This will be a weekly series on major issues debated during the upcoming election. The first issue I wish to address is climate change.
The question I’d like you to answer is:
If you were President, and you had the majority of the House and supermajority of the Senate on your side, how would you address climate change and, if cost is involved, how would you pay for it?
If you need a summary of the issue, read below...
According to data of our Earth’s history, the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago, when temperatures rose to a peak. Since then, in an ongoing cyclic pattern, temperatures were gradually declining towards another eventual ice age, until the Industrial Age began in the late 1800’s, after which temperatures uncharacteristically shot up and have been rising ever since.
The cause of this reversal has been attributed to the burning of fossil fuels, which has resulted in a net yearly increase of CO2, a greenhouse gas, than which the earth and its inhabitants can absorb. The planet’s natural O2 - CO2 exchange would have otherwise resulted in a yearly net decline in CO2.
As a result, we have reached an increase of 0.8 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Age began. Scientists warn of irreversible damage risks once we reach beyond an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius. We are projected to reach that threshold by 2050.
To avoid this, a recent U.N. report indicated that we would need to cut CO2 emissions by half by 2030 and in full by 2050.
And if we exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius, then CO2 removal technologies would be needed to be employed on a massive scale to avoid these damages in a timely enough manner.
Damages may include melting of the ice caps, rising sea levels, eradication of coral reefs, eradication of certain species, increased precipitation, increased natural disasters, drought and famine, and massive human migration. The cost of these damages have been estimated to be around 50-60 trillion dollars.
Leon you keep pushing this global issue. People just do not think like that. Yes the Lung Association came out with it worst 10 places to live.Big changes from 20 or 30 years ago. No longer does Cleveland Pittsburgh Detroit lead the way in pollution. The west coast does. Hell you can even eat the fish out of the burning river. My suggestion is go local not global. Come up with ideas that work on the local level. When all I hear is people saying is where is this global warming because winter just won't let go in the midwest. Then we are not getting the right message out. People see the west needing water yet the Great Lakes are full
I have no idea how you change the thought process of so many people.