Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[bambu-wisdom]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/scott-morrison-resists-calls-to-withdraw-from-paris-climate-agreement

Morrison says Australia won't provide more money for global climate fund

Scott Morrison has resisted conservatives’ calls to withdraw Australia from the Paris climate agreement but ruled out providing more money to the global climate fund.

The prime minister made the comments on 2GB Radio on Monday, before the release of a Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which is expected to call for a phaseout of coal power generation to help limit temperature rises to 1.5C.

#####

Phaseout of coal power generation?
Sure...when the alternatives are in place and up and running...a seamless transfer.

It was 2 degrees Celsius...now 1.5degrees C...what next 1degreeC...maybe 0.5degreesC?   They keep changing the bar.

[facilitatorn]

The world seems strange to one who does not learn.

Coal replacements are on line and getting cheaper and more reliable by the quarter.

They are working on Hybrid planes.

Big polluters stifle growth to retain market share and economic power, happily subverting governments to get it done.

Heaven help you is right for what your ignorance, jingoism, and xenophobia bring to the world.

[bambu-wisdom]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/scott-morrison-resists-calls-to-withdraw-from-paris-climate-agreement

Asked if Australia would be held to the target to reduce emissions by 26% to 28% from 2005 levels, Morrison said: “No, we won’t … we’re not held to any of them at all. Nor are we bound to go and tip money into that big climate fund. We’re not going to do that either. I’m not going to spend money on global climate conferences and all that nonsense.”

Last week the One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, wrote to Morrison complaining that Australians were not aware when the government signed up to the Paris agreement that it would “lead to organisations like the global climate fund acting like standover men, knocking at our door, telling us to pay up, or else”.

#####

Well there you go.

[REDSTATEWARD]

If people believe climate and prosperity are at odds Red it is because people like you have gone to great lengths to convince people of that.

I argue just the opposite.

As in your argument yesterday that controlling human caused climate change is an attack on capitalism.

Then you simply cannot read.

[josh]

Apparently, Trump does not understand multi-lateral document signing.

https://www.facebook.com/todddavidc/videos/1985603781533820/

[REDSTATEWARD]

Obama promised to buy a Chevy Volt when he left office.
He hasn’t.
And now the Volt is a casualty of Government Motors making cars to please Obama and not the market.
Even Obama turned GM down. 

[bambu-wisdom]

The world seems strange to one who does not learn.

Coal replacements are on line and getting cheaper and more reliable by the quarter.

They are working on Hybrid planes.

Big polluters stifle growth to retain market share and economic power, happily subverting governments to get it done.

Heaven help you is right for what your ignorance, jingoism, and xenophobia bring to the world.

When coal replacements can provide a seamless transfer to renewables...then close down coal...but not before.

US is the largest polluter in the world, according to my tv news the other night.
It is also in reality the only one who is capable of protecting the Christian West from attack and takeover by communist/non-Christian countries.
Military might, economic power, come with a cost. In time the transition to renewables will happen...but you can't have it now.

You could levy fuel with a $10 a gallon carbon tax, that would get many cars, trucks, other vehicles off the roads in America, stop many planes from flying.
It would stop many people using oil in home heating...less emissions.
Wood heaters could be banned...less emissions..."wrap yourselves up in blankets".

[bambu-wisdom]

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/andrew-bolt-humans-seem-a-mystery-to-david-attenborough/news-story/7f7a0e0b5e79c9fe48c3994ef34500a4

David Attenborough’s climate change fearmongering makes him look a fool

Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
December 5, 2018 4:50pm
Subscriber only

It’s embarrassing to see Sir David Attenborough make such a fool of himself after decades of brilliant filmmaking. Organisers of this week’s United Nations’ global warming conference, in Poland asked the documentary superstar to make a speech that would wake the dead.
And he gave it his best shot, trying to sound like an Old Testament prophet but so overdoing the fearmongering that he seemed deranged.

“Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale,” he thundered.
“Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change.
“If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

Yes, I know much of the media treated this tosh like it was the word from Heaven, which shows most journalists cannot be trusted when reporting on this new religion. But seriously: is global warming truly a bigger threat than, say, the Black Death that wiped out maybe half Europe’s population?

