Another day, another UN Climate Change report. Oops, I already lost 47 percent of the country who do not think climate change is a serious issue. Mention the UN and you immediately lost a nice chunk of the electorate. Somehow the organization that can barely muster the support for food relief efforts is the tinfoil hat version of black helicopters.
The latest report says climate change will need $500 billion annually (by 2050) to deal with adapting to climate change. Not rolling it back. That ship sailed a long time ago. The initial estimates were for a $100 billion fund, and analysts hitting the half-a-trillion mark warn it could rise further.
$500 billion comes at the tail end of the climate talks in Lima, Peru. Most western countries didn’t want the figures released, and instead wanted to focus on mitigation measures.
What are some of the mitigation ideas? Well, we’ve all heard the cut emissions by ‘insert target date so politician will be out of office.’ Others are so laughable, I’m not sure if they are serious. One is warning labels on gas pumps. Yeah, you have a two-hour commute because the urban planner of your city was a sadist, and environmentalists want to slap a warning label on the pump.
Besides the fact the idea is incompetent and ignores the size of the problem, the idea actually flies in the face of the first amendment. All businesses and people are free from having to espouse the belief of the U.S. government.
Look, I’m all for solutions to the problem. But, slapping a warning label on gas and claiming your job is done is disingenuous at best.
Instead of hammering on working people, focus on long-term solutions. Adaptation protocols will need to be in place for developing countries. No one wants to hear they are going to have to set aside major money to fix an issue we helped ourselves into. Instead, it’s the band-aid of gas is bad. Gotcha. Now what?
Climate Change and Politics
If you look at the exit polls of the previous midterm election, a clear majority of Americans think climate change is a serious issue. Yet, democrats run timidly away from the issue, and the GOP wears the denying like a badge of honor. Democrats could use the issue to solidify their base, and possibly get people to vote in the midterms, while the GOP needs to expand their electorate to win a national election.
Both parties could use the issue, which shouldn’t be controversial, to work together. Who knew a cleaner environment would be a divisive issue? Maybe if we quit collectively shouting at each other, something would get done.
Yeah, what am I thinking? Governmental action only comes after its broken, then we make it worse, damn near kill everyone and finally a solution. Sound about right?