Steven Koonin on The Practical Impacts of Climate Policy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 окт 2023
- Steven Koonin examines the moral and practical impacts of climate policies, especially rapid decarbonization. He argues for considering developing nations' energy needs and avoiding restricting their access to affordable energy. He asserts that overly rapid emissions reductions in developed nations would be economically disruptive and expensive without significantly impacting global emissions.
To learn more about the Hoover Summer Policy Boot camp, visit: www.hoover.org/hoover-institu...
To watch the first video in this series, click here: • Steven Koonin on The L...
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
16:00 the absotute animosity portrayed by the women in the background there. holy shit.
Do me a faovr and at least know which Side your on. Because the sides are very crystalclear and dont even intermingle: Science is on one side, Climate-Change-Denial is on the other Side. The flatearth communtiy has LITERALLY voiced their
full-support for one of the sides (guess which side) and i cant stress how ocmpletly crystalclear seperated and distinctly-different and seperateee the sides are. Bigfoothunters are on your side, healingrystals too. Climate-Change iss proven and so is the shape of the earth. The science is settled and you not realizing climate-change-denial is build on massive amounts of propaagnda we all 'debunked by now' and this information is 'readily available' then you cant be helped. I repeat: If your too f-ing stupid to factcheck anything and even massive A Summarys that SCREAM the Question "WHY IS THE SUPPOSED SIDEOFTRUTH LLYYYING AND CAUGHTT LYINGGGG" like how Hbomberguy did in his famous still-unrefuted video, then no one can help yo
This guy sounds exactly like my grandpa. I love it.
Do me a faovr and at least know which Side your on. Because the sides are very crystalclear and dont even intermingle: Science is on one side, Climate-Change-Denial is on the other Side. The flatearth communtiy has LITERALLY voiced their
full-support for one of the sides (guess which side) and i cant stress how ocmpletly crystalclear seperated and distinctly-different and seperateee the sides are. Bigfoothunters are on your side, healingrystals too. Climate-Change iss proven and so is the shape of the earth. The science is settled and you not realizing climate-change-denial is build on massive amounts of propaagnda we all 'debunked by now' and this information is 'readily available' then you cant be helped. I repeat: If your too f-ing stupid to factcheck anything and even massive ASummarys that SCREAM the Question "UHM, WHY IS THE SUPPOSED SIDEOFTRUTH LLYYYING AND CAUGHTT LYINGGGG" like how Hbomberguy did in his famous still-unrefuted video, then no one can help yo
It is a free-for-all to find a solution to our environmental "problems", globally, of course.
Local solutions can always be found without impacting others outside of the area of concern. It can be done, we live with it daily. Finding local solutions is of little interest to intellectual research-oriented groups. There is no money there.
This is not the case on the global scene. There is no one solution to fit all. The field is open "to find one". Thus everything is possible, if the finances are available. Merit-based considerations can be brushed aside with ease. This is the case in our Western culture, where intellectual groups are popping up in abundance.
Can what he said at the 12:30 mark be taught to EVERYONE in the world, so they won't believe such false models any longer?
A philosopher will bring in the trade-offs of the human condition to the climate hysteria, where all humans strive for a better standard of living. Over the last 150 years you will find a root cause of elevating humans standard of living en masse, hydrocarbons.
It's not that deep. The majority of Sheeple across the world have been taken by a bs narrative.
I was in oil and gas. When I had a daughter I looked into these arguments. What I found out made me quit. Here’s how he does it
1. He wouldn’t be at the Hoover Institute if he was disparaging the oil industry. They’re funding by it along with other anti-regulatory interests (tobacco, pharma, banking, arms, chemicals, auto)
2. He mentions catalytic converters improving air quality in LA. The auto industry fought regulations and tried to bury the technology. (the plot of No Sudden Move). Overlooking the fact that regulations made it mandatory. Otherwise, smog city still
3. The whole India excuse. Early global negotiations on how to ween off fossil fuels said the US and developed nations should make the first cuts, bc we’ve burned the most historically (40% by the US alone). The idea was the capital could be shifted to renewables which would bring down the cost and elevate the developing world. The Global Climate Coalition (oil, coal, utilities, auto and chemical companies) used their lobbying power to influence the US government and killed the Kyoto Protocol
4. He takes on the easy answer of Lahaina fires, but ignored the flooding in VT. Rain bombs have global warming finger prints all over them. Warmer atmosphere holds more moisture (also a GHG btw). He also skims over that the utility has downed powers lines and bad management because they’ve found regulation tooth and nail. This has gone back to the 1920’s with NELA and Edison Electical Institute lobbying and propaganda.
5. He’s also featured prominently on PragerU, funded by natural gas billionaires
6. He often uses the CO2 is good for plants argument. Classic red herring.
7. He worked at BP - consider Gina spokesman with science credentials
8. Carbon capture is a false premise
9. Big Oil execs testified under oath to congress that their own science has always been in line with the IPCC. Which says we are in a crisis. As they each acknowledged, it is an existential crisis. (October 28, 2021 Fueling the Climate Crisis - on RUclips)
If it wasn’t for the $3B in profits a day from our dependence on fossil fuels, he’d never have a platform to come up with his beliefs. They’re certainly not based on knowledge. Use fossil fuels to build renewables, invest in our future, and we’ll all breathe cleaner air in a more stable environment.
We have PLENTY OF FOSSIL FUELS. Pollution is not caused from those whatsoever, it's many other things. Going electric would be worse!!!!
Pollution is never caused by fossil fuels? Are you actually claiming that?
More pollution caused by bovine flatulence than from fossil fuels, mainly due to feed inefficiency ratios, but alarming to say the least.