Is it time to finally move on from "Stopping Climate Change" and instead work on mitigating it?

[Jimmy Higgins]

As human beings continue to substitute sustainability for cost savings and convenience, I ponder whether it is time for the UN to stop trying to limit climate change. China is kind of giving up already. I mean, they are going to address it, but it'll take a while.

China would pursue its commitments “unswervingly,” but the pace of such efforts “should and must be” determined without outside interference, Xi said late Tuesday. It was a long way from the 2015 Paris climate accord when a Chinese-U.S. agreement paved the way for the international goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

It appears the last two years of high temperatures were tempered by La Nina... which isn't good as China, the US, and Europe are teasing all-time records or breaking them in just July during this "super" El Nino.

The trouble we have at the moment is that if we stopped adding any CO2 into the atmosphere today, it'll likely take several years for the atmosphere to reach an equilibrium, and then several more to see if "nature" manages the CO2 itself and starts cutting it back. So these high temps... are going to get a bit higher, and then stay, unless nature does claw it back. But the problem is this... we aren't stopping CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are going to go up. We might be looking at a cold fusion sort of time scale of perpetually never getting to our target.

So that leads us to the next thing. The climate has already changed, and will continue to get warmer. Who knows whether any planetary thresholds are surpassed that really mess things up. But let's just assume it isn't the worst, and instead the Middle East is becoming borderline unlivable, the historic infrastructure developed for one type of climate in areas is no longer able to manage the changing climate (leading to more CO2 emissions just to manage it), catastrophic flooding from 500 / 1000 year storm/flood events become more like 100 year events locally and nationally multiple times a year events, the Gulf of Mexico becomes an even larger hurricane microwave?

We need to address where is the money coming from to deal with all that. We'll need new flood models. Determine the adequacy of flood protection systems. We'll need to adapt hurricane models because they are still underpredicting wind speed development in the Gulf. Then we'll have the issue of food production and the impact climate will likely have on that.

While some consider "climate change" some sort of political sabre, the reality is, climate change is now historical, as in, it has already happened. Instead of the UN trying to pretend we have a chance at managing the temperature increase and its impact on our weather due to the solubility of water in 2.1 x 10²⁰ cubic feet of air in the Troposphere, we need to be seriously looking at the consequences that are occurring now and will likely occur as we heat up the ocean, kill off part of the ecosystem (coral reefs and supporting life), flood the heck out of towns and cities, and brew up stronger hurricanes.

The globe's fight against climate change was much like a Cleveland Browns' season. Even when it is good, it sucks. It is time to accept defeat and deal with managing the consequences instead of dwelling in delusions that nations will back down on economic growth in order to make life on Earth not as sucky.

 

[Gospel]

Florida resident checking in. My bags are packed.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Unfortunately, adaptation to climate change will also be ridiculously expensive and there will likely be little political will to enable the programs necessary to do so. Apparently it is far easier to spend billions recovering from tragedies than to spend billions to avoid tragedies.

 

[RVonse]

As human beings continue to substitute sustainability for cost savings and convenience, I ponder whether it is time for the UN to stop trying to limit climate change. China is kind of giving up already. I mean, they are going to address it, but it'll take a while.

China would pursue its commitments “unswervingly,” but the pace of such efforts “should and must be” determined without outside interference, Xi said late Tuesday. It was a long way from the 2015 Paris climate accord when a Chinese-U.S. agreement paved the way for the international goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

It appears the last two years of high temperatures were tempered by La Nina... which isn't good as China, the US, and Europe are teasing all-time records or breaking them in just July during this "super" El Nino.

The trouble we have at the moment is that if we stopped adding any CO2 into the atmosphere today, it'll likely take several years for the atmosphere to reach an equilibrium, and then several more to see if "nature" manages the CO2 itself and starts cutting it back. So these high temps... are going to get a bit higher, and then stay, unless nature does claw it back. But the problem is this... we aren't stopping CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are going to go up. We might be looking at a cold fusion sort of time scale of perpetually never getting to our target.

So that leads us to the next thing. The climate has already changed, and will continue to get warmer. Who knows whether any planetary thresholds are surpassed that really mess things up. But let's just assume it isn't the worst, and instead the Middle East is becoming borderline unlivable, the historic infrastructure developed for one type of climate in areas is no longer able to manage the changing climate (leading to more CO2 emissions just to manage it), catastrophic flooding from 500 / 1000 year storm/flood events become more like 100 year events locally and nationally multiple times a year events, the Gulf of Mexico becomes an even larger hurricane microwave?

