cancel2 2022 (01-23-2019)
What are you saying, Anonymoose?
You appear to be saying that leaders do not matter...that nothing can be done about any human contribution to the climate change we are experiencing.
If so...YOU are the one "missing the mark."
If in fact human activity is an ingredient in that appears to be significant climate change...leaders willing to LEAD us to change our ways...are very important.
It may be too late to do much...and in fact, the human activity component may be smaller than we think...BUT...with enlightened leadership, we could at least make an effort to mitigate those factors.
Right?
PoliTalker (01-23-2019)
The chicken littles in this story aren't those of us who look at the actual work of experts, based on mountains of data and decades of analysis. Instead, the chicken littles are the conservative stooges and hacks who insist the economic sky will fall if we put in place any regulations designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
When I was studying economics, one case study we looked at was cap-and-trade regulation of sulfur dioxide, to reduce acid rain. When Congress was considering that regulation system, the usual right-wing chicken littles came out of the woodwork and testified that the cost of lowering emissions would be enormous -- enough to cripple the economy. They assured us the sky would fall if anything were done to curb industry's ability to pollute to its heart's content. It was similar to screeching about the supposedly huge cost of phasing out CFCs or leaded gasoline.
The merit of the trading system is it served as a reality check. Industry ends up having to put its money where its mouth is. If it can reduce emissions by X amount at $Y of cost, then it will not bid more than $Y for the right to emit X amount of emissions. Thus, the market soon finds the true price of reducing emissions by a certain amount. What happened with sulfur dioxide trading (and happens again and again in the environmental field), is that the costs ended up being just a tiny fraction of what the right-wing chicken littles said they'd be. The industry hacks were shown either (1) to have not the slightest clue about the actual costs in their industry, leading to wildly inflated estimates of the cost of emissions reductions, or (2) to be liars, who knew that a low cost figure would lead to regulation, so they perjured themselves to try to panic Congress into holding off regulation.
So, now, the same sorts of chicken littles are shrieking about how ruinously expensive it would be to try to do anything about greenhouse gas emissions. Regulation will bring the economic skies tumbling down on our heads! But, at this point, why would anyone listen to them?
cancel2 2022 (01-23-2019)
Phantasmal (01-23-2019)
More bollox from the queen of bollox. The US has reduced emissions back to 1991 levels whilst countries like Germany have actually increased emissions in recent years. It's all immaterial anyway as China and India are the major emitters these days and they aren't going to do anything until at least 2030.
Al Gore and Goldman Sachs were salivating at the thought of setting up a carbon trading exchange. Goldman Sachs, the great vampire squid, knew full well how much could be made by yet another Ponzi scheme. I wonder if Oneloony works for them?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...st-in-3-years/
Before solving a problem the problem has to be clearly defined. I hope you can at least understand that.
Rational folks can agree there is climate change. That's about it. We (meaning most everyone on any side of the issue) don't agree on is how much of a problem this is. If it's a problem, nobody has ever shown how much human contribution has cause this "problem".
You don't sound very decisive with that "if". No worries, I'm not convinced either. The last one we had was Obama, for eight yrs. and he didn't do much. I see as many folks driving cars as ever.
I agree. And the planet will continue to move towards more renewable energy no matter who the president is. As long as there's interest there will be a market for it. And there's nothing wrong with govt. grants for research into renewable nrg technology.
But extremist measures like "cash for clunkers" and pissing money away on pie in the sky Solyndras is plain stupid.
Which part of what I wrote do you imagine is untrue?
Which emissions are you talking about? In 1991, German total greenhouse gas emissions were 1,204,778.59 thousand tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Now they're 909,404.50. In 1991, the US was at 6,299,766.20. Now we're at 6,511,302.42. In other words, Germany went DOWN by about 25%, and the US went UP about 3%.The US has reduced emissions back to 1991 levels whilst countries like Germany have actually increased emissions in recent years.
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AIR_GHG
I'm really old fashioned, in that I like my arguments to be based on true statements.
As for the idea that Germany has increased in recent years, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "recent years". 2016 German emissions were lower than 2013, and every year before that going back to 1990, at least.
