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.
Talk to the kids who are going to inherit the Earth on its current track…I think you may notice that Zoomers and Millenials are massively in favor of climate change mitigation and legislation. Some people see that the Earth has been treated like a rubbish bin for too long and want to start doing things differently.
there is a real simple way to prove that "man-made/man-caused" is a lie....
if you bought your son a desk from Ikea, and then following the instructions you assembeled it...would you call it "hand-made by you"....no you would not (unless you are going to lie to your kid too)
the human contribution to greenhouse gasses (all of them) is about 4%... will that make this (1 of 19) interglacial period 4% warmer, or 4% longer...maybe, but that is an UNKNOWN VARIABLE.... but 4% contribution does not make something "man-made" or "man-caused"
Human made contribution is 90+% I just explained with hard scientific data, not anecdotes.
Even the military confirmed human caused climate change, regardless that they are a large contributor of greenhouse gases. This is a national security issue, and perhaps some naysayers need to stand down. Profits aren’t everything.
Wait until younger generations see what it will cost to reduce CO2 and methane emissions.
Let’s see how a young person reacts when someone wants to put a wind turbine or nuclear power plant in their backyard.
So your objections to wind turbines…is that an aesthetic thing?
I guess you haven’t seen the new designs for wind turbines where they make no noise and no longer tower over the landscape.
There are also new designs for nuclear power plants that make them safer, with less waste than the older models.
It may be expensive, but I think losing a stable climate and the systems we rely on for clean water, air, and mostly predictable weather is more expensive than anything green energy might cost. Would you prefer a wind turbine in your field of view or the Gulf Stream grinding to a halt in a 100 years?
The Democrats need to drop the climate change issue for the following reasons:
1) We simply do not have economical alternatives to fossil fuels. Nuclear power is expensive, unpopular, and almost impossible to build because of NIMBYism. Wind and solar power are severely limited for obvious reasons: the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. Anyone who thinks we can run everything on wind and solar should look at Germany. They have some of the highest electricity rates in Europe, and they are building new coal power plants because of the unreliability of wind and sunshine. No matter how cheap wind turbines and solar panels get, they will always be expensive to use because of the need for backup power plants and/or massive battery farms.
2) Global warming skeptics aren’t going to change their beliefs. That’s because humans don’t change their beliefs. That’s especially true when humans have a psychological, economical, or political investment in maintaining those beliefs. You simply can’t expect cattle ranchers and people who work in the fossil fuel industry to believe that AGW is real. Since it’s not possible to solve the global warming problem anyway, why lose votes by promising to solve it?
3) Due to our utterly corrupt political system, any policies meant to address global warming will hurt the poor and working classes the most. The rich write the rules. You can bet that taxes on fuel for private jets will be minimal or non-existent. The cost of meat, gasoline, electricity, and heating fuel will skyrocket, hurting low and middle income people the most.
Democrats need to drop the climate change issue, or they will continue to hemorrhage working class voters to the Republicans. It’s a losing issue.
The issue does what's it's designed to do. Funnels money to connected liberal elites.
So your objections to wind turbines…is that an aesthetic thing?
I guess you haven’t seen the new designs for wind turbines where they make no noise and no longer tower over the landscape.
There are also new designs for nuclear power plants that make them safer, with less waste than the older models.
It may be expensive, but I think losing a stable climate and the systems we rely on for clean water, air, and mostly predictable weather is more expensive than anything green energy might cost. Would you prefer a wind turbine in your field of view or the Gulf Stream grinding to a halt in a 100 years?
I don’t mind wind turbines or nuclear power plants, but plenty of other people do. That’s going to be a huge obstacle. Are we going to pay / bribe people to overcome their NIMBYism?
The issue does what's it's designed to do. Funnels money to connected liberal elites.
of course....
If it really was a "oh my God we're all going to die"......the UN/IPCC would not have given China a free pass to crank out as much CO2 as they can
...would not have labeled the vast majority of countries as developing...so China can build them new coal plants
and if it really was a "oh my God we're all going to die"....China and the rest of them wouldn't be doing it either
China and the rest of those "developing countries" don't believe one little spec of the global warming bull crap...they are not stupid...they are not suicidal
(1) If these green ideas are really great, then the ruling class should willingly adopt these measures first.
(2) If these green ideas are really great, then China, India and other developing countries should be adopting them as well.
Much of the ruling class is ruling by virtue of controlling the current energy system, they would rather see their great-grandkids boil alive than sacrifice that control. Besides, they all have fancy bug-out shelters in New Zealand, they don't care if the rest of the world burns because they can build their own private world.
China is taking massive measures to reduce pollution, but most of the pollution per-capita is from developed countries. Unless we force developing nations to live in perpetual poverty, even adopting advanced green technology they will likely produce more emissions than they currently do. The world's most energy-efficient A/C and automobile still pollute more than walking between open-air buildings.
The Democrats need to drop the climate change issue for the following reasons:
1) We simply do not have economical alternatives to fossil fuels. Nuclear power is expensive, unpopular, and almost impossible to build because of NIMBYism. Wind and solar power are severely limited for obvious reasons: the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. Anyone who thinks we can run everything on wind and solar should look at Germany. They have some of the highest electricity rates in Europe, and they are building new coal power plants because of the unreliability of wind and sunshine. No matter how cheap wind turbines and solar panels get, they will always be expensive to use because of the need for backup power plants and/or massive battery farms.
2) Global warming skeptics aren’t going to change their beliefs. That’s because humans don’t change their beliefs. That’s especially true when humans have a psychological, economical, or political investment in maintaining those beliefs. You simply can’t expect cattle ranchers and people who work in the fossil fuel industry to believe that AGW is real. Since it’s not possible to solve the global warming problem anyway, why lose votes by promising to solve it?
3) Due to our utterly corrupt political system, any policies meant to address global warming will hurt the poor and working classes the most. The rich write the rules. You can bet that taxes on fuel for private jets will be minimal or non-existent. The cost of meat, gasoline, electricity, and heating fuel will skyrocket, hurting low and middle income people the most.
Democrats need to drop the climate change issue, or they will continue to hemorrhage working class voters to the Republicans. It’s a losing issue.
You have to get more creative. A well-designed carbon fee and dividend system could reduce emissions and help the working class at the same time. It could be implemented gradually so both people and businesses can gradually shift away from fossil fuels.
You have to get more creative. A well-designed carbon fee and dividend system could reduce emissions and help the working class at the same time. It could be implemented gradually so both people and businesses can gradually shift away from fossil fuels.
Any carbon tax policy will be designed by the people who have the money and the power to write the rules. Naturally they will create policies that put most of the burden on the poor and working classes.
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.
