Green New Deal

[Cecilie1200]

THIS, of course, is how they want the REST of America to live and does not apply to THEM!


(BTW, Dems, COWS are not the only plentiful animals on the planet.....in fact, while you're chasing down non-existent technology to support your 'Green New Sci-Fi Project' - to include the 'cattle-itic' converter to shove up a cow's rear to collect Co2 from their farts, try developing a hi-tech butt-plug for humans. I would bet humans fart just as much if not more than cows (of course I hang around humans more than I hang out with cows, so my opinion is very biased in this area.)

Because there are no electric vehicles. Right?

Under Occasional Cortex's plan, there will be electric vehicles . . . sitting in junkyards because we can't generate electricity to power them or manufacture replacement batteries for them.

You obviously don't understand shit. Get a freaking brain & then look again.

I just heard, "I have no response."

Get a freaking brain and then post again.

I realize it's not nearly as much fun as declaring, "I'm right and so you're stupid and I WINN!!" but see if you can manage to produce coherent thought long enough to explain to me how we're going to generate enough electricity to even match our current needs, let alone to power all the electric cars necessary to replace all the fuel-burning cars, if we are not using coal, oil, or natural gas. Then further explain to me how we're going to manage to manufacture the batteries for all those electric cars. Do you even know anything about how those batteries are made?

G'head, since you flatter yourself that you are smart enough to tell me I need a brain. PROVE that you're worthy to speak to anyone like that, let alone me, by actually explaining how we're all stupid and your vision of the world is obviously achievable, rather than just snottily saying, "If you don't know, you're stupid."

Your next post will be an explanation of the "shit" I "don't understand", or it will be an admission that you're the only shit here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It will be interesting on how many Dem Senators up for reelection next year will vote for this whack job resolution. My crystal ball says very few; only ones in states where a Republican has no shot at winning.

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

If it was really happening, most of them would vote to take action. But its not happening, its a hoax, and you have been duped like the mindless sheep that you are.

How did the acts of man change the climate millions of years ago? It was changing big time in the previous ice ages and then warming periods.

If you leftists are so worried about man made pollution why aren't you attacking China, the worst polluter on the planet?

Its lunacy and you fools are being led by lunatics like algore and AOC. the party of Truman and Kennedy has become the party of idiots and frauds.

It is happening now. We are experiencing effects from rising temperatures & it will only get worse,.

If you think it isn't, then you are one very stupid person.

There is a decades delay in taking action to alleviating the effects.

The only idiots are you & your horde of Truimpettes.

No id say the realidiots are those who think cortez is right the earth is going to end in 12 years but by giving her power and trillions of american dollars she can save it .
Knock off a few billion people might have a slight effect but nature is nature moron

You assfucks are dumber than shit. We need to act quickly to prevent a disaster down the road.

I understand your point of view. You haste your children & grandchildren & don't give a rat's ass what their future will be like.

I

Dunno about Aponi, but I just heard, "You're dumb because you think! PANIC! Agree with me because FEEELLZZZ!!" Exactly the level of intelligence and meaningful dialogue I expect from "Assfuck" Dave, king of "I win because I called you assfuck! AHA!"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's their default mode.

Limbaugh
Fox
Hannity
Coulter

Racism
Homophobia

When they do find themselves in a corner, they just blurt out any of the above. It saves them time from learning anything, trying to disprove anything, or even helping them get out of a debate.

then whine words have lost their meaning.

i think they are more upset that means its lost impact.

Not too sure about that. They still use them repeatedly. I think they really don't know. When they lose elections, just blame it on the Republicans for cheating and not their worn out strategies. It's like the Boy who Cried Wolf.

Republicans do cheat. Photo ID laws. Voter suppression. Gerrymandering. Russian collusion. If you assfucks don;t want to be accused of cheating, QUIT YOUR FUCKING CHEATING.

"Republicans do cheat . . . because I want to believe it! Beating Democrats is cheating!"

