Maybe—But it Also Forced Nations to Use More of Some of the Dirtiest Fossil Fuels and Harmed the Kind of International Cooperation Necessary to Fight Climate Change
You are misrepresenting climate science. Climate change does not have "Catastrophic" consequences. It has negative economic onsequences but they are small compared to other factors. For a temperature change of 2.7 degree C the negative impact will be about 2 % of global GDP at a time when global GPD is 5 to 10 times higher than now:
You are also misrepresenting the complexity and costs of using intermittent socalled renewables as wind and solar. Which can not supply a modern society with energy without backup, which makes them prohibitively expensive.
All said and with Nordhaus a forced planeconomic net-zero policy wil make the global society much worse of than global warming, which a rich and smart world easily and cheaply can adapt to:
I must agree with Karl here as not only do you hyperbolize the potential consequences of a marginal increase in a trace element in the atmosphere, but you rely on the IPCC, an organization whose forecasting record makes the Fed seem like it has perfect foresight of the US economy over the next decades.
Secondly, the idea that China actually cares at all about climate change seems highly illogical. if we have learned nothing about President Xi Jinping, it is that he will do whatever he believes is necessary to increase the Chinese economy's growth patterns and that includes burning as much locally produced coal as necessary to keep the heat and lights on.
Finally, if the goal of society, for whatever reason, is to reduce its carbon footprint, there is only one solution; Nuclear. All efforts should be made to streamline the process to build out new nuclear power plants of all designs and they could easily be sited where currently sit coal-fired stations, which means the grid would be easily connected. that the Germans and Belgians are so extraordinarily stupid to shut down their perfectly working nuclear plants means they deserve to suffer the consequences of high priced and scarce energy for their people, but that doesn't mean that elsewhere in the world, we should jump off the same cliff. The idea that moving from a highly energy dense process, like burning natural gas, or even more so like nuclear power production, to lower energy density technologies like wind and solar is a de facto effort to reduce the living standards of everybody on the planet (except I guess for those who are making the decision and will not bear the consequences.)
From where are you pulling the statement that a 2.7 degree Celsius increase will be "displacing tens or hundreds of millions of people"? This seems like a far-fetched and low quality post compared to the excellent stuff you usually post. Please do better than this, Joey!
You are misrepresenting climate science. Climate change does not have "Catastrophic" consequences. It has negative economic onsequences but they are small compared to other factors. For a temperature change of 2.7 degree C the negative impact will be about 2 % of global GDP at a time when global GPD is 5 to 10 times higher than now:
You are also misrepresenting the complexity and costs of using intermittent socalled renewables as wind and solar. Which can not supply a modern society with energy without backup, which makes them prohibitively expensive.
All said and with Nordhaus a forced planeconomic net-zero policy wil make the global society much worse of than global warming, which a rich and smart world easily and cheaply can adapt to:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340900993_Welfare_in_the_21st_century_Increasing_development_reducing_inequality_the_impact_of_climate_change_and_the_cost_of_climate_policies
I must agree with Karl here as not only do you hyperbolize the potential consequences of a marginal increase in a trace element in the atmosphere, but you rely on the IPCC, an organization whose forecasting record makes the Fed seem like it has perfect foresight of the US economy over the next decades.
Secondly, the idea that China actually cares at all about climate change seems highly illogical. if we have learned nothing about President Xi Jinping, it is that he will do whatever he believes is necessary to increase the Chinese economy's growth patterns and that includes burning as much locally produced coal as necessary to keep the heat and lights on.
Finally, if the goal of society, for whatever reason, is to reduce its carbon footprint, there is only one solution; Nuclear. All efforts should be made to streamline the process to build out new nuclear power plants of all designs and they could easily be sited where currently sit coal-fired stations, which means the grid would be easily connected. that the Germans and Belgians are so extraordinarily stupid to shut down their perfectly working nuclear plants means they deserve to suffer the consequences of high priced and scarce energy for their people, but that doesn't mean that elsewhere in the world, we should jump off the same cliff. The idea that moving from a highly energy dense process, like burning natural gas, or even more so like nuclear power production, to lower energy density technologies like wind and solar is a de facto effort to reduce the living standards of everybody on the planet (except I guess for those who are making the decision and will not bear the consequences.)
From where are you pulling the statement that a 2.7 degree Celsius increase will be "displacing tens or hundreds of millions of people"? This seems like a far-fetched and low quality post compared to the excellent stuff you usually post. Please do better than this, Joey!
have a look at https://bit.ly/thethingsthatgiveusjoy for a map of putting oil, gas, and coal onto a roadmap of permanent reduction.