Following the Paris Accords would bankrupt the fragile U. S. economy, and they know it, so why was this even suggested?

If I remember correctly, they want roughly a 20% reduction in Steel, Aluminum, and Concrete production in the U. S.

Let's try to think about the consequences of reduced Concrete production to our residential market and the roads and bridges. If we did this, in about 10 years our roads would go to shit and there'd be potholes everywhere, especially on the concrete interstate highways. It would become impossible to transport delicate goods such as eggs or glass.

The consequences, from cutting Concrete by 20%, to the housing market are even worse, in my opinion. You'd have a few tens of millions of trade workers out of jobs, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, drywall installers, tile installers, etc. They'd all be unemployed and under-employed, and the negative feedback from this would drive a disastrous global recession, way worse than the 2008 debacle. The Stock Market would go to shit, and the banking industry would collapse. The new housing market is one of the most important markers of the U. S. economy, so if it collapses everything else goes with it.

What about Steel and Aluminum? Well, that would kill the aircraft industry, trains industry, and the shipping industry. Aircraft are the most cost-effective means of transporting humans, and some goods, while ships are the most cost-effective way of transporting most goods. Our cargo ships currently get about 60% fuel economy, which is close to the theoretical limit of 66.7% for a Carnot Engine, so there is no real room for improvement. But if you cut steel and aluminum production, the cost of producing new ships would go up significantly, which would increase the price of all goods at the point of sale. Also the price of farming equipment, such as new tractors and combines, would also go up pretty high, so the price of food would go up pretty high.

So basically the Paris Accords regarding the U. S. is a very dumb idea. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything to curb climate change, but this offers no solution.
9 mo
I checked some more info, and they want us to cut Cement/Concrete by 23%, and actually cut Steel by 35%. The agreement wants us to cut Coal by 85%, which is frankly completely absurd. The only way we could do that in any length of time is to produce several more nuclear power plants, which the Democrats are opposed to.

A few years ago, Climate Expert Dr. James Hansen (formerly of NASA) said that it was impossible to cut emissions without new Nuclear power plants.
9 mo
Basically this agreement is not about curbing Climate Change, it's about hand-tying the U. S. economy.

As I said in that other thread, we already have 3 feet of sea level rise locked in the next 100 years even if we stop polluting today, and we have like 25 to 30 feet locked in for the next 200 years. This is already a done deal which will wreck so many places on Earth, but having more restrictions isn't going to stop it.
Following the Paris Accords would bankrupt the fragile U. S. economy, and they know it, so why was this even suggested?
Add Opinion