Photo ID laws don't suppress voting. Gerrymandering is legal, AND practiced by both sides. Russian collusion is a fairy tale you made up to protect yourself from having to admit that your candidate was warmed-over shit. QUIT YOUR FUCKING LYING.

Study: Voter ID Laws Don’t Stop People Voting

When you demand a photo ID knowing that10-12% of eligible voters do not have one, you are suppressing the vote.

There are no statistics that show significant voter fraud that a photo ID would prevent.

That & your party cheaters.

Gerrymandering is legal so legalized cheating is OK? Wow, what a piece of shit you are.

Explain how a State like PA that has basic equal R vs D divide has twice as many R's as D's in the House?

More than likely voter turnout is the reason.

Remember that the Democrats drag anybody into the party they can. Your side is loaded with degenerates who might vote only if it's convenient enough. That's why some places have voting "days" instead of voting day; vote from mail; polls open late into the night.

Voter-ID requires a little work; no more than getting a drivers license. But since your party has the laziest Americans among us, the Democrats realize an ID may be a deterrent. Because Democrats realize they can't address the problem in this way, they go back to default mode and claim racism and discrimination.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Figures. Sandy Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Calls for End to Air Travel -- Build Trains Over the Oceans -Duh.
Democrat darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released information on the Democrat Party’s Green New Deal.
The radical Democrat-Socialist plan will destroy the country in months… if not days. Why do Democrats hate this country so much?
----------------------------------------------------

So not only will this dumb bitch try and con her idiots that we don't need babies and how we can kill them way after birth, now the moron wants to build a bridge over the ocean alrighty then . Don't plan on a win next voting round retread.

/—-/ And California just cancelled their high speed rail. Go figure. California's $3.5bn battle with Trump: Governor REFUSES to hand back funds for canceled high-speed rail project after President brands it a 'disaster' and told him 'we want that money back'

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes I do, but since the time these articles were written, things have gotten better, haven't they? And if not, why not since we keep spending more and more money on this cause?

Do you think God created this planet for animals and plants? Of course not. He created it for the human species. Everything else was put here for our advantage.

Both your statements are your opinion. There is no verse in Bible that says the earth was created for man. This is a favorite argument Christians use to defend their right to rape the land, pollute the air and turn our waters into cesspools.

Of course this planet was created for man. Why would God make a planet where we are the dominant animal capable of doing the things we can do if it was not for us? From a religious point of view, we are the only occupants with souls. Animals don't have souls. From a religious point of view, we are here to be tested and then judged for the next life.

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Having dominion means to rule over or have dominance over. That does not mean God created the earth for man to ravage. The earth belongs to God not man.
"The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1)

Yes, the earth does belong to God and not man. So why do you insist man controls it and not God?

Oh My God. Now you promote the stupid idea that God created the Earth & puny man can;t change it?

Not if God doesn't want it changed. There are things we can do, but we cannot destroy this planet.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Figures. Sandy Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Calls for End to Air Travel -- Build Trains Over the Oceans -Duh.
Democrat darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released information on the Democrat Party’s Green New Deal.
The radical Democrat-Socialist plan will destroy the country in months… if not days. Why do Democrats hate this country so much?
----------------------------------------------------

So not only will this dumb bitch try and con her idiots that we don't need babies and how we can kill them way after birth, now the moron wants to build a bridge over the ocean alrighty then . Don't plan on a win next voting round retread.

/—-/ And California just cancelled their high speed rail. Go figure. California's $3.5bn battle with Trump: Governor REFUSES to hand back funds for canceled high-speed rail project after President brands it a 'disaster' and told him 'we want that money back'

They had money set aside for a high-speed rail here too. Our then Democrat Governor gladly accepted. When John Kasich took over, he sent the money back and told Hussein to shove his train. Thank goodness he did.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Paris Accord only gave other countries the ability to limit our economic success. Of course they are pissed off.

