HYPOTHESIS: (Yes I used that term intentionally)
Anthropogenic global warming is supposed to be causing unprecedented climate change. Before they scientists came up with AGW, now referred to as 'climate change', the hypothesis was that we were running out of petroleum and natural gas and it was essential to begin the move to other forms of energy immediately.
I personally think the hypothesis is likely nowhere close to being proven at this time, but for the time being, let's go with that as if it really is so-called 'settled science.' (Science by its very nature is never completely 'settled' but oh well.)
The problem is the products that utilize other forms of energy still mostly require a good deal of petroleum to manufacture and as components of the product itself as well as operate, maintain, repair those products.
And how about the impact of mining on the environment to produce the ore that produces the metals used in those other forms of energy? Massive amounts of real estate are required for mining lithium, cobalt, magnesium, iron, copper etc. used in electric batteries alone and massive batteries are required for all EVs not to mention all those mines require machines etc. that use a lot of petroleum+. And are those resources not also finite? Is there unlimited supply of anything on Earth?
When the people have been ready for it and receptive to it, a free market technology has always come through for us to produce alternate means of doing almost everything from cleaning to cooking to transportation to communications. There is no reason to believe that a free market technology will not come through again to replace what we are doing now.
Government has initiated few programs that did not provide benefit to some or satisfied some, but in the end almost always produces unintended negative consequences. And government rarely ends anything long after it has become obsolete. A free market either changes with the needs and wants of its customers or it goes out of business and does something else
QUESTION: Considering the realities in the big picture in all of this, doesn't it make a lot more sense that all those trillions of dollars spent globally to presumably fight 'climate change' could be more effectively utilized to help people adapt to inevitable climate change, recycle, repurpose, reuse everything so we don't need so much of Earth's resources?
Would not all of humankind benefit more if that was the general philosophy?
Anthropogenic global warming is supposed to be causing unprecedented climate change. Before they scientists came up with AGW, now referred to as 'climate change', the hypothesis was that we were running out of petroleum and natural gas and it was essential to begin the move to other forms of energy immediately.
I personally think the hypothesis is likely nowhere close to being proven at this time, but for the time being, let's go with that as if it really is so-called 'settled science.' (Science by its very nature is never completely 'settled' but oh well.)
The problem is the products that utilize other forms of energy still mostly require a good deal of petroleum to manufacture and as components of the product itself as well as operate, maintain, repair those products.
And how about the impact of mining on the environment to produce the ore that produces the metals used in those other forms of energy? Massive amounts of real estate are required for mining lithium, cobalt, magnesium, iron, copper etc. used in electric batteries alone and massive batteries are required for all EVs not to mention all those mines require machines etc. that use a lot of petroleum+. And are those resources not also finite? Is there unlimited supply of anything on Earth?
When the people have been ready for it and receptive to it, a free market technology has always come through for us to produce alternate means of doing almost everything from cleaning to cooking to transportation to communications. There is no reason to believe that a free market technology will not come through again to replace what we are doing now.
Government has initiated few programs that did not provide benefit to some or satisfied some, but in the end almost always produces unintended negative consequences. And government rarely ends anything long after it has become obsolete. A free market either changes with the needs and wants of its customers or it goes out of business and does something else
QUESTION: Considering the realities in the big picture in all of this, doesn't it make a lot more sense that all those trillions of dollars spent globally to presumably fight 'climate change' could be more effectively utilized to help people adapt to inevitable climate change, recycle, repurpose, reuse everything so we don't need so much of Earth's resources?
Would not all of humankind benefit more if that was the general philosophy?