Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They will never go through with it and if they are serious it WILL require the manufacture of electric vehicles with toxic chemical batteries and massive electric generating and transmission infrastructure that will be far more environmentally damaging.
That declaration of theirs was obviously a ruse to make the world excuse their current trend of increasing GGE emissions.
When will liberal democrat celebrities and democrat 1%ers take it seriously enough to stop flying around in their private jets, sell off their multiple enormous mansions, stop being driven around in gas guzzling limosenes?
When will democrats start demanding birth control in third world countries?
There is already family planning in 3rd world countries and many have criticized our actions. The UN Agenda 21 was a UN plan that addressed many different areas and the right wing fought accepting thir goals.
Climate change alarmists would be taken more seriously if the measures they had taken so far were not thinly veiled steps toward their agenda of global socialism.
The FACT is the result of kyoto and paris and every other measure has been an increase in global GGE AND an increase in the rate of rise.
The IPCC literature is riddled with obvious cues like "climate justice" and "carbon equity".
What else to make of these statements but a wealth transfer to fulfill the typical leftist desire for self defeatism and self loathing?
While the UN continues to intertwine its climate change agenda with its traditional mission of building roads, power plants, hospitals, and bringing running water to third world masses, the critical thinking American must demand an answer from these confused leftists:
How can you mitigate a problem alleged to be caused by human industrialization...when your programs all have the intent and result of industrializing more humans?
The short version: will the earth survive your misguided attempts to save it?
There is already family planning in 3rd world countries and many have criticized our actions. The UN Agenda 21 was a UN plan that addressed many different areas and the right wing fought accepting thir goals.
The UN is irrelevant. They only exist because the US stupidly gives them money.
You live in Detroit according to your info--
Surely you have heard about Flint???
That town has screwed over by the Michigan govenor and his cronies and left to die a slow death by Obama and Trump...
Companies like the pork producers in S Carolina lobbied to get easier rules for dealing with all the waste from hog farms...that waste was washed out of the not-very-well-protected waste dams into the surrounding areas by the recent hurricane---
It will damage the land it comes to rest on--
America might have SOME rules that are more protective of the environment but the current EPA/GOP Admin are working hard to make it easier for companies to pollute...
Did you vote GOP or Democratic because you believe in not polluting the Earth--
Flint was government mismanagement, plain and simple. They stopped using anticorrosive in the water, so the lead leeched into the supply. This was done to save money, and I believe it was a democrat that made the call to cut the anticorrosive, to save money most likely.
In the case of the hog farms, this was not intentional. Nature occurred. Go shake your fist at the sky, and stop eating meat if you are upset.
Plastic will be on this earth long after man is extinct. Last I checked, dems love plastic just as much as republicans, probably more so. At least nature has a plan for pig feces.
Although the rise in CO2 level is a concern, I do believe we will eliminate the need for fossil fuels before it destroys the planet. We could probably take 1000 PPM of CO2 and still be fine. Yes some low lying areas will be underwater and the temps will be 5 degrees higher, but a lot of Canada, Alaska, Russia, etc. will be much warmer and livable, and the high CO2 levels will mean plantlife, particularly trees, will grow that much faster. There will generally be higher moisture in the air, and thus more precipitation as well.
What is anyone really going to "do" about it unless we have some globalist communist dictatorship that demands we go back to the dark ages? Most of the voting liberal population are such snowflakes they have to keep their homes at a constant 75 degrees year-around.. how are they going to handle giving up their AC or setting it at 80 in the summer and setting the heat at 65 in the winter like us cheapskate conservatives do?
What about all the golf course and yards we waste gas mowing every summer? None of that is going away, and people love to travel these days.. in fact travel is an absolute passion of progressives.. I'd love to see them give up their trips to Europe and whatnot... this is a "do as I say, not as I do" issue and most people with half a brain know it. Hollywood celebs and corporate CEOs give up their private jets? That will be the day.
Reminds me of what George Carlin said...
"Environmentalists don't care about the planet, not in the abstract they don't. You know what the care about, a clean place to live, their own habitat. They are worried that someday in the future that they'll be personally inconvenienced... Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me."
I always say that there are two main branches of so-called environmentalists. One branch might be called the "primitivists" and the other the "futurists".
The primitivists are the types who often live on communes, and are willing to do actual physical work, building houses out of rocks, straw, and mud with their bare hands, eating food that they themselves had grown.
The futurists are the people who basically want to keep everything about modern society, our industry, our technology, etc, they just want it cleaner, cheaper, and better.
The vast-majority of believers in man-made climate-change are futurists. They want cleaner-air, cleaner-water. They want to have the government subsidize solar panels so they can put them on their brand new McMansions. They want the government to spend money or pass laws so that wind-turbines can replace coal. They want the government to spend billions to finance research and development of futuristic technologies, etc.
Basically, they believe that they can have their cake and eat it too. And they are willing to sacrifice nothing.
What can they do?...cars and trucks are essentials for the world as we know to keep on going, factories build things and ships, trucks and trains take them to market...if climate change is THAT much a threat, the entire world is going to have to radically change everything from the ground up and start over.
The problem isn't that there are no alternatives. The problem is that the alternatives are too expensive. And if American business wants to stay competitive in a global-market, it must operate as cheaply/efficiently as possible.
If we were to wake up tomorrow and fossil fuels didn't exist at all, the country that has the most to gain, is actually the United States of America. We, and our European allies, are the technology-leaders. And instead of us buying fuel from the Middle-East, they would be buying technology from us. And this was even more true a decade ago(before China began to mass-produce solar panels, batteries, etc).
For some historical context, why do you think the British Empire abolished slavery in its territories, and used the British Navy to stop the slave-trade? Because Britain started the industrial revolution. It could produce everything far more-efficiently than anyone else, but its industries had to pay wages. Thus, the abolition of slavery would strengthen Britain's global position, and weaken and make-dependent its rivals. The British Empire didn't care whatsoever about ethics or justice.
The problem with energy is that America cannot act alone. If we move to alternative energy, and our competitors don't, we will bankrupt ourselves. And even if we come to an agreement, if we have no way to enforce it, there is no agreement.
Basically, as long as China and India, and the rest of the world, refuses to comply, we must continue the course we are on, regardless of the consequences.
In the eons BC, Inca priests demanded human sacrifice to appease the gods and bring back the sun.
In 1946 scientists were enthralled with the prospect of heating up the arctic with an atom bomb. Question was whether it should be dropped from a plane or ignited form a raised platform
Warmers temps, diminished storm ferocity, increase in productive land. Global warming was a good thing.
1970 Rutgers college of ag and environmental science warned of global cooling.
We live in an eddy on the river of change and if we cannot adapt we go away. Life is not an item on the earth's dynamic agenda.
Tropics turn into desert, forest turns into tundra, continents drift and the green arctic turned to miles deep ice.
The scam is the government actually reversing and redirecting the dynamics of the earth and its relation to the stars.
the US pulled out of the Paris accord but still leads the world in environmental protection, and technologic advances. It is as if nothing changed, except the wealth redistribution into the coffers of corrupt partner countries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
