Politics: four trillion dollar bubble?

Self-tutoring about politics: the tutor mentions irony about a fossil fuels warning.

While there seems unanimous sentiment that climate change is a problem that needs to be mitigated, how countries confront it is a little less clear. It might be a dance between sovereignty, energy security, economics, and the environment. Given those four priorities, which one has been vulnerable to neglect so far?

Perhaps with this competition in mind, the UN Climate Panel has suggested that, given the necessary reductions in fossil fuel use, investors in that industry may eventually stand to lose somewhere from one to four trillion dollars. Such losses, it’s proposed, could impact the global economy. Yet, it seems they would most likely happen if governments decide to limit fossil fuel use to the extent recommended, which isn’t necessarily happening.

Elevating a concern from environmental to economic is a pragmatic approach to get people to listen. However, there are some other ideas that may subtract from the clarity of the message. One is that, in 2021, the US budget deficit was 2.8T dollars. Another is that the Alberta government is delaying permissions for new wind and solar energy projects, apparently because the alternative energy business is growing too fast there(?)

It seems very difficult for a scientist to wrest headline space from a politician:)

Source:

crfb.org

nationalobserver.com

msn.com