The current liberal advocates for big-government solutions to this perceived problem of climate change are wrong on two counts.
First, what if it is not man-made? I am in this camp. If it is man-made, the solution being advocated to reduce CO2 by taxing it – raising the price of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere – is increasing the cost of energy for everyone in the United States. This increases the cost of everything and makes us poorer. Al Gore can heat and cool his manor house, but what is the effect on the poor? I know caring is your big thing, so redistribution would then be in order.
Second, CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas. Methane is several times more powerful in this effort. Why did advocates choose CO2 to regulate? Was it the European lead because they have very little coal or oil? How are they doing in this regard? Don’t we need a world government to reduce the CO2 emissions of China, India, Russia and all of Africa? Or if we lead, they will follow.
I don’t think either is near-term probable. If you believe that the sea is going to rise, why not start preparing the United States for that? The government can stop insuring beachfront property and renourishing the current beaches; both would save money we don’t currently have.
I am in the camp that solar energy causes warming or cooling. Sun flares are an indication of the energy leaving the sun, and can be correlated with our weather over periods that are significant enough to say man has very little effect on the global warming. Tree rings and other history of the period from 1100 to 1500 A.D. indicate that Earth was warmer then than now. Erik the Red didn’t name Greenland in some type of land scheme.