Climate Change

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, Bidens_basement said:

Well, it hasn’t worked yet. We greatly reduced our emissions, but china has doubled there emissions. They are building new coal plants every two weeks. 

That’s your solution?

I tried prayers but that didn’t seem

to work 

[B-Man]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I tried prayers but that didn’t seem

to work 

 

 

 

[Westside]

34 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I tried prayers but that didn’t seem

to work 

Well, you have to believe in something other than antifa and blm to be heard.

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, Bidens_basement said:

Well, you have to believe in something other than antifa and blm to be heard.

How do you know that? 

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

I did ask. But nothing...

[Chef Jim]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Does it break heat records every year? 

Well let me ask you.  If the planet was burning up the answer would likely be yes correct? 
 

Why do we have two threads on Climate change. 

[Tiberius]

16 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Well let me ask you.  If the planet was burning up the answer would likely be yes correct? 
 

Why do we have two threads on Climate change. 

What? 

[716er]

Might start a third to really piss off Jim

[Chef Jim]

35 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What? 

 

If there was actual climate change wouldn't we be breaking records every summer?  

26 minutes ago, 716er said:

Might start a third to really piss off Jim

 

Pissed?  Not me but thanks for thinking of me. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/29/2021 at 11:32 AM, Jauronimo said:

There is a group who continue to prosper greatly from the status quo who have a vested interest in writing off climate change as a hoax and emissions controls, renewables, conservation as pinko commie, unamerican propaganda.  

 

EXACTLY. The fossil fuel industry would rather have the next generation of American taxpayers get stuck with the bill for the sum environmental damage. And while the political right in this country fetishizes the free market, they willfully ignore all of the federal subsidies oil and gas are given.

 

The “pinko commie” far-left form the subset of American politics that take climate change and environmentalism most seriously, and that’s obviously no coincidence. It takes a Marxist to really critique capitalism (as it pertains to land property rights, public goods, negative environmental externalities, unsustainable growth, etc.) without the rose-colored glasses. Only a laissez-faire extremist thinks the free market will reach optimal environmental solutions in minimal time without government regulations and assistance from federally funded scientific research.

 

On 6/29/2021 at 12:24 PM, Bidens_basement said:

Well, it hasn’t worked yet. We greatly reduced our emissions, but china has doubled there emissions. They are building new coal plants every two weeks. 

That’s your solution?

 

Your U.S. emissions reduction statement is highly misleading. That refers strictly to carbon dioxide emissions but doesn’t account for all greenhouse gas emissions, namely methane from fracking.

 

The solution to the China dilemma is to engage in carefully crafted multilateral trade agreements with them that incentivize their cooperation under the Paris Climate Agreement. China can make a lot of money by ditching coal, taking advantage of their rare earth metal resources, and fully participating in the emerging international renewable energy market.

[Tiberius]

2 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

EXACTLY. The fossil fuel industry would rather have the next generation of American taxpayers get stuck with the bill for the sum environmental damage. And while the political right in this country fetishizes the free market, they willfully ignore all of the federal subsidies oil and gas are given.

 

The “pinko commie” far-left form the subset of American politics that take climate change and environmentalism most seriously, and that’s obviously no coincidence. It takes a Marxist to really critique capitalism (as it pertains to land property rights, public goods, negative environmental externalities, unsustainable growth, etc.) without the rose-colored glasses. Only a laissez-faire extremist thinks the free market will reach optimal environmental solutions in minimal time without government regulations and assistance from federally funded scientific research.

 

 

Your U.S. emissions reduction statement is highly misleading. That refers strictly to carbon dioxide emissions but doesn’t account for all greenhouse gas emissions, namely methane from fracking.

 

The solution to the China dilemma is to engage in carefully crafted multilateral trade agreements with them that incentivize their cooperation under the Paris Climate Agreement. China can make a lot of money by ditching coal, taking advantage of their rare earth metal resources, and fully participating in the emerging international renewable energy market.

