OK, fred, I’ll address your points.
Yes, I agree. When I make a statement, I usually agree with myself.
Yes. What is your point? Would you have preferred they include any Tom, Dick or Harry with an opinion on climate change? This is basic stuff. They wanted to get an idea of where climate scientists stood on the subject, and so they established a logical and neutral parameter for who would be included in the study. The parameter was a minimum of 20 publications on the subject of climate change. I will ask again: Do you have any specific objections to the selection and research methodology used by the National Academy of Sciences? If not, do you concede the accuracy of their findings?
Your remaining two points (restated multiple times in various ways) are that 1. Not everybody benefits from the transition away from fossil fuels and that 2. The costs of the solutions may exceed the benefits. In response, I will say that I agree some individuals will not benefit. People who work in the fossil fuel industry will not benefit, at least not in the short term. And the higher costs could negatively impact many others, in the short term. What I should have said was that all people will benefit in the long term.
Here is a simple truth. Fossil fuels will eventually run out. It’s in our rational self-interest as a species to figure out a way to fuel our societies with renewable energy sources. At the same time, refining crude fossil fuels, and using the end products, generates by products that harm the environment in a multitude of ways, and contribute to global warming. It’s in our rational self-interest as a species to control and shape our environment to our needs. Regarding the cost benefit analysis of such measures, I’ve heard scientists speak with optimism about reducing carbon emissions and converting to renewable energy sources, but I can’t give you a dollar for energy unit estimate if that’s what you’re after. I doubt any such thing exists. You’re asking for absolutes in a world of uncertainty.
To be honest, I am concerned about the long term feasibility of converting to renewable energy sources. Will they be enough to power our cities and towns? Will they be profitable enough to entice industry? I am in favor of funding research into renewable energy, but I wouldn’t want it to become an industry dominated by government subsidies, and all of the political intrigue that entails. What we need is for clean, renewable energy sources to become profitable in the free market.
I don’t know how to make that happen, but until it does, “going green” is just a pipe dream.