That is complete nonsense. The agreement establishes a goal of a 26% reduction in carbon emission over a 20 year period. At the end each 5 years the US can readjust the figure. There is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Thankfully, 21 states agreed to support the Accord, assuring the world we aren't all idiots.

Well Trump thought it was a bad idea and so do I.

I have a better idea though. Let those other countries catch up to us, and then we'll agree to reduce our carbon emissions by 25%.

View attachment 245785

It's China, not other countries
China's is number 1 in the world in total carbon dioxide emissions, 9040 metric tons
US is number 2 in the world, 4,997. If the reduction in emission is based on total emissions, China would have the highest reduction goal and the US the 2nd highest. However, the members decided it would be fairer to base it on emission per capita. Using this method, China would drop to number 11th cutting it's emissions goal significantly and the US would drop to number 3 with little difference in it's US goal.

The bottom line is regardless of which method is used there would be little difference in the US emission goal. However, China's goal dropped significantly using the per captia method as did India, Indonesia, Brazil, and a number of small Africans nations who could not possibility meet their goal using the total emissions method. The per capita method is not only the fairest way to calculate emission reduction requirements but the only the way small developing nations could participate which is very important because they are the fastest growing nations in terms of carbon emissions. Trump of course, only saw that China had a lower goal than the US and withdrawing from the agreement made it easier to increase US emissions which was part of his agenda.
Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
https://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/6924?file=1

However our emissions have been on the decline for several years now and it keeps on declining.

View attachment 245870

Whether per capita or collectively, we are still moving in the right direction as China does the opposite. How did this happen? Well, China has taken over much of our industry. When industry was here, we had some control over C02 emissions. Now that China has much of it, the graph pretty much speaks for itself.

However climate was the last thing Democrats were concerned about when they supported unions and high taxation. Let the jobs go to China. We'll survive.

Nonsense. The Green Deal is a fantasy today and probably won't get out of committee but someday some of the things will happen. Healthcare is going to eventually end up as single payer and we're going to have to do something about the growing college loan debt. However, as far as lessen the effects of climate change, not much is going to be done until the world sees clearly the results. In other words, we going to have to experience the hard lesson of "show me".

This will flush out the Democrats and force them to either give ammunition to Republicans by voting for this joke or admit that it is a farce.

McConnell Plans To Bring Green New Deal To Senate Vote
February 12, 20195:43 PM ET

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced Tuesday that he wants the Senate to vote on a massive plan to fight climate change.

"I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we're going to be voting on that in the Senate," McConnell said at a Senate Republican news conference. "I'll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the "Green New Deal" framework last week. The legislation is a nonbinding resolution that is meant to outline a plan to massively curtail carbon emissions while undertaking sweeping economic changes to boost jobs and worker rights.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/694060405/mcconnell-plans-to-bring-green-new-deal-to-senate-vote

There is another route which is more likely. Democrats just let it die in committee. As it stands, there is no specific action required and no financial impact. It's just a set of goals. It's kind of funny. The 2016 Green Deal died because it required specific actions and the 2017 version will die because it doesn't.

It is not going to die because it does not have specifics - it is going to die because it is outright crazy. It is not a set of goals. Replacing the combustible engine with bullet trains is not a goal. Renovating every building in the country over the next 10 years is not a goal. Those are things that are simply not possible.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is complete nonsense. The agreement establishes a goal of a 26% reduction in carbon emission over a 20 year period. At the end each 5 years the US can readjust the figure. There is no penalty for not meeting the goal. Thankfully, 21 states agreed to support the Accord, assuring the world we aren't all idiots.

Well Trump thought it was a bad idea and so do I.

I have a better idea though. Let those other countries catch up to us, and then we'll agree to reduce our carbon emissions by 25%.

View attachment 245785

It's China, not other countries
China's is number 1 in the world in total carbon dioxide emissions, 9040 metric tons
US is number 2 in the world, 4,997. If the reduction in emission is based on total emissions, China would have the highest reduction goal and the US the 2nd highest. However, the members decided it would be fairer to base it on emission per capita. Using this method, China would drop to number 11th cutting it's emissions goal significantly and the US would drop to number 3 with little difference in it's US goal.

