I wouldn't even go with nuclear in Texas, even though the safety record of nuclear facilities is stellar--without looking can you name any nuclear incident other than Three Mile Island or Chernobyl? If you can, then you are a rare exception. In Texas, I would go with expanded wind farms and solar panels. I will have to track down this research again--I posted it years ago on another forum--but at that time covering only 1.4% of the Earth's surface with solar panels was sufficient to power the entire planet's grid without needing to rely on any other source, including hydroelectric or geothermal.
The most recent one would be Japan after the earthquake/tsunami.
And it’s not the doom and gloom of Chernobyl that is worrisome of Nuclear Power, it is what to do with the nuclear waste.
I do agree however, that Nuclear is far superior option to Coal or Oil and even renewable energy like Wind and Solar (you can’t control the weather. Solar takes up valuable farmland. Albeit for Texas is might be more ideal.)
I wouldn't even go with nuclear in Texas, even though the safety record of nuclear facilities is stellar--without looking can you name any nuclear incident other than Three Mile Island or Chernobyl? If you can, then you are a rare exception. In Texas, I would go with expanded wind farms and solar panels. I will have to track down this research again--I posted it years ago on another forum--but at that time covering only 1.4% of the Earth's surface with solar panels was sufficient to power the entire planet's grid without needing to rely on any other source, including hydroelectric or geothermal.
I do agree however, that Nuclear is far superior option to Coal or Oil and even renewable energy like Wind and Solar (you can’t control the weather. Solar takes up valuable farmland. Albeit for Texas is might be more ideal.)
The problem isn't quite as stark as it's sometimes painted - for instance solar panels can produce energy even on cloudy days and wind is much more reliable in some locations than others (one reason why the majority of new capacity is offshore). There's also a lot you can do with both short and long term energy storage.
However, I do agree that a system with a significant amount of baseload power generation would be more efficient. There are renewable alternatives to nuclear and fossil fuels to provide that though - it would be nice for instance to see technologies like tidal generation being developed much quicker than they are.
I think in the future far more energy will also be produced and consumed locally, rather than continuing to mainly rely on the central distribution systems developed in the first Industrial Revolution. In the UK for instance plans are going forward to provide a good chunk of future heating requirements through ground source and air source heat pumps.
I don't deny climate change because the climate is *supposed* to change. I keep waiting for all the doom-and-gloom scenarios which have been predicted for the last 30 years to happen and nothing keeps happening; the waiting is starting to get a little boring.
I half agree. We are only starting to come out of the previous ice age and the Earth's temperature is normalizing to whta it was before. The problem is that its happening so quickly, relative to changes in the past. We will be fine, if we have the infrastructure in place to handle the changes. Which we don't, and that's a problem.
That can change fast though once people are motivated. Look at what was accomplished by the US during WW2 in just a few years, or what the USSR accomplished in a very short time cleaning up after Chernobyl. It would be nice if the proverbial shit didnt have to hit the fan first before action, but it's amazing what a large group of human beings can accomplish in a short period of time when they ARE motivated...
It's not really comparable in my opinion. The key ingredient to remember about climate change is that emissions lock in a certain amount of warming over time. And this effect can last centuries. And it will doom certain parts of the world to be unlivable (at least at current populations).
If you're up for a world where the US is welcoming a bunch of refugees from Central America and the Caribbean with the same aplomb as we had taking on the Axis powers, great. But something tells me, folks who express skepticism of climate change, are also going to be among the least welcoming in this case.
Antarctica has a population close to 0 right now. Ditto Greenland. I think Nunavut might have to worry about refugees more than the US.
Not true close to zero. You can see certain settlements like Villa las Estrellas
but is one of the hardest places to life." The altitude has an average elevation about 7,544ft/2,300 meters above sea level it is the highest continent. is the only continent that has never had an indigenous population of humans because it has always been such an extreme environment. Just the boat ride getting to the continent is over the most treacherous seas anywhere in the world. The inaccessibility of the place and the lack of reliable food and means for constructing shelter has kept humans away for thousands of years
These winds are so fast and so fierce they are world-famous and they have a special name, too - katabatic winds - and they can blow with hurricane force up to 304kmh/190 mph!"
<...>
No, workers owning the means of production is socialism. The state owning the means of production is not. Please actually read some Marx sometime.
And no, there aren't any socialist policies in the US or in Europe. Social safety nets are not socialism. The rightward progress of the Overton Window isn't actually changing the definition of socialism, but it does lead to a lot of people who should know better calling non-socialist things socialism. Please look into social democrats and democratic socialists.<...>.
I already read Marx on the mandatory leftist doctrine classes on university
Marxism never worked and always resulted in a totalitarian state. And democratic socialism always resulted into an gradual expansion of the state power until he reaches an totalitarian state.
In the macro scale, yes. Mass extinctions happen. However, the Holocene extinction event is largely caused by human activity. Which is to say, it is occurring because of what we do, not no matter what we do.
