Tell you what, I have made this case about 12 times on different threads that already exist and I don't want to repeat myself. You have read them, too. If you can't remember, then you go find one and I'll defend anything on it.
The cost of both correcting climate change and dealing with the consequences are both incalculable. However a climate collapse would be a disaster that would threaten our existence as a civilization. Just warming up a few degrees sounds harmless and by itself may be. However the very real potential that CO2 concentrations in the oceans could destroy the food chain and/or change the ocean currents would leave billions of people at risk of starvation and death. There is much room for debate on the rate of change, the best path to combat it and other parts, but the fact is a full blown collapse would be our children and grandchildren's nightmare.
My main argument is whether the science is real, not about political disputes. I will take on all science deniers--any day, any time. And I have addressed costs as far as I care about them. Once again . . . There are proposals that are impractical in terms of doability and expense. We can't simply shut down fossil fuels before we have alternatives in place. Impractical "solutions" can be dismissed. There are proposals that involves easy, relatively cheap, smart, and practical steps that we should do automatically, like installing better stack scrubbers, hybrid cars, better fuels, more efficient engines, and pollution control. There are proposals that have to be assessed for practicality and cost/benefit and we do the ones that work and are affordable; don't do the ones that offer little and cost too much; and reach compromises on flexible issues. Wind farms work and should be encouraged. Cap and trade worked well for sulphur to eliminate acid rain and it did not cripple industry as had been alleged. Cap and trade for carbon will work the same way. The cap simply has to be reasonable, practical, and affordable. A balance can be found. Doing nothing accomplishes nothing and can be dismissed as well.
Like I have always said, if it is that serious, we should be forcing countries to comply. I mean, after-all, our life depends on it right?
A couple of points. One is there is debate on what needs to be done when it needs to be done and how best to do it. Second and most important coercion won't work. How are you going to force China, India, Indonesia, Brazil etc to do anything, nuke 'em? How are you going to do it without causing more problems than we have now. Like everything in life you appeal to their self interest. You incentivize them to do right and penalize them for doing wrong. Central government and command economies are not the answer.
The economic component of this is the most important. When the equipment needed for renewable generated energy at a home level is at the right price point people will move to it. Combine that with efficient storage and use of off cycle generated electricity and even the most hardened climate cynic will go green. It won't be an overnight change. Just as they are now, residential will increase the percent of self generated power they use but will need to supplement with plant generated electricity. Industry will have to use traditional generated electricity for much longer than residential. Their load demand doesn't mesh well with renewables.
One could even argue that China violating the terms of a carbon agreement is cause for war, if it is life or death, which it clearly isn't.