We also pay for a military presence in the middle eat and with the fact we have to pay money out to import something we shouldn’t be addicted to, namely

oil. It just makes too much sense not to go full speed to recalibrate our energy sources. 

[T master]

On 6/29/2021 at 8:41 AM, Tiberius said:

Does it break heat records every year? 

 

No not every year but there has been record heat set in the past out west in the 100's it's just now it can be used to promote a agenda .

 

All the while they push for electric cars but at the same time they want the people to turn off their air at night to save electricity 🤔 and it has absolutely nothing to do with clearing 100's of thousands of acres of trees which use those green house gases to grow but don't mention that .

 

Oh and the building of more houses with black asphalt roof & more roads that replaced the trees that they took down to build the roads & houses but that information is conveniently left out because it just don't fit !!

 

If they do change to electric cars to keep down the green house gases that have increased from the lack of trees because of the houses & roads that are being built will they ask you to ride bicycles during the summer months as to save electric or just turn the air off so they won't pollute as much and save the electricity for the cars ?

 

I'm so confused Help us Joe & Kamala please make it all make sense 😰... 

 

 

[T master]

7 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

EXACTLY. The fossil fuel industry would rather have the next generation of American taxpayers get stuck with the bill for the sum environmental damage. And while the political right in this country fetishizes the free market, they willfully ignore all of the federal subsidies oil and gas are given.

 

The “pinko commie” far-left form the subset of American politics that take climate change and environmentalism most seriously, and that’s obviously no coincidence. It takes a Marxist to really critique capitalism (as it pertains to land property rights, public goods, negative environmental externalities, unsustainable growth, etc.) without the rose-colored glasses. Only a laissez-faire extremist thinks the free market will reach optimal environmental solutions in minimal time without government regulations and assistance from federally funded scientific research.

 

 

Your U.S. emissions reduction statement is highly misleading. That refers strictly to carbon dioxide emissions but doesn’t account for all greenhouse gas emissions, namely methane from fracking.

 

The solution to the China dilemma is to engage in carefully crafted multilateral trade agreements with them that incentivize their cooperation under the Paris Climate Agreement. China can make a lot of money by ditching coal, taking advantage of their rare earth metal resources, and fully participating in the emerging international renewable energy market.

 

That would be all well and good if china gave a ***** but they don't freakin care about nothing but power it's COMMUNISM and they will do away with any one that tries to get in their way hell they crippled our economy by inventing the wuhan virus do you really think a gov't that kills their own people care about people of other countries ?

 

I don't and sure they may come to the table and say "sure we'll play along with the rules you want us to" but the entire time they will be saying F U were gonna do what ever the hell we want & lets see you just try to stop us .

 

While we all go to Walmart & buy MADE IN CHINA products to continue to make them MO MONEY MO MONEY MO MONEY to feed the beast and continue to pollute the atmosphere while here in the US we abide by all the rules change things to make it better & try to make up for what they are polluting sounds like a perfect plan to me but for who ?

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

16 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

EXACTLY. The fossil fuel industry would rather have the next generation of American taxpayers get stuck with the bill for the sum environmental damage. And while the political right in this country fetishizes the free market, they willfully ignore all of the federal subsidies oil and gas are given.

 

The “pinko commie” far-left form the subset of American politics that take climate change and environmentalism most seriously, and that’s obviously no coincidence. It takes a Marxist to really critique capitalism (as it pertains to land property rights, public goods, negative environmental externalities, unsustainable growth, etc.) without the rose-colored glasses. Only a laissez-faire extremist thinks the free market will reach optimal environmental solutions in minimal time without government regulations and assistance from federally funded scientific research.

 

 

Your U.S. emissions reduction statement is highly misleading. That refers strictly to carbon dioxide emissions but doesn’t account for all greenhouse gas emissions, namely methane from fracking.

