Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
I thought about taking out the analogy because arguing by analogy is usually dumb, and I see many flaws with it.
My main points being, unilateral action is ineffective, and per-capita CO2 is not a fair criteria for negotiating national limits because it ignores the growing capita portion of the CO2 equation.
This is precisely what makes peaceful agreement among all nations an impossible task.
It seems more probable that technology will continue to mitigate the problem rather than some genius politician that brokers a deal, saving the day.
|
1) Between 1750 and 2000, humans have put 2- Quadrillion-pounds of carbon into the atmosphere.
2) Between 1983 and 2018, USA economic costs, attributed to extreme weather events was $ 1.5-Trillion ( $ 41.666-Billion/year ).
3) At 'business as usual', David Wallace-Wells, New America Foundation, estimates $ 600-Trillion in losses by 2100.
4) In 2021 dollars, Direct Carbon Capture and Sequestration is estimated to run $ 5- Trillion/year, for 79-years ( $395-Trillion ) to reduce atmospheric carbon down to the 350ppm target.
5) We were given the 'ounce of prevention' in 1958.
6) We're presently staring down the barrel of, well-in-excess of, a 'pound of cure.'
7) I share no optimism in innovation and technological prowess.