The global warming models propounded by the climate change scaremongers suggest warming of a "dangerous" level of 4-8C. Quite why an *average* temperature increase across the whole planet over a whole year including both daytime and night-time temperatures of that level is quite so scary escapes me. I'd like to see more granular data explaining why such and such an increase over a smaller region would be catastrophic over a smaller timescale for example.
But I'm not going to look at that today. Instead I'm going to look at the *science*.
If we examine the actual math, the scientific equation for absorbtion/emissivity by carbon dioxide produces three salient facts.
1. It's about a ONE degree increase in temperature per DOUBLING of carbon dioxide
2. All things being equal absorbtion and emissivity are roughly in balance. The more radiation coming in, the higher the emissivity. End result is it should be a wash.
3. Increases in temperature are *instant* if you double carbon dioxide. There is *no* lag.
So what gives?
Well the climate "scientists" are quoting temperature increases of much higher than one degree and absorbtion/emissivity model says it should be a wash so that means that the higher temperature increases are due to something else instead of carbon dioxide since carbon dioxide only leads to an increase of one measly degree per doubling.
At one degree per doubling that means going from pre-industrial times i.e. 200 parts per million we should see a one degree increase to 400 parts per million and a two degree increase to 800 parts per million and a three degree increase to 1600 parts per million and a four degree increase to 3200 parts per million and a five degree increase to 6400 parts per million and a six degree increase to a 12800 parts per million.
We have to go to ridiculous volumes of carbon dioxide to get to the high numbers proposed by the climate "scientists".
So what can possibly be causing it since we *have* seen an increase in temperature? (Although it has to be said that the observed increase in temperature is not as high as the scary climate models propounded by the scaremongers).
Well in order to get to "scary" levels of temperature increase there has to be a lag effect since the observed temperature increase hasn't corresponded with scary temperature increases.
Also we have to have significant positive feedback effects such as the melting of the ice sheets and the reduction of forest cover.
Now we can definitively say that both ice sheets and forest cover have decreased and that both of these are positive feedback effects thus increasing the temperature increase we would normally see above and beyond the temperature increase of one degree per doubling of carbon dioxide on it's own.
Additional negative feedbacks are cloud cover and smoke/aerosols, with increased cloud cover tending to decrease temperature and smoke/aerosols tending to crease temperature.
Putative positive feedbacks increasing warming include methane gas increases.
Now the observable facts are these:
Ice cover has decreased. Forest cover has decreased. Cloud cover has decreased. Fossil fuel burning has increased. Carbon dioxide emissions have increased. Smoke and aerosol emissions have increased.
What can we speculate from this?
Decreasing ice cover should lead to increased temperature increases over and above carbon dioxide emissions.
Decreasing forest cover should lead to increased temperature increases over and above carbon-dioxide emissions.
Fossil fuel burning will increase both carbon dioxide and smoke and aerosol.
Carbon dioxide increases should lead to a one degree increase in temperature per doubling (which is piffling little as shown above compared to actual concentrations observed).
Smoke and aerosol increases should have lead to a lowering of temperature below what has been observed.
So to explain any not observable putative future temperature increases over and above the one degree per doubling as well as the not-observed increase over one degree by the observed increase in carbon dioxide increases we have to invoke very large feedback effects.
i.e. increase the melting of ice cover by a large amount and increase the amount of deforestation and invoke possibilities such as the release of methane from methane clathrates on the ocean floor.
But here's the rub: once *all* the ice has melted and the entire planet has been converted to agriculture by removing *all* of the forests there's *no more* possible positive feedbacks from those two drivers. Likewise methane persists in the atmosphere for only a handful of years and though it's a *much* more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, once the methane degrades into carbon dioxide the amount of warming is again limited to one degree per doubling. Not really a substantial amount.
So we're left with clouds.
So to pin the blame on carbon dioxide we have to invoke a huge positive feedback by showing that increasing carbon dioxide increases cloud cover which increases temperature.
Unfortunately the data goes in the opposite direction. Increasing cloud cover results in a cooler world, not a warmer one.
But *yet* the temperatures have increased and carbon dioxide has also increased (although by not as much as the scary models which include the ridiculous positive feedbacks). So what gives?
Cloud cover has actually decreased.
But that doesn't make sense if it's carbon dioxide that's driving it.