Bigger than the Spanish flu that killed up to 5 per cent of the world’s population in 1918?
How can that be, when there’s been little more warming this century? When we’re actually getting fewer cyclones and generally bigger grain harvests?

And how can anyone truly believe our civilisations will “collapse”, when we can now build whole cities in Middle Eastern deserts?

But Attenborough hadn’t finished burbling fantasies that were cheered by the elites inside, delegates from nearly 200 nations, but which looked nothing like the reality outside.

Take action, he urged the leaders: “The people are behind you, supporting you in making tough decisions, but they are also willing to make sacrifices in their daily lives.”

They are? In France at that very moment, people were showing exactly the opposite — rioting across the nation and burning barricades in Paris in protests triggered by the “tough” decision of President Emmanuel Macron to impose a global warming tax on diesel.

#####

Like Pauline...Mr Bolt says it true.

Trump knows all...took America out of the Paris Agreement.

[whiskeypriest]

If people believe climate and prosperity are at odds Red it is because people like you have gone to great lengths to convince people of that.

I argue just the opposite.

No you don't.

As in your argument yesterday that controlling human caused climate change is an attack on capitalism.

Then you simply cannot read.

Yes I can.

[LarryBnDC]

Take your cues on the future of sustainable energy from the US military...


The White House did not respond to Reuters requests for comment on the military’s use of green energy. Although Trump has blasted solar subsidies, vowed to boost fossil fuel development and questioned the science behind climate change, military leaders remain confident that the president won’t halt their march toward renewable power.

“We expect that it’s going to continue during the Trump administration,” said Lt. Col. Wayne Kinsel, head of the infrastructure unit of the Air Force Asset Management Division for Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection. “It’s really not political.”

Other senior officials in the Navy, Air Force and Army also told Reuters that they expected their renewable energy programs to continue.


The military’s push into alternative energy started under Republican President George W. Bush in 2007, when he signed a law requiring the Pentagon to get 25 percent of the electricity for its buildings from renewable energy by 2025.

The effort accelerated under President Barack Obama, who required the Army, Air Force and Navy to each deploy 1 gigawatt of renewable power and directed the Army to open a lab developing energy technologies for combat vehicles.

In an apparent nod to Obama’s efforts to curb global warming, the Pentagon also reported to Congress in 2015 that the droughts and floods caused by climate change pose a security threat – contributing to foreign political and economic instability that could require substantial troop deployments.

Former Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in his parting memo in January that the Navy has already met its goal, producing 1 gigawatt of electricity - while the other forces are on track to meet their targets.


Naturally the opposition comes from the usual suspects...


The programs have their opponents. The conservative Heritage Foundation, for example, has railed against the military’s support of renewable power and biofuels.

“The administration right now needs to focus specifically on combat power,” said Rachel Zissimos, a Heritage researcher. “Investing money on optional initiatives right now I think is problematic.”


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-green-energy-insight/u-s-military-marches-forward-on-green-energy-despite-trump-idUSKBN1683BL

[NeedsAdjustments]

If people believe climate and prosperity are at odds Red it is because people like you have gone to great lengths to convince people of that.

I argue just the opposite.

No you don't.

As in your argument yesterday that controlling human caused climate change is an attack on capitalism.

Then you simply cannot read.

Yes I can.

If I understand the argument correctly, I think REDSTATEWARD is saying that instead of having industry pay the cost of the shift away from fossil fuels now (yes, a cost that will be in part shifted to consumers until the cost of alternative energy sources falls in line,) we just have the Government (and taxpayers) pay the cost of mitigation measures once the world has gone haywire, and the spending on those mitigation measures will stimulate the economy.

Outside of this being the total opposite position he would take on government spending in other contexts, its also wrong.  Natural disasters end up costing the economy more than the stimulus of clean-up, which is why the the Trump Administration estimates a loss of 10% of GDP into the next century should climate change go unaddressed.

We also can't assume that there is an engineered solution to every event that is the byproduct of climate change.  In fact, we know that there isn't.  And the resulting loss of life, not just the ultimate economic cost, will fall on those with fewer resources.  Which is a moral issue that we know our confessed "deplorable" has no problem with, even as he couches his argument in the language of populism.

