1 edit
@vivify saidI don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but let's get down to brass tacks: What policies that will seriously hurt YOU are you willing to support to mitigate climate change?
Yes. But it also involves things like eating far less animals than we already do.
The cattle/beef industry, for example, is a major contributor to climate change. The reasons include methane being put into the air, the amount of water needed to sustain cattle, etc. See this NYT link on the subject:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/17/climate/meat-industry-climate-impa ...[text shortened]... ly started to go green, is one example of many that we can live without, for the sake of the planet.
Sometimes it seems that the climate change issue is used by the right as a libertarian rallying cry and by the left solely as a cudgel to beat the "ignorant" right.
People who want real climate change need to face up to the fact that you can't be hypocritical and taken seriously. If Al Gore runs up an $18,000/mo electricity bill and John Kerry flies a private jet to Obama's birthday party, they're going to have a hard time convincing Joe Blow to stop driving his F-150 to his construction jobs.
Rather than making this an ideological litmus test, propose a solution that will hurt YOU personally and we can talk.
@vivify
===NASCAR, though they've slowly started to go green, is one example of many that we can live without, for the sake of the planet.===
I'll take your word for it if you say no, but is NASCAR a drop in the bucket that you're targeting because you don't really care for NASCAR and because it's a redneck fiefdom?
1 edit
@sh76 saidIn this post, I didn't mention any political party or ideology. This your own insecurity showing, since the right is stereotypically anti-anything to help the planet.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but let's get down to brass tacks: What policies that will seriously hurt YOU are you willing to support to mitigate climate change?
Sometimes it seems that the climate change issue is used by the right as a libertarian rallying cry and by the left solely as a cudgel to beat the "ignorant" right.
People who want real climate c ...[text shortened]... g this an ideological litmus test, propose a solution that will hurt YOU personally and we can talk.
No one, whether Obama or anyone else, gets a pass on doing their part for climate change. More important than singling out famous people is to eliminate dependence on fossil fuel, and stop letting businesses bribe politicians into letting them escape responsibility simply because they value profit over human lives or the planet.
You asked if I mentioned NASCAR to target conservatives; in that same post, I also mentioned cruise lines and the beef industry. Are those specific to Republicans or Dems? No, both eat beef, both go on cruises.
Making climate change a political issue is the exact reason why nothing is getting done about it. I have zero interest making the health of the planet a political weapon.
That said: it's merely a fact that Republican interests are pro businesses that contribute to climate change and pro-fossil fuel industries. Trump alone rolled-back many Obama-era efforts aimed at stopping climate change. That's not partisanship, that's simply a fact. It just so happens this fact makes your party look bad; it's not a deliberate attempt to do so.
3 edits
@sh76 saidThis is like asking if I oppose the KKK just because they're conservatives. Rather than worry about my political motives, shouldn't you just agree they should be dealt with?
@vivify
===NASCAR, though they've slowly started to go green, is one example of many that we can live without, for the sake of the planet.===
I'll take your word for it if you say no, but is NASCAR a drop in the bucket that you're targeting because you don't really care for NASCAR and because it's a redneck fiefdom?
Same with NASCAR heavily contributing to climate-change.
@Suzianne
Funny, ironic, that everything is all happening now in the year of the liberal, in the decade of the liberals, everything is happening everything everything.
Yes, everything was smooth sailing , until you Fellers all got to boiling every pot in the neighborhood.
Do you have any idea how many scientists will disagree with you and say that there is nothing unusual about the climate?
1 edit
@mghrn55 saidThanks MGH, now can you ask the libs why none of their posts mention India or China? These countries need energy to develop. They aint THINKIN about changing their pollution.
Another hoax, right ?
Besides, a solution to climate change is just another trojan horse for Socialism.
There ya go, averagejoe, I did it for ya. 😛
Posters here make it look like our fault. And Scotland cows plot all the time.
So how bout China, India?
@metal-brain saidWho’d a thunk it?
Humans are not primarily responsible for global warming, but since you used the term "climate change" perhaps you think man is responsible for global cooling as well. Don't you know which term is accurate anymore?
"average sea-levels are rising and becoming more acidic and extreme weather conditions are set to get worse."
What is the average sea level rise per year ...[text shortened]... would generally be less droughts.
Do you believe everything you hear that you prefer to believe?
