U.S. and Mexican politicians will fail to reduce global warming. Some like kamala Harris are afraid to suggest anything that wouldn’t gain more votes for election. Donald Trump is of a genre of business people focused on the throughput velocity of money. For those global warming concerns are an economic externality. Trump however is for world peace and prosperity while democrats prefer war in Europe and irrationally, peace in the Gaza to allow Hamas time to rebuild its military capacity.
N.A.T.O. is largely a democratic organ of the European Union with the U.S. being the blaster. Like a criminal gang members cannot demure from the wolf pack attack on Russian Ukrainian land. The European Union wants a to-state solution for implacable unilateral enemies (Hamas is the party dedicated to Israel’s destruction while Israel acknowledges the Palestinian’s right to exist in the Middle East) and categorically reject a two state solution for Ukraine. Candidate trump at least understands that the Democrat party gang insanity will likely lead to atomic war; bad for business. War though is an easy thing to sign aboard for gang members and anyone that wants out may be erased (for N.A.T.O. the equivalent would be leaving them exposed to possible attack with the same kind of perverse reasoning as affected the Union war vs the Confederates at Chickamauga when a Colonel with a peeve against a fellow officer failed to convey a message that would have moved troops and closed the gap that let Confederate forces surge through to rout Union forces.
The Democrat party should be plain and simple first in acting to reduce global warming. That is incompatible with truth and scale for party politicians wishing to hide from taking real action since they might not be elected. One simple plan would have three parts
1) remove millions of miles of asphalt streets that absorb and release solar heat.2) eliminate fossil fuel engines and other egregious sources of carbon monoxide/dioxide to the atmosphere3) ban coal burning power plants
Simple yet effective at great slowly anthropogenic climate change. Each measure would have detailed plans about how to accomplish it without great economic harm to those displaced by the change. Plainly a simple, realistic plan will complete fail to appear on party agenda the next 50 years.
Democrats will have bait and switch atmospheric heating reduction schemes and even some that have a positive effect on reducing greenhouse gases and asses (such as eliminating cattle grazing for the meat market on federal land) and designs for no-net loss of biota housing and zoning instead of providing free cash for the poor and middle class to make huge down payments on new homes that the poor and middle class will default on payments on in a couple of years when they can’t afford monthly home payments. The Harris housing scheme would probably cost 75 billion dollars at a minimum.
The 2007-2008 home mortgage derivatives banking failure and economic crash followed the Clinton administration’s drive to expand housing with loans to people with bad credit and the lower middle class. Bad money follows good; repeating the mistakes of the Clinton may well combine a perfect wave of some sort of unknown financial failure and tax cuts with a cascade of public debt default. Then N.A.T.O. might ask for a half trillion dollars as America’s share to help rebuild western Ukraine if that war is concluded without atomic conflict.
It would be better to provide cash to those that live in poor rural, non-electrified sheds to upgrade their properties with micro-wave, waterless toilets and saturate them with solar panels and free insulation, yet practical economics that reduce global heating is eschewed by the Democrat Party. One could build a dozen decent sheds for each $25,000 given for a down payment on a ‘starter home’. Many people on the planet would be happy with a good ten by twelve foot shed with an electric Incinolet toilet and solar panels to live in (those cost extra) to start and finish with.
Wouldn’t three million new homes demand 50 to 500 gallons of water apiece every day. A bath runs about 30 gallons and flush toilets a couple gallons per flush. Some people use dishwaters and water lawns besides. That new use adds up from 150 million to one and a half billion gallons of water every day. Environmentally speaking that is a disaster. Does the Colorado River have spare billion gallons of water for new western homes?
Won’t every scammer in the nation sign up for the free cash down payment and end up pocketing the cash after selling the place without making a single payment? Wouldn’t the poor without a good job that would qualify for a home loan of even the cheaper ‘starter’ $300,000 (yuppies will expect to move into a mansion after several years of hardship living in starter models) be excluded. Democrats often talk about the middle class (a class in decline) and sweep the poor under the rug. Many of the poor would be happy to just buy a decent length airstream trailer with their $25,000 if they would qualify. The prosperous and welcome often believe the poor are lazy not understanding that life doesn’t go equally easy and breezy as it might have been for them. Head bobbing sycophants sometimes find things go easy economically. Others are just well positioned and experience life without so many challenges; the ‘let them eat cake’ mentality is not uncommon. Will the homeless and unemployed have the free money those with sinecures get?
I did like the 2020 primary idea from a Democrat in the primaries about reducing global heating directly with a large sunscreen at L-5 in space. It would in effect be a vast tin foil hat constructed to keep harmful intelligent ideas from reaching the voters. The consequences to the Earth are of course entirely experimental and theoretical. It’s fun to consider the mass disasters that could result from that. Yet one must first consider some of the great number of variables for how the screen is deployed, designed and applied.
Would the screen be as large as the moon in diameter? Would it be adjustable like Venetian blinds? Would it partly block sunlight or entirely block it a few days a year like an eclipse? Would it reduce light all year or just a few months annually? Would the filter affect the entire planet or just part of the planet? The affects on global weather and ocean temperature and currents might produce drastic whipsaw events and a cascade of change that are irreversible. It is fun to consider the idea though and it would require a lot of government financed investigation and consideration by excellent scientists from a number of discipline for at least a decade before even considering build the thing.
Financing a vast sunscreen at L-5 would be challenging as would construction. Does one hire Boeing to get it done? The N.A.S.A. effort to return astronauts to the moon is going kinda slow. Would the 1000 mile tin foil sombrero get built faster?
No comments:
Post a Comment