"The pro-human CO2 policy is to reduce CO2 emissions long-term through liberating innovation, not punishing America."
"Liberating innovation" is certainly pro-human, but is reducing CO2 pro-human? I doubt this. In the context of geological history, the current concentration of CO2 at 420 ppm is very, very low. Just in the last 30 years there is a well-known greening effect of increased CO2. If CO2 levels fell much lower, plants would struggle to grow, and some might not grow at all. We need more CO2, not less. So how can it be "pro-human" to reduce CO2?
I appreciate the statement “We need a “liberate American innovation” policy instead.” Additionally to his point, fossil fuels remain to be the most cost competitive. For innovations to be successful on the market, they need to be scalable and to be able to out-compete fossil fuels. Given the global infrastructure
Supporting gas, diesel, natural gas, etc, any successful replacement would have to be hugely successful.
"The pro-human CO2 policy is to reduce CO2 emissions long-term through liberating innovation, not punishing America."
"Liberating innovation" is certainly pro-human, but is reducing CO2 pro-human? I doubt this. In the context of geological history, the current concentration of CO2 at 420 ppm is very, very low. Just in the last 30 years there is a well-known greening effect of increased CO2. If CO2 levels fell much lower, plants would struggle to grow, and some might not grow at all. We need more CO2, not less. So how can it be "pro-human" to reduce CO2?
I appreciate the statement “We need a “liberate American innovation” policy instead.” Additionally to his point, fossil fuels remain to be the most cost competitive. For innovations to be successful on the market, they need to be scalable and to be able to out-compete fossil fuels. Given the global infrastructure
Supporting gas, diesel, natural gas, etc, any successful replacement would have to be hugely successful.
Innovation requires research, which would likely demonstrate or determine that CO2 does not need to be reduced.
How can you have a “concrete event of the future” when it has not happened? A is A.