The GOP has reached the point of no return on Climate Change

[marsnow]

US emissions will be stable and falling according to climate scientists. What do you propose we do to China? Should we invade and stop their coal plants?

 

[bripat9643]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

There are actually several very good reasons for making the planet practically uninhabitable for all but the very wealthy. For the very wealthy that is.

Such as?

How do you make the planet habitable for the wealthy, but inhabitable for everyone else?

 

[bendog]

US emissions will be stable and falling according to climate scientists. What do you propose we do to China? Should we invade and stop their coal plants?

Well, what could have been done is to have an agreement with the other industrialized countries .... say 15 years ago .... that tied not placing tariffs on Chinese goods to their not building so many coal fired electrical plants.

 

[ScienceRocks]

US emissions will be stable and falling according to climate scientists. What do you propose we do to China? Should we invade and stop their coal plants?

It went up in 2013 China is still rising fast! India is still rising fast! Germanies going up!

 

[marsnow]

US emissions will be stable and falling according to climate scientists. What do you propose we do to China? Should we invade and stop their coal plants?

It went up in 2013 China is still rising fast! India is still rising fast! Germanies going up!

So even if the US reduces theirs, the others go up... maybe we should stop buying Chinese goods and have Americans make clothes from buffalo hides.

 

[RandomVariable]

US emissions will be stable and falling according to climate scientists. What do you propose we do to China? Should we invade and stop their coal plants?

Perhaps the U.S. could develop technology to either replace the plants or make them less offensive to the environment. That would help even out the trade balance and boost the U.S. economy. Of course that would require funding for scientific research, something Republicans would fight every step of the way.

 

[ScienceRocks]

US emissions will be stable and falling according to climate scientists. What do you propose we do to China? Should we invade and stop their coal plants?

Perhaps the U.S. could develop technology to either replace the plants or make them less offensive to the environment. That would help even out the trade balance and boost the U.S. economy. Of course that would require funding for scientific research, something Republicans would fight every step of the way.

Fusion

 

[marsnow]

US emissions will be stable and falling according to climate scientists. What do you propose we do to China? Should we invade and stop their coal plants?

Perhaps the U.S. could develop technology to either replace the plants or make them less offensive to the environment. That would help even out the trade balance and boost the U.S. economy. Of course that would require funding for scientific research, something Republicans would fight every step of the way.

Actually ARPA-E (energy version of DARPA) is funding tons of clean energy research under Obama. And the US military seems to be backing it as possibly buyer to bring down cost.

The working class Republicans who oppose it however have a right to assert their larger interest in jobs. The well off professional Democrats have a right to assert their role as conservers of resources. But they will conflict.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

US emissions will be stable and falling according to climate scientists. What do you propose we do to China? Should we invade and stop their coal plants?

Perhaps the U.S. could develop technology to either replace the plants or make them less offensive to the environment. That would help even out the trade balance and boost the U.S. economy. Of course that would require funding for scientific research, something Republicans would fight every step of the way.

That's not a bad idea. But let's not get ahead of ourselves and talk about the trade imbalance. Developing new technologies that replace more dangerous technologies is to our own benefit. If this also increases America's technological standing and exports, then double-points. Let's focus on the immediate first.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

US emissions will be stable and falling according to climate scientists. What do you propose we do to China? Should we invade and stop their coal plants?

Well, what could have been done is to have an agreement with the other industrialized countries .... say 15 years ago .... that tied not placing tariffs on Chinese goods to their not building so many coal fired electrical plants.

That's true. We could stop pretending that our iPhones are so clean, while the production of our consumer goods muddies up rivers in China. We could stop pretending celebrities taking fuel wasting helicopter rides around waterfalls is okay because those same celebrities made stone-age tribal natives promise not to drive automobiles (that's an actual silly thing that happened on some silly late 1990s MTV show) and call it "Carbon Trading".

We could stop a lot of nonsense. It would be to our benefit. Why don't we?

 

[KNB]

Considering I am perfectly fine with pot legalization, your rant has no bearing on me.

Also go fuck yourself you foreign toad. Also, if you want to smoke pot, just say so, making up all this wunder-crap about hemp and such makes you look like idiots.

Yeah, you're so in favor of legalization that you keep voting for candidates who are "tough on crime". That means more arrests for something that was used by the "Greatest Generation" to preserve freedom and democracy for you, their children and grandchildren alive right now, reading this.

It wasn't some ancient Roman era. It was 1942. How old are the Conservative members of this board? In your 50s? 60s? 70s? You owe your freedom to your parents legalizing MARIHUANA. How would World War II have ended without the US getting involved? It's just a trivial little detail, right? Legalizing marijuana didn't have any bearing on the outcome of the war, right? We could have just used something else to make rope, right? Because that's all that Marihuana was used for, right? Rope.