[LarryBnDC]

If people believe climate and prosperity are at odds Red it is because people like you have gone to great lengths to convince people of that.

I argue just the opposite.

No you don't.

As in your argument yesterday that controlling human caused climate change is an attack on capitalism.

Then you simply cannot read.

Yes I can.

If I understand the argument correctly, I think REDSTATEWARD is saying that instead of having industry pay the cost of the shift away from fossil fuels now (yes, a cost that will be in part shifted to consumers until the cost of alternative energy sources falls in line,) we just have the Government (and taxpayers) pay the cost of mitigation measures once the world has gone haywire, and the spending on those mitigation measures will stimulate the economy.

Outside of this being the total opposite position he would take on government spending in other contexts, its also wrong.  Natural disasters end up costing the economy more than the stimulus of clean-up, which is why the the Trump Administration estimates a loss of 10% of GDP into the next century should climate change go unaddressed.

We also can't assume that there is an engineered solution to every event that is the byproduct of climate change.  In fact, we know that there isn't.  And the resulting loss of life, not just the ultimate economic cost, will fall on those with fewer resources.  Which is a moral issue that we know our confessed "deplorable" has no problem with, even as he couches his argument in the language of populism.

I swear bambu and RSW are the adult male anthromorphs from the ‘Dinosaurs’ series finale...

[josh]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/05/luxembourg-to-become-first-country-to-make-all-public-transport-free?CMP=fb_gu

[bankshot1]

At least Red is consistent in his arguments,

1-he appears to be against regulation as he seems to believe it is an unfair burden to ask corporate interests to not poison air, water or earth, and by extension mankind, or to fairly and honestly deal with consumers, as regulation is an artificial restraint to commerce and prosperity.

2- he's always wrong,

[REDSTATEWARD]

If people believe climate and prosperity are at odds Red it is because people like you have gone to great lengths to convince people of that.

I argue just the opposite.

No you don't.

As in your argument yesterday that controlling human caused climate change is an attack on capitalism.

Then you simply cannot read.

Yes I can.

If I understand the argument correctly, I think REDSTATEWARD is saying that instead of having industry pay the cost of the shift away from fossil fuels now (yes, a cost that will be in part shifted to consumers until the cost of alternative energy sources falls in line,) we just have the Government (and taxpayers) pay the cost of mitigation measures once the world has gone haywire, and the spending on those mitigation measures will stimulate the economy.

I don’t know what you are reading but it is nothing I wrote.

Outside of this being the total opposite position he would take on government spending in other contexts, its also wrong.  Natural disasters end up costing the economy more than the stimulus of clean-up, which is why the the Trump Administration estimates a loss of 10% of GDP into the next century should climate change go unaddressed.

The Trump Administration said no such thing.
The Na­tional Cli­mate As­sess­ment report predicts in 2090 the U.S. will ex­pe­ri­ence an­nual cli­mate-re­lated costs of $500 bil­lion. $500 bil­lion is is not 10% even of to­day’s econ­omy.
But I will turn it over to an Obama Administration official to enlighten you.


Steve Koonin, a theoretical physicist, is a University Professor at New York University. He served as undersecretary of energy for science during President Obama’s first term. 
wrote

If we take the new re­port’s es­ti­mates at face value, hu­man-in­duced cli­mate change isn’t an ex­is­ten­tial threat to the over­all U.S. econ­omy through the end of this cen­tury—or even a sig­nif­i­cant one. Changes in tax pol­icy, reg­u­la­tion, trade and tech­nol­ogy will have far greater con­se­quences for Amer­icans’ eco­nomic well-be­ing.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-climate-wont-crash-the-economy-1543276899

To repeat my point underscored by Mr Koonin, which eludes you; The threat posed by shutting down fossil fuel production ,or over-regulating, or adding a Carbon tax without offsetting real tax reform is the biggest threat. Mitigating the effects of climate change will be born mostly by market forces which will grow the GDP and keep people working. Take a lesson from France
Macron is.