Climate Change Solution that Everyone Will Hate

[Bruce Daniels]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Where's your proposal?? WHO gets "exemptions"?? Does this shut down NASCAR races? Do farmers get stuck 1/3 the way thru the plowing? Do airplanes have to GLIDE into their destinations??

But more importantly, all this sacrifice you're asking for here -- HOW MUCH of a decrease will there be in the 0.6DegC warming that's occurred during your lifetime? You feel that heat daily do you???

My proposal is gasoline rationing. I don't have all the details. When it was done during World War 2, I think there were about 5 levels of rations, depending on your job and your needs. Presumably, people would have the right to appeal the ration level they're assigned. And yeah, maybe it would shut down NASCAR races, or at least reduce them. (I did say that everybody would hate my idea.) I'm not sure how you claim to know that 0.6 Deg C warming occurred during MY lifetime, but the point is this: Either climate change is a global threat to our way of life, human civilization, and life on Earth -- or it isn't. If it isn't, then just carry on the way you have. But if it IS, then we'd better start acting like it.

 

[fncceo]

The effect of ONE person on the environment is tiny. The effect of seven and a half BILLION people is somewhat larger. Is that difficult to understand? And the rest of your argument doesn't even make much sense.

Complaining about too many people in the world while you're still in it is more than a little hypocritical.

Are you volunteering to take one for the team?

Ha ha. No, but I chose not to have any children because there were more than enough people on Earth already.

And I support your choice.

Would you also agree to leave early to make room for others?

 

[Bruce Daniels]

The effect of ONE person on the environment is tiny. The effect of seven and a half BILLION people is somewhat larger. Is that difficult to understand? And the rest of your argument doesn't even make much sense.

Complaining about too many people in the world while you're still in it is more than a little hypocritical.

Are you volunteering to take one for the team?

Ha ha. No, but I chose not to have any children because there were more than enough people on Earth already.

And I support your choice.

Would you also agree to leave early to make room for others?

I will if you will.

 

[fncceo]

The effect of ONE person on the environment is tiny. The effect of seven and a half BILLION people is somewhat larger. Is that difficult to understand? And the rest of your argument doesn't even make much sense.

Complaining about too many people in the world while you're still in it is more than a little hypocritical.

Are you volunteering to take one for the team?

Ha ha. No, but I chose not to have any children because there were more than enough people on Earth already.

And I support your choice.

Would you also agree to leave early to make room for others?

I will if you will.

No need, I'm perfectly fine with the population of the world ... the more, the merrier.

I'm not the one complaining there are too many people.

I've always noticed the liberals often cry out about crowded conditions in the third world, but don't break a sweat over the crowd at the Metropolitan Opera.

Fretting about overpopulation is the ultimate form of racism ... way too many of YOU, just the right amount of ME.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

The effect of ONE person on the environment is tiny. The effect of seven and a half BILLION people is somewhat larger. Is that difficult to understand? And the rest of your argument doesn't even make much sense.

Complaining about too many people in the world while you're still in it is more than a little hypocritical.

Are you volunteering to take one for the team?

Ha ha. No, but I chose not to have any children because there were more than enough people on Earth already.

And I support your choice.

Would you also agree to leave early to make room for others?

I will if you will.

No need, I'm perfectly fine with the population of the world ... the more, the merrier.

I'm not the one complaining there are too many people.

I've always noticed the liberals often cry out about crowded conditions in the third world, but don't break a sweat over the crowd at the Metropolitan Opera.

Fretting about overpopulation is the ultimate form of racism ... way too many of YOU, just the right amount of ME.

That's complete bullshit. You know nothing about me. What gives you the right to make assumptions about my motives? When I decided not to have any children, there were about 3,700,000,000 (3.7 billion) people on Earth. Even then, I thought that was too many. I never even thought about what race anybody was. Now there are about 7,800,000,000 (7.8 billion) people, twice as many. The more people there are, the more land is used for cities and agriculture to feed all those people, and the less there is for other species. There's more pollution, more natural resources are used, etc etc etc...