We need to address where is the money coming from to deal with all that. We'll need new flood models. Determine the adequacy of flood protection systems. We'll need to adapt hurricane models because they are still underpredicting wind speed development in the Gulf. Then we'll have the issue of food production and the impact climate will likely have on that.

While some consider "climate change" some sort of political sabre, the reality is, climate change is now historical, as in, it has already happened. Instead of the UN trying to pretend we have a chance at managing the temperature increase and its impact on our weather due to the solubility of water in 2.1 x 10²⁰ cubic feet of air in the Troposphere, we need to be seriously looking at the consequences that are occurring now and will likely occur as we heat up the ocean, kill off part of the ecosystem (coral reefs and supporting life), flood the heck out of towns and cities, and brew up stronger hurricanes.

The globe's fight against climate change was much like a Cleveland Browns' season. Even when it is good, it sucks. It is time to accept defeat and deal with managing the consequences instead of dwelling in delusions that nations will back down on economic growth in order to make life on Earth not as sucky.

Carbon taxes are the answer according to Elon Musk and he is correct (as usual). Make everyone pay the real cost of fuel (whatever that fuel is), the cost of production PLUS the cost of damage to the environment. Climate change has been figured out and resolved for you Jimmy!

Paradoxically it is the liberal democrats and NOT the conservatives who are mostly against bringing carbon taxes though because they believe such tax will focus the poor (rich Republicans don't give a shit about carbon taxes since they don't have to buy fuel to get to work.) Yet those liberal hypocrites are the same ones making the big noise about climate change.

 

[laughing dog]

As human beings continue to substitute sustainability for cost savings and convenience, I ponder whether it is time for the UN to stop trying to limit climate change. China is kind of giving up already. I mean, they are going to address it, but it'll take a while.

China would pursue its commitments “unswervingly,” but the pace of such efforts “should and must be” determined without outside interference, Xi said late Tuesday. It was a long way from the 2015 Paris climate accord when a Chinese-U.S. agreement paved the way for the international goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

It appears the last two years of high temperatures were tempered by La Nina... which isn't good as China, the US, and Europe are teasing all-time records or breaking them in just July during this "super" El Nino.

The trouble we have at the moment is that if we stopped adding any CO2 into the atmosphere today, it'll likely take several years for the atmosphere to reach an equilibrium, and then several more to see if "nature" manages the CO2 itself and starts cutting it back. So these high temps... are going to get a bit higher, and then stay, unless nature does claw it back. But the problem is this... we aren't stopping CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are going to go up. We might be looking at a cold fusion sort of time scale of perpetually never getting to our target.

So that leads us to the next thing. The climate has already changed, and will continue to get warmer. Who knows whether any planetary thresholds are surpassed that really mess things up. But let's just assume it isn't the worst, and instead the Middle East is becoming borderline unlivable, the historic infrastructure developed for one type of climate in areas is no longer able to manage the changing climate (leading to more CO2 emissions just to manage it), catastrophic flooding from 500 / 1000 year storm/flood events become more like 100 year events locally and nationally multiple times a year events, the Gulf of Mexico becomes an even larger hurricane microwave?

We need to address where is the money coming from to deal with all that. We'll need new flood models. Determine the adequacy of flood protection systems. We'll need to adapt hurricane models because they are still underpredicting wind speed development in the Gulf. Then we'll have the issue of food production and the impact climate will likely have on that.

While some consider "climate change" some sort of political sabre, the reality is, climate change is now historical, as in, it has already happened. Instead of the UN trying to pretend we have a chance at managing the temperature increase and its impact on our weather due to the solubility of water in 2.1 x 10²⁰ cubic feet of air in the Troposphere, we need to be seriously looking at the consequences that are occurring now and will likely occur as we heat up the ocean, kill off part of the ecosystem (coral reefs and supporting life), flood the heck out of towns and cities, and brew up stronger hurricanes.

The globe's fight against climate change was much like a Cleveland Browns' season. Even when it is good, it sucks. It is time to accept defeat and deal with managing the consequences instead of dwelling in delusions that nations will back down on economic growth in order to make life on Earth not as sucky.

