Republican Mayor Joins Bernie Sanders On Climate Change

YouTube

Shocking how a republican, from the republican party of fiscal responsibility, figured that it's fiscally responsible to make use of a free, renewable (for all intents and purposes forever) energy source. To create jobs to build and maintain this equipment. To have less (0) waste to dump into rivers and air and thus have a healthier population

The main theory is that this poor man is suffering from insanity, especially supported by the fact that he said he would trust scientists over people who have no education on a given field.

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/12/green-new-deal-bernie-sanders-dale-ross-climate-town-hall/577279/

@zahlanzi said
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-r5LEJ-Edw

Shocking how a republican, from the republican party of fiscal responsibility, figured that it's fiscally responsible to make use of a free, renewable (for all intents and purposes forever) energy source. To create jobs to build and maintain this equipment. To have less (0) waste to dump into rivers and air and thus have a healt ...[text shortened]... the fact that he said he would trust scientists over people who have no education on a given field.

Climate change is a stupid term in this context. It is called "global warming". Why are they stupid enough to include the ice ages in their rhetoric? Are they positioning themselves so they can blame man for global cooling as well?
Why are there so many morons saying "man is causing it"? 100%? If they do not mean 100% why don't they discuss how much is man made and how much is natural? Are they too stupid to make that distinction?
No, they do not want to discuss natural causes. They want people to believe there isn't a natural cause so they do not have to admit it is a factor. The best way to avoid a losing argument is to eliminate a discussion of natural causes altogether.
Don't look there, look here. I'm not trying to mislead you , but don't look at that.

When people try to avoid talking about "natural causes" you know they are the true science deniers.

@zahlanzi said
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-r5LEJ-Edw

Shocking how a republican, from the republican party of fiscal responsibility, figured that it's fiscally responsible to make use of a free, renewable (for all intents and purposes forever) energy source. To create jobs to build and maintain this equipment. To have less (0) waste to dump into rivers and air and thus have a healt ...[text shortened]... the fact that he said he would trust scientists over people who have no education on a given field.

I didn't watch it.

@zahlanzi said
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-r5LEJ-Edw

Shocking how a republican, from the republican party of fiscal responsibility, figured that it's fiscally responsible to make use of a free, renewable (for all intents and purposes forever) energy source. To create jobs to build and maintain this equipment. To have less (0) waste to dump into rivers and air and thus have a healt ...[text shortened]... the fact that he said he would trust scientists over people who have no education on a given field.

He's not the only one.

http://www.republicen.org/

Climate Change, Global Warming the name is irrelevant. The issue should be bipartisan. We know the cause. We know how to stave off potential disaster. Nations need to have the will to meet the challenge. Through technology and responsible capitalism, there is a ton of money to be made meeting the challenge posed by global warming/climate change. The cost of dealing with the disasters caused by climate change: floods, fires, droughts and the increase of diseases that flourish in warmer climates, is growing quickly. The level of science deniers in the United States is appalling.

@sh76 said
He's not the only one.

http://www.republicen.org/

Aww, libertarians, how cute. The magic of "everything will sort itself out if you just don't look at it funny"

Yes, renewable energy shouldn't get subsidies, once it establishes itself. But you need to invest into new tech before it can stand on it's own. You also need to realize the difference between subsidies and a government choosing to actively phase out dirty energy like coal, gas, oil. Free market would dictate that the best offer would win but what is best right now might not be best in the future.


"No regulations" is the same hilarious talking point libertarians are so rightfully mocked for. No regulations won't stop a company from dumping toxic sludge into rivers or filling the air with pollutants. No regulations won't stop a company from using asbestos to line everything.

Real conservatism means finding the pentagon toilet seats that cost 500$ and making sure you get cheaper toilet seats from now on and only as many as you need. Real conservatism means cutting redundant programs but not cutting every safety net a citizen has and let him fend for himself.



That being said, i only found libertarian talking points on that site you provided and i am not going to spend hours looking up absolutely everything about them. If you have in mind a specific proposition they are supporting, we can discuss it.

@phranny said
Climate Change, Global Warming the name is irrelevant. The issue should be bipartisan. We know the cause. We know how to stave off potential disaster. Nations need to have the will to meet the challenge. Through technology and responsible capitalism, there is a ton of money to be made meeting the challenge posed by global warming/climate change. The cost of dealing with the d ...[text shortened]... warmer climates, is growing quickly. The level of science deniers in the United States is appalling.

If you would take money out of politics, climate change would be partisan. The corrupt republicans (and democrats) would disappear and you would be left with public servants genuinely wanting to serve, differing only in the way they want to solve things and having to come together to a common ground.

@zahlanzi said
But you need to invest into new tech before it can stand on it's own.

Thanks for the investment advice, nothing stopping ya is there, good luck with putting your money where your mouth is.

Ohh hold on a sec, you meant everyone else's money?

Cities, government agencies should actively seek renewable energy and discard dirty energy as soon as possible.
Where free market should come into play is when auctioning out the right to build a solar farm to the highest bidder. Who to build the next dam. Deciding what is more efficient in a given situation, wind or solar.
You get the point.

The mayor i mentioned in the OP held constant town halls, gave out newsletters, explaining everything they did, why and how much money they saved.

@Zahlanzi I do agree that money in politics has turned the U.S. into an plutocracy, especially since the Citizen's SCOTUS 2010 decision. Capitalism properly regulated (I'm guessing even the most dedicated libertarians and far right Republicans do not want a total "buyer beware" that would allow snake oil salesmen to once again pedal dangerous products) and guided by good science would create an economic boom. Republicans seem just fine with subsidizing the already rich with a huge tax break that does nothing to promote the growth of new clean technologies.

@zahlanzi said
If you would take money out of politics, climate change would be partisan. The corrupt republicans (and democrats) would disappear and you would be left with public servants genuinely wanting to serve, differing only in the way they want to solve things and having to come together to a common ground.

On the one hand zahlooney wants money out of politics and on the other hand he wants the goobermint to 'auction" "the' "right" for Co's to build a solar farm. (his very next post)

He want's the goobermint to take away the right to build a solar farm then to sell the 'right' back again.

Want money out of politics? Get pollies out of the enrgy business.

zahlooney logic 🙄

@phranny said
Climate Change, Global Warming the name is irrelevant. The issue should be bipartisan. We know the cause. We know how to stave off potential disaster. Nations need to have the will to meet the challenge. Through technology and responsible capitalism, there is a ton of money to be made meeting the challenge posed by global warming/climate change. The cost of dealing with the d ...[text shortened]... warmer climates, is growing quickly. The level of science deniers in the United States is appalling.

Climate change is global cooling as well as global warming. We already know ice ages happen. Is anyone denying that? Nope, therefore everyone believes in climate change.

If you know the cause prove it. If you knew, you would be using the word "causes" and talk about both.

I always know an ignorant person when they think there is only one cause. It is absurd.

Global warming will generally lead to increased rainfall world wide. That combined with increased CO2 will increase plant growth and food crops for people and their animals.

It will generally be beneficial.

Don't argue with someone called metal brain.

@metal-brain said
Climate change is global cooling as well as global warming. We already know ice ages happen. Is anyone denying that? Nope, therefore everyone believes in climate change

It was explained to you before: climate changes refers to human influence that alters earth's natural climate cycle.

Ice ages aren't climate change; that's just climate. Ice ages are cyclical weather events (climate).