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

This is a nice problem synopsis, but my point remains.  Just saying this would be bad and we HAVE to do something is, to me, just burfle.  What IS the something?  How much would it cost?  What would be the benefit?

I realize these are tough and uncomfortable questions, but they need to be addressed by someone at some point IF there is to be general support for any effort.

It's not that they are uncomfortable, just sort of too simplistic. What is "cost" in this circumstance? Dollars? How many dollars do we spend on carbon generating activities. If we limit those, are we spending money? If we cap or tax carbon emissions and it leads to say, new developments in fusion reactors, which drastically cut the need for fossil fuels - did we spend money, save money, lose money? There is no price tag on a policy such as this - it is more like dealing with COVID where we simply make tradeoffs and go for the least bad.


Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing. It is not at any sort of homeostasis and if this pattern continues it would seem to have very bad consequences. It's not burfle to admit this reality, nor is it burfle to suggest that focusing on things we can control is probably more effective and than focusing on results we can't control. 

But, as I've previously said, the state of US politics is such that no idea about it will go anywhere. Even relatively minor policy changes are a nonstarter, and I don't think it has anything to do with plans being too optimistic.

Science is (supposed to be) processed based. In that, you try to control every variable you can and then change one and then see what happens. It is not the opposite, where you hope for a predetermined result and then make experiments which show that result.

As far as other countries, why would any other country listen to us when we aren't united in any way on the issue? A Republican president or legislature getting elected would end any sort of policy on the matter, and it is typically unwise to make some sort of agreement with a party that is likely to be broken (as any agreement with us would be).

why is it up to the US

we have decreased carbon emissions by 5% over the last 10 years

why dont they see that and follow suit

Despite some major efforts and spending, you can see the progress by any European country has been relatively modest, certainly no major decline over a nine year period.

Russia did well.  Oops.

Russia also contracted geographically a lot, don't know if that is corrected.

But nobody otherwise has shown a marked drop in CO2 emissions to date.

China and India account for over 35% of carbon emissions

Its clear to me they have absolutely no intention of reducing carbon emissions 

If it is to be a successful global effort they will have to get on board

But nobody otherwise has shown a marked drop in CO2 emissions to date.

But most have been showing steady per-capita reductions. 

Will it be enough? Probably not. Will it buy more time to get to what might be "enough" (i.e. some technological advance that really tips the scales the other way)? Also probably not, but every extra year of time is good here.

Climate is everything | Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com)

Noting how all of societal ills get blamed on climate change to suggest if we solve climate we solve everything else, in effect.