Idén kom i ren desperation. Att lösa världens klimatproblem genom att spruta ut svavelpartiklar högt upp i atmosfären - det ska man göra i absolut sista ögonblicket.
Gates: "Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.
Since World War II, US-government R&D has defined the state of the art in almost every area. The private sector is in general inept.
The climate problem has to be solved in the rich countries. China and the US and Europe have to solve CO2 emissions, and when they do, hopefully they’ll make it cheap enough for everyone else"
The global warming agenda is a desperate effort to gain greater control over our lives. Political commentator Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) explained that “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
That’s the political goal of the global warmers.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University
Between the 16th and 18th centuries, the Skolt Sámi negotiated treaties with successive Russian czars. These agreements—which the Sámi collectively call the Gramota—guaranteed the tribe's access to traditional hunting, fishing, and herding grounds.
In October, UNESCO affirmed that the treaties collected in the Gramota are the first written political recognition of indigenous land rights in human history.
I like to make the point that everything that we might oppose on CO2 grounds can also be opposed on more local, tangible grounds. ... The attitude of instrumental utilitarianism toward nature — that is the problem. ... for us to see nature and the material world as sacred and valuable in its own right, we must connect to the deep part of ourselves that already knows that. When we make that connection and feel the hurts of the planet, grief is unavoidable.
We no longer have to conjoin environmentalism with faith in Big Science and institutional authority, implying that if only people had more trust in the authorities (in this case scientific, but it extends to all the systems that embed and legitimize the institution of science) then things would be fine. You know what? Even if the “climate change deniers” are right, it wouldn’t alter my environmental passion one bit. Granted, I am a sample of one person here, but to me that indicates that it isn’t important to win the intellectual debate with the skeptical forces. That isn’t necessary to make people care.