So we build all structures in low lying hurricane prone areas to withstand 15ft storm surges and 300 KPH winds without doing anything to slow down or mitigate the process? Your link is ten years old and no doubt based on data even older.
The trouble with mitigation is almost all of the mitigation policies being put forth by virtue signalling politicians are ineffective and will not address the stated problem. These range from efforts to promote diesel in the EU that only resulted in car makers cheating while the bureaucrats looked the other way to bio-fuels which chop forests down to ship them across the world with fossil fuels to bogus carbon credits which trade cash for nothing or to incredibly expensive investments in wind and solar that cannot supply any more than a fraction of our energy needs.
These failures occur because there are no truly viable options for mitigation so politicians posture and pretend. What I would rather see is a cost benefit analysis on every action. The only mitigation measures that should be pursued should be those that provided real reductions in emissions and do so at a cost that that is less than expected harm caused by CO2. Furthermore, the costs must be based on a complete picture. i.e. the cost of wind is not in the turbines but in the cost of the natural gas or coal plant that needs to exists to provide backup when the wind does not blow. The net result is there are only a few actions that make sense and we would have give up on any pretense of meeting 'reduction targets' that the CO2 cultists are so obsessed with. But it would mean real progress on mitigation while we focus on adaption.
Home
Contact
Login
Register