The columnist Paul Krugman of The New York Times commended on September 22, 2014 the study findings by the New Climate Economy Project and the International Monetary Fund. According to their findings, counter measures to climate change will have a positive effect on the economy by promoting jobs and providing more food and a higher standard of living. Climate scientists have also claimed that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at its highest level along with record high temperatures. It thus seems conclusive that the carbon footprint is a fact such that a carbon tax is essential means to combat global warming. It is now even argued as economically beneficial.
Despite economic benefits, climate change is still a political negative. Any politician daring to mention coal as a major polluter of the atmosphere risks losing an election since coal also provides countless jobs as a major energy source. Conservative politicians and the wealthy establishment thus remain in denial along with the voting majority.
Free enterprise is also a contributing factor. Adam Smith proposed that each person competing for their own self interest apart from caring about the fate of society in general promotes prosperity by means of competitive ingenuity. He was correct, but there are exceptions to the rule. Air, for instance, is essential to life, but it has little or no economic value in the sense that its abundance allows free consumption. Any cost, as for industry to clean up its air pollution, is thus an economic negative for the pursuit of the individual pursuit of wealth. A carbon tax tends to persuade corporations to invest in factories abroad instead of providing local jobs.
Climate change is a global event and any measure to combat it needs support from all nations. If it can indeed be economically positive, then let it develop as such.
There are also negatives to climate change itself. They relate to an atmosphere containing too much heat energy to control, thus resulting in more hazardous conditions of hurricanes, tornadoes, and drought and flooding that destroy lives and the wealth of society as a whole. The future becomes even more bleak with a forecast of a relatively over population of the planet becoming more chaotic in the competition for a lesser food supply.
Since atmospheric energy is greater, it would seem the means of combating climate change would be in finding ways to use its energy. Water in the atmosphere is the main absorbent of heat. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the atmospheric capacity to absorb heat. Water in the form of oceans and lakes is also a sink for absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. However, warmer water absorbs less of it. The oceans and lakes warming up become more of a contributor to global warming.
Both carbon and water are essential ingredients for sustaining life. The trick is to restore equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere by putting the carbon and water back where they belong. To do this, we need to use the energy of the atmosphere. Consider fleets of giant solar blimps. Each blimp uses solar panels and wind turbines as power sources. They are computerized and operated from afar. They can squeeze water and carbon from the atmosphere and transport them to places where they are direly needed.
A problem with this proposal is that an enormous amount of blimps are needed to even lower the temperature one degree. There is also a security breach to consider. Blimps could carry bombs and illegal drugs and could also get in the way of normal aircraft.
Still, another proposal along this line could be floating greenhouses over above the oceans. Plants cleanse the air of its carbon and could provide food aplenty if planned and managed properly.
About Author / Additional Info:
I am a self educated author of a physics book. I am now concentrating my attention on more urgent matters, such as climate change.