I am convinced that policies meant to reduce alleged carbon dioxide-induced global warming will be destructive.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
My first inclination is to be a bit skeptical about the claims that human-produced carbon dioxide is the direct contributor to global warming.
Preventing global warming from becoming a planetary catastrophe may take something even more drastic than renewable energy, superefficient urban design, and global carbon taxes.
Make no mistake: Tackling climate change is vital. But to see everything through the lens of short-term CO2 reductions, letting our obsession with carbon blind us to the bigger picture, is to court catastrophe.
The pace of global warming is accelerating and the scale of the impact is devastating. The time for action is limited - we are approaching a tipping point beyond which the opportunity to reverse the damage of CO2 emissions will disappear.
I'm not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It'll have a warming impact.
The only thing that will really change global warming in the long run is if we radically increase the speed with which we get alternative technologies to deal with climate change.
I think we're taking a snapshot view of climate change and trying to implement policy based on that snapshot.
The idea that we have the capacity to change or stop the climate, I'm just skeptical.
As this body of knowledge has evolved, a much more critical job for researchers and scientists has evolved into explaining and educating policy makers and the public to the risks of global warming and the possible consequences of action or of no action.
The science tells us that if we fail to reduce global warming pollution, global temperatures will rise to dangerous levels and unleash devastating extreme weather events and accelerate destructive sea level rise.