In fact, it's *not* carbon dioxide that's driving it though it *is* man-made emissions that are driving it.
It's *smoke*.
Now here's an interesting fact: millions of years ago there were massive eruptions called the "eruption of the deccan traps" which released a shit-load of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere probably because the deccan traps were sitting on top of huge coal deposits. But here's the rub: although temperatures increased by a whopping amount (12C or thereabouts and then quickly leveled out to about a 6C increase), carbon dioxide alone could not have possibly done that. Even if you invoke a pulse effect melting the methane clathrates then you'd have had at *most* a temporary spike so there should only have been the 6C increase. But the data show otherwise. Looks like there might have been something else. I suspect it's smoke.
Getting back to present times:
If we remove smoke from the picture and increase carbon dioxide we should see an increase in temperature MEDIATED BY an increase in cloud cover.
But we don't see that. Instead we see decreased cloud cover and a temperature increase *exactly* predicted by the increase of carbon dioxide. So the putative predicted temperature increase by the climate change scaremongers is due to alleged positive feedbacks.
Now we've already shown that there's a limit to the duration of the positive feedbacks so they can't generate *possibly* generate a "runaway greenhouse effect". We've also shown that carbon dioxide emissions by themselves should only create a one degree increase per doubling AND that should be mediated by increased cloud cover. Once the positive feedback mechanisms of melting the icecaps and deforestation have done their job we should only see a one degree increase from then on per doubling and the huge volume of carbon dioxide emissions required to get to multiple doublings of emissions is absolutely staggering.
In other words in order to go for a horror scenario the only possible blame we can pin on emissions is that of smoke and aerosols. Smoke and aerosols are what lead to reduced cloud cover. If we continue to increase our burning of fossil fuels we will continue to increase our smoke/aerosol emissions and *that* will amplify any increases in temperature above one degree in any continuing way.
So what we ought to do is not limit emissions per se, if we want to decrease temperature increases to only one degree per doubling we have to reduce smoke/aerosol emissions.
But we're not seeing that as a position by the greenies. Instead we're seeing an attack on multiple levels against all forms of industrial activity on a large scale. But that position isn't justified by the effects of increased carbon dioxide emissions by themselves and if we remove smoke/aerosols from the equation then we need to increase our carbon dioxide emissions by an unfeasibly massive amount in order to get to so called "scary" temperature increases.
So what gives?
The actual position propounded by you greenies is not based on a desire to limit carbon dioxide emissions per se. Instead it's based on limiting interference with the global ecosystem by man made means and from that angle, *everything* is being attacked from the burning of fuels, to agriculture, to extractive mining, to transport of products and/or the transport of people in order to allow the ecosystem to return to a natural state with no interference by humankind.
So basically if you're in favor of human dieoff, let's put the greenies, the druids and the ecologists in charge.
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Wednesday, 9 November 2011
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Global Extinction Event
An anonymous poster asked about possible human extinction caused by acidification of the oceans. I believe I answered him reasonably well enough why I think that ocean acidification is unlikely to cause an extinction.
That said I did some reading about "anoxic events" and extinction events etc and the big one appears to be the K-T exinction where more than 90% of the world's species went extinct over a period of a couple million years.
Here's what's interesting:
There was at least one and probably many comet impacts during this period combined with a long (half a million years) period of volcanic eruptions.
What's interesting about this is that the food chain collapsed.
Well if we ask what that means it's the following: photosynthetic plants perished in great numbers during this period.
Sounds like "the road"!!!
If we ask ourselves what could cause this then we loop back and take a look at what actually happened then maybe we can draw some conclusions.
So first of all: what would cause photosynthesis to decline?
Well the most obvious answer is if the amount of sunlight went down.
That obviously didn't happen, since the Sun isn't very variable, so what else could have caused it?
Possibly massive plagues on plants or something blocking the ability of plants to use the available sunlight.
We don't have any evidence of any plagues on plants but comet impacts and volcanoes both throw huge amounts of dust into the atmosphere. We have evidence for both comet impacts and a long (half a million years) period of intense volcanic activity.
So maybe during this period the available sunlight was severely blocked by dust?
If that happened again I'd have no problem believing in "the road" type scenarios being in our future, but the situation we have isn't analagous. In fact it's more analagous to suddenly turning up the thermostat with the same amount of sunlight getting in.
