Post #9420 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (49)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 0

You are right about the tech. But also smaller changes would have been needed previously.

I'm not sure that's right, either. You need basically the same "size" of changes - you just would have had more years to spread them over. So even though the overall shift is the same "size" (eliminate all ICE vehicles, eliminate all fossil fuel electricity generation, etc.), you have a smaller per-year shift.

Make no mistake - the policies that voters are pushing back on now aren't anywhere big enough to meaningfully solve the climate change problem, either. Voters in the OECD are simply unwilling to pay the costs necessary to keep climate change low.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (49)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.