The article isn't worrying, it's just wrong. We can easily reduce US emissions by 80% without having to destroy the industrial economy. In fact, the most pessimistic of the economic studies shows (IIRC) that cutting emissions 80% would put our economy on track to double in size by June of 2040 instead of January of 2040.
The people who think that reducing emissions means destroying the economy are just idiots. California is well on their way to doing it already, and they have by far the strongest economy of any state.
the most pessimistic of the economic studies shows (IIRC) that cutting emissions 80% would put our economy on track to double in size by June of 2040 instead of January of 2040.
Really, California has a strong solvent economy. Yes they have a high gdp, but their government is in serious debt. I realize that their problems aren't only or possibly at all because of pushing an environmental agenda, but I wouldn't use California as an example of how environmentalism makes sense economically.
Measuring the economic effects of environmental legislation by looking at government debt is like measuring the speed of your car by looking at the price of apples.
The people who think that reducing emissions means destroying the economy are just idiots. California is well on their way to doing it already, and they have by far the strongest economy of any state.