The evidence suggests that plants do better with more heat so we're unlikely to see a collapse in photosynthesis on land. In the oceans we could see some issues for deepwater organisms and carbonate shelled organisms due to acidification (yet there's also evidence for foraminfera during super greenhouse events so clearly they don't ALL die out).
On balance it's hard to say what would happen without all the dust being injected into the atmosphere concurrently with carbon dioxide as happened during the K-T extinction event. I suspect there would be winners and there would be losers.
Animals on land did better during the K-T event. Although many died (primarily herbivorous animals), omnivores and detritus eaters did well.
I also suspect (call it anthropocentric arrogance if you like) that we would survive even a dust+carbon dioxide catastrophe given that we are omnivores and very very inventive, but carbon dioxide and global warming alone are not going to cut it to wipe us out.
Civilization itself is also pretty resilient as long as there is enough sunlight to grow crops. Some extreme doomers have said that the human species has never had to pass through a climate as warm as the super greenhouse climate of the cretaceous. I beg to differ. Saudi Arabia regularly reaches temperatures of 50C which is ridiculously hot, yet civilization continues there quite happily, though they depend heavily on technology and also on trade, similar to Las Vegas. Given that Canada, Siberia and Greenland would become productive farmland at the expense of other regions which warmed up too much to continue to be as productive agriculturally as they are now*, the losing regions would have to depend on trade, but technology would allow them to continue to survive. Las Vegas is damn hot for example and it survives on trade, thought the ecologists would say it's "unsustainable".
*Astute readers may note the apparent contradiction that plants like more heat with the fact that beyond a certain point, raised temperatures start to cause declines in agricultural production. The reason for this is that as it gets hotter, there is more and more evaporation and while the total quantity of water remains the same and plants are able to continue to photosynthesize, the plants aren't able to access the water because it's in the air instead of the soil. The solution to that particular problem is rainforests which are able to hold on to and regulate the water cycle more efficiently than we can in hotter regions. What that implies is the shift of agriculture to higher latitudes. Luckily, however we have tons of land up north.
Returning to the question of whether human civilization is robust at higher temperatures versus the charge by the ecologists that the human *species* has never dealt with such high temperatures before even though we have proof right now that we have (the cities in hot regions):
If what the ecologists and doomers are really saying is that human beings unaided could not survive such extreme temperatures well duh. I've been arguing all along that our current population depends on technology and technology will be required to maintain our current population.
Additional greenhouse gases and increased temperatures will do nothing to affect our ability to continue to maintain our technological base. On the contrary, the greenhouse gas doomers are the ones demanding the shutdown of our economy and the collapse of our technological base.
In fact the cut back solution is equivalent of pulling the rug out from under civilization if you examine the evidence of what actually DOES cause extinctions.
Shut down the economy and we're fucked.
Those who support that concept in order to reduce greenhouse gases are insane misanthropists nothing more nothing less.
That said I did some reading about "anoxic events" and extinction events etc and the big one appears to be the K-T exinction where more than 90% of the world's species went extinct over a period of a couple million years.
Here's what's interesting:
There was at least one and probably many comet impacts during this period combined with a long (half a million years) period of volcanic eruptions.
What's interesting about this is that the food chain collapsed.
Well if we ask what that means it's the following: photosynthetic plants perished in great numbers during this period.
Sounds like "the road"!!!
If we ask ourselves what could cause this then we loop back and take a look at what actually happened then maybe we can draw some conclusions.
So first of all: what would cause photosynthesis to decline?
Well the most obvious answer is if the amount of sunlight went down.
That obviously didn't happen, since the Sun isn't very variable, so what else could have caused it?
Possibly massive plagues on plants or something blocking the ability of plants to use the available sunlight.
We don't have any evidence of any plagues on plants but comet impacts and volcanoes both throw huge amounts of dust into the atmosphere. We have evidence for both comet impacts and a long (half a million years) period of intense volcanic activity.
So maybe during this period the available sunlight was severely blocked by dust?
If that happened again I'd have no problem believing in "the road" type scenarios being in our future, but the situation we have isn't analagous. In fact it's more analagous to suddenly turning up the thermostat with the same amount of sunlight getting in.