So? The side effect of living negatively impacts the environment but it isn't going to be the end of the world.
Adapting so well we're in the process of rendering much of the Earth uninhabitable.
If the Inuit can live above the Arctic Circle, other groups manage to live in rainforests, other groups manage to live in desert settings, and people can live in cities like Detroit or Baltimore, then there is no such thing as "uninhabitable".
You get full credit for remembering Fukushima without having to look it up.
And it’s not the doom and gloom of Chernobyl that is worrisome of Nuclear Power, it is what to do with the nuclear waste.
I do agree however, that Nuclear is far superior option to Coal or Oil and even renewable energy like Wind and Solar (you can’t control the weather. Solar takes up valuable farmland. Albeit for Texas is might be more ideal.)
A lot of land in West Texas (which actually covers an area from the Rio Grande up to Amarillo from a line going through Abilene to the west) is perfect for wind farms--you can grow crops around them and cattle graze around them.
The future of solar panels will be lining office buildings with them--the current designs of panels come in a variety of shades/colors and tall buildings can receive direct sunlight longer than panels on the ground. There is also a solar film which can be used to cover windows. I want to say that I recall a team of researchers building a solar car that can run indefinitely in sunlight but that was some time ago so don't quote me on that.
In the macro scale, yes. Mass extinctions happen. However, the Holocene extinction event is largely caused by human activity. Which is to say, it is occurring because of what we do, not no matter what we do.
So? The side effect of living negatively impacts the environment but it isn't going to be the end of the world.
I think this is also a failure to understand how evolution by natural selection works. Or more precisely, over what time scale it works. The extinction event now is happening much more precipitously than most extinction events happened in Earth's history. More importantly, we evolved out of this assemblage of species. Which means we are not "fit" in an evolutionary sense for a world where these other species cease to exist.
We can sit and pretend that our technology or agriculture cordon us off from the needs of being an evolved organism, but that's a delusion. If we lose critical species, such as pollinators, we won't have the tools to live on the planet in numbers are large as we currently are.
If you're up for a world where the US is welcoming a bunch of refugees from Central America and the Caribbean with the same aplomb as we had taking on the Axis powers, great. But something tells me, folks who express skepticism of climate change, are also going to be among the least welcoming in this case.
Correct, I am absolutely not up for that world. I reject this notion that the western world have to be the heroes of the planet, taking care of every fallout from every global event while our own people die of overdoses and suicides on the daily and incomes go stagnant or fall. It is virtue signaling at it's worst, moralizing without morals, adopting views for social approval with no concern for the people beneath them. *You* take a refugee if you are so inclined. Dumping them into other people's neighborhoods isn't you taking the responsibility you think you have.
When westerners want to talk about sharing that responsibility with China and other developing nations, then they will be worth taking more seriously. Right now they want to put all the problems on the backs of the ordinary people of this country, they are the ones who shoulder the burden, not the elites or anyone else. Not only is it wrong but it is the worst sort of class warfare- wealthy white liberals making decisions for lower class communities with no concern for the people they are making the decisions for, while promising endlessly that they are on their side. You never see these mansion dwelling, blue checked, rich politicians and celebrities nor the urbanite professionals taking in large amounts of people, or usually even one. Leave it to the poor masses to deal with it all.
Better yet, when they want to talk about making those countries nice places to live rather than just taking an endless amount of refugees while the ones who stay there suffer and die, they will be worth taking seriously.
This is all one big morality play to stroke the egos of the ones playing it.
If you're up for a world where the US is welcoming a bunch of refugees from Central America and the Caribbean with the same aplomb as we had taking on the Axis powers, great. But something tells me, folks who express skepticism of climate change, are also going to be among the least welcoming in this case.
Correct, I am absolutely not up for that world. I reject this notion that the western world have to be the heroes of the planet, taking care of every fallout from every global event while our own people die of overdoses and suicides on the daily and incomes go stagnant or fall. It is virtue signaling at it's worst, moralizing without morals, adopting views for social approval with no concern for the people beneath them. *You* take a refugee if you are so inclined. Dumping them into other people's neighborhoods isn't you taking the responsibility you think you have.
When westerners want to talk about sharing that responsibility with China and other developing nations, then they will be worth taking more seriously. Right now they want to put all the problems on the backs of the ordinary people of this country, they are the ones who shoulder the burden, not the elites or anyone else. Not only is it wrong but it is the worst sort of class warfare- wealthy white liberals making decisions for lower class communities with no concern for the people they are making the decisions for, while promising endlessly that they are on their side. You never see these mansion dwelling, blue checked, rich politicians and celebrities nor the urbanite professionals taking in large amounts of people, or usually even one. Leave it to the poor masses to deal with it all.
Better yet, when they want to talk about making those countries nice places to live rather than just taking an endless amount of refugees while the ones who stay there suffer and die, they will be worth taking seriously.
This is all one big morality play to stroke the egos of the ones playing it.
