This is meant to be a thought provoking question, not an attack:
What if the safety of the planet lay in stopping greenhouse emissions. But certain large blocs of the international community refused to stop pumping it out of the ground.
Now say diplomatic means don't create any real progress, only broken promises. For an example of what that might look like, take the nuclear accord John Kerry just got Iran to sign this year. Already they have tested new long range missiles and their leader, Khamenei, released a statement this week: "Those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors," [0].
Seriously, what happens when those with fossil fuel reserved chose to use them, even when your country is being responsible? What if it meant another war in Iraq: would the positions on policy for fixing AGW swtich between Democrats and Republicans?
it is an interesting question - would we go to war to prevent carbon release?
for me to have a position on the question would depend on the particulars.
A related thought - there aren't a ton of countries that have both large fossil fuel reserves and a large enough domestic market to burn them at a high rate. US and China are the only two that come to mind. Maybe Iran? Which implies that sanctions (either on the import of energy or the export of finished goods) might be effective if you can keep the US and China on board.
As long as people are flying private jets to climate conferences I cry foul.
If they want anyone to act they would do as the king of Nineveh:Jona 3:6
"For word came to the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes."
The moment I see climate scientists starts to switch to teleconferences I think I will give it a second thought.
(Yeah. I know many, possibly most of you don't believe a thing of that but it is still a good example.)
(FWIW: I make a living making solar cell technology, I previously programmed recycling machines. I just happen to be tired of hypocrisy.)
A private jet releases something like 20 tons of CO2 per flight (depending on distance / type of jet / etc. etc.). The US Coal industry released 5.4 billion tons of CO2 last year. Each private jet flight then represents about 120 milliseconds of US Coal production. So yeah, Al Gore and Leo could (and should) cut out their private jet habit, but maybe we also should burn less coal?
The power of examples. Or: actions speak louder than words.
The very moment politicians start acting like there is a crisis, people will listen.
For now it all looks like a giant racketeering scheme to deprieve the small man of cheap energy and travel while the rich ones get richer.
Not saying it is like this, but think about it a moment before knee-jerkingly hitting the downvote button.
I'm in no position to judge the science behind this but I have a nose for fish and something stinks so badly I have a hard time crediting it all to right-wing nuts for now at least.
> I'm in no position to judge the science behind this
And yet, you do.
Why do you imagine the politicians would be concerned with climate change? It's not like they or the rest of the oligarchy are going to be the ones affected.
I think you could say the same about most issues that politicians (attempt to) address. Were Nixon or Nancy Reagan ever trapped in the inner-cities deciminated by the results of their failed drug policy? Were generations of their families imprisoned as a result? Does George Bush ever have to worry about ISIS causing harm to himself or his family? Or an onslaught of immigrants on his family ranch? Will Diane Fienstein be spending her old age alone, unarmed, 30 miles from her nearest neighbors or other assistance? Unlikely.
Al Gore buys carbon offsets for his jet travel. Letting him do what he wants and still have a net carbon contribution that is 0.
Of course that depends on the people he pays for the carbon offsets actually reducing carbon emissions somewhere else in the world. It is easier to claim that you will than it is to actually do it.
(My bet is that within 10 years there will be a major scandal as someone in that space turns out to be a pure and simple scammer.)
Nah, but it helps against getting fooled while we wait for them to either stop trying to fool me (not sure about this) or put their money where their mouth is.
It was not about me being downvoted, that is more or less a given, it was about the person replying to me getting downvoted although IMO his point was valid.
Ok, that's why I was confused; by the time I got to the thread, that person had been upvoted back in the black (perhaps due to your votes). Anyway, I love some good discourse. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
The irony being that people with money and power are the least likely to ever be affected by it.