Usually, any debate between conservatives and liberals, when the topic of global warming comes up, seems to wholly focus on whether or not it exists or not, or to what extent and with what certainty. But should global warming do exist, are there then specifically conservative or liberal strategies on tackling it?
You are right, the debate about whether global warming exists or not usually leaves out what "doing something" would achieve. The left never mentions that cap and trade couldn't do a damn thing. It couldn't reduce carbon emissions very much (Kyoto failed miserably), and even if countries were all on board with reducing carbon emissions, and we reduced emissions by a lot
, it's likely to not make a difference about global warming. We can't fine-tune the climate like a stove. Global warming unfolds over a millennium, we can't make a minor carbon reduction and feel the effects in five years, that's not how it works.
If global warming is real, there probably is nothing we can do to mitigate it, or it is too late already. Have you ever considered how unlikely it is that the window of opportunity is exactly now, that it's really urgent to act but it's also not already too late?
Shutting down the world economy to mitigate warming will in fact make us less
well equipped for dealing with the consequences. The core of warming alarmists must know that, which makes it suspicious that they only keep advocating carbon reductions and not for example building dams in coastal regions that are threatened with flooding.
It is no coincidence that all solutions to global warming are stuff that the left wants, e.g. greater government, more regulation, shutting down industrialism, etc.
I know what you mean by "liberal" and "conservative", but the terms are paradoxical. It is "liberals" that want to conserve
carbon, with illiberal statist regulation. While "conservatives" oppose such statist regulation and therefore are defending liberty
. (In fact, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as they are used in the US today were re-defined to mean the opposite.)
What you mean by "liberal" strategies is statist regulations, and it is pretty much sure that none of this will work. As for "conservative" strategies, there are market alternatives. If global warming is real, we would be best served in dealing with the consequences. But if we want to reduce carbon emissions, we'd have to tax it. If global warming is the consequence of emitting carbon, people have to pay for that consequence when emitting carbon.