The US has lowered it's CO2 emissions 10% since 2000. Thanks to the "right" and fracking. 16% in the EU.

If you eliminated US/EU production of CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would still rise. The slight warming that would take place as China and India modernize their life will still happen.

If you eliminate US/EU production of CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would rise 24% slower. If you added in a carbon tax that it levied on imports from countries that don't implement an equivalent system you can bet that China would lower its emissions too. If you're very fancy you can also offer to install alternative energy in foreign countries at cost price.

>If you eliminate US/EU production of CO2, atmospheric CO2 levels would rise 24% slower.

Thank you for confirming my point.

>If you added in a carbon tax that it levied on imports from countries that don't implement an equivalent system you can bet that China would lower its emissions too. If you're very fancy you can also offer to install alternative energy in foreign countries at cost price.

So the pitch here is... Let's risk war with a Nuclear power with a tariff stick and for a carrot offer a way to a worse standard of living then US/EU. This sounds real viable.

The alternative is risking war with a nuclear power for food and land that can be used for agriculture.

If anything, increased CO2 and temperatures is going _expand_ the amount of available land for agriculture. CO2, it's the gas plants crave my friend.

It might expand the available land for agricultural use, but that land is not going to be in the same spots as our agriculture is now. What do you think China will do when agriculture becomes harder in China, but there is all this Russian wilderness that used to be frozen and is becoming fertile? Or the US with Canada? Where do you think hundreds of millions of Africans will go when equatorial regions become uninhabitabe without AC?