Would you rather spend trillions on fixing communities that get destroyed by storms and fire? And it won't end there because the causes of the more severe weather hasn't been addressed, so even more money. The right can't seem to get out of their own way, as if you guys believe you have some safe place to go if the climate gets too problematic for stable living.The USA contributes 14% of the total manmade global CO2. Yet the Democrats want the USA to sends $trillions around the world to be skimmed. This is the dirty secret.
And as long as we keep buying Chinese products because they are cheap, and our economy depends on consumerism, nothing will change there. There is more pressure on China to adopt cleaner energy production, and that's all we can do. Realize that China is being as irrational as climate change deniers, who tend to be conservatives.Until and unless the other 86% does its fair share, this is money grab. The USA cannot reduce enough CO2, to offset China and India. We can do 14% max and then the country collapses. The Democrat plan is to hurt our economy, while China get to build the old fashion way, without constraints. This is not rational, unless the leaders in the Democrat party expect to get skim or kickback, so they can be set for life.
The point is for humans to reduse what we contribute. A hotter planet means more drought and more fires, so at some point we may face a point of no return. Too little, too late.This bonehead solution is why I have suggested taming the fires in Africa to lower the natural CO2 as an offset. CO2 can come from anywhere and be affective. The annual African wild fires make trillions of tons of CO2 each year. Even a 10% reduction is huge. China and India would both want to invest in this offset; constructive zero sum game.