The bottom line is regardless of which method is used there would be little difference in the US emission goal. However, China's goal dropped significantly using the per captia method as did India, Indonesia, Brazil, and a number of small Africans nations who could not possibility meet their goal using the total emissions method. The per capita method is not only the fairest way to calculate emission reduction requirements but the only the way small developing nations could participate which is very important because they are the fastest growing nations in terms of carbon emissions. Trump of course, only saw that China had a lower goal than the US and withdrawing from the agreement made it easier to increase US emissions which was part of his agenda.
Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
https://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/6924?file=1

However our emissions have been on the decline for several years now and it keeps on declining.

View attachment 245870

Whether per capita or collectively, we are still moving in the right direction as China does the opposite. How did this happen? Well, China has taken over much of our industry. When industry was here, we had some control over C02 emissions. Now that China has much of it, the graph pretty much speaks for itself.

However climate was the last thing Democrats were concerned about when they supported unions and high taxation. Let the jobs go to China. We'll survive.

Nonsense. The Green Deal is a fantasy today and probably won't get out of committee but someday some of the things will happen. Healthcare is going to eventually end up as single payer and we're going to have to do something about the growing college loan debt. However, as far as lessen the effects of climate change, not much is going to be done until the world sees clearly the results. In other words, we going to have to experience the hard lesson of "show me".

This will flush out the Democrats and force them to either give ammunition to Republicans by voting for this joke or admit that it is a farce.

McConnell Plans To Bring Green New Deal To Senate Vote
February 12, 20195:43 PM ET

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced Tuesday that he wants the Senate to vote on a massive plan to fight climate change.

"I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we're going to be voting on that in the Senate," McConnell said at a Senate Republican news conference. "I'll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the "Green New Deal" framework last week. The legislation is a nonbinding resolution that is meant to outline a plan to massively curtail carbon emissions while undertaking sweeping economic changes to boost jobs and worker rights.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/694060405/mcconnell-plans-to-bring-green-new-deal-to-senate-vote

There is another route which is more likely. Democrats just let it die in committee. As it stands, there is no specific action required and no financial impact. It's just a set of goals. It's kind of funny. The 2016 Green Deal died because it required specific actions and the 2017 version will die because it doesn't.

It is not going to die because it does not have specifics - it is going to die because it is outright crazy. It is not a set of goals. Replacing the combustible engine with bullet trains is not a goal. Renovating every building in the country over the next 10 years is not a goal. Those are things that are simply not possible.

Plus the fact we don't have enough material to make those batteries creates a supply and demand effect. When those batteries get in short supply, they will double or triple in price. The electric car will then become unaffordable to buy, and even more unaffordable to replace the battery.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well Trump thought it was a bad idea and so do I.

I have a better idea though. Let those other countries catch up to us, and then we'll agree to reduce our carbon emissions by 25%.

View attachment 245785

It's China, not other countries
China's is number 1 in the world in total carbon dioxide emissions, 9040 metric tons
US is number 2 in the world, 4,997. If the reduction in emission is based on total emissions, China would have the highest reduction goal and the US the 2nd highest. However, the members decided it would be fairer to base it on emission per capita. Using this method, China would drop to number 11th cutting it's emissions goal significantly and the US would drop to number 3 with little difference in it's US goal.

The bottom line is regardless of which method is used there would be little difference in the US emission goal. However, China's goal dropped significantly using the per captia method as did India, Indonesia, Brazil, and a number of small Africans nations who could not possibility meet their goal using the total emissions method. The per capita method is not only the fairest way to calculate emission reduction requirements but the only the way small developing nations could participate which is very important because they are the fastest growing nations in terms of carbon emissions. Trump of course, only saw that China had a lower goal than the US and withdrawing from the agreement made it easier to increase US emissions which was part of his agenda.
Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
https://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/6924?file=1

However our emissions have been on the decline for several years now and it keeps on declining.

