about what is happening,

But politicians don't solve problems so it is unwise to have any faith in their proposed solutions. If there is a solution, the free market will find it.

If after reading this, you think the US can spend enough to stop hurricanes that have been happening for billions of years, you need to have your head examined.]

CO2 is the culprit in our warming earth. CO2 explains the past, present and future of our climate. Quitting co2 shuts down the thermostat of warming the earth. The warming earth melts ice, giving us sea level rise along with other symptoms. Things get worse with time as long as we pollute with co2.

renewableguy
renewableguy

[How Much Money is Needed?

Kerry did not say how much money he needed, only that we have to make up for the last four years. Lovely.

The implied assumption is we will quickly stop hurricanes by throwing money at the problem.

We better hurry too, because we lost four years. What a hoot.]

The cost of the damge to our climate is way worse than the cost of correction to clean energy.

renewableguy
renewableguy

[CO2 Stats

Please note that the US reduced its carbon footprint from 6.13 billion tons in 2007 to 5.28 billion tons in 2019.
Meanwhile, China increased its footprint from 6.86 billion tons in 2019 to 10.17 billion tons in 2019.
In the same timeframe, global output rose from 31.29 billion tons to 36.44 billion tons.
In 2007, the US accounted for 19.6% of the total global carbon footprint.
In 2019, the US accounted for only 14.5% of the total global footprint.]

We should reach zero first before everyone else.