It would take form similar to "ending DIE". He would most likely issue an executive order that aligns the executive branch's policy to the reality expressed by Elon Musk in the following Tweet:
The executive action and statements must clearly deny any kind of short-term "climate emergency" and similar concepts and be aimed at removing the alarmist climate propaganda from public institutions, federal contractors, etc.
The risk may be overblown in the short term, but we can't prevent that significant long term risk without taking action.
If we ignore it now, we will saddle the future with both the servere harms and the necessity of taking far more drastic actions.
I think saving for retirement, or dealing with the national debt are both reasonable analogies -- one with a positive spin, and the other a negative. If we start saving (i.e. make permanent reductions to annual emmisions) now, then we get interest on those savings. If we don't save now, then we have to save a lot more later, because we don't have that interest helping.
National defecit is a similar problem of "inaction now saddles our future selves with a larger problem to solve, and less time to do so."
What's the Republican strategy for dealing with long term, structural problems, where status quo will ultimately screw us over?
What's the Republican strategy for dealing with long term, structural problems, where status quo will ultimately screw us over?
@DanHomerick I don't know about Republicans but I would suggest a 10 year moratorium on any climate-related action & advertising, firing all federally funded climate scientists who engaged in political activism, funding independent research to ascertain, as objectively as possible, the future trajectory of the Earth's climate under a range of human impacts, and 10 years from now, an honest debate on the various trade-offs involved and possible solutions. Climate researchers work backwards from the politically motivated conclusions nowadays, this whole thing needs a reset.
funding independent research to ascertain...
What does independent research mean to you in this context?
Climate researchers work backwards from the politically motivated conclusions nowadays,
What evidence do you have that this is occurring? (And if you believe the conclusions of climate scientists are wrong, what evidence do you have of that?)
What does independent research mean to you in this context?
Something in this spirit:
In practice, maybe fund grants for physicists to train and study climate, because I would consider the whole field of climate science tainted.
What evidence do you have that this is occurring?
Some personal experience (I studied geology at a good school for a bit), some internet knowledge. it's not a controversial claim really.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published
The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic and that the primary way to deal with them is not by employing practical adaptation measures like stronger, more resilient infrastructure, better zoning and building codes, more air conditioning—or in the case of wildfires, better forest management or undergrounding power lines—but through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real. But there are also other factors that can be just as or more important, such as poor forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires either accidentally or purposely. (A startling fact: over 80 percent of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans.)
And if you believe the conclusions of climate scientists are wrong, what evidence do you have of that?
I am agnostic on the conclusions. They may be directionally correct on the climate, but very wrong on the policy proposals. On the latter point I was already proven right by what happened in Germany (I had been repeating the same things since long before they did this to themselves) so I am quite sure I am right about this overall.
@skibidist based on the fp article, it seems like the best solution is to fix the adverse incentives given by science journals. Why do you want to fire climate scientists?