It's really not a morality play though. Whether you like it or not, the places that will be hurt first and worst by climate change in our hemisphere are the Caribbean and Central America. And the place the tens of millions living those countries will most likely want to go is the other parts in the Americas.
You can choose to slam the door in their face, but they're going to show up at the door, regardless of how welcoming China or Japan become. The dark irony is that climate change will hit these regions the worst, despite the fact that they benefited the least from burning fossil fuels. And some of the ones who benefited the most from that and suffered the least of its consequences will exhibit no charity.
There's a pretty big difference between being able to survive and being able to achieve the same standard of living we do now. The former can be done anywhere; the latter absolutely cannot.
The folks living the Arctic Circle, rainforests, and deserts have been extremely poor compared to folks in temperate regions, both historically and in the modern day. People who live in extreme environments tend to be reliant on subsistence agriculture and hunting and gathering--you don't see a whole lot of advanced economies outside of temperate zones. We've got some strong economies in Scandinavia, but in few (or no?) other places at those latitudes. I count one country, Israel, that has run a strong economy in desert conditions, and zero countries that have run advanced economies in a rainforest.
The question of whether we could survive climate change as a species is a very small part of the equation. I could jump off the roof of my house and still survive--but how much do I care about the non-fatal damages?
I must agree with @BelleSorciere that state-sanctioned monopolies are not socialism--at least not necessarily. When you have a profit-based company whose profits go directly into the pockets of its executives, all of whom are businessmen by trade... that's called a corporation. In China, both state-owned enterprises and private corporations work closely with government officials simply because the government is hopelessly corrupt and public officials know they can get bribes for doing small favors.
Bribes and conflicts of interest are just corruption--they don't belong to any political philosophy. Corruption isn't socialist any more than it is capitalist.
Would we call the British East India Company socialist?
Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman don't seem to be doing badly in the desert. Iran & Iraq have problems but they're not lightweights either. Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria are not as good but also fairly successful. Mexico has a lot of desert to deal with and aren't a basket-case either. Mongolia and Nepal aren't hurting despite their harsh climates. I'd argue that having a strong economy isn't the only way to guage a country's success. Oh, and how can you forget Canada and to some extent, Russia as northern successes?
If you look to the world map, most developed nations on Northern or Southern hemisphere are on Temperade places. And looks like Temperade > Subtropical > Tropical. I live in a subtropical region... The most developed part of Latin America is on the Temperade/subtropical area(Southern cone), the most developed region of Africa is Northern Africa and South Africa. Both in subtropical area. Australia is probably the unique exception. Is developed despite an huge part on Tropical area and an small part on Temperade area.
I think that the culture is heavily impacted by the weather and an Temperade climate has much greater change to "spawn" an culture of long therm planning than an Tropical culture. I tend to be much more lazy when is hot.
On Argentina, see the difference on development of regions on Tropics(extreme north) to the tempered regions.
Santa Cruz who is the southernmost state is exactly the most developed. I searched an similar map for Australia but din't found.
What's been happening for the past several years doesn't remotely qualify as "nothing."
Just be sure to let me know when the sky falls so I can watch it.[/quote]
Obviously I can't make anyone accept the reality of global warming, but it does help to research the science behind this to see just how absurd comparing this to chicken little is.
So? The side effect of living negatively impacts the environment but it isn't going to be the end of the world.
I never said it was? We've had 26 extinction events, counting the current event. Seven of them are considered major events in that much life on Earth went extinct. The Holocene is one of those seven, and we're causing it. The world won't end when we do, it'll continue until the Sun becomes hot enough to eliminate all surface life in 3.5 billion years. And beyond that another two billion years, the sun will collapse into a white dwarf and then expand into a red giant, consuming Mercury, Venus, and possibly Earth. At this point any life at all is unlikely survive.
So no, it's not the end of the world. But we'll be long gone before that point.
If the Inuit can live above the Arctic Circle, other groups manage to live in rainforests, other groups manage to live in desert settings, and people can live in cities like Detroit or Baltimore, then there is no such thing as "uninhabitable".
You get full credit for remembering Fukushima without having to look it up.
Did you look at the link? This isn't like the arctic where you can bundle up in furs or death valley where you have to keep yourself hydrated and avoid heat stroke. No, this is a temperature and humidity combination that kills people because humans cannot in such an environment cool off at all. Their sweat won't evaporate.
I get that a lot of this is an outside context problem, and that many times we've seen doom predicted over the millennia. However, no prior such doom has had so much study put into it, nor so much backing from the scientific community. Predictions vary, but the outcome is fairly certain.
Correct, I am absolutely not up for that world. I reject this notion that the western world have to be the heroes of the planet, taking care of every fallout from every global event while our own people die of overdoses and suicides on the daily and incomes go stagnant or fall. It is virtue signaling at it's worst, moralizing without morals, adopting views for social approval with no concern for the people beneath them. *You* take a refugee if you are so inclined. Dumping them into other people's neighborhoods isn't you taking the responsibility you think you have.
