Climate Policies
Many have suggested that the precautionary principle needs to be invoked here, so that some action is taken. Such a principle works in some general sense if taking a flu shot comes at a low cost and has a feasible chance of heading off bad effects like the flu. But if the cost of doing something, anything is too large and the impact on the issue too small it begs the question.
The latter is the case on climate. It has been shown that at tremendous cost there is little impact on climate. A good case in point is the Paris Accord, which at the total cost of $400T the temperature at the end of this century would be 0.17C less. This has to qualify as the worst investment or deal in the history of mankind. Since this has received so much press we delve into this international agreement and break it down.
But there is more. What is the best approach just in case climate takes a turn hotter, even by natural causes? We turn to Bjorn Lomborg and economist to see what wisdom can be gained. He is, in summary, arguing in favor of economic growth rather than taxing or carbon offset markets. Does a carbon tax make sense? The quick answer is no.
One can always ask there is the money flowing to see how valid the activities have been up until now. It has been quite expensive to do very little. Over $1B a day has been spent on clean energy alone worldwide. Most of the reason is to reduce carbon emissions. When looking at the size of the funds much could be done with that amount of money to improve the environment in other areas.
There are as well a good many other negatives to AGW policies. See this page for a selection.
There is also a renewable energy fantasy. Also why not allow market forces to rise the occasion of fixing what might break? If issues do come up such as sea level there are many things possible. Let the market decide not the government, which has a long history of picking the wrong solutions too late at a slow pace and all at a much larger cost.
The need for energy in the future shows the increase in the need for electrical of all kinds. The Outlook is good if technology is allowed to develop on a hands off innovation model. The rate of CO2 per GDP per capita growth is good meaning that the economy can grow and CO2 can be held constant or even fall with just market forces.
While the increase in CO2 is bringing about increase greening of the globe meaning increased greenery, which is on a better growth curve than the green politicians, means better crops and agriculture feeding more people around the world. We are nearing the peak population (if we take the higher economic growth policies in my opinion) and perhaps even peak CO2 if we allow economic growth to fuel innovation in the energy sector. This can also mean looking at the latest nuclear technology and working on battery technology among many other possibilities. It is a bright future if we do not turn it over to the politicians.
With the advent of the movie "Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore carried a good deal of weight in the media and in the public's view. Unfortunately for him some of his were paying attention and the false data are detailed in this following video.
We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is. As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.
So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities. Why?
Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?
Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?
When do deficits and governments become too large?
Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?
