Politics ~= Policy
When a group of people (in this case scientists) insist on changing policy, the subject matter is made political. When you're talking about something that is as far reaching as carbon dioxide, you're going to see those in favor of changes and those not in favor go to their respective corners. The former shouts from the mountains about an ecological disaster while the latter does the same about economic disaster. Both sides have merits and it is the politicians job to hammer out a compromise to satisfy both sides as much as possible.
This sort of thing played out previously with leaded fuels. In 1996, it was made illegal to add lead to gasoline because of the impact it had on air quality and lead poisoning.
http://web.mit.edu/ckolstad/www/Newell.pdf
Think of the consequences if carbon dioxide and methane were treated the same:
-people wouldn't be able to get to work without their cars
-the transportation of goods would seize without trucks and trains
-coastal cities would descend into chaos because there's no way to get food from where it is produced to them
-agricultural production would be reduced massively due to lack of machinery to mass produce crops and fertilizers to increase yields
-all cattle would have to be slaughtered because they're too polluting (no more beef)
-the capacity of the grid to deliver reliable electricity would be halved--this would stop most industry
-rolling blackouts and brownouts would be common.
-virtually all resources would become more scarce due to a massive reduction in mechanization
The list is virtually endless. From that short list, you can envision a damn near apocalyptic scenario.
On the opposite side:
-oceans rising causing coastal populations to relocate
-increased likelihood of draughts or flooding
-ability to produce crops may become more unstable due to changing climates
-increased rate of species extinction
No where near as apocalyptic as the former set but not good either.
What governments are doing already is the compromise:
-deploying renewables where reasonable
-suspending moratorium on nuclear energy
-renewable fuel standards where some fuel is sourced from crops
-increased fuel economy standards
-requiring the use of more efficient lighting, heating, and air conditioning
-tax credits on green alternatives
-building infrastructure and new buildings planning for ocean rise
Yeah, some people argue it is not enough but it's better than doing too much of either.
Best off in GN.
I hate it too.