The US is the second largest source of greenhouse emissions, so while we don't have an obligation to save everyone, and China does bear an even larger burden of responsibility for these emissions, this does not mean it's fine for the US to essentially destroy the climate and then reject the people forced to relocate due to that destruction.
When westerners want to talk about sharing that responsibility with China and other developing nations, then they will be worth taking more seriously. Right now they want to put all the problems on the backs of the ordinary people of this country, they are the ones who shoulder the burden, not the elites or anyone else. Not only is it wrong but it is the worst sort of class warfare- wealthy white liberals making decisions for lower class communities with no concern for the people they are making the decisions for, while promising endlessly that they are on their side. You never see these mansion dwelling, blue checked, rich politicians and celebrities nor the urbanite professionals taking in large amounts of people, or usually even one. Leave it to the poor masses to deal with it all.
Better yet, when they want to talk about making those countries nice places to live rather than just taking an endless amount of refugees while the ones who stay there suffer and die, they will be worth taking seriously.
This is all one big morality play to stroke the egos of the ones playing it.
Okay so the idea that solving global warming is an individual thing comes from the people most responsible for those emissions. The graph on this page shows exactly where the worst offenders are.
People saying we have to individually fix climate change or we're all doomed aren't being honest.
I get that a lot of this is an outside context problem, and that many times we've seen doom predicted over the millennia. However, no prior such doom has had so much study put into it, nor so much backing from the scientific community. Predictions vary, but the outcome is fairly certain.
Agreed and just want to piggyback on a point here. I think the most salient comparison here is nuclear war fears during the Cold War. You could, superficially, look back and say that these fears were hugely overblown since, lol, the bombs never dropped. But if it had, the results would have been devastating. And governments during those times took that issue very seriously and did everything in their power to keep that from happening.
It's not exactly similar now, since this problem requires active changes as opposed to merely prevention. But the idea that every past fear was bunk simply because the bad events never happened, it's ignoring that some past problems were solved because the problems were taken seriously! Another similar example is the Ozone layer scare and CFC's. But that wasn't an outrageous fear, it was an environmental issued that was taken seriously and managed seriously.
People who don't think the nuclear threat was serious at the height of the tensions during the Cuban Missle Crisis have no idea how close we were to launching those bombs. A single extra wrong move by Kennedy or Khrushchev could have set an irreversible course in motion, and we can all thank whatever deity you may believe in that Kennedy wasn't listening to his most hawkish military advisers.
You're never going to convince people to give up cheap energy for some disaster that may or may not happen 50 - 100 years from now (or longer). It's impossible. Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'. France found out how popular a carbon tax turned out to be. Germany is in the process of finding out too. The Western countries are democracies and we're going to get more and more Trump's if our government's keep shoving this down our throats. It's time to rethink the advertising campaign because guilt is not a great motivator. If it was we'd all be Evangelicals or Catholics, crime would be non-existent, nobody would ever say anything offensive and we'd all be singing Kum-ba-yah together around (LED) campfires while eating tofu and bean sprouts...
You're never going to convince people to give up cheap energy for some disaster that may or may not happen 50 - 100 years from now (or longer). It's impossible. Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'. France found out how popular a carbon tax turned out to be. Germany is in the process of finding out too. The Western countries are democracies and we're going to get more and more Trump's if our government's keep shoving this down our throats. It's time to rethink the advertising campaign because guilt is not a great motivator. If it was we'd all be Evangelicals or Catholics, crime would be non-existent, nobody would ever say anything offensive and we'd all be singing Kum-ba-yah together around (LED) campfires while eating tofu and bean sprouts...
Guilt is a Catholic thing (at least in theory). I know no of no concept of confession and contrition in Evangelical Christianity. It's why I can't take it seriously. At the very least the basic framework of Catholicism requires good works and working for forgiveness for salvation. The other seems like one big get out jail free card. Slept with a stripper when you were away from your wife on a business trip?? It's ok, you've accepted Jesus into your heart. All is well.
You'll notice that among demographic groups, evangelicals are the MOST supportive of Trump's immigration policies. You will not see that among Catholics, because the priests who have managed not to abuse children for decades would find pushing such an idea from a pulpit in the name of Jesus repulsive.
You're never going to convince people to give up cheap energy for some disaster that may or may not happen 50 - 100 years from now (or longer). It's impossible. Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'. France found out how popular a carbon tax turned out to be. Germany is in the process of finding out too. The Western countries are democracies and we're going to get more and more Trump's if our government's keep shoving this down our throats. It's time to rethink the advertising campaign because guilt is not a great motivator. If it was we'd all be Evangelicals or Catholics, crime would be non-existent, nobody would ever say anything offensive and we'd all be singing Kum-ba-yah together around (LED) campfires while eating tofu and bean sprouts...