View attachment 245870

Whether per capita or collectively, we are still moving in the right direction as China does the opposite. How did this happen? Well, China has taken over much of our industry. When industry was here, we had some control over C02 emissions. Now that China has much of it, the graph pretty much speaks for itself.

However climate was the last thing Democrats were concerned about when they supported unions and high taxation. Let the jobs go to China. We'll survive.

Nonsense. The Green Deal is a fantasy today and probably won't get out of committee but someday some of the things will happen. Healthcare is going to eventually end up as single payer and we're going to have to do something about the growing college loan debt. However, as far as lessen the effects of climate change, not much is going to be done until the world sees clearly the results. In other words, we going to have to experience the hard lesson of "show me".

This will flush out the Democrats and force them to either give ammunition to Republicans by voting for this joke or admit that it is a farce.

McConnell Plans To Bring Green New Deal To Senate Vote
February 12, 20195:43 PM ET

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced Tuesday that he wants the Senate to vote on a massive plan to fight climate change.

"I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we're going to be voting on that in the Senate," McConnell said at a Senate Republican news conference. "I'll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the "Green New Deal" framework last week. The legislation is a nonbinding resolution that is meant to outline a plan to massively curtail carbon emissions while undertaking sweeping economic changes to boost jobs and worker rights.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/694060405/mcconnell-plans-to-bring-green-new-deal-to-senate-vote

There is another route which is more likely. Democrats just let it die in committee. As it stands, there is no specific action required and no financial impact. It's just a set of goals. It's kind of funny. The 2016 Green Deal died because it required specific actions and the 2017 version will die because it doesn't.

It is not going to die because it does not have specifics - it is going to die because it is outright crazy. It is not a set of goals. Replacing the combustible engine with bullet trains is not a goal. Renovating every building in the country over the next 10 years is not a goal. Those are things that are simply not possible.

Plus the fact we don't have enough material to make those batteries creates a supply and demand effect. When those batteries get in short supply, they will double or triple in price. The electric car will then become unaffordable to buy, and even more unaffordable to replace the battery.

Not that it's exactly cheap NOW.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's China, not other countries
China's is number 1 in the world in total carbon dioxide emissions, 9040 metric tons
US is number 2 in the world, 4,997. If the reduction in emission is based on total emissions, China would have the highest reduction goal and the US the 2nd highest. However, the members decided it would be fairer to base it on emission per capita. Using this method, China would drop to number 11th cutting it's emissions goal significantly and the US would drop to number 3 with little difference in it's US goal.

The bottom line is regardless of which method is used there would be little difference in the US emission goal. However, China's goal dropped significantly using the per captia method as did India, Indonesia, Brazil, and a number of small Africans nations who could not possibility meet their goal using the total emissions method. The per capita method is not only the fairest way to calculate emission reduction requirements but the only the way small developing nations could participate which is very important because they are the fastest growing nations in terms of carbon emissions. Trump of course, only saw that China had a lower goal than the US and withdrawing from the agreement made it easier to increase US emissions which was part of his agenda.
Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions
https://journals.openedition.org/chinaperspectives/6924?file=1

However our emissions have been on the decline for several years now and it keeps on declining.

View attachment 245870

Whether per capita or collectively, we are still moving in the right direction as China does the opposite. How did this happen? Well, China has taken over much of our industry. When industry was here, we had some control over C02 emissions. Now that China has much of it, the graph pretty much speaks for itself.

However climate was the last thing Democrats were concerned about when they supported unions and high taxation. Let the jobs go to China. We'll survive.

Nonsense. The Green Deal is a fantasy today and probably won't get out of committee but someday some of the things will happen. Healthcare is going to eventually end up as single payer and we're going to have to do something about the growing college loan debt. However, as far as lessen the effects of climate change, not much is going to be done until the world sees clearly the results. In other words, we going to have to experience the hard lesson of "show me".