The evidence suggests that plants do better with more heat so we're unlikely to see a collapse in photosynthesis on land. In the oceans we could see some issues for deepwater organisms and carbonate shelled organisms due to acidification (yet there's also evidence for foraminfera during super greenhouse events so clearly they don't ALL die out).
On balance it's hard to say what would happen without all the dust being injected into the atmosphere concurrently with carbon dioxide as happened during the K-T extinction event. I suspect there would be winners and there would be losers.
Animals on land did better during the K-T event. Although many died (primarily herbivorous animals), omnivores and detritus eaters did well.
I also suspect (call it anthropocentric arrogance if you like) that we would survive even a dust+carbon dioxide catastrophe given that we are omnivores and very very inventive, but carbon dioxide and global warming alone are not going to cut it to wipe us out.
Civilization itself is also pretty resilient as long as there is enough sunlight to grow crops. Some extreme doomers have said that the human species has never had to pass through a climate as warm as the super greenhouse climate of the cretaceous. I beg to differ. Saudi Arabia regularly reaches temperatures of 50C which is ridiculously hot, yet civilization continues there quite happily, though they depend heavily on technology and also on trade, similar to Las Vegas. Given that Canada, Siberia and Greenland would become productive farmland at the expense of other regions which warmed up too much to continue to be as productive agriculturally as they are now*, the losing regions would have to depend on trade, but technology would allow them to continue to survive. Las Vegas is damn hot for example and it survives on trade, thought the ecologists would say it's "unsustainable".
*Astute readers may note the apparent contradiction that plants like more heat with the fact that beyond a certain point, raised temperatures start to cause declines in agricultural production. The reason for this is that as it gets hotter, there is more and more evaporation and while the total quantity of water remains the same and plants are able to continue to photosynthesize, the plants aren't able to access the water because it's in the air instead of the soil. The solution to that particular problem is rainforests which are able to hold on to and regulate the water cycle more efficiently than we can in hotter regions. What that implies is the shift of agriculture to higher latitudes. Luckily, however we have tons of land up north.
Returning to the question of whether human civilization is robust at higher temperatures versus the charge by the ecologists that the human *species* has never dealt with such high temperatures before even though we have proof right now that we have (the cities in hot regions):
If what the ecologists and doomers are really saying is that human beings unaided could not survive such extreme temperatures well duh. I've been arguing all along that our current population depends on technology and technology will be required to maintain our current population.
Additional greenhouse gases and increased temperatures will do nothing to affect our ability to continue to maintain our technological base. On the contrary, the greenhouse gas doomers are the ones demanding the shutdown of our economy and the collapse of our technological base.
In fact the cut back solution is equivalent of pulling the rug out from under civilization if you examine the evidence of what actually DOES cause extinctions.
Shut down the economy and we're fucked.
Those who support that concept in order to reduce greenhouse gases are insane misanthropists nothing more nothing less.
Friday, 14 January 2011
Yet More Global Dieoff by Global Warming
This post is a little bit of a rant. Forewarning.
I'm not a "global warming is bullshit" kind of guy given that I have a bachelors in math and physics. I can do the math and I get the science.
As an analyst and an MBA, however I'm not even slightly convinced by the analysis and the conclusions.
To wit:
As a scientist I'm not disputing the *possibility* of global warming (or even of global cooling). Clearly the science shows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does *something* and there is indeed a mathematical formula that predicts (all things being equal) that if you double the CO2 you get X amount of temperature forcing.
Where I break ranks with these guys, however, is when they build their models with dubious assumptions, without fully understanding the feedback loops and THEN extrapolate toward the SAME GOAL EVERY SINGLE TIME:
i.e. reduce ENERGY USAGE rather than reduce FOSSIL FUELS burning and also REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE ECONOMY?!?
Sorry my ecocologist friends, but that does not FUCKING COMPUTE.
There are yet other examples of where they get a model to say "something different is going to happen" THEREFORE "that's bad" AND "we must therefore shut down the economy".
One such bunch of claptrap is the idea that if we add another 600 ppm of emissions to the atmosphere and we get the same temperatures as we had 30-50 million years ago then we are FUCKED.
The scaremongerrs state that given that the poles during the above mentioned epoch were 15-20C warmer and the tropics were 5-10C warmer then that's an unmitigated DISASTER.