Guilt is a Catholic thing (at least in theory). I know no of no concept of confession and contrition in Evangelical Christianity. It's why I can't take it seriously. At the very least the basic framework of Catholicism requires good works and working for forgiveness for salvation. The other seems like one big get out jail free card. Slept with a stripper when you were away from your wife on a business trip?? It's ok, you've accepted Jesus into your heart. All is well.
Trust me, Evangelicals are just as guilt-based. The only difference for a Catholic is your priest knows about it (if you bother telling him). Evangelicals are supposed to confess their sins too (and cry about it on TV).
You're never going to convince people to give up cheap energy for some disaster that may or may not happen 50 - 100 years from now (or longer). It's impossible. Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'. France found out how popular a carbon tax turned out to be. Germany is in the process of finding out too. The Western countries are democracies and we're going to get more and more Trump's if our government's keep shoving this down our throats. It's time to rethink the advertising campaign because guilt is not a great motivator. If it was we'd all be Evangelicals or Catholics, crime would be non-existent, nobody would ever say anything offensive and we'd all be singing Kum-ba-yah together around (LED) campfires while eating tofu and bean sprouts...
It's not impossible. Give people jobs. We got a lot done during and after WW2. New tech can make even cheaper energy.
You're never going to convince people to give up cheap energy for some disaster that may or may not happen 50 - 100 years from now (or longer). It's impossible. Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'. France found out how popular a carbon tax turned out to be. Germany is in the process of finding out too. The Western countries are democracies and we're going to get more and more Trump's if our government's keep shoving this down our throats. It's time to rethink the advertising campaign because guilt is not a great motivator. If it was we'd all be Evangelicals or Catholics, crime would be non-existent, nobody would ever say anything offensive and we'd all be singing Kum-ba-yah together around (LED) campfires while eating tofu and bean sprouts...
Guilt is a Catholic thing (at least in theory). I know no of no concept of confession and contrition in Evangelical Christianity. It's why I can't take it seriously. At the very least the basic framework of Catholicism requires good works and working for forgiveness for salvation. The other seems like one big get out jail free card. Slept with a stripper when you were away from your wife on a business trip?? It's ok, you've accepted Jesus into your heart. All is well.
Trust me, Evangelicals are just as guilt-based. The only difference for a Catholic is your priest knows about it (if you bother telling him). Evangelicals are supposed to confess their sins too (and cry about it on TV).
I am no longer religious but I absolutely held onto the belief in the idea of contrition and atonement.
@DinoDin and @jjstraka34 are right to call out the Cold War, which I'd forgotten. I'd meant to say something about it last night and totally forgot. There were five occasions when we came very close to nuclear war. And a thing about these close calls that stands out is that most of them were the result of human error, not intentional provocation.
Many disastrous effects are current, and many more will happen in the near future. Handwaving this as "50-100 years" again suggests that one should take a good long look at the current research as well as current events. Fortunately, NASA has a page to compile predictions and reference current events.
Protests of carbon taxes and other measures to reduce future emissions are in large part due to the people and organizations who have promoted for decades the idea that anthropogenic climate change and global warming aren't real, as well as promoting other non-problems as serious problems, such as immigration from the global south, or the totally fake idea that there's any such thing as a "white genocide."
You're never going to convince people to give up cheap energy for some disaster that may or may not happen 50 - 100 years from now (or longer). It's impossible. Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'. France found out how popular a carbon tax turned out to be. Germany is in the process of finding out too. The Western countries are democracies and we're going to get more and more Trump's if our government's keep shoving this down our throats. It's time to rethink the advertising campaign because guilt is not a great motivator. If it was we'd all be Evangelicals or Catholics, crime would be non-existent, nobody would ever say anything offensive and we'd all be singing Kum-ba-yah together around (LED) campfires while eating tofu and bean sprouts...
It's not impossible. Give people jobs. We got a lot done during and after WW2. New tech can make even cheaper energy.
Hmmm, that just might work. Implementation is the hard part though.
You're never going to convince people to give up cheap energy for some disaster that may or may not happen 50 - 100 years from now (or longer). It's impossible. Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'. France found out how popular a carbon tax turned out to be. Germany is in the process of finding out too. The Western countries are democracies and we're going to get more and more Trump's if our government's keep shoving this down our throats. It's time to rethink the advertising campaign because guilt is not a great motivator. If it was we'd all be Evangelicals or Catholics, crime would be non-existent, nobody would ever say anything offensive and we'd all be singing Kum-ba-yah together around (LED) campfires while eating tofu and bean sprouts...
Guilt is a Catholic thing (at least in theory). I know no of no concept of confession and contrition in Evangelical Christianity. It's why I can't take it seriously. At the very least the basic framework of Catholicism requires good works and working for forgiveness for salvation. The other seems like one big get out jail free card. Slept with a stripper when you were away from your wife on a business trip?? It's ok, you've accepted Jesus into your heart. All is well.