 

[Bruce Daniels]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Nope. With no empirical data to support the claim of AGW there is zero reason to enact regs like these.

Plenty of data. Quit ignoring it

What about ever-increasing global temperatures? What about more frequent and more intense hurricanes, and other natural disasters? Is there no data to support these claims?





Zero data. Opinion and computer models are not data.

 

[fncceo]

Even then, I thought that was too many

Way too many of them, just the right amount of you, right?

Hypocrite.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Even then, I thought that was too many

Way too many of them, just the right amount of you, right?

Hypocrite.

Again, what gives you the right to assume what my motives are? You know nothing about me. I can't help noticing that you posted this away from the original thread. Why? So you could distort what I wrote? There are too many people, period. I do not care what race, creed, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever, anyone is. 7.8 BILLION people on Earth is too many. I'm not suggesting that anyone be "eliminated" or anything like that. But if more people did what I did -- not have any children -- that would help. Anyway, stop impugning my motives, asshole.

 

[fncceo]

Even then, I thought that was too many

Way too many of them, just the right amount of you, right?

Hypocrite.

Again, what gives you the right to assume what my motives are? You know nothing about me. I can't help noticing that you posted this away from the original thread. Why? So you could distort what I wrote? There are too many people, period. I do not care what race, creed, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever, anyone is. 7.8 BILLION people on Earth is too many. I'm not suggesting that anyone be "eliminated" or anything like that. But if more people did what I did -- not have any children -- that would help. Anyway, stop impugning my motives, asshole.

I support your decision not to breed.

Thank you.

 

[Bruce Daniels]

Even then, I thought that was too many

Way too many of them, just the right amount of you, right?

Hypocrite.

Again, what gives you the right to assume what my motives are? You know nothing about me. I can't help noticing that you posted this away from the original thread. Why? So you could distort what I wrote? There are too many people, period. I do not care what race, creed, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever, anyone is. 7.8 BILLION people on Earth is too many. I'm not suggesting that anyone be "eliminated" or anything like that. But if more people did what I did -- not have any children -- that would help. Anyway, stop impugning my motives, asshole.

I support your decision not to breed.

Thank you.

You're welcome, shithead.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Where's your proposal?? WHO gets "exemptions"?? Does this shut down NASCAR races? Do farmers get stuck 1/3 the way thru the plowing? Do airplanes have to GLIDE into their destinations??

But more importantly, all this sacrifice you're asking for here -- HOW MUCH of a decrease will there be in the 0.6DegC warming that's occurred during your lifetime? You feel that heat daily do you???

My proposal is gasoline rationing. I don't have all the details. When it was done during World War 2, I think there were about 5 levels of rations, depending on your job and your needs. Presumably, people would have the right to appeal the ration level they're assigned. And yeah, maybe it would shut down NASCAR races, or at least reduce them. (I did say that everybody would hate my idea.) I'm not sure how you claim to know that 0.6 Deg C warming occurred during MY lifetime, but the point is this: Either climate change is a global threat to our way of life, human civilization, and life on Earth -- or it isn't. If it isn't, then just carry on the way you have. But if it IS, then we'd better start acting like it.

If it isn't, then just carry on the way you have. But if it IS, then we'd better start acting like it.

How many new nuclear power plants should we build?

 

[Silver Cat]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Where's your proposal?? WHO gets "exemptions"?? Does this shut down NASCAR races? Do farmers get stuck 1/3 the way thru the plowing? Do airplanes have to GLIDE into their destinations??

But more importantly, all this sacrifice you're asking for here -- HOW MUCH of a decrease will there be in the 0.6DegC warming that's occurred during your lifetime? You feel that heat daily do you???

My proposal is gasoline rationing. I don't have all the details. When it was done during World War 2, I think there were about 5 levels of rations, depending on your job and your needs. Presumably, people would have the right to appeal the ration level they're assigned. And yeah, maybe it would shut down NASCAR races, or at least reduce them. (I did say that everybody would hate my idea.) I'm not sure how you claim to know that 0.6 Deg C warming occurred during MY lifetime, but the point is this: Either climate change is a global threat to our way of life, human civilization, and life on Earth -- or it isn't. If it isn't, then just carry on the way you have. But if it IS, then we'd better start acting like it.

