args

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

1 ========= Up Front Costs Are a Waste You rescinded any claim to P savings after Q spending. Your only source that warming will ever end is the term "eventually. " 3 ========= There are no solutions You respond that "Research funding is important. Solutions can be found. " Low level research into everything (including the climate) is getting done. This is what low priority looks like: throw out $1B to various folks to see if they can make some miracles. If somebody somewhere in the world ever actually finds a possible solution, The USA (and all nations) should make a deliberate choice about how to implement it. If the new solution really has potential, THEN the USA should bump "fixing the climate" up to a top priority. But, Let's not put blind faith in climate research. Beyond a precipitous return to the stone age, The likelihood of finding a solution is low. 4 ========= My Argument #3 You say the problem "is not measurable. " This is the basis of my next argument. This very vagueness of the CATASTROPHE is a great strength to your side of the question. Since we can't quantify the problem, We also cannot tell whether we've made any progress. The world has spent well over $2T on mitigating the CATASTROPHE so far (1). But no one knows or seems to care about what we have achieved. Can you provide any sources that this global spending has decreased "peak" warming at all? Please keep in mind that updated projections are usually due to changes in calculation, NOT evidence of progress. Because the problem (and progress) are vague, Environmentalists can continue forever to tell us "the sky is falling" and we must "act now" to get the deal. Even if your blessed research does provide a solution, I don"t think environmentalists would If the new solution really has potential, THEN the USA should bump "fixing the climate" up to a top priority. But, Let's not put blind faith in climate research. Beyond a precipitous return to the stone age, The likelihood of finding a solution is low. 4 ========= My Argument #3 You say the problem "is not measurable. " This is the basis of my next argument. This very vagueness of the CATASTROPHE is a great strength to your side of the question. Since we can't quantify the problem, We also cannot tell whether we've made any progress. The world has spent well over $2T on mitigating the CATASTROPHE so far (1). But no one knows or seems to care about what we have achieved. Can you provide any sources that this global spending has decreased "peak" warming at all? Please keep in mind that updated projections are usually due to changes in calculation, NOT evidence of progress. Because the problem (and progress) are vague, Environmentalists can continue forever to tell us "the sky is falling" and we must "act now" to get the deal. Even if your blessed research does provide a solution, I don"t think environmentalists would change their tune at all. They would still say the sky is falling and spout their moral imperatives to "keep the climate stable. " This politics of alarmism worked for the first decade or two, But now it fails to generate enough public support to rise beyond low priority. Therefore, Since costs to date have made zero progress so far (I call them a "bottomless pit"), The USA should keep its Q investments low. Source: According to "Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2017" on the Climate Policy Initiative. Between 2012 and 2016, Just under $2T USD was spent, Including government and private investments.