 

The solution to the China dilemma is to engage in carefully crafted multilateral trade agreements with them that incentivize their cooperation under the Paris Climate Agreement. China can make a lot of money by ditching coal, taking advantage of their rare earth metal resources, and fully participating in the emerging international renewable energy market.

One thing pinko-commies don't seem to be good at is math.  We're just not going to build out enough generation capacity, domestically or world wide, to produce enough energy output from solar and wind generation and other alternative sources to electrify all the vehicles on the road minus some drastic change in energy consumption and driving habits.  And as I've said in previous posts the resources, like lithium, are just not available in quantities necessary.  Especially in countries like the US where supplies are finite and these same environmentalist block new mining projects.  They just can't have it both ways.  Plus most identified lithium resources are in countries where water is scarce and people there would prefer to utilize their water resources for personal consumption and agriculture rather than destroying their environment to satisfy the needs and habits of pampered Americans.  What do the virtue signalers propose?  To force them to produce the metals?  Or to provide incentives to them?  But incentives sounds a lot like Capitalism which appears to disgust them.  I suggest the use of force sounds more appropriate for socialist or communists.  History and observation is clear on this point.  In short once the one-time benefit of millions of years of stored sunlight in the form of high energy output from hydrocarbons is gone its "lights out" for civilization as we know it unless some more efficient source of energy is developed or discovered.          

 

Impacts on lifestyle and living arrangements is something I don't see any of the so-called "environmentalists" discussing or willing to discuss.  Its an inconvenient fact of physics and the limits of the planet that is better left in the dark.  "Real" environmentalist understand this concept.  Your average social media and celebrity proponent does not as they are motivated by virtue signaling rather than the desire for real solutions.  Lifestyle changes and compromises are going to be necessary and they won't be made by the elites running private jets all over the planet preaching about the danger of climate change.  They'll be imposed on people like you and I.

 

The other problem I have is people extoling the virtues of socialism and communism.  Both systems are demonstrated failures everywhere.  The two biggest proponents of the system the USSR and the PROC both have moved significantly away from the system.  What's left?  Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela?  Places people are banging down the door to get into.  The main problem is simple.  They socialize and attempt to "equalize" consumption and "need" but ignore that equity when it comes to production.  So pretty soon the person that's busting their ass to work hard realizes that the guy doing absolutely nothing gets exactly what he gets.  So why bother?  Soon enough nothing gets done and the system flops.  Flops every time.  So do yourself a favor and drop the freshman year theoretical Marxist economic system nonsense and get with how real life works.  From my experience the people pushing this nonsense are generally sheltered academics and students most of which have never worked a "real" job in their lives and have no experience running any kind of business.  They are just unqualified to speak about how an economic system should work as they really don't participate or produce anything of value worth trading for with them.

[TH3]

48 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

One thing pinko-commies don't seem to be good at is math.  We're just not going to build out enough generation capacity, domestically or world wide, to produce enough energy output from solar and wind generation and other alternative sources to electrify all the vehicles on the road minus some drastic change in energy consumption and driving habits.  And as I've said in previous posts the resources, like lithium, are just not available in quantities necessary.  Especially in countries like the US where supplies are finite and these same environmentalist block new mining projects.  They just can't have it both ways.  Plus most identified lithium resources are in countries where water is scarce and people there would prefer to utilize their water resources for personal consumption and agriculture rather than destroying their environment to satisfy the needs and habits of pampered Americans.  What do the virtue signalers propose?  To force them to produce the metals?  Or to provide incentives to them?  But incentives sounds a lot like Capitalism which appears to disgust them.  I suggest the use of force sounds more appropriate for socialist or communists.  History and observation is clear on this point.  In short once the one-time benefit of millions of years of stored sunlight in the form of high energy output from hydrocarbons is gone its "lights out" for civilization as we know it unless some more efficient source of energy is developed or discovered.          

