Good news for the editorial board of the Minneapolis Star Tribune: the economy is not doing that well at this time thanks in part to Joe Biden’s policies, so, we should be safe from climate doom
As economy recovers, climate threat grows
One of the few beneficial aspects of the global pandemic was a sharp reduction in pollution at all levels, including greenhouse gas emissions.
China was the first country to lock down in January 2020, prohibiting people from even leaving their homes for several weeks. The result? Air pollution declined at a rate never before seen. As the virus spread and one country after another curtailed activities, worldwide pollution levels plummeted. Much of that decline was driven by a sharp reduction in all forms of transportation, which is the main contributor to greenhouse gases in the U.S. and here in Minnesota.
What we experienced was a real-time experiment in the impact of human activity on our planet and what would happen if we could radically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
Of course, that air pollution wasn’t CO2, which rests in the upper atmosphere, but, smog at the lower levels, and, yes, it was nice seeing that clean air. Here’s a question: why haven’t Warmists given up their own use of fossil fueled vehicles?
But as economic activity has resumed, so has pollution. After dramatic reductions in 2020, U.S. emission rates soared by more than 6% last year and are expected to continue rising as the economy reaches higher levels of normalcy.
President Joe Biden wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions 50% below 2005 levels by 2030, a goal that experts said the world should follow to prevent the planet from further warming and the extreme weather events expected to accompany it.
But durable progress has been painstakingly slow. So far, with everything the country has done to spur development of alternative energy sources, U.S. emission levels are only 17.4% below those 2005 levels.
How about all the True Believers practice what they preach? Has the Star Tribune stopped using fossil fuels for their operations?
The Build Back Better Act that would aim more than $500 billion at renewable power, electric vehicles, electric stations, solar and other programs could, according to Princeton researchers, get the U.S. close to its goal. But the bill remains stuck in the Senate, where Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a coal state, has proved difficult to win over. (snip)
We are no longer in a position to stave off climate change. That time has long passed, time squandered in endless debate over whether climate change was caused by human activity. But we do still have time to work together to mitigate the worst effects. We know some of the actions that must be taken. We know we must lessen dependence on fossil fuels.
See, in order to Do Something (which most Warmists haven’t done themselves during the 30+ years of spreading awareness), we have to pass big, life restricting, government domineering legislation. We have to skyrocket the cost of energy, which will increase the cost of living. Food, clothes, products, housing. And how many can afford an EV, with an average price of $54,000.?
A year ago, Frank Kohlasch, climate director at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), said that “while it will be challenging to move ahead in light of where we’ve been with COVID and economic slowdown, this is an opportunity to … take important and significant action on climate change.”
The COVID crisis proved far deeper and more durable than anyone could have imagined. But that immediate emergency does not dispel the gathering threat of climate change.
See, the suggestion here is the economic reduction from COVID, all those businesses closed by Government, people not going into work, everything else, we were all there, right, was a great thing for ‘climate change’, and we need to get back to that. Did the people at the Star Tribune miss paychecks? How about the big shots on the editorial board? They should take a poll, see if people are willing to do this in practice, not theory.
William “Saul” Teach: 1) Has the Star Tribune stopped using fossil fuels for their operations? 2) which most Warmists haven’t done themselves 3) How about all the True Believers practice what they preach
This is Teach’s only argument, having surrendered the debate on the science of global warming.
We’ll start taking conservative arguments seriously once conservatives start living their lives according to conservative principles.
Again Rimjob reveals himself to be a total fool.
Making up shit as he goes along.
Must be all those voices in his head to which he keeps referring.
#LetsGoBrandon
#BelieveTheLie
Bwaha! Lolgfy
The “climate threat” they allude to is neither described nor proven…..minor details, though
Since scientifcc theories are not proved, there’s no such thing as a “proven climate threat”.
That aside, the threats from global warming are more frequent heatwaves, floods, wildfires, severe storms; redistribution of flora and fauna including crops, fish, and disease vectors; decreased access to fresh water around the globe, melting glaciers, sea ice and ice sheets etc. These are real even if conservatives refuse to understand.
Good job-except those assumptions come from computer models, which isn’t evidence. Plus, there’s no proof any of those events are worse than they used to be. And if they were, that would only mean a correlation, not causation. You boys still have a long way to go….
The Editorial Board wrote:
So, their solution is to lock down the economy again, to force people to be virtual prisoners in their homes — except, of course, the lower wage people who work in grocery stores and the like — for the next several decades?
One of my ‘electronic’ friends is an economics reporter for The Washington Post, and she told me about working from home for much of the time. The Editorial Board doubtlessly did much the same, because their jobs allowed it. Maybe they only went out to buy groceries, or even had low-wage delivery drivers deliver stuff to their homes, but they’ve somehow missed that the economy requires people to interact, personally, across all of society. Not every job can be done from home.
Teach: that air pollution wasn’t CO2, which rests in the upper atmosphere
Two falsehoods in one sentence fragment! CO2 emissions decreased. CO2 does not just rest in the upper atmosphere.
The perfidious Mr Dana misstates what the author stated or even implied. It is Mssrs Dana and Teach who claim that the only way of reducing CO2 emissions is to “lock down the economy again”.