Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
Again, you're overthinking. You are a good thinker but sometimes you just do too much of it. The question is not whether the greenhouse gases can be absorbed. They would be absorbed at the same rate regardless. The question is how much would be in the atmosphere if we controlled our emissions better, vs how much would be in the atmosphere if we just burned fuel like China.
Focus on the actionable.
|
lol ... someone telling me I am overthinking an issue. I am shocked!
shocked!! I have never, ever,
ever been accused of that before ... well, not since yesterday.
Generally, I agree with your second statement. It is good to limit GHG emissions. It's just not that simple, however, because of the economics and the politics surrounding enforced limitations of GHG.
What is the cost of controlling emissions versus the likely harm to the environment and our economy? If the limitation of our emissions by complying with Kyoto would be significantly detrimental to our economic health but have minimal effect on the potential change to the environmental harm caused, then should the US adopt radical and detrimental economic strictures while China is allowed to ratify Kyoto but be exempt from compliance as a non-annex country (China took over top GHG emitter from the US in 2006)? As such, understanding the reality of climate change (including the earth's intrinsic ability to handle GHG emissions) is essential for the US to make rational policy decisions in its adopton of environmental regulation.
Is the environmental end really near and will it have a radical, detrimental effect on our economy greater than the cost of harm caused by a longer but less radical transition to greener technologies? [BTW - Even though we have not adopted the Kyoto strictures, our GHG emissions have already decreased through such incremental changes].
See. Clear as a bell with no more thought than absolutely necessary.