And it involves economics. I wonder what the solutions will be?
Climate change is a math problem. The solution is smart economics.
For too long, we’ve treated economic forces as enemies of the environment. I get it; climate change is a consequence of economic activity. But economic growth also alleviates poverty, improves health and longevity, and inspires innovation. There’s no reason why we can’t harness economic incentives as a driver for climate action, too.
To do that effectively and responsibly, we need to “Money Ball” climate change. That means analyzing what works and what doesn’t and accelerating the solutions that deliver. I believe that, at its heart, climate change is a math problem: a 53 gigaton (GT) math problem.
As a society, we emit around 53 billion metric tons of climate-warming gases—from our cars, energy use, agriculture, and other human activity—into the atmosphere each year. To put that into perspective, that’s roughly equivalent to the pollution of 12 billion gas-powered cars each year. You don’t have to be an atmospheric chemist to see how that could affect the climate.
So, if all the Warmists gave up their own use of fossil fuels, stopped eating meat, moved into tiny homes, etc, we could cut that in half, right? Why won’t Warmists do this?
There are hundreds of ways to make progress on climate change. But from an economist’s perspective, the reality is that while many approaches can help reduce emissions, they may also make life less affordable or hinder economic growth in the most vulnerable parts of the world. And they likely won’t become economically viable until it’s too late.
Looking at the economics gives us a reality check: We need to be honest about which climate solutions can truly work at scale, with the rigor this problem demands, while also accelerating economic growth. That might sound counter-intuitive to those who think economic growth and rising climate pollution go hand-in-hand, but the economics also show us that’s no longer the case; with the right solutions, we can achieve both.
OK, so, free market, right?
Scale: Compliance carbon pricing to reliably drive economy-wide change
When the carbon pollution of goods and services is priced into its cost, it automatically creates an incentive to reduce carbon emissions. For example, food or electricity produced with less pollution would become cheaper than similar goods with a high carbon footprint. This encourages producers to innovate and adopt low-carbon production methods and guides consumers toward low-carbon choices.
Who runs these? Government, right? Where does the money go? To government. And then most disappears into slush, graft, and waste. We’ve been through all this, I won’t go deep again.
We need to price carbon into land-use decisions giving landowners, farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and forest managers tangible economic value for storing carbon. Done right, a farmer or community could receive steady income for protecting forests, mangroves, or other natural carbon stocks.
And guess who is going to be able to control everyone’s land? To have input in how it is used? To make sure it conforms to what the Warmists in government want? Your land will no longer be yours. Surprise?
gf
Teach thinks that “warmidts’ must live a 100% politically correct life style or their arguments concerning global warming must be in valid. This is the tu quoque fallacy, a sub set of an ad hominem attack and equally invalid. His arguments also fail in the straw man falls y. Very very few “warmists'” believe that all fossil fuel burning should end immediately. I got 1 do not believe that. A gradual reduction of the 1% per year that we have been doing for the last 25 years possibly increasing to 2% seems appropriate to me.
Teach expects everyone to live a 100% ideal life according to their beliefs.
BUT
When my nation was attacked on 9/11 and Teach became super fan boi of the Global War on Terror he refused to enlist and defend his country. Yet he expects others to behave with 100% purity
Oil prices fell 10 dollars down to 90 per barrel but gas price remains at $4.48
Throwing out big numbers like “53 billion metric tons” is meaningless without comparing it to the amounts naturally being generated, or the actual mass of the atmospheric reservoir it is being emitted into, nor the rate at which these “climate-warming gases” are degraded or consumed.
This is how you know this is just propaganda, not science.
From where did the increased atmospheric CO2 come? Natural sources?
Over the past century or so the concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to over 420 ppm.
Studying the carbon isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 supports that the increased CO2 came/comes from fossil fuels.
Sep. 21, 2026 = 425.22 ppm
Uh, no.
He makes no argument. He just notes that the people who believe that it is man’s use of petroleum products that is causing global warming it is a disaster that can be stopped by man reducing its use.
That the Warmists want the usage reduced/stopped without leading the way is hypocritical. They are hypocrites.
That be YOU.
Jl,
Do you receive any government benefits? Social Security, disability, Medicare, Medicaid, drive on roads, breathe clean air, drink pure water etc?
As a conservative, or worse, a trump voter, you are a hypocrite who needs to be ignored.
Another non-argument from the Rimjob as Mr. Lewis pointed out earlier.
What would Jesus do?
Bwaha! Lolgfy!
MAGA47 Motherfucker!