gilraen wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:43 pm
If
15,000 scientists are to be believed, we have crossed the point of no return when we hit CO2 levels above 400ppm last year. Technological breakthroughs are still possible to contain the temp increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius in the next 30 years, but those breakthroughs will take time - time, which we are currently double-wasting by going backwards.
Ok, I'm all for the magic of science saving us, but what if it doesn't? I am well aware that the US is often a leader in scientific research, but there is all the rest of the world working on the problem, too. Sure you're responsible for a large part of the problem, but the rest of us aren't awesome either, we're just smaller and in some cases, slightly better on a per capita basis. Does America dropping out for 4 years mean the difference between life or death? Maybe. How do you determine something like that?
I get that doing less instead of more is a bad idea. Is it quantifiably bad? j If not, it becomes difficult to quantify Drumpf's terribleness here. Especially if we're going to claim he's ESPECIALLY terrible as compared to other presidents.
Also you said "going backwards" and I guess that's true, but is drilling in Alaska or a sea shelf really going to materially affect the climate? I mean, he's no friend of the environment, and that sucks, but not everything he's done relating to the environment also impacts Climate Change.
Obama restricting drilling was a "nice to have", but did it materially affect the climate?
I'm in no way suggesting that what Drumpf is doing is bad. I'm just not sure it's ESPECIALLY bad compared to past presidents. Bush went to war, spent billions and burned a lot of fossil fuel. Did he make any great strides with regard to Climate Change? Honest question, I don't know the answer to it.