Replies are closed for this discussion.
The money has to come from somewhere. You've been very unspecific.
No? Less money for military spending = higher unemployment. Efficiencies in health care means the work can be done by fewer employees.
I'll give you a hypothetical if-you-say-so then.
There's a point of diminishing returns where throwing more money at a problem doesn't fix it any faster or better. The US Budget has a lot of that in it. If we could fix some of the systemic problems in the bureaucracy side and pressure our Congress into changing their stance, then we would have enough to go around.Of course, if I had a Golden Ticket, then I'd also be the proud inheritor of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.
There are always options, like reducing subsidies for oil, natural gas, and coal for instance which takes a huge chunk of change from the taxpayers every year even though they are the most profitable companies in the world. Besides, like Kris said, government budgets aren't a zero sum game. At some point priorities shift and spending more money on military equipment that the Brass doesn't want or attempting to improve the lot of Third World countries that aren't improving no matter how much we have spent will shift to a lower priority.
Also shifting to a lower priority?
The billions required to maintain about 170 military installations around the world, including about 45 installations in Germany alone.
Having been stationed in Germany, I can tell you that number is 10 installations for the US Army and most of those are small garrisons. I can also tell you that they were closing down several, moving some units back to the states, and consolidating forces that are still there around Ramstein AFB, Stuttgart where USAREUR and AFRICOM headquarters are located, and in Grafenwoehr, which has the largest training area in Europe and is used in multinational training.
Long story short, it's already a lower priority.
There is NO quick fix available unfortunately. Unless you refer to stopping all industrial processes (including cessation of all internal combustion engines) around the world immediately and simultaneously. That is not an option anyone wishes to undertake. And how would one know beforehand if monies directed toward reversing the problem would be fruitless in the end? No attempt is the easy way out but also the shortsighted one.
Clark's Third Law may apply here:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
“Magic always has consequences. Always” — Spike
It's a bit late for this discussion. Even political nay sayers have been forced to reconcile the fact that they were wrong in the light of compelling evidence (that isn't even that recent by now).
I honestly couldn't be bothered nor have the time to take people that still refuse to see this as an issue through points to consider, it's a done topic, it's done, gone and away with.
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated
— Leaked report reveals the world has warmed at quarter the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
— Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
lThey admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
lA forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.
This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.
Last night Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that ‘the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux’.
She said it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased.
For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human influence caused more than half the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ – 90 per cent certain – in 2007.
Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.
(read the full Daily Mail article here)
Are you really relying on a source from the Daily Mail, a publication known for sensationalist tabloid journalism?
While there are likely problems with the climate models, due to the variable nature of weather, we won't know how accurate the models are for at least another 10 years. When dealing with a time scale of 100's of years, we can't look at 7 and determine that all of them are wrong. There are uncertainties with these models and so far the current global temperature trends have been within the margins of error, something the Daily Mail does not show in their picture, or mention in their article.