carlos.rymer’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Learn how to GoGreen with Green Irene, the only national home eco-consulting firm. Green Irene's flagship Green Home Makeover can help you not just cut your footprint, but also save money at the same time. To learn more about us, visit us at www.GreenIrene.com!

  On Symptom: High utility bills; Diagnosis: Full energy efficiency workup posted 5 months ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Very good reasons. Why don't we do a cost-benefit analysis, as many in Washington like to do in order to verify whether legislation should or shouldn't be supported?

  If we did one, here's what it would come down to:

  Cost of Climate Catastrophe Alone > Action To Bring CO2 Down to 350ppm

  Cost of Climate Catastrophe Alone < Action To Take CO2 to 450ppm or Higher

  It's that simple. Why? Think about it? If we don't take CO2 down to 350ppm, then all the money CBO says we will spend (the $100+ per citizen per year) will be money flushed down the toilet. That's because we'd reach tipping points anyways and so we'll still incur the cost of climate catastrophe alone because natural systems will be the ones driving climate change (due to dying forests, oceans holding no more CO2, permafrost melting, etc. etc.).

  In the end, this will mean the cost of climate catastrophe plus the cost of leaving CO2 at 450ppm or so. In that case, why not let CO2 go to 550ppm or even 1000ppm. Is there really a difference? If our goal is to not reach 350ppm, we should then spend money on figuring out how we can adapt to climate catastrophe, especially in vulnerable areas of the world. PERIOD.

  Where are the common sense economists when we need them in Washington?

  On 9 damned good reasons why some U.S. environmentalists should heartily oppose Waxman-Markey posted 5 months ago 7 Responses