The Green New Deal and the Elephant in the Room

[forkup]

... the US who is number 2 worldwide, number one is taking pains to reduce their emissions.

Are you claiming that the US uses no renewable or not Carbon emitting energy production?

No I'm saying that it is being actively discouraged by this administration. And openly doubted by a lot of GOP members although the science being pretty clear at this point.

 

[deanrd]

Here is the Green New Deal slimes ------READ IT

These right wingers are crying over something you can bet none of them ever read.

 

[fncceo]

How does me rebuffing your," the world needs the US as allies argument" lead you to conclude climate change isn't an issue?

I didn't say it wasn't an issue ... I merely say that to you, and most people, it's a political issue, as opposed to a scientific one.

Trying to support your politics with 'science' was very popular in the '30s... but has fell out of favor since it has become apparent just how easy it is to abuse.

Firstly, you still haven't gotten any closer to establishing that because I'm capable of discussing both Climate change and foreign policy. That I don't care about climate change. Are you limited to one issue in your discussions? This OP says otherwise.
Secondly, I would be very careful in trying to tie racism to me. I'm not the one who supports a president who is stated as an inspiration to a guy who commits mass murder.

I've interested in both Jazz music and automotive repair. However, I tend to view them as separate issues, not typically impacting each other, unless I'm installing a sound system in a Chevy.

Once Climate Change transcended from a scientific pursuit to a political agenda, the 'facts' become positions. Implacable positions are anathema to science.

 

[fncceo]

No I'm saying that it is being actively discouraged by this administration.

Why should the political administration be a factor in economic decisions of individuals and businesses? Unless this is a political issue?

 

[easyt65]

You make a good point ... but the bigger JACKASS in the room is the idea of reaching ZERO carbon emissions by:

- Eliminating the need for air travel w/high speed trains...and .ca proved they could not even build one from LA to San Fran...

- Upgrading or Re holding EVERY building in the US to Global Warming 'standards'...oh, & making sure every worker involved in doing all this construction are UNION workers (because evidently Liberal scientists have proven non-union workers release more carbon into the atmosphere or some BS like that....it has to be true...it was in AOC's notes her staff tried to take down off-line after the plan was released . )

- Winning the War against COW FARTS...

- Eliminating the use (and sale of, a la now broke-ass Venezuela) of all fossil fuels and nuclear energy, putting our energy needs in the other sources of energy that currently provides only about 15% if our energy (say good-by to manufacturing / the industrial portion of the US)

- Eliminating the use of the internal combustion engine...and putting at least 30 MILLION US workers of of a job...

- Relying on technology that does not even exist

- And last but not least...even AOC admitted if we seized every dime from the wealthiest Americans and every resource from the most successful companies in America WE WOULD STILL NOT BE ABLE TO EVEN COME CLOSE TO PAYING FOR ALL THIS....


Even AOC admits before we got close to accomplishing all of this ... Which is supposed to cost AT LEAST $96 TRILLION for only 10 years... Venezuela right now would look like one of the richest countries on the planet compared to the United States...

 

[fncceo]

These right wingers are crying over something you can bet none of them ever read.

I never read 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', at least not in the original Russian. However, I know the gist and the motives behind it, and I reject it as evil.

 

[forkup]

How does me rebuffing your," the world needs the US as allies argument" lead you to conclude climate change isn't an issue?

I didn't say it wasn't an issue ... I merely say that to you, and most people, it's a political issue, as opposed to a scientific one.

Trying to support your politics with 'science' was very popular in the '30s... but has fell out of favor since it has become apparent just how easy it is to abuse.

Firstly, you still haven't gotten any closer to establishing that because I'm capable of discussing both Climate change and foreign policy. That I don't care about climate change. Are you limited to one issue in your discussions? This OP says otherwise.
Secondly, I would be very careful in trying to tie racism to me. I'm not the one who supports a president who is stated as an inspiration to a guy who commits mass murder.

I've interested in both Jazz music and automotive repair. However, I tend to view them as separate issues, not typically impacting each other, unless I'm installing a sound system in a Chevy.

Once Climate Change transcended from a scientific pursuit to a political agenda, the 'facts' become positions. Implacable positions are anathema to science.

That's why I don't claim to be a scientist when you ask me to explain to you how we know CO comes from a particular country and I argue that since SCIENCE doesn't really contend otherwise I feel warranted to use it. You on the other hand feel free to use the fact that it's a political issue as a reason to simply disregard the actual science. The way I see it, only one of us is trying to put politics in science. It's not me.

 

[fncceo]

That's why I don't claim to be a scientist when you ask me to explain to you how we know CO comes from a particular country

I never asked you how we know. It's fairly simple to identify by production capability how much Carbon any single nation produces.

What I asked was, 'How does the atmosphere know?'.

Since it clearly doesn't, the nation from which Carbon emits bears no relation to the overall amount of Carbon in the air.

If the amount of Carbon in the air is important to a country, they should definitely take steps to reduce it.

However, American voters don't appear to be particularly interested in the subject either way. In America, it's the voters who choose the agendas, ultimately.

