While I believe the problems global warming will cause are likely overstated (what activist group doesn't overstate the problems they're advocating to eliminate?), I do believe it's real and a major problem. That being said, I had no issue with Trump taking the United States out of the Paris Accords. The Accords seem to be a bit of a farce as the United States promised to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions whereas China promised to do what they had already projected they would and Pakistan promised to, and I paraphrase, "try to reduce emissions or something like or whatever." John Stossel has a good take on the Paris Accords that sums up my thoughts on the matter:
Indeed, even if every signatory fulfilled their non-binding promises, it would hold back the projected effects of global warming by four years, over the next 100! Trying to cut emissions with existing technology is a fools errand and will drastically hurt the developing world which desperately needs cheap sources of energy.
The answer, other than dealing with the consequences by investing in dykes and levies, is technology.
On that front, Nature just published an article about "sucking carbon dioxide from the air." And the price of such technology is falling by leaps and bounds,
The study, in Joule, was written by researchers at Carbon Engineering in Calgary, Canada, which has been operating a pilot CO2-extraction plant in British Columbia since 2015. That plant -- based on a concept called direct air capture — provided the basis for the economic analysis, which includes cost estimates from commercial vendors of all of the major components. Depending on a variety of design options and economic assumptions, the cost of pulling a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere ranges between US$94 and $232. The last comprehensive analysis of the technology, conducted by the American Physical Society in 2011, estimated that it would cost $600 per tonne.
This is the direction we need to go. Maybe have a "Paris Technology Conference." On other fronts, while solar technology is inefficient and requires government subsidies right now to compete, the technology is improving and could one day become a cost-effective renewable energy source. I just read an article about using the hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean, of which "The energy potential is staggering. In the Gigawatt range per vent." Of course you would have to find a way to protect the fragile ecosystems that live around these vents, but I would think such a problem could be overcome.
In the end, science and technology will solve this problem, not artificial and growth-halting caps on emissions. Indeed, the problem could be solved almost overnight if the right technology is invented. Science, therefore, is what we should primarily put our resources into as far as the environment is concerned.
"Every day is a new life to the wise man."
The Righteous Mind
Star Slate Codex
Consulting by RPM