Materiality is a statistical term, and statistically, it's very much material what the world's biggest economy emits. I expect that by "immaterial" you mean "I'd like to use the emissions of China and India as an excuse for not doing anything." I consider that reprehensible.It's all immaterial anyway as China and India are the major emitters these days and they aren't going to do anything until at least 2030.
Also, although China's highly-polluting economy is, indeed, a major factor, India's isn't, yet. As of the OECD's most recent data on India, in 2010, they emitted 2,100,849.73 thousand tonnes equivalent of CO2. Unless they tripled their output in just a few years, they're nowhere near where the US is (despite a VASTLY larger population).
You don't appear to know what a Ponzi scheme is. Look it up. Get back to me when you're able to discuss the matter intelligently.Goldman Sachs, the great vampire squid, knew full well how much could be made by yet another Ponzi scheme
My God, sanctimonious and condescending all in one post. In 2017, US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world for the 9th time this century. Oh and I know full well what a Ponzi scheme thanks all the same. Are you really going to defend Goodman's Sachs, I wouldn't put that past you!
https://www.aei.org/publication/char...-this-century/
Oh and regarding your bollox about SO2, didn't anybody inform you that the acid rain scare was just another myth designed to scare fools, horses and credulous Koreans.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-pouring-down/
Finally Germany, the Energiewende has been a massive failure and combined with the imbecilic decision to phase out nuclear and ramp up lignite has resulted in emissions increasing, this will only get worse if they shut the remaining nuclear reactors by 2022.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...bon-emissions/
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 01-23-2019 at 01:53 PM.
People without ethics tend to see those who have them as sanctimonious. People who don't understand issues tend to see those who do as condescending.
Why did you use it in such a wildly incorrect way, though? In no way is a cap-and-trade system like a Ponzi scheme.Oh and I know full well what a Ponzi scheme thanks all the same.
I haven't said a word about Goldman Sachs, much less "Goodman's Sachs".Are you really going to defend Goodman's Sachs, I wouldn't put that past you!
US emissions are massive relative to other countries. So, if you work for a right-wing propaganda factory like AEI, it's easy to game these things, at least in the eyes of the naive. Start out by finding an energy company to give you their numbers (in this case, AEI is essentially distributing second-hand propaganda from BP). Then further spin the material by stating things in terms of reduction of emissions in tons, rather than percentages, giving the US the best chance to rank high in a given year. Then spin it still further by telling the number of times the US was on top during a period, rather than the average reduction in a period (if a sufficiently large country has enough volatility, they could lead the world in reductions 9 times this century even as they lead the world in increases nine times this century).
If you'd like a less propagandistic view of the data, you can click down to the source material and see what the growth rate per annum was for the whole term from 2006-2016. The US, at -1.2%, didn't do badly, in that particular period (which, recall, included the period with Obama's hard push for reductions). But neither were we a world leader. The annualized decline was larger in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and Ukraine.
It was not. Perhaps if you got your news from a source of scientific journalism, rather than little Stevie Forbes's propaganda journal, you'd have a better understanding of the issue.Oh and regarding your bollox about SO2, didn't anybody inform you that the acid rain scare was just another myth designed to scare fools, horses and credulous Koreans.
cancel2 2022 (01-23-2019)
Your own link clearly shows that the peak of the last curve was about half a degree Celsius lower than the 2015 point, even though that wasn't quite to the point where we'd expect the current peak to be. Half a degree Celsius of warming in 75 years is cataclysmically fast relative to the pace of warming at any other point in the last several hundred thousand years, at least.
cancel2 2022 (01-23-2019)
I give up, can't be bothered with an idiot like you. Even the NYT, before it went totally crazy, realised that acid rain was vastly exaggerated. If you weren't so fixated on bullshit you might ask yourself why it is that we never hear about acid rain these days. I remember when it was talked about ad nauseum by the media. Now nothing, zip, nada, if you were a tad cleverer you might be more circumspect and think about that in terms of AGW. I think the same crap is being forced fed to the great unwashed, but then I been around the block a few times unlike a credulous Millennial who thinks she knows everything.
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/20/s...nrealized.html
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 01-23-2019 at 03:49 PM.
cancel2 2022 (01-23-2019)
“If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.”
— Golda Meir
Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.
ברוך השם
cancel2 2022 (01-23-2019)
Bookmarks