Trust me, Evangelicals are just as guilt-based. The only difference for a Catholic is your priest knows about it (if you bother telling him). Evangelicals are supposed to confess their sins too (and cry about it on TV).
I am no longer religious but I absolutely held onto the belief in the idea of contrition and atonement.
Atonement is no problem for the truly contrite. I would say without some kind of atonement, confession is meaningless. Actions, not words. The same goes for politicians in my book...
You're never going to convince people to give up cheap energy for some disaster that may or may not happen 50 - 100 years from now (or longer). It's impossible. Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'. France found out how popular a carbon tax turned out to be. Germany is in the process of finding out too. The Western countries are democracies and we're going to get more and more Trump's if our government's keep shoving this down our throats. It's time to rethink the advertising campaign because guilt is not a great motivator. If it was we'd all be Evangelicals or Catholics, crime would be non-existent, nobody would ever say anything offensive and we'd all be singing Kum-ba-yah together around (LED) campfires while eating tofu and bean sprouts...
Important to note the CO2 emissions here. In Mt of CO2 per International Energy Agency, all 2016.
Germany: 731 per cap: 8.88 t
France: 292 per cap: 4.38 t
USA: 4833 per cap: 14.95 t
Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'.
Like I said, it's class warfare, and despite my distaste for that term, there's no other way to describe it. Rich folk and woke celebrities keep their jets and their golf courses and all the rest while trying to convince the poors to eat maggots and walk miles to work, while every facet of their life is actively made worse by these people.
The solutions to these international problems always seem to fall on the backs of ordinary people and not on the most powerful and influential, or even the people who bear the most responsibility.
So yes, it's perfectly valid to ask why it is *you* that has to sacrifice, and nobody else.
Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'.
Like I said, it's class warfare, and despite my distaste for that term, there's no other way to describe it. Rich folk and woke celebrities keep their jets and their golf courses and all the rest while trying to convince the poors to eat maggots and walk miles to work, while every facet of their life is actively made worse by these people.
The solutions to these international problems always seem to fall on the backs of ordinary people and not on the most powerful and influential, or even the people who bear the most responsibility.
So yes, it's perfectly valid to ask why it is *you* that has to sacrifice, and nobody else.
The wealth of the owners of the fossil fuel companies far outstrips any celebrities you're referring to. As well their influence on policy, especially in the USA. If you want to start talking in a Marxist fashion, on this issue, that's great. But I think what you're exhibiting here is a false consciousness.
I don't understand anyone who is upset at the kinds of celebrities you seem to be referring to here, but not upset at the actual magnates of extraction industries, who very much do have politicians under their thumb, who literally have paid for misinformation in the media about this issue, and who literally hide their wealth abroad from taxation.
If you're going to get upset about private jets, golf courses, and lavish lives, well, your ire should be pointed at the heads of Exxon, Shell, BP, the Koch brothers, long before you should start talking about some Hollywood celebrity with a conscience. And if you're worried about wealthy people bending the system to their advantage "while every facet is made worse" for the rest of us, you might wanna take a closer look at who funds the Republican party.
Public presentation = Leaked document
Remove privileges = Hate speech
And according to your text " Amazon River in the city of Óbidos, a hydroelectric plant in Oriximiná, and the expansion of the BR-163 highway to the Suriname border."
This doesn't sound authoritarian. Asking those who know the forest and will be most impacted by an construction their opinion is not authoritarianism.
Now, i don't fully agree with Bolsonaro in relation to Amazonas forest. For him, indigenous must be integrated and the other countries should't intervene in the forest. The workers party in hands wanna force then to live in a tribal society and all types of interventions on the forest, including from companies who polluted . Both are wrong. Is that hard to allow those who wanna leave the community to leave and those who wanna life in their community to stay? And let the locals protect the forest?
Look what happens when people realize it's 'we' that have to sacrifice and not 'them'.
Like I said, it's class warfare, and despite my distaste for that term, there's no other way to describe it. Rich folk and woke celebrities keep their jets and their golf courses and all the rest while trying to convince the poors to eat maggots and walk miles to work, while every facet of their life is actively made worse by these people.
The solutions to these international problems always seem to fall on the backs of ordinary people and not on the most powerful and influential, or even the people who bear the most responsibility.
So yes, it's perfectly valid to ask why it is *you* that has to sacrifice, and nobody else.
The wealth of the owners of the fossil fuel companies far outstrips any celebrities you're referring to. As well their influence on policy, especially in the USA. If you want to start talking in a Marxist fashion, on this issue, that's great. But I think what you're exhibiting here is a false consciousness.
I don't understand anyone who is upset at the kinds of celebrities you seem to be referring to here, but not upset at the actual magnates of extraction industries, who very much do have politicians under their thumb, who literally have paid for misinformation in the media about this issue, and who literally hide their wealth abroad from taxation.
If you're going to get upset about private jets, golf courses, and lavish lives, well, your ire should be pointed at the heads of Exxon, Shell, BP, the Koch brothers, long before you should start talking about some Hollywood celebrity with a conscience. And if you're worried about wealthy people bending the system to their advantage "while every facet is made worse" for the rest of us, you might wanna take a closer look at who funds the Republican party.
