BridgeSmith said:
Curbing actual pollution has benefits. Curbing CO2 doesn't help anything other than supposedly mitigating the greenhouse effect.
I don't particularly care about CO
2, specifically. CO
2 emissions and general 'pollution' are inextricably linked. To attempt to ignore that is obtuse to say the least.
BridgeSmith said:
It's not doing any favors for the economy, either.
The economy in the US is as powerful as it has ever been, despite 'climate change' ostriches crying about how terrible it is. This is complete BS.
BridgeSmith said:
Bankrupting our economy to forestall what may (or may not) happen decades from now, does not make sense to me.
Investment in infrastructure isn't 'bankrupting our economy'.
This is a completely ridiculous assertion that is fell back upon when there is nowhere else to go.
BridgeSmith said:
Well, all y'all on your side of the argument seem determined to take extraordinary and detrimental steps to mitigate what you **assume** will be an insurmountable problem decades down the road. That baffles me.
Long term planning for investment in infrastructure is neither extraordinary, nor is it detrimental.
I do not assume that there is some insurmountable problem at any point. Humans adapt. But there will be a tipping point eventually with regard to fossil fuels - it may be climate driven, it may be geopolitical - and my contention is that diversifying our energy infrastructure over the coming decades means that there is much less probability of a sudden crisis further down the road, no matter what the potential cause of that crisis may be.
The argument that our current energy economy is completely fine, is insulated from any potential source of disruption, and requires zero long term investment is completely ridiculous, and it's the argument you're making if you're arguing against my point of view. I am not Dik. I do not think 2 billion people are going to die in 2024 because sea levels rise a half millimeter.