Jobs, domestic production, strong national defense. These used to be Conservative values, but as soon as you hear that Marihuana is involved, you turn into true Fascists who want the People to be dependent on foreign production and monopolized resources.

 

[blackhawk]

Let's just say for the sake of argument global warming climate change whatever the new trendy title is is real and man is playing a major part in it is America solely or majority responsible for it? If the answer is no then that would mean the rest of the industrial nations are playing a fair size role in it so unless you get all of them to change their ways as well pretty unlikely anything we do here would be irrelevant in the big picture.

You're right, why should we take the lead? What good will that do? Influence others to join us...pbbbbfft yea right /sarcasm

We have taken the lead the U.S. has lowered its Co2 levels more than anyone has the rest of the world followed?

 

[PredFan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

I just don't see how the GOP can continue to deny the obvious. But I guess the Koch brother's money can change a lot of minds....until Rubio has to boat to his home in Florida.

1. I haven't gotten a cent from the Koch brothers.
2. I don't deny climate change, the climate is always changing.
3. I point out, as does Rubio, that there is no evidence that man is affecting the climate, and we are correct about that.
4. This thread is stupid.

 

[bedowin62]

the Left has reached the point of no return on mindless, moronic stupidty

 

[bedowin62]

it's Year 8 of Progressive Majority government. The Left reached the pointof no return on FAILURE long ago


idiots and hypocrites

 

[marsnow]

the Left has reached the point of no return on mindless, moronic stupidty

Their hearts are in the right place -- ensuring this planet survives for you and yours to live on. But it conflicts with economic growth - which is inconsistent. In fact they should be the most politically incorrect in their views of other cultures -- in order to enforce their environmental wishes on them.

I wish the right would be more honest as well -- they want to earn money and get more jobs. The left wants to save the planet so having jobs is relevant. It is a needle to thread. on both sides.

 

[PredFan]

the Left has reached the point of no return on mindless, moronic stupidty

Their hearts are in the right place -- ensuring this planet survives for you and yours to live on. But it conflicts with economic growth - which is inconsistent. In fact they should be the most politically incorrect in their views of other cultures -- in order to enforce their environmental wishes on them.

I wish the right would be more honest as well -- they want to earn money and get more jobs. The left wants to save the planet so having jobs is relevant. It is a needle to thread. on both sides.

The planet is not in danger. It was around billions of years before people and will be around billions of years after we are gone. It's the arrogance of man to think that he has the power to destroy a whole planet.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Let's just say for the sake of argument global warming climate change whatever the new trendy title is is real and man is playing a major part in it is America solely or majority responsible for it? If the answer is no then that would mean the rest of the industrial nations are playing a fair size role in it so unless you get all of them to change their ways as well pretty unlikely anything we do here would be irrelevant in the big picture.

You're right, why should we take the lead? What good will that do? Influence others to join us...pbbbbfft yea right /sarcasm

We have taken the lead the U.S. has lowered its Co2 levels more than anyone has the rest of the world followed?

I think that's an important point. Even if we doubled the cost of electricity while so many people are struggling with their energy costs, it is doubtful that anything meaningful - on a global scale - can be accomplished.

I'm not one of those numb-skulls who denies that we are affecting the climate. I just happen to think that at this point we aren't going to turn it around. We can do what we can to help, but I don't favor sending energy costs even further through the roof. I believe we're also going to have to adapt to our new environment as best as we can.

 

[marsnow]

the Left has reached the point of no return on mindless, moronic stupidty

Their hearts are in the right place -- ensuring this planet survives for you and yours to live on. But it conflicts with economic growth - which is inconsistent. In fact they should be the most politically incorrect in their views of other cultures -- in order to enforce their environmental wishes on them.

I wish the right would be more honest as well -- they want to earn money and get more jobs. The left wants to save the planet so having jobs is relevant. It is a needle to thread. on both sides.

The planet is not in danger. It was around billions of years before people and will be around billions of years after we are gone. It's the arrogance of man to think that he has the power to destroy a whole planet.

Agreed the planet will survive but our ability to live on it may at some point in the future be in question. That is a fair hypothesis to believe in. That liberals fear it is now is not a fault necessarily.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

The planet is not in danger. It was around billions of years before people and will be around billions of years after we are gone. It's the arrogance of man to think that he has the power to destroy a whole planet.

Okay, let's start small...
Does man have the power to pollute an entire river valley?
Does man have the power to start a Dust Bowl effect in the Plains States?
Does man have the power to deforest a region wide enough to introduce sandstorms to Beijing?

Just how wide an area can man affect, if not the whole surface of the Earth?