 

[forkup]

No I'm saying that it is being actively discouraged by this administration.

Why should the political administration be a factor in economic decisions of individuals and businesses? Unless this is a political issue?

Because government has a different purpose than a business. A business has making money as an objective. A government has the general well being as a purpose. If the one objective is harming the other objective. The government needs to step in and put the interest of the populace ahead of the interest of the companies.

 

[forkup]

That's why I don't claim to be a scientist when you ask me to explain to you how we know CO comes from a particular country

I never asked you how we know. It's fairly simple to identify by production capability how much Carbon any single nation produces.

What I asked was, 'How does the atmosphere know?'.

Since it clearly doesn't, the nation from which Carbon emits bears no relation to the overall amount of Carbon in the air.

If the amount of Carbon in the air is important to a country, they should definitely take steps to reduce it.

However, American voters don't appear to be particularly interested in the subject either way. In America, it's the voters who choose the agendas, ultimately.

Climate Change | Gallup Topic
I think you are equating your worries to those of the population as a whole

 

[fncceo]

No I'm saying that it is being actively discouraged by this administration.

Why should the political administration be a factor in economic decisions of individuals and businesses? Unless this is a political issue?

Because government has a different purpose than a business. A business has making money as an objective. A government has the general well being as a purpose. If the one objective is harming the other objective. The government needs to step in and put the interest of the populace ahead of the interest of the companies.

Does the general populace believe we are at imminent risk due to Climate Change? Are they asking the government to 'step in and save them'? Polls would indicate that is not the case. Generally, Climate Change ranks very low on American concerns where it is included among other potential concerns in a poll.

However, if you believe the polls are wrong, that Americans are greatly interested in having the government re-work our economy to save us all from impending doom, run candidates who are passionate on the issue and see how well they do politically.

Traditionally, how well do Green Party candidates do in US elections?

 

[fncceo]

That's why I don't claim to be a scientist when you ask me to explain to you how we know CO comes from a particular country

I never asked you how we know. It's fairly simple to identify by production capability how much Carbon any single nation produces.

What I asked was, 'How does the atmosphere know?'.

Since it clearly doesn't, the nation from which Carbon emits bears no relation to the overall amount of Carbon in the air.

If the amount of Carbon in the air is important to a country, they should definitely take steps to reduce it.

However, American voters don't appear to be particularly interested in the subject either way. In America, it's the voters who choose the agendas, ultimately.

Climate Change | Gallup Topic
I think you are equating your worries to those of the population as a whole

Ah ... I have no worries. None at all.

 

[Hale]

Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.

Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.

 

[fncceo]

Because government has a different purpose than a business.

I tend to believe what Calvin said ...

 

[Hale]

Here is the Green New Deal slimes ------READ IT

These right wingers are crying over something you can bet none of them ever read.

I've read every word of it. Start by telling me how you're going to eliminate all jobs requiring or pertaining to fossil fuels (1, basically everyone), and then provide everyone with a high paying job (2):

1) ...to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

2) ...to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

 

[basquebromance]

We have to match the urgency of climate change with the boldness of our proposals to address it. I don't want to hear more corporate special interests and climate-denying public officials telling us our ideas are too big, too crazy. We need to shoot for the moon, set bold goals, make transformative change. We need a Green New Deal with serious investment in green job training and infrastructure, a net-zero carbon economy, a price on carbon and a non-negotiable commitment to clean air and water for every community. It's the only chance we have to save our planet and our future, and we need to rise to that challenge.

 

[Lesh]

Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.

Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.

The ONLY thing debatable regarding Climate Change is the politics...because of people like you.

The Science is long settled.

 

[Hale]

We have to match the urgency of climate change with the boldness of our proposals to address it. I don't want to hear more corporate special interests and climate-denying public officials telling us our ideas are too big, too crazy. We need to shoot for the moon, set bold goals, make transformative change. We need a Green New Deal with serious investment in green job training and infrastructure, a net-zero carbon economy, a price on carbon and a non-negotiable commitment to clean air and water for every community. It's the only chance we have to save our planet and our future, and we need to rise to that challenge.

Ok, let's say you're right. Shall we just assume that no world power will take advantage of our crippled economy and utter lack of National Defense? We can trust China and Russia, right? I mean, they're all about saving the world and would never have any political motives...

Dream on, moonbat. We can't even trust half of our own politicians, and they're the ones promoting this silliness. Don't think for a minute it's about the environment. It's not.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not at all, in fact quite the reverse. One would go after the largest contributors for the maximum effect. "Per capita" is not an issue in the slightest.

If the idea is to get people to produce less carbon, which would have a greater impact...getting 100,000 Americans to cut back or getting 100,000 Chinese to cut back?

To equal the impact of the 100,000 Americans they would have to convince 235,660 Chinese people to cut back.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.

Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.

The ONLY thing debatable regarding Climate Change is the politics...because of people like you.

The Science is long settled.

Science is never settled. I hate it when dumb people say that.

Also, a debate that we should be having is whether our time and resources are better spent trying to stop what is likely too late to stop or do we mitigate the effect it has on we humans in general, and Americans specifically.