The Climate Crisis (scam) Is A Math Problem Or Something

And it involves economics. I wonder what the solutions will be?

Climate change is a math problem. The solution is smart economics.

For too long, we’ve treated economic forces as enemies of the environment. I get it; climate change is a consequence of economic activity. But economic growth also alleviates poverty, improves health and longevity, and inspires innovation. There’s no reason why we can’t harness economic incentives as a driver for climate action, too.

To do that effectively and responsibly, we need to “Money Ball” climate change. That means analyzing what works and what doesn’t and accelerating the solutions that deliver. I believe that, at its heart, climate change is a math problem: a 53 gigaton (GT) math problem.

As a society, we emit around 53 billion metric tons of climate-warming gases—from our cars, energy use, agriculture, and other human activity—into the atmosphere each year. To put that into perspective, that’s roughly equivalent to the pollution of 12 billion gas-powered cars each year. You don’t have to be an atmospheric chemist to see how that could affect the climate.

So, if all the Warmists gave up their own use of fossil fuels, stopped eating meat, moved into tiny homes, etc, we could cut that in half, right? Why won’t Warmists do this?

There are hundreds of ways to make progress on climate change. But from an economist’s perspective, the reality is that while many approaches can help reduce emissions, they may also make life less affordable or hinder economic growth in the most vulnerable parts of the world. And they likely won’t become economically viable until it’s too late.

Looking at the economics gives us a reality check: We need to be honest about which climate solutions can truly work at scale, with the rigor this problem demands, while also accelerating economic growth. That might sound counter-intuitive to those who think economic growth and rising climate pollution go hand-in-hand, but the economics also show us that’s no longer the case; with the right solutions, we can achieve both.

OK, so, free market, right?

Scale: Compliance carbon pricing to reliably drive economy-wide change

When the carbon pollution of goods and services is priced into its cost, it automatically creates an incentive to reduce carbon emissions. For example, food or electricity produced with less pollution would become cheaper than similar goods with a high carbon footprint. This encourages producers to innovate and adopt low-carbon production methods and guides consumers toward low-carbon choices.

Who runs these? Government, right? Where does the money go? To government. And then most disappears into slush, graft, and waste. We’ve been through all this, I won’t go deep again.

We need to price carbon into land-use decisions giving landowners, farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and forest managers tangible economic value for storing carbon. Done right, a farmer or community could receive steady income for protecting forests, mangroves, or other natural carbon stocks.

And guess who is going to be able to control everyone’s land? To have input in how it is used? To make sure it conforms to what the Warmists in government want? Your land will no longer be yours. Surprise?