Tom, I'm far less sanguine than you are about about your predection of dwindling support from the public. Too many Americans are far more attuned to the "plight" of polar bears than to the reality of the massive cuts championed by the AGW proponents. When's the last time you saw the main stream media feature an article on the cost of carbon reductions in terms that the vast majority of citizens can understand. Normally we see the cost cast in terms of reduced GDP, a term that is so far removed from every day life as to be meaningless.
Americans on average, and I'm sure you are familiar with this number, consume goods and services that generate 20 tons of carbon per year. Factoring in population growth to the AGW crowd's desire to reduce carbon generation on the order of 70-90% by 2050, the average American would be restricted to a about 4.8 tons per year. That's a description that would mean something to "joe six-pack"! Apply that to everyday life.
1 comment:
Tom,
I'm far less sanguine than you are about about your predection of dwindling support from the public. Too many Americans are far more attuned to the "plight" of polar bears than to the reality of the massive cuts championed by the AGW proponents. When's the last time you saw the main stream media feature an article on the cost of carbon reductions in terms that the vast majority of citizens can understand. Normally we see the cost cast in terms of reduced GDP, a term that is so far removed from every day life as to be meaningless.
Americans on average, and I'm sure you are familiar with this number, consume goods and services that generate 20 tons of carbon per year. Factoring in population growth to the AGW crowd's desire to reduce carbon generation on the order of 70-90% by 2050, the average American would be restricted to a about 4.8 tons per year. That's a description that would mean something to "joe six-pack"! Apply that to everyday life.
JoeH
Palatine, IL
Post a Comment