Is an ounce of “cure” worth of climate change worth?

“I want them to work as you do in times of crisis,” said young Gretta Tungberg, a young climate activist. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. so so.”

But is there a way to escape the fire and save the building while making serious mistakes in the process?

Jason Johnston, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, has written a new book – although there is no doubt that human activity contributes to climate change – some assumptions are used to approve certain policies on climate change.

In August, the Cambridge University Press published a book entitled “Climate Reasonableness From Discrimination to Balance”.

“The amazing thing is that the policy is based on science,” says PhD professor of law. In economics. “But the policy is very political, it’s moral, and for many people this is not even about science now. It is a matter of morality to do what is right. ”

At UVA, Johnston serves as a law professor in law and economics at the John M. Olin program and at the Henry L and Grace Doherti Foundation. He says he has written, taught, and taught about environmental regulation and land use, and that these practices have served as part of the need for climate change policy.

The more you understand how relevant facts and figures are presented in a public-focused climate change discussion, the more you think it is worth compiling your observations in book form.

“People are worried about me not giving the right picture of what is known and what is not,” he said. “It’s the same with economics. People were not given enough information to know where these numbers came from.

In the book, Johnston examines institutions such as the United Nations Climate Change Panel. As a coalition of governments, the IPCC will release summary of scientific reports months before the full report is released, which will allow journalists to verify the potential of political forces before accurately comparing the scientists who have contributed to the panel.

Johnston also examines NASA’s Goddard of Space Studies, which actively discusses the impact of climate change on social media channels.

“I think the role of the public science agency should be known and unknown, and the limitations of their ability to make any decisions or predictions,” he said.

The surface temperatures of the planets are a measure of the earth’s temperature. Johnston, for his part, said: “There is still a great deal of controversy in scientific literature as to the extent to which we are overheating.”

According to climate models, the lowest temperature in the atmosphere, known as the tropics, must record higher temperatures than the Earth’s surface.

There is an exact number of what should be the difference between the models and it is not consistently verified.

Often, the study found that “there is more heat on the surface than at lower temperatures, and this increase is not expected to result in an increase in carbon dioxide.”

Johnston said other factors, such as black carbon or black pollution and massive land development, could affect the climate in ways that are not fully understood.

“Black carbon or cotton emissions from coal to heat and cook affect the atmosphere. It is the second strongest heating agent after carbon dioxide. ” Most scientists believe that black carbon or soot has caused much of the heat in the Arctic. But people can’t hear about it. ”

In this regard, the Chinese are suspected of posting black carbon on some of their border crossings because they do not allow black carbon to be mentioned in summary reports, as the country is heavily dependent on coal.

So unless the problem is fixed, the average person wonders which pollution has contributed to the climate problem, and which forces and technologies are supporting the development of solutions?

In short, in most cases, economic winners and losers are being selected every day without a full cost-benefit analysis.

“Science is only right from a different point of view – if you think any evidence of serious and irreversible damage is sufficient to start taking policy action,” Johnston said. “This is called the precautionary principle, and it applies only to one side. It does not cover the costs and damages that may result from your actions. ”

They say that the so-called clean energy is not always visible. Wind farms only last 20-30 years: Wind turbines and knives can still be reused after use and will continue to fill garbage cans. Solar panels are finally loaded with hazardous chemicals.

Meanwhile, such technologies serve as a tax on the poor, Johnston said, because natural gas-fired power plants cost more to generate energy.

Johnston said he saw it as a great option to reduce emissions by serving the growing needs of the world’s population, even though the power plant has embraced non-backdoor barriers that have eroded energy in recent decades.

Related stories

Leave a Comment