I believe corporate execs fall into the "rich folk" category I was talking about. And of course you are right that Exxon, BP, the Republicans, etc. are all also complicit. All of these things can be true at once. Republicans are members of the social elite just like the Democrats. By no means am I blind to this.
Comments
The most recent one would be Japan after the earthquake/tsunami.
And it’s not the doom and gloom of Chernobyl that is worrisome of Nuclear Power, it is what to do with the nuclear waste.
I do agree however, that Nuclear is far superior option to Coal or Oil and even renewable energy like Wind and Solar (you can’t control the weather. Solar takes up valuable farmland. Albeit for Texas is might be more ideal.)
The problem isn't quite as stark as it's sometimes painted - for instance solar panels can produce energy even on cloudy days and wind is much more reliable in some locations than others (one reason why the majority of new capacity is offshore). There's also a lot you can do with both short and long term energy storage.
However, I do agree that a system with a significant amount of baseload power generation would be more efficient. There are renewable alternatives to nuclear and fossil fuels to provide that though - it would be nice for instance to see technologies like tidal generation being developed much quicker than they are.
I think in the future far more energy will also be produced and consumed locally, rather than continuing to mainly rely on the central distribution systems developed in the first Industrial Revolution. In the UK for instance plans are going forward to provide a good chunk of future heating requirements through ground source and air source heat pumps.
Not true close to zero. You can see certain settlements like Villa las Estrellas
but is one of the hardest places to life." The altitude has an average elevation about 7,544ft/2,300 meters above sea level it is the highest continent. is the only continent that has never had an indigenous population of humans because it has always been such an extreme environment. Just the boat ride getting to the continent is over the most treacherous seas anywhere in the world. The inaccessibility of the place and the lack of reliable food and means for constructing shelter has kept humans away for thousands of years
These winds are so fast and so fierce they are world-famous and they have a special name, too - katabatic winds - and they can blow with hurricane force up to 304kmh/190 mph!"
source > http://www.extremescience.com/coldest.htm
I already read Marx on the mandatory leftist doctrine classes on university
Marxism never worked and always resulted in a totalitarian state. And democratic socialism always resulted into an gradual expansion of the state power until he reaches an totalitarian state.
Just be sure to let me know when the sky falls so I can watch it.
So? The side effect of living negatively impacts the environment but it isn't going to be the end of the world.
If the Inuit can live above the Arctic Circle, other groups manage to live in rainforests, other groups manage to live in desert settings, and people can live in cities like Detroit or Baltimore, then there is no such thing as "uninhabitable".
You get full credit for remembering Fukushima without having to look it up.
A lot of land in West Texas (which actually covers an area from the Rio Grande up to Amarillo from a line going through Abilene to the west) is perfect for wind farms--you can grow crops around them and cattle graze around them.
The future of solar panels will be lining office buildings with them--the current designs of panels come in a variety of shades/colors and tall buildings can receive direct sunlight longer than panels on the ground. There is also a solar film which can be used to cover windows. I want to say that I recall a team of researchers building a solar car that can run indefinitely in sunlight but that was some time ago so don't quote me on that.
I think this is also a failure to understand how evolution by natural selection works. Or more precisely, over what time scale it works. The extinction event now is happening much more precipitously than most extinction events happened in Earth's history. More importantly, we evolved out of this assemblage of species. Which means we are not "fit" in an evolutionary sense for a world where these other species cease to exist.
We can sit and pretend that our technology or agriculture cordon us off from the needs of being an evolved organism, but that's a delusion. If we lose critical species, such as pollinators, we won't have the tools to live on the planet in numbers are large as we currently are.
Correct, I am absolutely not up for that world. I reject this notion that the western world have to be the heroes of the planet, taking care of every fallout from every global event while our own people die of overdoses and suicides on the daily and incomes go stagnant or fall. It is virtue signaling at it's worst, moralizing without morals, adopting views for social approval with no concern for the people beneath them. *You* take a refugee if you are so inclined. Dumping them into other people's neighborhoods isn't you taking the responsibility you think you have.
When westerners want to talk about sharing that responsibility with China and other developing nations, then they will be worth taking more seriously. Right now they want to put all the problems on the backs of the ordinary people of this country, they are the ones who shoulder the burden, not the elites or anyone else. Not only is it wrong but it is the worst sort of class warfare- wealthy white liberals making decisions for lower class communities with no concern for the people they are making the decisions for, while promising endlessly that they are on their side. You never see these mansion dwelling, blue checked, rich politicians and celebrities nor the urbanite professionals taking in large amounts of people, or usually even one. Leave it to the poor masses to deal with it all.
Better yet, when they want to talk about making those countries nice places to live rather than just taking an endless amount of refugees while the ones who stay there suffer and die, they will be worth taking seriously.