Carbon taxes are the answer according to Elon Musk and he is correct (as usual). Make everyone pay the real cost of fuel (whatever that fuel is), the cost of production PLUS the cost of damage to the environment. Climate change has been figured out and resolved for you Jimmy!

Paradoxically it is the liberal democrats and NOT the conservatives who are mostly against bringing carbon taxes though because they believe such tax will focus the poor (rich Republicans don't give a shit about carbon taxes since they don't have to buy fuel to get to work.) Yet those liberal hypocrites are the same ones making the big noise about climate change.

While it is true that some liberal democrats worry more about tax fairness than the climate, it is utter bullshit to claim that conservatives and Republicans are not mostly against carbon taxes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As human beings continue to substitute sustainability for cost savings and convenience, I ponder whether it is time for the UN to stop trying to limit climate change. China is kind of giving up already. I mean, they are going to address it, but it'll take a while.

China would pursue its commitments “unswervingly,” but the pace of such efforts “should and must be” determined without outside interference, Xi said late Tuesday. It was a long way from the 2015 Paris climate accord when a Chinese-U.S. agreement paved the way for the international goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

It appears the last two years of high temperatures were tempered by La Nina... which isn't good as China, the US, and Europe are teasing all-time records or breaking them in just July during this "super" El Nino.

The trouble we have at the moment is that if we stopped adding any CO2 into the atmosphere today, it'll likely take several years for the atmosphere to reach an equilibrium, and then several more to see if "nature" manages the CO2 itself and starts cutting it back. So these high temps... are going to get a bit higher, and then stay, unless nature does claw it back. But the problem is this... we aren't stopping CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are going to go up. We might be looking at a cold fusion sort of time scale of perpetually never getting to our target.

So that leads us to the next thing. The climate has already changed, and will continue to get warmer. Who knows whether any planetary thresholds are surpassed that really mess things up. But let's just assume it isn't the worst, and instead the Middle East is becoming borderline unlivable, the historic infrastructure developed for one type of climate in areas is no longer able to manage the changing climate (leading to more CO2 emissions just to manage it), catastrophic flooding from 500 / 1000 year storm/flood events become more like 100 year events locally and nationally multiple times a year events, the Gulf of Mexico becomes an even larger hurricane microwave?

We need to address where is the money coming from to deal with all that. We'll need new flood models. Determine the adequacy of flood protection systems. We'll need to adapt hurricane models because they are still underpredicting wind speed development in the Gulf. Then we'll have the issue of food production and the impact climate will likely have on that.

While some consider "climate change" some sort of political sabre, the reality is, climate change is now historical, as in, it has already happened. Instead of the UN trying to pretend we have a chance at managing the temperature increase and its impact on our weather due to the solubility of water in 2.1 x 10²⁰ cubic feet of air in the Troposphere, we need to be seriously looking at the consequences that are occurring now and will likely occur as we heat up the ocean, kill off part of the ecosystem (coral reefs and supporting life), flood the heck out of towns and cities, and brew up stronger hurricanes.

The globe's fight against climate change was much like a Cleveland Browns' season. Even when it is good, it sucks. It is time to accept defeat and deal with managing the consequences instead of dwelling in delusions that nations will back down on economic growth in order to make life on Earth not as sucky.

Carbon taxes according to Elon Musk and he is correct (as usual). Make everyone pay the real cost of fuel (whatever that fuel is), the cost of production PLUS the cost of damage to the environment. Climate change has been figured out for you Jimmy!

You and Musk are mistaken in one aspect, that taxes will somehow limit production or remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Making things cost more doesn't help. There is virtually no alternative to carbon based power, globally, unless you live in France (nuclear) or Costa Rica (hydro). So propping up a tax to make things cost more because of the carbon is stupid. Teslas aren't remotely green as most are using the same broad ungreen energy to charge and currently there is no widespread recycling battery program, nor is there probably enough raw earth elements to get electric cars across the planet. More to the issue, transportation is a mere fraction of the problem.

We need international industrial modifications to our energy production and transportation. That'll take decades and hundreds of trillions, starting now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Unfortunately, adaptation to climate change will also be ridiculously expensive and there will likely be little political will to enable the programs necessary to do so. Apparently it is far easier to spend billions recovering from tragedies than to spend billions to avoid tragedies.