Let me guess, you have 1 nobel prize winner to recite?
@shavixmir
Here is what "the" experts think.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/
Of course these are probably dummies, what would they know, Yes?
1 edit
@jimmac saidThere are actually only 14 names on that letter. I read it.
@shavixmir
Here is what "the" experts think.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/
Of course these are probably dummies, what would they know, Yes?
I googled a few of them. One is an engineer, another is a seismologist, and yet another is a professor of the philosophy of consciousness.
So, experts? Yes, technically they are. But their expertise is in a completely different field of science. I'd trust the consensus of the climate scientists (via IPCC).
@jimmac saidI am not even going to bother arguing with you.
@shavixmir
Here is what "the" experts think.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/
Of course these are probably dummies, what would they know, Yes?
You will feel the consequences of the decisions that are going to be made because of this report, whether you stick your head up your arse or not.
@wildgrass saidYes you may be right, you do mean you trust the scientists that lose there funding if they do not agree, but no matter, as I said before, I do not need to be convinced of anything either way, Keeping the planet clean is important for its own sake. I am probably more green than most of those " experts" in how I live my day to day life. I hate waste with a vengeance. I try to do the right thing. I run my car on gas, LPG, have solar panels on the roof of my house, I avoid using plastic bags at the shops, often putting the groceries into the trolley then into the car. I don't see the young alarmists doing any of that. I have brought 1 new phone in my life, the rest being the kids hand me downs. I bet "your" experts do not do any of that. Just tell the rest of us what "we" should and should not do.
There are actually only 14 names on that letter. I read it.
I googled a few of them. One is an engineer, another is a seismologist, and yet another is a professor of the philosophy of consciousness.
So, experts? Yes, technically they are. But their expertise is in a completely different field of science. I'd trust the consensus of the climate scientists (via IPCC).
I do not need convincing of anything.
@shavixmir saidI am not sticking my head anywhere, I am not taking any side, I do not care who is right and who is wrong. I would not behave any different "if" I believed. As stated, we need to be "clean". That is a better terminology than "green". I am just not sure solar and wind is the answer, despite having panels on the roof. I mean, why not take advantage of the government throwing money at me to do it. I save a bundle. Note: I used to believe that solar was the way to go, now not as sure as I was.
I am not even going to bother arguing with you.
You will feel the consequences of the decisions that are going to be made because of this report, whether you stick your head up your arse or not.
@jimmac saidThis climate change issue has led to a lot of stupidity. I keep hearing how electric cars are going to replace the ICE. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Not only does building electric cars have a heavy carbon footprint, all you are doing is outsourcing the carbon to electric power plants.
I am not sticking my head anywhere, I am not taking any side, I do not care who is right and who is wrong. I would not behave any different "if" I believed. As stated, we need to be "clean". That is a better terminology than "green". I am just not sure solar and wind is the answer, despite having panels on the roof. I mean, why not take advantage of the government throwing mon ...[text shortened]... it. I save a bundle. Note: I used to believe that solar was the way to go, now not as sure as I was.
Climate alarmists are some of the most ignorant people on the planet. They know nothing about science but think they do because they read an article that claims to be science based. In other words, they rely on rumors of what the science says.
They also have a hard time understanding economics. Do they even know how much an electric car costs?
@sh76 saidThis question places the onus on individuals to take action, when the response needs to be structural. For instance, we are encouraged to reduce our carbon footprint by flying less (which I'm actually perfectly willing to do; I hate airports and the whole boring rigmarole of security checks, early check-in, etc) - but policies need to pursued that will help people do that. Present policies favour air travel (e.g., train fuel is taxed while aviation fuel is exempt). If I choose to take the train from, say, London to Barcelona, it will not only take me all day (which I don't mind - after all, I have a laptop!), but will often cost me twice as much as the equivalent flight (which I do mind). We need to tax planes and subsidise trains so that the opposite is the case.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but let's get down to brass tacks: What policies that will seriously hurt YOU are you willing to support to mitigate climate change?
Sometimes it seems that the climate change issue is used by the right as a libertarian rallying cry and by the left solely as a cudgel to beat the "ignorant" right.
People who want real climate c ...[text shortened]... g this an ideological litmus test, propose a solution that will hurt YOU personally and we can talk.
That's just one example; basically, we need a lot of interventions that will make the environmentally friendly option the cheaper and easier one.