This will flush out the Democrats and force them to either give ammunition to Republicans by voting for this joke or admit that it is a farce.

McConnell Plans To Bring Green New Deal To Senate Vote
February 12, 20195:43 PM ET

DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced Tuesday that he wants the Senate to vote on a massive plan to fight climate change.

"I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we're going to be voting on that in the Senate," McConnell said at a Senate Republican news conference. "I'll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the "Green New Deal" framework last week. The legislation is a nonbinding resolution that is meant to outline a plan to massively curtail carbon emissions while undertaking sweeping economic changes to boost jobs and worker rights.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/694060405/mcconnell-plans-to-bring-green-new-deal-to-senate-vote

There is another route which is more likely. Democrats just let it die in committee. As it stands, there is no specific action required and no financial impact. It's just a set of goals. It's kind of funny. The 2016 Green Deal died because it required specific actions and the 2017 version will die because it doesn't.

It is not going to die because it does not have specifics - it is going to die because it is outright crazy. It is not a set of goals. Replacing the combustible engine with bullet trains is not a goal. Renovating every building in the country over the next 10 years is not a goal. Those are things that are simply not possible.

Plus the fact we don't have enough material to make those batteries creates a supply and demand effect. When those batteries get in short supply, they will double or triple in price. The electric car will then become unaffordable to buy, and even more unaffordable to replace the battery.

Not that it's exactly cheap NOW.

They are pricy, that's why government has to subsidize them. They can't go bumper to bumper with a real car.

At least over here, when it gets very warm outside, our illuminating company warns us to keep our AC at a reasonable level so we don't have a blackout. This happens every time it goes over 90 degrees outside which only happens a couple times a season.

If we switched to all electric cars, that would mean either the electric company would have to double it's output in the summer, or we would barely be able to use our AC at all. Sorry AOC, I don't want to live like that. I love my AC more than your environment paranoia.

 

[easyt65]

You assfucks are dumber than shit. We need to act quickly to prevent a disaster down the road.

Act quickly...yes...the new Socialist Sci-Fi Future Tech Princess says the earth will be destroyed in 12 years...

Of course her Socialist $100 Trillion unachievable plan based on technology that does not exist yet will destroy the nation in less than 10 years....

 

[jc456]

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

The United States, what can we do that will reverse Global Warming?

The world has a population of 7.6 BILLION PEOPLE.

The United States has a population of 330 MILLION PEOPLE. That means we (United States) make up 0.043% of the world population,

What percentage of the world population still burn either wood or animal dung to heat and cook?

Arguably we are the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world and despite the efforts of the current administration we are still considered a world leader. Other nations still look to US for leadership.

Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement was a huge disappoint for environmentalists around the world. However, the blow has been soften with the support of the United States Climate Alliance representing 21 US states. Also, Trump's ridiculous quotes on climate change has certainly helped.

Nope

 

[Markle]

Figures. Sandy Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Calls for End to Air Travel -- Build Trains Over the Oceans -Duh.
Democrat darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released information on the Democrat Party’s Green New Deal.
The radical Democrat-Socialist plan will destroy the country in months… if not days. Why do Democrats hate this country so much?
----------------------------------------------------

So not only will this dumb bitch try and con her idiots that we don't need babies and how we can kill them way after birth, now the moron wants to build a bridge over the ocean alrighty then . Don't plan on a win next voting round retread.

/—-/ And California just cancelled their high speed rail. Go figure. California's $3.5bn battle with Trump: Governor REFUSES to hand back funds for canceled high-speed rail project after President brands it a 'disaster' and told him 'we want that money back'

They had money set aside for a high-speed rail here too. Our then Democrat Governor gladly accepted. When John Kasich took over, he sent the money back and told Hussein to shove his train. Thank goodness he did.

Governor Rick Scott did the same thing. We sent the money back. Sometimes a "gift" is just more than one can afford!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Somehow related...