Funny I thought, if the poles melt and Greenland, Siberia and Northern Canada suddenly become prime farmland is that a big fucking DISASTER? I think not.
Anyways, returning to the disaster meme.
Why is EOCENE like temperatures an unmitigated disaster?
Well, they say, "because human civilization has never had to deal with temperatures like that before".
Really?
South Texas deals with temperatures like that every summer.
So does Las Vegas.
Admittedly Las Vegas is a *strange* kind of civilization but you can HARDLY argue that it doesn't classify as HUMAN civilization.
Come on guys, you're starting to sound like quacks now.
Sheesh.
I'm not a "global warming is bullshit" kind of guy given that I have a bachelors in math and physics. I can do the math and I get the science.
As an analyst and an MBA, however I'm not even slightly convinced by the analysis and the conclusions.
To wit:
As a scientist I'm not disputing the *possibility* of global warming (or even of global cooling). Clearly the science shows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does *something* and there is indeed a mathematical formula that predicts (all things being equal) that if you double the CO2 you get X amount of temperature forcing.
Where I break ranks with these guys, however, is when they build their models with dubious assumptions, without fully understanding the feedback loops and THEN extrapolate toward the SAME GOAL EVERY SINGLE TIME:
i.e. reduce ENERGY USAGE rather than reduce FOSSIL FUELS burning and also REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE ECONOMY?!?
Sorry my ecocologist friends, but that does not FUCKING COMPUTE.
There are yet other examples of where they get a model to say "something different is going to happen" THEREFORE "that's bad" AND "we must therefore shut down the economy".
One such bunch of claptrap is the idea that if we add another 600 ppm of emissions to the atmosphere and we get the same temperatures as we had 30-50 million years ago then we are FUCKED.
The scaremongerrs state that given that the poles during the above mentioned epoch were 15-20C warmer and the tropics were 5-10C warmer then that's an unmitigated DISASTER.
Funny I thought, if the poles melt and Greenland, Siberia and Northern Canada suddenly become prime farmland is that a big fucking DISASTER? I think not.
Anyways, returning to the disaster meme.
Why is EOCENE like temperatures an unmitigated disaster?
Well, they say, "because human civilization has never had to deal with temperatures like that before".
Really?
South Texas deals with temperatures like that every summer.
So does Las Vegas.
Admittedly Las Vegas is a *strange* kind of civilization but you can HARDLY argue that it doesn't classify as HUMAN civilization.
Come on guys, you're starting to sound like quacks now.
Sheesh.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Dieoff by global warming
So allegedly if we don't stop the economy the associated emissions from carbon dioxide will heat the planet up, leading to temperatures so high that we'll all fry.
What's interesting to me is that there have been at least two global warming episodes in the past.
The biggest was during a period called the Eocene several tens of millions of years ago. What's interesting about this era is that carbon dioxide was several times what it will be in the worst case scenario in our own era(more than 500 parts per million project compared to 2000 parts per million during the Eocene). During the Eocene the summer temperature at the poles was 20C and in the tropics it was close to 40C. At the same time the global biodiversity was one of the highest it's ever been in the history of life. There were no humans around.
The more recent period called the Pliocene was very interesting because it's similar to now. Carbon dioxide was just under 400 parts per million and the configuration of the continents was almost identical to the way they are now. The temperature, however was some 5C higher at the poles and some 3C higher than today at the tropics.
Biodiversity was also much higher than today. There were only early hominids around and in limited numbers. Practically speaking there were no humans around.
What can be gleaned from those two cases?
1. Biodiversity in the pre-human epoch was usually higher during global warming periods.
2. There is large variation in temperatures at the same level of carbon dioxide
3. Even at extremely high concentrations of carbon dioxide there was no runaway greenhouse effect and life was not baked to a crisp.
So given these incontrovertible pieces of evidence we have to ask the question WHY are the ecologists so up in arms about us pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
To answer that question we have to note that the response is: reduce the size of the economy and reduce energy consumption in order to reduce the emissions.
I think the answer to that is they do not really care about the carbon dioxide, it's the processes that generate the carbon dioxide and the energy consumption they're worried about.
Why?
Well, if your prime concern is biodiversity and preservation of ecosystems then you want the least possible interference. Given that carbon dioxide has a net positive impact on biodiversity all things being equal it's glaringly obvious that the problem for the ecologists isn't carbon dioxide, it's the size of the economy and the amount of energy consumption.
