Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

To put it more realistic terms... I just got back into golf last summer. I realized how much I missed the game. And I've realized, like most people, that I kinda suck at it. 

I have the physical talent to be a much better golfer than I am. I'm also reaching a point in my life where I have more time and opportunity to improve my golf game. 

So it's time to set a goal. And that's easy... My goal is to be a scratch (or even plus-handicap) golfer. 

This is like the "lose 30 lbs if you're 30 lbs overweight" goal. That's a lofty goal, but it is one that I should be physically and mentally capable of attaining. It's not like playing professionally; it's not a lotto ticket. 

So... Gotta move to plan. Again, that's easy. Practice at the range and lessons to improve my swing mechanics. Practice short game and putting, which I can do at the same facility. I've bought a putting mat for home practice just to work on mechanics and stroke. Joining an online golf forum in order to learn from others. And of course, playing on-course as much as I can to both apply and refine what I'm doing in off-course practice. 

Finally, we get to the question of "willing to execute the plan sufficiently to meet my goal", and that's where I falter. 

The truth is, I think it'll take MORE time, MORE practice, MORE dedication than I'm willing to put in to get to scratch. I have a job, and a wife, and kids. I probably can't devote enough time to practice or play to get to scratch. 

But I look at this like a weight loss goal... If I keep putting in the work that I'm capable and willing to put in, I can probably drop my handicap significantly from where it is right now. If over the span of 2 years I can cut it in half or by two thirds, I'll go from being a typical weekend duffer to a pretty respectable amateur golfer. Even if my goal is scratch, I'll be improving my enjoyment of the game whether I get to scratch or not. 

Approximately 1.85 percent of male golfers are scratch or better,

the goal is not reasonable or obtainable

That's 1 in 54. And golf is not a game that requires next-level athleticism or insane hand-eye coordination. Just dedication and work.

If we were talking 1 in 540, I'd say it's not reasonable or attainable as a goal. But not 1 in 54.

But as mentioned, I don't know that I have the time to put in that work, so I'm not saying I'll get there. 

A goal of being a scratch golfer iis all fine and dandy, but the current administration's emissions goal is more like-- win as many majors as Tiger, Jack, and Ben combined.  Oh and you don't get to start until you're 80 years old.  Now... GO!

I believe that someone said this earlier in the thread, but I am going to repeat it. What is the primary objective that the goal of cutting carbon emissions is trying to achieve? 

From what I have seen and read, IF the US were to completely cut carbon emissions, it would only have the effect of dropping global mean temps by 1/10th of 1 degree. Is this really something that we want to sacrifice time and treasure to do? This all assumes that climate change is due to man caused actions. Never mind the fact that the earths climate is in a constant state of change and anything we do is like pissing in the wind compared to the effects that the sun has on the climate. 

The fact of the matter is, that unless we take the United States back to the stone age, cutting carbon emissions by 50% in the time frame proposed is not feasible or practical. That does not mean that we should not look to find ways to produce energy cleaner than we do now and eliminate pollution was much as reasonably possible. 

By 2100 the atmospheric CO2 concentration (the gas responsible for most temperature change) will be between 540 and 970 ppm depending on the SRES (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) scenario (see Figure 1)(For a description of the scenarios, see section at the end of this article called Socio-Economic Scenarios).

Projections for Carbon Dioxide – ACER

This probably would be "bad", in my view, but dinking and dunking by the US is not going to be sufficient.  It's a matter of being honest with the data and setting stretch goals that are realistic, if challenging, AND laying out some estimate of the cost:benefit.

If I framed this as "We need to spend $4 trillion to achieve the goal and it will reduce global T by 0.1°F in 30 years", I think most of us would think "Is that worthwhile?"

That doesn't mean we do NOTHING.  It means we should reevaluate our options.  And be realistic.

But isn't the alternative plan just not playing golf at all?

No...?

The alternative plan-- one that could actually be successful-- has not been vocalized as of yet. 

It's a matter of being honest with the data and setting stretch goals that are realistic, if challenging, AND laying out some estimate of the cost:benefit.

This. This is all I'm asking for.

Why is it so hard to get anything like this out of Washington?