When is Enough ,Enough?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

You say it's a dumb idea to try, but do you believe the growth that is occuring in GDP would have occurred under a continuation of Pres Obama's policies in a HRC presidency, or do you believe that the policies of Pres Trump created the regulatory and tax environment for higher growth.

I do believe the growth would've continued, but to the extent it has under Trump? Doubtful. Trump's entire economic policy seems to be "is profit being held back by gov't policy? Yes? Then eliminate the policy." There hasn't been a single regulation, bill, anything that Obama signed where he said "hey you know what, this is a good move, let's leave that alone."

I am not a climate change denier, but I am most definitely a denier of policy driven on fears. We have lived for 50 years since they predicted we would run out of oil in 40 years. In 1000AD, the world's food supply was going to run out. etc etc.

The biggest thing global doomsayers ignore is human resourcefulness. Climate change is by its nature a slow process, even the doomsayer videos show changes occurring over 50-200 year timespans. Fact is, I'm far more worried about the political viability of the US constitution over the next 100 years and the country our kids and grandkids will live in, than sea levels shrinking the total land mass by some percentage. We may have to have different constructions, and we may have to find new ways to deal with disease, but humans have changed and survived in the harshest, to the softest climates. We are looking at populating a barren planet of Mars. We aren't recreating Venus, Mars, or Jupiter type environments, and with every leap in technology and creativity, we get closer to being more planet friendly, and as that technology spreads to places like India and China we have a better chance of saving the planet then any false security that accords like the Paris accord presented.

I don't have a lot of time, so I'll leave it at this. When 97% of scientists that aren't funded by corporations who have a vested interest in denying climate change agree that this is a man made problem, it's good enough for me. When we experience record setting temperatures every year and natural disasters that seem to get worse and worse every year, that's good enough for me. I know I know, they call it global warming yet somehow it still snows every winter.

50 years from now you'll be dead, and I'll be in my twilight years, and your grandkids/my kids will be footing the bill for the "profit > everything" lifestyle of today. Will they come up with a solution? Absolutely. Will it fix everything? Very much left to be desired.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

I do believe the growth would've continued, but to the extent it has under Trump? Doubtful. Trump's entire economic policy seems to be "is profit being held back by gov't policy? Yes? Then eliminate the policy." There hasn't been a single regulation, bill, anything that Obama signed where he said "hey you know what, this is a good move, let's leave that alone."



I don't have a lot of time, so I'll leave it at this. When 97% of scientists that aren't funded by corporations who have a vested interest in denying climate change agree that this is a man made problem, it's good enough for me. When we experience record setting temperatures every year and natural disasters that seem to get worse and worse every year, that's good enough for me. I know I know, they call it global warming yet somehow it still snows every winter.

50 years from now you'll be dead, and I'll be in my twilight years, and your grandkids/my kids will be footing the bill for the "profit > everything" lifestyle of today. Will they come up with a solution? Absolutely. Will it fix everything? Very much left to be desired.

Like I said, it's far more likely that the US Constitution is dead in 100 years, then an unsustainable planet exists. I don't argue the climate changes, I argue that the extent the US or any individual person (ie epa fuel standards from 25 to 30) are going to tip the scale is far overblown. We run computer simulations to the Nth degree but still can't tell if a hurricane is going to go to the east or west of the Florida panhandle. Maybe if the old geezers on the western coast had driven more Priuses the hurricane would have stayed East (not).

If environmentalists really wanted to move off of carbon, we would be have better gen 4 nuclear plants on a fast pace for approval, but fact is they have hit upon an ultimate ponzi scheme (any good ponzi scheme has facts in it). How can you argue with some who claims the end of the world is near (unless he/she claims it's based on religious beliefs of course)>

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Like I said, it's far more likely that the US Constitution is dead in 100 years, then an unsustainable planet exists. I don't argue the climate changes, I argue that the extent the US or any individual person (ie epa fuel standards from 25 to 30) are going to tip the scale is far overblown. We run computer simulations to the Nth degree but still can't tell if a hurricane is going to go to the east or west of the Florida panhandle. Maybe if the old geezers on the western coast had driven more Priuses the hurricane would have stayed East (not).