Can't wait for insurance companies to stop providing flood insurance for homes outside the 100 yr plain. I live right near the Cuyahoga River, but it is channelized there and we are talking cataclysmic storm event to get my home flooded, I'd guess the sewer would back up first into the house. I live outside the 500 year plain (well outside). But if you live near a river, do insurance companies just stop providing coverage?

 

[RVonse]

As human beings continue to substitute sustainability for cost savings and convenience, I ponder whether it is time for the UN to stop trying to limit climate change. China is kind of giving up already. I mean, they are going to address it, but it'll take a while.

China would pursue its commitments “unswervingly,” but the pace of such efforts “should and must be” determined without outside interference, Xi said late Tuesday. It was a long way from the 2015 Paris climate accord when a Chinese-U.S. agreement paved the way for the international goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

It appears the last two years of high temperatures were tempered by La Nina... which isn't good as China, the US, and Europe are teasing all-time records or breaking them in just July during this "super" El Nino.

The trouble we have at the moment is that if we stopped adding any CO2 into the atmosphere today, it'll likely take several years for the atmosphere to reach an equilibrium, and then several more to see if "nature" manages the CO2 itself and starts cutting it back. So these high temps... are going to get a bit higher, and then stay, unless nature does claw it back. But the problem is this... we aren't stopping CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions are going to go up. We might be looking at a cold fusion sort of time scale of perpetually never getting to our target.

So that leads us to the next thing. The climate has already changed, and will continue to get warmer. Who knows whether any planetary thresholds are surpassed that really mess things up. But let's just assume it isn't the worst, and instead the Middle East is becoming borderline unlivable, the historic infrastructure developed for one type of climate in areas is no longer able to manage the changing climate (leading to more CO2 emissions just to manage it), catastrophic flooding from 500 / 1000 year storm/flood events become more like 100 year events locally and nationally multiple times a year events, the Gulf of Mexico becomes an even larger hurricane microwave?

We need to address where is the money coming from to deal with all that. We'll need new flood models. Determine the adequacy of flood protection systems. We'll need to adapt hurricane models because they are still underpredicting wind speed development in the Gulf. Then we'll have the issue of food production and the impact climate will likely have on that.

While some consider "climate change" some sort of political sabre, the reality is, climate change is now historical, as in, it has already happened. Instead of the UN trying to pretend we have a chance at managing the temperature increase and its impact on our weather due to the solubility of water in 2.1 x 10²⁰ cubic feet of air in the Troposphere, we need to be seriously looking at the consequences that are occurring now and will likely occur as we heat up the ocean, kill off part of the ecosystem (coral reefs and supporting life), flood the heck out of towns and cities, and brew up stronger hurricanes.

The globe's fight against climate change was much like a Cleveland Browns' season. Even when it is good, it sucks. It is time to accept defeat and deal with managing the consequences instead of dwelling in delusions that nations will back down on economic growth in order to make life on Earth not as sucky.

Carbon taxes according to Elon Musk and he is correct (as usual). Make everyone pay the real cost of fuel (whatever that fuel is), the cost of production PLUS the cost of damage to the environment. Climate change has been figured out for you Jimmy!

You and Musk are mistaken in one aspect, that taxes will somehow limit production or remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Making things cost more doesn't help. There is virtually no alternative to carbon based power, globally, unless you live in France (nuclear) or Costa Rica (hydro). So propping up a tax to make things cost more because of the carbon is stupid. Teslas aren't remotely green as most are using the same broad ungreen energy to charge and currently there is no widespread recycling battery program, nor is there probably enough raw earth elements to get electric cars across the planet. More to the issue, transportation is a mere fraction of the problem.

We need international industrial modifications to our energy production and transportation. That'll take decades and hundreds of trillions, starting now.

People who actually remove carbon from the atmosphere get a paycheck. The ones who plant trees or the other ones who bury the carbon in the ground again. That's part of how carbon taxation works. And if there is money to be made you may rest assured there will be people aggressively removing carbon for you Jimmy. Doing instead of just talking.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Carbon taxes according to Elon Musk and he is correct (as usual). Make everyone pay the real cost of fuel (whatever that fuel is), the cost of production PLUS the cost of damage to the environment. Climate change has been figured out for you Jimmy!