If it were carbon dioxide alone then we switch to non carbon means of generating energy but there isn't a consensus among the green groups. Some are opposed to e.g. nuclear power and wind turbines and very few are not. Tbus it's easy to conclude it's not the emissions they really care about it's the fact that the economy drives energy consumption which drives extraction of natural resources.
In the end the answer is the economy needs natural resources and that's their real concern. That also in fact is a message that's now being pumped out into the media: reduce consumption and "we use too many resources".
What's interesting however, is you hear no such message coming from e.g. the Chinese or the Russians.
The Russians don't believe in global warming AT ALL. They think it's bullshit.
On the other hand they also think WE should reduce our emissions (read: reduce the size of our economy).
Likewise the Chinese state they are very concerned about global warming but have no intention of reducing their emissions and in fact are going to GROW their emissions. They say that if anybody has to reduce emissions it should be us, meanwhile they will be free to increase theirs.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from these observations but it's enough to ask one final question in closing:
Are we so GULLIBLE here in North America and Europe that we're going to voluntarily reduce our economy and standard of living while our industrial competitors laugh at us behind our backs while they increase their standard of living at our expense with NO NET EFFECT on global emissions since they will be emitting more to make up for our reductions?
What's interesting to me is that there have been at least two global warming episodes in the past.
The biggest was during a period called the Eocene several tens of millions of years ago. What's interesting about this era is that carbon dioxide was several times what it will be in the worst case scenario in our own era(more than 500 parts per million project compared to 2000 parts per million during the Eocene). During the Eocene the summer temperature at the poles was 20C and in the tropics it was close to 40C. At the same time the global biodiversity was one of the highest it's ever been in the history of life. There were no humans around.
The more recent period called the Pliocene was very interesting because it's similar to now. Carbon dioxide was just under 400 parts per million and the configuration of the continents was almost identical to the way they are now. The temperature, however was some 5C higher at the poles and some 3C higher than today at the tropics.
Biodiversity was also much higher than today. There were only early hominids around and in limited numbers. Practically speaking there were no humans around.
What can be gleaned from those two cases?
1. Biodiversity in the pre-human epoch was usually higher during global warming periods.
2. There is large variation in temperatures at the same level of carbon dioxide
3. Even at extremely high concentrations of carbon dioxide there was no runaway greenhouse effect and life was not baked to a crisp.
So given these incontrovertible pieces of evidence we have to ask the question WHY are the ecologists so up in arms about us pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
To answer that question we have to note that the response is: reduce the size of the economy and reduce energy consumption in order to reduce the emissions.
I think the answer to that is they do not really care about the carbon dioxide, it's the processes that generate the carbon dioxide and the energy consumption they're worried about.
Why?
Well, if your prime concern is biodiversity and preservation of ecosystems then you want the least possible interference. Given that carbon dioxide has a net positive impact on biodiversity all things being equal it's glaringly obvious that the problem for the ecologists isn't carbon dioxide, it's the size of the economy and the amount of energy consumption.
If it were carbon dioxide alone then we switch to non carbon means of generating energy but there isn't a consensus among the green groups. Some are opposed to e.g. nuclear power and wind turbines and very few are not. Tbus it's easy to conclude it's not the emissions they really care about it's the fact that the economy drives energy consumption which drives extraction of natural resources.
In the end the answer is the economy needs natural resources and that's their real concern. That also in fact is a message that's now being pumped out into the media: reduce consumption and "we use too many resources".
What's interesting however, is you hear no such message coming from e.g. the Chinese or the Russians.
The Russians don't believe in global warming AT ALL. They think it's bullshit.
On the other hand they also think WE should reduce our emissions (read: reduce the size of our economy).
Likewise the Chinese state they are very concerned about global warming but have no intention of reducing their emissions and in fact are going to GROW their emissions. They say that if anybody has to reduce emissions it should be us, meanwhile they will be free to increase theirs.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from these observations but it's enough to ask one final question in closing:
Are we so GULLIBLE here in North America and Europe that we're going to voluntarily reduce our economy and standard of living while our industrial competitors laugh at us behind our backs while they increase their standard of living at our expense with NO NET EFFECT on global emissions since they will be emitting more to make up for our reductions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)