Presidential candidate Cory Booker wants government to increase the cost of meat to encourage veganism. Booker, vegan himself, is supporter of the Red New Deal.

Just as every other socialist, Booker believe that solution for every problem is the government.

Booker is vegan and wants to force everyone to give up meat..

Booker is also gay, what else will he force?

 

[Lesh]

Let's say for a second that Global Warming Science is UNDISPUTABLE FACT (which it is certainly NOT) to some degree (not to the degree AOC says it is, claiming the world will end in 12 years if we do not act now - we already heard that '12 Year' BS from Gore, and we're all still here....), But Let's just SAY it is 'true'...

THAT still does not change the FACT that the 'Green New Deal' AOC just embarrassingly rolled out is embarrassing as hell, a piece of crap, and one of the worst pieces of 'legislation' ever produced...it still does NOT change the fact that AOC admitted her plan is 1) Unrealistic, 2) 'unachievable' (Newsom / Ca just proved part of that), 3) Based on Non-existent technology, & 4) the cost is fiscally unaffordable - 'even if we took every dollar from every wealthy American and every resource from every prosperous company in the US'.

Yea that 12 years to the end of the world from cortez then unless we spend 60 or so trillion in 10 years green deal really tells you the truth unless your a moron like her

Climate Change is affecting the world FASTER than previously thought.

Yea...keep dragging your feet

 

[Lesh]

Booker is vegan and wants to force everyone to give up meat..

No..he does not.

That is HIS choice. I don't agree with it but then the world is ABOUT freedom of choice...no?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Booker is vegan and wants to force everyone to give up meat..

No..he does not.

That is HIS choice. I don't agree with it but then the world is ABOUT freedom of choice...no?

Leach, you are rather stupid;

{Presidential candidate Cory Booker wants government to increase the cost of meat to encourage veganism.}

Scratch that, you're dumb as a fucking brick....

 

[Lesh]

Booker is vegan and wants to force everyone to give up meat..

No..he does not.

That is HIS choice. I don't agree with it but then the world is ABOUT freedom of choice...no?

Leach, you are rather stupid;

{Presidential candidate Cory Booker wants government to increase the cost of meat to encourage veganism.}

Scratch that, you're dumb as a fucking brick....

Leech?

Hey fuck yourself in the face

Now that we've gotten that out of the way

Please provide PROOF that Booker wants to do that

 

[Thinker101]

Booker is vegan and wants to force everyone to give up meat..

No..he does not.

That is HIS choice. I don't agree with it but then the world is ABOUT freedom of choice...no?

Leach, you are rather stupid;

{Presidential candidate Cory Booker wants government to increase the cost of meat to encourage veganism.}

Scratch that, you're dumb as a fucking brick....

Leech?

Hey fuck yourself in the face

Now that we've gotten that out of the way

Please provide PROOF that Booker wants to do that

Here ya go Lush.

 

[baileyn45]

Let's say for a second that Global Warming Science is UNDISPUTABLE FACT (which it is certainly NOT) to some degree (not to the degree AOC says it is, claiming the world will end in 12 years if we do not act now - we already heard that '12 Year' BS from Gore, and we're all still here....), But Let's just SAY it is 'true'...

THAT still does not change the FACT that the 'Green New Deal' AOC just embarrassingly rolled out is embarrassing as hell, a piece of crap, and one of the worst pieces of 'legislation' ever produced...it still does NOT change the fact that AOC admitted her plan is 1) Unrealistic, 2) 'unachievable' (Newsom / Ca just proved part of that), 3) Based on Non-existent technology, & 4) the cost is fiscally unaffordable - 'even if we took every dollar from every wealthy American and every resource from every prosperous company in the US'.

Yea that 12 years to the end of the world from cortez then unless we spend 60 or so trillion in 10 years green deal really tells you the truth unless your a moron like her

Climate Change is affecting the world FASTER than previously thought.

Yea...keep dragging your feet

Climate Change is affecting the world FASTER than previously thought.

Prove it.