 

Impacts on lifestyle and living arrangements is something I don't see any of the so-called "environmentalists" discussing or willing to discuss.  Its an inconvenient fact of physics and the limits of the planet that is better left in the dark.  "Real" environmentalist understand this concept.  Your average social media and celebrity proponent does not as they are motivated by virtue signaling rather than the desire for real solutions.  Lifestyle changes and compromises are going to be necessary and they won't be made by the elites running private jets all over the planet preaching about the danger of climate change.  They'll be imposed on people like you and I.

 

The other problem I have is people extoling the virtues of socialism and communism.  Both systems are demonstrated failures everywhere.  The two biggest proponents of the system the USSR and the PROC both have moved significantly away from the system.  What's left?  Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela?  Places people are banging down the door to get into.  The main problem is simple.  They socialize and attempt to "equalize" consumption and "need" but ignore that equity when it comes to production.  So pretty soon the person that's busting their ass to work hard realizes that the guy doing absolutely nothing gets exactly what he gets.  So why bother?  Soon enough nothing gets done and the system flops.  Flops every time.  So do yourself a favor and drop the freshman year theoretical Marxist economic system nonsense and get with how real life works.  From my experience the people pushing this nonsense are generally sheltered academics and students most of which have never worked a "real" job in their lives and have no experience running any kind of business.  They are just unqualified to speak about how an economic system should work as they really don't participate or produce anything of value worth trading for with them.

Wtf…conservatives in this country invented cap and trade…now they block even the idea that global warming is real….and you want to blame the people who actually want to do something about it and mock their efforts….smh

[SoCal Deek]

15 minutes ago, TH3 said:

Wtf…conservatives in this country invented cap and trade…now they block even the idea that global warming is real….and you want to blame the people who actually want to do something about it and mock their efforts….smh

I find these discussions fascinating. Everyone knows these ideas are absolute crap and yet our political class relentlessly pushes for them. Why? Because it gives THEM more power. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

26 minutes ago, TH3 said:

Wtf…conservatives in this country invented cap and trade…now they block even the idea that global warming is real….and you want to blame the people who actually want to do something about it and mock their efforts….smh

That's not what saying and I could care less about the who or what about cap and trade.  That's just a Wall Street hustle to monetize the carbon trade.  Its not a solution to anything except the goal of keeping Wall Street bankers generously employed.  And I'm not criticizing anyone's efforts.  I'm just saying the popular solution isn't going to work and by the time the majority realizes this huge amounts of finite resources will be dumped down the rate hole.  And the clock is ticking. 

 

As a society and civilization we need to come to grips with the idea our current living arrangements are not sustainable if there is a real desire to do anything about the environment, land use patterns, pushing out other species to extinction, cleaning up the oceans and the air.  Taking our current arrangements and unplugging the system from hydrocarbons and plugging into renewable energy sources and continuing on our merry way isn't going to happen.  

 

When people talk about climate change they're really discussing two issues.  The global warming concerns and the need to find an alternative to finite hydrocarbon  resources.  Conveniently the renewable energy movement checks all the boxes for both and joins a couple different political and social forces together.  My contention is the solution will provide no solution to either problem. 

 

Like I said do the math.  Take all the oil and gas energy consumed on a daily basis, identify the BTU output, and then calculate how many solar cells or wind turbines you'll need to replace all that output.  Then identify the capital and resource materials and facilities to build all that generation capacity. When you derive the answers you'll get what I'm saying.  

[Mark90]

You know, I am not entirely a supporter of those who believe in conspiracy theory, etc., so environmental problems do not seem to me to be an informational reason. Living in a forested area, I constantly witness the deforestation and the waste of natural resources due to increased consumer demands. Fortunately, education today, as well as the availability of additional resources, makes it possible for us to understand that such actions have consequences for the climate. Therefore, my thought is that not everything around us is a deception, you just have to think a little more at least about what is around us.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Mark90