In fact, 'gasoline rationing' is much more seriouse threat to our way of life than any possible 'global warming'

 

[ReinyDays]

I was listening to some tofu-puker on NPR yesterday bemoaning the current state of agri-business ... in any pile of vomit, there will be a few tasty chunks, just rise and it's good to eat ...

Many of us do have a bit of room to grow a garden ... these foods are healthier and taste better ... and 15 minutes a day isn't all that much of a burden and we could grow a fairly good percentage of our meals with very little carbon overhead ...

It is more expensive ... 15 minutes a day is 90 hours a year ... $900 in labor at minimum wage ... that money buys more food at market and that includes all the filthy carbon pollution spewed out trucking the crap from Chile or California ...

The next station up was playing old Madonna hits from the 1980's ... strange that I found that preferable ...

 

[Yarddog]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

When you shove CHANGE down peoples throats it doesnt work. Ever. Alternative forms of transportation and power sources are great advances. They will be developed more as the demand for them dictates, just like people were not forced out of their horse drawn buggys to drive cars... that would have been idiotic. It's called supply and demand. Thats what is going to drive the change to new things. To do it the way you want, first of all you would destroy the independent trucking industry and the dominoes would start falling... you would devastate the economy, the price of evrything would go up, tax revenue would go down as the economy shrinks, then the government would have to raise taxes on people making things even harder. In essence you would Fuck everything up, meanwhile, China is still building coal burning plants... and all your efforts would be for nothing.

 

[Yarddog]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Go blow a goat hippie.

Well, that certainly is an incisive response. What's YOUR solution?

Not rationing. That's stupid. It encourages nothing but sitting. I'll go the part about encouraging everyone to join the fight against climate change. No one believes in man made climate change. Those who advocate for it aren't subject to it. Sure, Leonardo Decaprio gets to keep his jet and so on, what about me? How do me and my family get to be free? So our gas ration would be enough to go to work cool, but what about when I want to jump in the ol'family truckster and go to corpus? That's a few hundred miles from me so you know. How about kids who ride a school bus? that bus has to idle, that uses fuel. its just not practical. in time I feel it will be used less because something better will come along.

News Flash! Lots of people believe in man-made climate change. Gasoline rationing would make everyone much more conscientious about their gas use. They'd be much less likely to just leave their car or bus idling if it wasn't necessary. And you'd still have gas to use, but you'd have to be more careful about how you did it. You wouldn't waste it.

The high cost of gasoline including the tax on it makes us more conscious about our gas use. Why do liberals assume everyone is so ignorant? What your suggesting, is a punishment to people trying to get to work every day, get their kids where they need to go etc. and this is the socialist mindset, it's all about punitive measures to put people in their place.

In case you haven't noticed there are companies like Tesla out their building electric cars, which are becoming more popular. Just let it happen, and stop wanting to punish people, stop trying to cripple the very economy that is driving forward advances in technology. Give people incentive instead of trying to cripple them.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm not sure how you claim to know that 0.6 Deg C warming occurred during MY lifetime, but the point is this: Either climate change is a global threat to our way of life, human civilization, and life on Earth -- or it isn't. If it isn't, then just carry on the way you have. But if it IS, then we'd better start acting like it.

I know it's 0.6degC because I estimated your age, and have followed the science here for more than 25 years..

That's much less than the VARIANCE in your daily temperature for this of the year from year to year..

No.. There are more choices than doom or nothing.. IN FACT, MOST of the choices of opinion fall BETWEEN the ones you gave.. And that's exactly where I am on this issue.. The earth's climate system is NOT fragile.. It survived hotter prehistoric epochs and 4 back to back MASSIVE ice ages...

But some of the "adjunct theories" about CATASTROPHIC GW/CC assume it's very fragile...

