corporate rationing is the only restraint this economy could ever impose to make any difference. what was that saying, "you'll have to pry these emissions from my cold dead hands"

deny and opportunity to develop? WTF are you talking about? Who forced the developed world to produce billions of humans? you CANNOT have 8 billion humans having a carbon footprint of an average Westerner, otherwise we all die.

So why aren't we providing the money and technical oversight to bring them up to speed. Do the world's billionaires really need all of those magnificient yachts? It seems as though political ideologies are overcoming common sense. If climate change starts to erode civilization sugnificantly then the markets for commercial expansion will simply disappear as countries devolve into chaos as food and fuel disappear. I'll give you an example: like China, the Philippines (my home) is completely dependent upon inputs. We import about 6 million tons of wheat each year. We are beginning to eat like Americans. We have 7-11, Shakeys, McD, BK, and other Am food chains all over. What happens to much of the economy as CC destroys wheat and corn production around the world? Will the US export to us if they lose 1/2 of their crop? We also import 240,00₩ tons of feed for our chickens and pigs. Globilization is failing. Huge price hikes in minerals is already underway. China has now suspended gallium and germanium exports. And perhaps WW III has already started we just haven't acknowledged it yet.

@@filamcouple_teamalleiah8479 Seriously? Who is this "we" that is going to provide the money to other countries? You're welcome to send your money to these countries. It is not my problem or responsibility to fund the energy needs of other countries. Most of those countries are third world authoritarian sh1tholes. Maybe if they tried freedom and capitalism, they would have better results with the use of their resources. Climate change is at least 90% nonsense. It isn't going to erode civilization. Try learning some actual science about the climate instead of making blind statements.

The main thing to remember listening to this doddering whatever is that he started out admitting he was more poorly informed than many in the audience and he is so right. Economists have utterly failed in their job to inform governments and the public as to the longer term costs of their policies---remember 2008? Just one example of many. Quantitative easing? How about the abandonment of the gold standard? The list is endless. He insists on a HARMONIZED carbon tax? Sure. You think developing countries will buy this? Or maybe you think the West will pay for their billions of consumers? China is building a new COAL-fired power plant few months with 700 of them planned. But what about the 1 graph that showed anything substantive? You know, the Prof. Mann 'hockeystick'. Well, Mark Steyn debunked that in Court but just look more closely at that red line. You will find the blue line stops near the bottom, barely visible under the red. The purely red line that shoots up to the top is pure bogus extrapolation. Unjustified given the observed fluctuations. Guys like this are very very dangerous. He is driven by blind moralistic urge which is, in turn, driven by an unreasoning fear.

Total rubbish

Wrong, the tariffs put on cigarettes also made that less people are smoking today.

LOL read his book.

What a non-sense. Assume 90% of countries are part of the ‚club‘ - 10% are not and pay high tariffs to trade with the 90%. That sure is an incentive for those ‚free rider nations’ to adhere themselves to Carbon emission limitations and join the club.

Smith said that about INDIVIDUALS not nations. Nazis were going to war for their own self interest but it didn't benefit the world much

@@ouss Firstly:What a stupid analogy. Second: You can’t conclude that a nazi victory would have been good for humans overall. It’s actually to the letter the same ideology the Globalists base their NWO, Build back better, Great Reset agenda on, a uniformed world with a centralized power structure.

@@ouss individuals make up a nation

It’s the only fair way to do it. As it is today the rich countries buy up the poor countries Co2 quotas and leave them unable to have a revenue generating industry leaving them in a downwards spiral.

True, social systems would need to be in place to ensure it doesn’t hit low income people. But WITH climate change happening you get droughts (eg Afghanistan last year), floods (eg Pakistan this year) etc. Poor people suffer like this as well - Just in an uncontrolled way!

Yes but remember that a small % can have a big effect. For example CFC's which cause ozone whole are even smaller %. And spider poison in the blood is even smaller.

more co2 = more forests

@@Aliens-Are-Our-Friends2027 No, this is only true to some point. When the temperature rises above a certain level photosynthesis slows down and the trend for deforestation will prevail

@@michaelyulkin3543 The scenario you describe is so far from reality that it is totally irrelevant to the debate. And if/when/if it ever happened, it would likely create rainforests like it did before(you know the rainforest we call “the lungs of the earth”😉)

And humans only contribute with about 4% of that amount😉

Correct. Follow the money. CO2 follows the temperature, not the other way around.

Degrowthers are the only ones who talk about planned obsolescence in a meaningful way

Economists are fantastic and have probably made your life much better than you'd be without it, but besides that, do you have any evidence of the degree that planned obsolescence (notice the proper grammar here as this phrase is not capitalized) actually contributes to more greenhouse gases? If not, then you're better off worrying about what we KNOW is contributing to large amounts of greenhouse gases.

You forget that the bulk of climate change is due to our abusive use of petrochemicals !