Summed up as:
1. The government can't do anything about it.
2. Even if it could, the US can't do anything about what the rest of the world is doing.
I find it endlessly fascinating that the GOP (in particular) touts the US as the Leader of the Free World, the Greatest Super-Power, the country that everyone looks to and admires (or fears), the nation that can do anything, because it is, in fact, Number One at Everything …
… but when it comes to climate change, "America is a country, it’s not a planet." In any other context but climate change, a Democrat saying that would be roasted over the coals by the GOP for dissing the United States' Exceptional Greatness and God-Granted Ability to Do Anything.
Reshared post from +Les Jenkins
So his argument is that we're fucked either way so we may as well continue to contribute to the problem.
Embedded Link
Marco Rubio On Climate Change: ‘The Government Can’t Change The Weather’
This is the Florida senator’s reasoning as to why the government shouldn’t get involved in climate change.
“The government can’t change the weather. I said that in the speech. We can pass a bunch of laws that will destroy our economy, but it isn’t going to change the weather,” Rubio said on Fox and Friends, as part of a series of interviews on the morning shows following his response Tuesday. “Because, for example, there are other countries that …
Google+: View post on Google+
HAARP can cause a tusami, and other disasters. Reseach it.
Not only that, they can CONTROL YOUR MIND! Just google “HAARP conspiracy theories” if you don’t believe me! Of course, you’ll want to disregard the fact that there is no evidence for any of this. Who needs evidence, right?
There are methods that one country could change the global environment, the freakonomics guys did a podcast on them. The problem is there's no profit to be made from implementing them. In "free market"capitalism, one of the things the government should do is fund those things that are for the betterment if the country and people but carry no profit (public goods), but the modern GOP and voting populace seems to think the government is only supposed to support businesses for economic growth, provide a military, and enforce criminal law. It's as if modern capitalists have never read Adam Smith.
-1 to anyone's economic argument. It's hogwash. The long term cost of doing nothing VASTLY outweighs the cost of fixing the problem. How much has hurricane Sandy cost? That is just 1 violent storm that only hit the US.
The US could make an obvious difference by being a leader just like it had been in many other industries. Helping lead innovation, lowering costs, showing the benefit of this tech to other nations.
The Freakonomics guys are pretty smart. But incredibly stupid on global warming topics.
As I recall, the Freakonomics guys were lamenting in their podcast that there's no funding for these projects and made a similar point as you on long-term vs. short-term costs. I could be mistaken, and have just projected my feelings onto the memory of listening to the podcast (it's been a few years, after all).
This highlights a major problem with Capitalism as we currently practice it in America, though: There is very rarely any long-term planning or consideration. It's always about getting the money NOW.
As a personal anecdote to make the point, I used to be a store manager/general manager for a regional grocery chain that operated mostly in small towns (population <15k) and the entire time I worked for the company there was a push to reduce labor costs. In Q4 of my first year it was decided that we needed to lay off 2% of our workforce. When it was mentioned in the district meeting, I argued against, saying that the 2% staffing reduction coupled with the steady price increases we had been doing would result in a 5-10% drop in sales, due to the close-knit nature of small towns. It turned out I was sort of wrong: if a store only laid off one employee their sales only dropped 3%, but the stores that laid off 2 or more people all had drops of at least 5%. In retrospect, it didn't matter to anybody in the corporate office if the company lost more money in sales than they gained in labor cost by a factor large enough to hurt profits, because they got to release an earnings/profit forecast that was higher and drove the stock price up. 2.5 years later the CEO was under investigation by the FTC for insider trading (he sold $10.3 million in stocks shortly before a quarterly earnings statement was published that was substantially worse than predicted) and the company paid a settlement of $6.75 million to investors for lying to inflate their stock price. (As far as I'm aware the CEO was never convicted or charged, though from having met the man and knowing many people in the corporate office in the Treasury and Accounting departments, as well as the timing of the situation I'm certain he's guilty).
Anyways, back to the topic of global warming: Until there is a short-term profit motive, no corporation is going to willingly do anything to prevent global warming. Until we get intelligent politicians who aren't wholly-owned subsidiaries of corporations and the rich (on both "sides" of the aisle), there's not going to be any government action on global warming. It's lose-lose until Americans finally decide to make the country For The People instead of For The People Who Buy Politicians.