When is Enough ,Enough?

[MTK]

We should be listening to the science. Call it fear mongering, but shit could be getting real sooner rather than later, and once it does there's no going back.

Planet at Risk of Heading Towards Apocalyptic, Irreversible ‘Hothouse Earth’ State

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

We should be listening to the science. Call it fear mongering, but shit could be getting real sooner rather than later, and once it does there's no going back.

Planet at Risk of Heading Towards Apocalyptic, Irreversible ‘Hothouse Earth’ State

From your article

Cutting carbon emissions to limit climate change to 2 degrees C, as proposed in the Paris climate agreement, won’t be enough to avoid a “Hothouse Earth,” said co-author Johan Rockström, executive director of Stockholm Resilience Centre.

The reality is that global temperatures aren’t driven by human emissions of carbon alone, says Rockström—natural systems such as forests and oceans also play a major role.

A lot of this is already happening without leadership from national governments. Individuals, communities, and companies understand these are the things we need to do and we are starting to limit our impacts on the Earth, Richardson told Motherboard.

I can agree with "SCIENCE" and still say that invasive government regulations are not the way to achieve anything, even in global climate change debates.

But liberals, in my opinion, must demonize their opponents and portray their way as the only way, because their policies when enacted have repeatedly and consistently failed to achieve most of their supposed goals.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

From your article






I can agree with "SCIENCE" and still say that invasive government regulations are not the way to achieve anything, even in global climate change debates.

But liberals, in my opinion, must demonize their opponents and portray their way as the only way, because their policies when enacted have repeatedly and consistently failed to achieve most of their supposed goals.

I don't know, I tend to like the idea of protecting and preserving national parklands, stopping illegal dumping into our oceans and rivers, reducing air pollution, and protecting endangered species, to name a few. I'd say policies enacted for all of the above are important and have achieved something.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

I don't know, I tend to like the idea of protecting and preserving national parklands, stopping illegal dumping into our oceans and rivers, reducing air pollution, and protecting endangered species, to name a few. I'd say policies enacted for all of the above are important and have achieved something.

you didn't highlight the word invasive.

It's like the old joke, would a lady have sex with me for $1 million, she says sure. What about $20, she says what am i a whore??

I think, a super majority of us citizens would agree that all those things are important, the difference comes down to where the line ought to be drawn. But often instead of rational debate, it becomes a - you want to destroy the earth and all that is within it narrative.

NO ONE WANTS TO DESTROY THE WORLD (except the guy from GI Joe Retaliation)

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

you didn't highlight the word invasive.

It's like the old joke, would a lady have sex with me for $1 million, she says sure. What about $20, she says what am i a whore??

I think, a super majority of us citizens would agree that all those things are important, the difference comes down to where the line ought to be drawn. But often instead of rational debate, it becomes a - you want to destroy the earth and all that is within it narrative.

NO ONE WANTS TO DESTROY THE WORLD (except the guy from GI Joe Retaliation)

I don't think any living person wants to destroy the world. However if you're a person or a business whose profit is held back by an environmental regulation, no matter how good it is, you'd definitely like to see that regulation removed so you can make more money.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

I don't think any living person wants to destroy the world. However if you're a person or a business whose profit is held back by an environmental regulation, no matter how good it is, you'd definitely like to see that regulation removed so you can make more money.

And that's where sane discussions ought to be able to had about regulatory oversight. But again, that's not the discussion that is usually had by us. Even in this thread mentioning cancelling of the fuel standards by Trump, it is greeted with a cry that the grandchildren will not have a safe world, or we must trust the scientists, even when reasonable (imo) stats show that those standards have a near negligible effect on the world wide output (.2Gt vs 36Gt or 1/2 of 1% of the total).

I don't know the solution, because honestly when you are greeted by the world will die, or your just ignorant, comments it's hard to try to continue the debate about where reasonable standards should be.

IF we could have zero emissions and not affect liberty, economic growth, and individual choice, I would be all for it, but life IS tradeoffs. Where does one end and the other begin. If you only look at SCIENCE, you miss the need for individual and corporate growth. If you only look at corporate growth you miss the need for SCIENCE.

(by the way, the SCIENCE is a nod to Penguins of Madagascar, and Kowalski in particular)

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

I don't think any living person wants to destroy the world. However if you're a person or a business whose profit is held back by an environmental regulation, no matter how good it is, you'd definitely like to see that regulation removed so you can make more money.

On the other hand, whole segments of the economy are being created by market forces based on the concerns over global climate. When the Prius was introduced the following happened:

Incredibly, first-month orders defied all projections and sales reached 180,000 (against a target of 10,000) while waiting lists stretched to seven months.

and firms are looking more and more at that segment.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...430?src=recsys

To G1's reply, in a free market there is always a cling to the "old ways" but as the new becomes the norm they either die or progress. No one is saying that the corporations should be allowed outside the laws on the books

[Giantone]

This is absurd ,please defend this to me?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/world...ntl/index.html


https://phys.org/news/2018-03-pacifi...mp-larger.html





And lets not forget the Drinking water in Flint Mi.


https://www.motherjones.com/environm...s-complicated/


https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...ned-its-people




Yes dumping the EPA is good for business's and trump wants that at any cost including risking the lives of all Americans but hey fuckem....we're winning!

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by MTK

We should be listening to the science. Call it fear mongering, but shit could be getting real sooner rather than later, and once it does there's no going back.

Planet at Risk of Heading Towards Apocalyptic, Irreversible ‘Hothouse Earth’ State

MTK , I agree with you but the trump cult will never admit defeat on any issue no matter how many people die becuase of it.