You and Musk are mistaken in one aspect, that taxes will somehow limit production or remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Making things cost more doesn't help. There is virtually no alternative to carbon based power, globally, unless you live in France (nuclear) or Costa Rica (hydro). So propping up a tax to make things cost more because of the carbon is stupid. Teslas aren't remotely green as most are using the same broad ungreen energy to charge and currently there is no widespread recycling battery program, nor is there probably enough raw earth elements to get electric cars across the planet. More to the issue, transportation is a mere fraction of the problem.

We need international industrial modifications to our energy production and transportation. That'll take decades and hundreds of trillions, starting now.

People who actually remove carbon from the atmosphere get a paycheck.

Who removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? The companies who are using forests that already existed as an accounting gimmick?

As a note, accounting gimmicks don't actually have scientific value.

The ones who plant trees or the other ones who bury the carbon in the ground again. That's part of how carbon taxation works.

No, it isn't. Planting trees, while we deforest the nation and globe doesn't give us a net-gain. And is it even possible to plant enough trees in the first place to offset the carbon? You are on the Titanic with a bucket, dumping water as the boat thinks. Look, I'm helping!

And if there is money to made you may rest assured there will be people aggressively getting this job done for you Jimmy. Doing instead of just talking.

Phoenix is going to crush its consecutive nightly low being above 90 degrees record by maybe doubling it (current forecasting indicates maybe tripling it). Phoenix could be on pace to go a month with highs above 110 degrees. The Free Market says "we keep going until catastrophe".

This is also the problem when people who don't understand large systems or science start becoming another onion layer of the problem.

 

[Shadowy Man]

But if you live near a river, do insurance companies just stop providing coverage?

A quick internet search seems to show that insurance companies are indeed pulling back on their coverages. And not just because of floods, but also forest fires.

For example: this article from NY Times

This month, the largest homeowner insurance company in California, State Farm, announced that it would stop selling coverage to homeowners. That’s not just in wildfire zones, but everywhere in the state.

And this from the Biden administration

The Biden administration is proposing a massive overhaul of federal flood insurance that would prevent the government from insuring newly built homes in flood-prone areas and would drop coverage for homeowners who receive repeated claims payments.

The administration also is proposing a nationwide disclosure law that would require homebuyers and renters to be told about a property’s flood history before they buy or lease a residence. And no new federal flood insurance policy could be written for any commercial building, regardless of its location or construction date.

 

[RVonse]

This is also the problem when people who don't understand large systems or science start becoming another onion layer of the problem.

I don't see how taxing carbon emitters and using those funds to reward carbon removal is "becoming another layer of the problem". It may not be fast or drastic enough to suit your pleasure....but it can only help and not hurt the goal. Furthermore, I think you are greatly underestimating the ability of capitalism versus just complaining about the issue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is also the problem when people who don't understand large systems or science start becoming another onion layer of the problem.

I don't see how taxing carbon emitters and using those funds to reward carbon removal is "becoming another layer of the problem".

Because there is no alternative to carbon power in the United States. Accounting gimmicks doesn't make energy free of carbon. Nuclear plants need to go up 30/40 years ago. We no longer have time to wait for it to appear cost effective to build out massive green energy projects because it will take decades to build it all.

It may not be fast or drastic enough to suit your pleasure....but it can only help and not hurt the goal.

Pleasure? To keep conditions as they are today, we are probably a decade too late.

Furthermore, I think you are greatly underestimating the ability of capitalism versus just complaining about the issue.

Capitalism is having large banks use existing forests and selling them off as carbon offsets, when there nothing the like. Capitalism is using the same planted tree five times. Capitalism was lying about climate change for decades when we could have made an impact. Capitalism is always after the fact. At best capitalism is reactive by nature, at worst, amoral and apathetic. Relying on capitalism to be proactive at their own cost is nothing short of folly.

Also, I'm not complaining, I'm asking whether it is time to accept the changes and manage them because we don't have a shot in hell of stopping this. How many Ludlow, NH's before insurance companies can't manage the outlays of flood events and if you live x miles from a river, you aren't covered?

 

[pood]

This is also the problem when people who don't understand large systems or science start becoming another onion layer of the problem.

I don't see how taxing carbon emitters and using those funds to reward carbon removal is "becoming another layer of the problem". It may not be fast or drastic enough to suit your pleasure....but it can only help and not hurt the goal. Furthermore, I think you are greatly underestimating the ability of capitalism versus just complaining about the issue.