If environmentalists really wanted to move off of carbon, we would be have better gen 4 nuclear plants on a fast pace for approval, but fact is they have hit upon an ultimate ponzi scheme (any good ponzi scheme has facts in it). How can you argue with some who claims the end of the world is near (unless he/she claims it's based on religious beliefs of course)>

I realize you are heads above me in the academic world and this has nothing seriously to do with politics but with all due respect ,what you just posted is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. Your statement borders on ignorant.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I realize you are heads above me in the academic world and this has nothing seriously to do with politics but with all due respect ,what you just posted is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. Your statement borders on ignorant.

EPA percentages of US Greenhouse Emissions 2016
Transportation is 28% of the total 5.31 Gigatons or 1.48 Gigatons

2016 Total world 36.18 Gigatons
China was at 10.15 gigatons
The US was at 5.31 GT
The rest of the world was at 19.17

In 2006 long before the world saving regulations of the Obama era the US emissions in total were 6.05 or a whopping .74 GT more. of which at 28% is .20GT or 2 GT over 10 years, or 20GT over 100 years The equivalent of 2 years of the current China output, or 1 year of the rest of the worlds current total GT output.

Meanwhile in those same 10 years, China has gone from 6.52 to 10.15GT an increase nearly equivalent to the amount that the US puts out on an annual basis minus the transportation portion.

Just as importantly, the US and other free market economies are making natural strides to more efficient energy markets and less dependence on dirty energies.

The fear mongering over Trump ecological policy reaches the same unfounded hysteria levels as the nuclear warmongering of NK in the first year of the Trump adminstration.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

EPA percentages of US Greenhouse Emissions 2016
Transportation is 28% of the total 5.31 Gigatons or 1.48 Gigatons

2016 Total world 36.18 Gigatons
China was at 10.15 gigatons
The US was at 5.31 GT
The rest of the world was at 19.17

In 2006 long before the world saving regulations of the Obama era the US emissions in total were 6.05 or a whopping .74 GT more. of which at 28% is .20GT or 2 GT over 10 years, or 20GT over 100 years The equivalent of 2 years of the current China output, or 1 year of the rest of the worlds current total GT output.

Meanwhile in those same 10 years, China has gone from 6.52 to 10.15GT an increase nearly equivalent to the amount that the US puts out on an annual basis minus the transportation portion.

Just as importantly, the US and other free market economies are making natural strides to more efficient energy markets and less dependence on dirty energies.

The fear mongering over Trump ecological policy reaches the same unfounded hysteria levels as the nuclear warmongering of NK in the first year of the Trump adminstration.

Seriously your defense is becuase the rest of the World isn't doing it..........we shouldn't do it either????

Pleas explain , what are "natural strides" that people are making becuase the want to not have to.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/20...-cleaner-cars/

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772

http://www.takepart.com/article/2014...-gas-emissions

https://www.google.com/search?q=los+...CAEQCg#imgrc=_

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Seriously your defense is becuase the rest of the World isn't doing it..........we shouldn't do it either????

No, my point is that if the world as a whole is pouring 36GT into the atmosphere, a policy change affecting less than 0.2GT isn't going to be what dooms or saves our grandkids. Saying that it will is a narrative put forth to enact more invasive regulations.

Pleas explain , what are "natural strides" that people are making becuase the want to not have to.
...

See this is the way the free market works, as resources have scarcity they cost more. As resources are made available, scientists and other evil big businesses look for the best way to make money. IF the concept of saving the world is marketable, and it is, companies will move to improve their positions in those markets. It won't happen as quickly as brute force govt regulations, but as I said, the US regulations aren't going to significantly change the global situation, at least not at the cost of individual freedom.