by That is what Robert J. Samuelson did in yesterday's Washington Post (I have not picked on him for awhile, time to gt back at it). The new UN report on global climate change has brought from him a giant shrug of the shoulders along the lines of, so what? He makes three arguments.The first is that we do not have the technology to do anything. Only 4% of total energy is coming from renewables he says, by which he means solar and wind. But there is also geothermal, hydro, and nuclear. They add up to quite a bit more. Maybe we have reached the limits on the first two and lack political will to do more on the third, although it is still expanding in China and in some other nations. But this seems overly pessimistic.Then he gets into a rant about how in the US there is no focus on the
Topics:
Barkley Rosser considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Jodi Beggs writes Economists Do It With Models 1970-01-01 00:00:00
Mike Norman writes 24 per cent annual interest on time deposits: St Petersburg Travel Notes, installment three — Gilbert Doctorow
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Daniel Waldenströms rappakalja om ojämlikheten
Merijn T. Knibbe writes ´Fryslan boppe´. An in-depth inspirational analysis of work rewarded with the 2024 Riksbank prize in economic sciences.
The first is that we do not have the technology to do anything. Only 4% of total energy is coming from renewables he says, by which he means solar and wind. But there is also geothermal, hydro, and nuclear. They add up to quite a bit more. Maybe we have reached the limits on the first two and lack political will to do more on the third, although it is still expanding in China and in some other nations. But this seems overly pessimistic.
Then he gets into a rant about how in the US there is no focus on the future. That may be true, but emphasizing that seems to be just giving up. Every other nation in the world has signed the Paris Accord. Just because the current US administration has pulled out does not mean we cannot get back into it.
Finally he notes that we shall likely see further emissions from poorer nations, especially China and India. That is certainly true. But China in particular has begun to move against GHGs, and India is leading the world in efforts to develop clean and safe nuclear power using thorium the US gave up on in the 1950s because one cannot make nuclear weapons from it. Really. None of this seems like we should do nothing.
Just to make himself look really ridiculous, on the second argument he goes back to one of his longstanding bugaboos. He concludes his argument on the lack of future orientation in the US by denoucing the lack of change in Social Security and Medicare, presumably meaning cuts in benefits as he has long advocated. For me personally, I oppose this as I want to see my children and grandchildren get the same benefits I shall get. I oppose cutting those benefits out of my concern for future generations. This is probably the most shameful part of what is already a pretty shameful piece by him.
Barkley Rosser