Thank you for agreeing to the debate. ===We need to keep...
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA
Thank you for agreeing to the debate. ===We need to keep in mind the real choices before us=== Many people think that the climate choices are: A) fix the climate, Or B) head straight for the CATASTROPHE. In contrast, This CNN article (1) describes the real choices: B) best case, Hit the CATASTROPHE in 2100, Or C) real case, Hit the CATASTROPHE some few years later (can anyone tell me how long the delay will be? ) ===Let's review how the three options stack up=== If option A were really possible, Then maybe the USA could rationalize putting a lot of resources on it today. But since a slight delay in 80 years is all we can possibly achieve, The priority of necessity plummets. If we go ahead with option B, We will certainly need to spend resources on the CATASTROPHE. But, It will be to deal with the incremental consequences as they come (let"s call these incremental costs "P"). If we go ahead with option C, We will spend a lot of time and money to slightly delay the CATASTROPHE (let"s call these up front costs "Q"). Nevertheless, Once the delay expires, We will still have to spend the P costs. ===Now, I will conclude my Argument #1=== Every penny of the up front costs Q will be wasted. By definition, Q + P > P. Therefore, I recommend that we not spend Q. Source (1) links not working. The CNN article is called "Earth to warm 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, Studies say" with a dateline of July 31, 2017