Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate
Uhh.... we TRIED going with "find solutions" before having political support. Kyoto fell apart. International agreements went completely ignored. Subsequent summits went absolutely nowhere. Politicians realized that what the electorate wants is STUFF. NOW. Enacting a policy that gives people less STUFF would be political suicide.
I have been working on climate change issues for 21 years now. We had solutions then.... we have even better solutions now.... but there still isn't enough political will to enact those solutions. Someone recently posted an article about the Germans regretting moving towards using less fossil fuels because of the increased cost. And that is a virtual certainty... green energy will cost more. More cost = less disposable income = less stuff = political suicide.
|
"Finding solutions" is about more than just legislating. That's the big problem I have with this situation. Sure, legislation can help, in a big way, but it doesn't have to be the be-all-and-end-all of the problem.
For example, did you know, that one of the few countries that has actually come close to meeting it's Kyoto Accord requirements, is the United States? There for awhile it was looking as if the US, even without ratifying the accord, had actually met the requirements, but now it looks like it just missed them, according to the google searches I was able to find on the matter.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/0...-embracing-it/
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10691
That represents a shift in public attitudes - without needing the votes in congress - and a massive change in both technology and the mix of energy available. The biggest help for the Kyoto accord goals, is fracking. That's right, the one thing that has demonstrably helped reducing CO2 emissions, is the evil fracking done by the evil oil and gas companies. The increase in Natural Gas use in opposition to coal has really helped reduce CO2 emissions in a more concrete way in the states than wind has.
The issue is that environmentalists are not pragmatic. They see a problem, but cannot see a real, workable solution. And the pragmatists who can see solutions, refuse to see a problem. This natural gas "solution" just sorta happened, but when it did, environmentalists denounced it because it was "big oil", and didn't even notice that it was working. Environmentalists don't really understand money or costs. Until they do, they are going to have trouble expressing their ideas to the rest of the people.