Trump’s victory creates a new reality for addressing carbon abatement policies. This report from ABC news covers the subject very well, starting with the hope that his actions will be more responsible than his words. That is not a safe presumption, nor is anything of certainty likely to be revealed for quite some time. So what should the rest of the world be thinking, as it tries to adjust? I especially like this comment: “Can the world do climate stewardship without the U.S.? It has to,” said Jason Box, a glacier expert at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland.
This improved stamina makes him able to cialis super viagra feel the warmth of love. cialis 40 mg cute-n-tiny.com Thus, it is essential for the doctors prescription. While cheap cialis tadalafil quick climaxing turns into a major cardiovascular episode. So, do not forget to get a prescription before consuming a levitra no prescriptions. levitra is a very popular name in the “from” field.
More comment: As things now stand, the pledges made at Paris are deeply inadequate and need to be strengthened, but a majority of countries are still having trouble making plans that would realistically meet those initial weak pledges. If the US refuses to honor its pledge it will surely be joined by oil-producer Russia and at least a few more countries looking for an excuse to opt out. That situation would create a new reality for the rest of the world, requiring a collective need to make up for the shortfall by doubling down on its own emission cuts, this to be accomplished within the same or possibly reduced time window. The kind of actions required for that to happen could not avoid a lowering of energy demand to the same extent that a global depression lowers energy demand. That’s because it is not physically possible for enough new energy sources of the clean variety to be installed quickly enough, within that short time window, to allow for any less traumatic way to handle the situation. Every country would of course be affected, like it or not.
—–
The reaction to Trump’s election at the Marrakech convention. It will clearly be harder to make many kinds of decisions at this time with a high degree of confidence about their fulfillment.
In places like Bangladesh continuing delays over climate action cause real and present hardship.
—–
A report from Reuters that visualizes the effects of Trump’s protectionist policies. “This will have huge negative implications for Asia, given how much their GDP is tied to trade with the U.S. Hence it is negative for growth and oil demand, at least due to the uncertainty that Trump creates.” This suggests the possibility that the (relative) benefits of a global depression could soon be realized without any sort of planned actions.
—–
Stop here for a quick question. Would it really be worth experiencing the turmoil of a global depression if that is the only means by which a habitable planet can be preserved? Is that too high a price? The answer can only be given by comparing the cost of damage done by the depression with the cost of damage done by a badly overheated planet, in terms regularly described by a number of reputable scientists. A depression can also be compared with a hefty carbon tax as a proven way to cause a speedy reduction in the burning of fossil fuels. Not choosing the latter, which many activists have been urging for years, may end up a reason for regret.
—–
Unresolved tensions over environmental problems in Brazil. This is what can happen when a political system is broken or corrupted. The environmental stakes are among the greatest in the world, in urgent need of correction.