 

[flacaltenn]

During World War II, when the U.S. faced a mortal threat to its very existence, the government imposed rationing -- in particular, gasoline rationing. I believe that the time has come again for gasoline rationing.

Gasoline rationing would accomplish a number of things:

1. It would emphasize the seriousness of the situation.
2. It would reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.
3. It would encourage the use of public transit.
4. It would encourage the development of alternative forms of transportation and power sources.
5. It would make almost everyone a participant in the fight against climate change.

I hope that you will support my proposal.

Where's your proposal?? WHO gets "exemptions"?? Does this shut down NASCAR races? Do farmers get stuck 1/3 the way thru the plowing? Do airplanes have to GLIDE into their destinations??

But more importantly, all this sacrifice you're asking for here -- HOW MUCH of a decrease will there be in the 0.6DegC warming that's occurred during your lifetime? You feel that heat daily do you???

My proposal is gasoline rationing. I don't have all the details. When it was done during World War 2, I think there were about 5 levels of rations, depending on your job and your needs. Presumably, people would have the right to appeal the ration level they're assigned. And yeah, maybe it would shut down NASCAR races, or at least reduce them. (I did say that everybody would hate my idea.) I'm not sure how you claim to know that 0.6 Deg C warming occurred during MY lifetime, but the point is this: Either climate change is a global threat to our way of life, human civilization, and life on Earth -- or it isn't. If it isn't, then just carry on the way you have. But if it IS, then we'd better start acting like it.

Let me give you a BETTER SOLUTION that doesn't require massive economic damage or govt involvement.. The answer to the problem TOMORROW, is to build 40 new nuclear plants to replace some of the aging ones and add capacity to remove the CO2 sources that we currently have..

How you feel about that? COMPLETELY reliable nuclear generation with ZERO CO2 emissions.. It's at our fingertips.. Just pull the trigger..

The massive tax breaks and over-emphasis on "electric" vehicles should have made a bigger impact by now and rendered "your plan" unneccesary.. But there's no guarantee that you'll be CUTTING emissions with Nat gas and coal still the dominant power to CHARGE those vehicles.. Hydrogen fuel cells are a BETTER way to power electric cars than batteries.. Not a huge toxic waste stream.. And the hydrogen fuel could be distilled with OFF GRID wind and solar...

All kinds of better ideas than suffering and gliding jetliners with empty gas tanks into their destinations...

 

[flacaltenn]

There are too many people, period. I do not care what race, creed, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever, anyone is. 7.8 BILLION people on Earth is too many.

This is perhaps the MOST worrisome part about panicked GW advocates.. All too often their arguments have NOTHING to do with science of GW and tend to leap to "population control".. Especially in the developing world..

That's freakin' scary stuff right there....

 

[Yarddog]

Even then, I thought that was too many

Way too many of them, just the right amount of you, right?

Hypocrite.

Again, what gives you the right to assume what my motives are? You know nothing about me. I can't help noticing that you posted this away from the original thread. Why? So you could distort what I wrote? There are too many people, period. I do not care what race, creed, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or whatever, anyone is. 7.8 BILLION people on Earth is too many. I'm not suggesting that anyone be "eliminated" or anything like that. But if more people did what I did -- not have any children -- that would help. Anyway, stop impugning my motives, asshole.

Great, go to India or Mexico and tell people how to live. In the US and Europe, the native people are having hardly any kids. Most of the births are from Immigrants who come from places with higher birth rates.
And who is to say how many people is too much? The earth can handle it, most of the population problems are due to too many people living in small areas, the Earth itself has plenty of room to support life. People only need to learn to adapt socially and politically to improve their lives

 

[Uncensored2008]

The effect of ONE person on the environment is tiny. The effect of seven and a half BILLION people is somewhat larger. Is that difficult to understand? And the rest of your argument doesn't even make much sense.

Complaining about too many people in the world while you're still in it is more than a little hypocritical.

Are you volunteering to take one for the team?

Ha ha. No, but I chose not to have any children because there were more than enough people on Earth already.

My sincere thanks for that.