args

"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

Closing Arguments A === Minimal Scientific Consensus Two times (here and in another debate of mine) you referred to the consensus from "98% of climate scientists. " But all Science tells us for sure is that there is some warming and some of it is our fault. Beyond that, There is no consensus. Science does not agree on the size of warming--neither overall, Nor from humans; not on the CATASTOPHE--not P and Q costs, Climate-related deaths, When it will occur, Or lost hectares of livable and arable land; not on the path forward--neither an emissions target, Nor viable ways to achieve it. B === Your Pathetic Solutions You seem unfamiliar with solutions to what you call "the highest priority for any country. " You cited 2 kinds of solutions: known failures (solar dimming, Storing CO2 underground, Planting trees), And preposterous ideas (Sahara Desert solar panels, Dyson Spheres). I said I'm willing to spend money on planting trees. I consider this very different than "fixing the climate. " If planting really works to fix the climate, Then why do we need ANY climate research? C === Open Questions You seem unfamiliar with world progress against what you call "the highest priority for any country. " I ask again, What has $2T bought us so far? If nothing, Then we should not waste any more money, Or we should fall back to planting trees. If it is unknown, Then environmentalists are not really concerned with progress, And climate spending is a bottomless pit. In Round 4, I expressed willingness to cap future USA spending at $150B. You retorted that this qualifies as "high priority. " Is the USA halfway done then? I doubt you believe that. D === Power? One of the main reasons I don't want to pursue fixing the climate is the transfer of power from people to government. The most common "solutions" offered in politics are raising taxes and government spending. These all have dubious benefit to the climate, But they CERTAINLY increase the power of governments. Clearly the politics of climate are questionable. This is a serious concern for many people in the USA. E === Better Priorities While you think that "fixing the climate" should be THE highest, There are many other projects that are should be higher, Considering both the money and moral sides. The moral side is based on life-and-death consequences. The financial side is based on immediately viable solutions and low cost per saved-life. The TED talk "Global priorities bigger than climate change" provides the following recommendations. The U. N. Estimates that for half the cost of "fixing the climate, " we could solve all these world problems and more: --- AIDS --- $3. 4B prevents 3. 5 million new AIDS cases per year --- Malnutrition --- $12B buys health for about half of cases worldwide --- Poverty --- Reducing tariffs in USA and Europe (no govt spending, Just higher prices in the 1st World) raises 300 million people out of poverty in five years --- Malaria --- $3B buys about 1 million saved lives per year