Lol, capitalism is what got us into this problem in the first place! The oil companies knew all about global warming as far back as the sixties from their own internal studies and so buried those studies. All hail capitalism!

 

[TV and credit cards]

All we're going to do about this problem is nibble at it and nibble at it and nibble at it, trying to appease all sides except the one that's calling all the shots. You know her name.

 

[Gospel]

Teslas aren't remotely green as most are using the same broad ungreen energy to charge and currently there is no widespread recycling battery program, nor is there probably enough raw earth elements to get electric cars across the planet.

You're right. Teslas aren't as green as they could be. The electricity used to charge them often comes from fossil fuels, and the batteries are still hard to recycle.

But I think Teslas remain a step in the right direction. They're getting more efficient all the time, and battery recycling technology is improving. Plus, if we switch to more renewable energy sources, Teslas will be even greener.

So yeah, Teslas aren't perfect. But they're a sign of progress, and I think they have the potential to be a lot greener in the future.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Florida resident checking in. My bags are packed.

I've read the Great Lakes region is the place you wanna be; Cleveland, Milwaukee. Wait. You still have all those speakers?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Teslas aren't remotely green as most are using the same broad ungreen energy to charge and currently there is no widespread recycling battery program, nor is there probably enough raw earth elements to get electric cars across the planet.

You're right. Teslas aren't as green as they could be. The electricity used to charge them often comes from fossil fuels, and the batteries are still hard to recycle.

But I think Teslas remain a step in the right direction.

I think the Chevy Volt was a step in the right direction. I think the trouble with EVs is that the battery size is generally too large. One is sequestering a massive battery and resources they'll rarely use. The Volt and other Plug-In Hybrids provide limited all-electric (for when one day US electricity is carbon free in the year 2,192 when the surface temperature is 276 Celsius) that help a good amount of the population commute and do local things, while allowing long distance travel. It provides a more efficient system, smaller batteries. Cake and eating it.

They're getting more efficient all the time, and battery recycling technology is improving.

I'm hopeful they'll get there, but the oil industry also told us plastics were recyclable. Capitalism strikes again! The trouble with battery recycling is chemistry and physics. And as we learn that Musk is more of an abusive business manager and a one-trick pony that managed a second trick thanks to an endless supply of cash... I'm really worried about the sustainability of EV batteries. The laws of thermodynamics don't cease when we really want something to work.

Plus, if we switch to more renewable energy sources, Teslas will be even greener.

So yeah, Teslas aren't perfect. But they're a sign of progress, and I think they have the potential to be a lot greener in the future.

A few other things need to happen first with batteries (not being dumped in a large ditch in Africa (or the Pacific)), availability of rare earth metals to make it widely distributable, US grid power source is green.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Florida resident checking in. My bags are packed.

I've read the Great Lakes region is the place you wanna be; Cleveland, Milwaukee. Wait. You still have all those speakers?

Erm, no. I live five blocks from beautiful Lake Erie, and we're going to resist any/all caravans. We're building a wall, and the Cotton Belt will pay for it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This is also the problem when people who don't understand large systems or science start becoming another onion layer of the problem.

I don't see how taxing carbon emitters and using those funds to reward carbon removal is "becoming another layer of the problem". It may not be fast or drastic enough to suit your pleasure....but it can only help and not hurt the goal. Furthermore, I think you are greatly underestimating the ability of capitalism versus just complaining about the issue.

Lol, capitalism is what got us into this problem in the first place! The oil companies knew all about global warming as far back as the sixties from their own internal studies and so buried those studies. All hail capitalism!

Everyone has known about the problem for a least forty years.

Check out this video of Carl Sagan testifying to Congress in 1985.

 

[Gospel]

Florida resident checking in. My bags are packed.

I've read the Great Lakes region is the place you wanna be; Cleveland, Milwaukee. Wait. You still have all those speakers?

Erm, no. I live five blocks from beautiful Lake Erie, and we're going to resist any/all caravans. We're building a wall, and the Cotton Belt will pay for it.

Given the current housing market, even a pile of sticks in Tornado Alley is beyond my reach, let alone anywhere more expensive. Therefore, rest assured that your peaceful environs won't be disturbed by the thunderous volume of my concert-level speakers anytime soon.

My bags are packed for hurricane evac though. I know the big one is coming.