This is all one big morality play to stroke the egos of the ones playing it.
It's really not a morality play though. Whether you like it or not, the places that will be hurt first and worst by climate change in our hemisphere are the Caribbean and Central America. And the place the tens of millions living those countries will most likely want to go is the other parts in the Americas.
You can choose to slam the door in their face, but they're going to show up at the door, regardless of how welcoming China or Japan become. The dark irony is that climate change will hit these regions the worst, despite the fact that they benefited the least from burning fossil fuels. And some of the ones who benefited the most from that and suffered the least of its consequences will exhibit no charity.
The folks living the Arctic Circle, rainforests, and deserts have been extremely poor compared to folks in temperate regions, both historically and in the modern day. People who live in extreme environments tend to be reliant on subsistence agriculture and hunting and gathering--you don't see a whole lot of advanced economies outside of temperate zones. We've got some strong economies in Scandinavia, but in few (or no?) other places at those latitudes. I count one country, Israel, that has run a strong economy in desert conditions, and zero countries that have run advanced economies in a rainforest.
The question of whether we could survive climate change as a species is a very small part of the equation. I could jump off the roof of my house and still survive--but how much do I care about the non-fatal damages?
I must agree with @BelleSorciere that state-sanctioned monopolies are not socialism--at least not necessarily. When you have a profit-based company whose profits go directly into the pockets of its executives, all of whom are businessmen by trade... that's called a corporation. In China, both state-owned enterprises and private corporations work closely with government officials simply because the government is hopelessly corrupt and public officials know they can get bribes for doing small favors.
Bribes and conflicts of interest are just corruption--they don't belong to any political philosophy. Corruption isn't socialist any more than it is capitalist.
Would we call the British East India Company socialist?
I think that the culture is heavily impacted by the weather and an Temperade climate has much greater change to "spawn" an culture of long therm planning than an Tropical culture. I tend to be much more lazy when is hot.
On Argentina, see the difference on development of regions on Tropics(extreme north) to the tempered regions.
Santa Cruz who is the southernmost state is exactly the most developed. I searched an similar map for Australia but din't found.
Just be sure to let me know when the sky falls so I can watch it.[/quote]
Obviously I can't make anyone accept the reality of global warming, but it does help to research the science behind this to see just how absurd comparing this to chicken little is.
I never said it was? We've had 26 extinction events, counting the current event. Seven of them are considered major events in that much life on Earth went extinct. The Holocene is one of those seven, and we're causing it. The world won't end when we do, it'll continue until the Sun becomes hot enough to eliminate all surface life in 3.5 billion years. And beyond that another two billion years, the sun will collapse into a white dwarf and then expand into a red giant, consuming Mercury, Venus, and possibly Earth. At this point any life at all is unlikely survive.
So no, it's not the end of the world. But we'll be long gone before that point.
Did you look at the link? This isn't like the arctic where you can bundle up in furs or death valley where you have to keep yourself hydrated and avoid heat stroke. No, this is a temperature and humidity combination that kills people because humans cannot in such an environment cool off at all. Their sweat won't evaporate.
I get that a lot of this is an outside context problem, and that many times we've seen doom predicted over the millennia. However, no prior such doom has had so much study put into it, nor so much backing from the scientific community. Predictions vary, but the outcome is fairly certain.
The US is the second largest source of greenhouse emissions, so while we don't have an obligation to save everyone, and China does bear an even larger burden of responsibility for these emissions, this does not mean it's fine for the US to essentially destroy the climate and then reject the people forced to relocate due to that destruction.
Okay so the idea that solving global warming is an individual thing comes from the people most responsible for those emissions. The graph on this page shows exactly where the worst offenders are.
People saying we have to individually fix climate change or we're all doomed aren't being honest.
Agreed and just want to piggyback on a point here. I think the most salient comparison here is nuclear war fears during the Cold War. You could, superficially, look back and say that these fears were hugely overblown since, lol, the bombs never dropped. But if it had, the results would have been devastating. And governments during those times took that issue very seriously and did everything in their power to keep that from happening.
It's not exactly similar now, since this problem requires active changes as opposed to merely prevention. But the idea that every past fear was bunk simply because the bad events never happened, it's ignoring that some past problems were solved because the problems were taken seriously! Another similar example is the Ozone layer scare and CFC's. But that wasn't an outrageous fear, it was an environmental issued that was taken seriously and managed seriously.
Guilt is a Catholic thing (at least in theory). I know no of no concept of confession and contrition in Evangelical Christianity. It's why I can't take it seriously. At the very least the basic framework of Catholicism requires good works and working for forgiveness for salvation. The other seems like one big get out jail free card. Slept with a stripper when you were away from your wife on a business trip?? It's ok, you've accepted Jesus into your heart. All is well.
You'll notice that among demographic groups, evangelicals are the MOST supportive of Trump's immigration policies. You will not see that among Catholics, because the priests who have managed not to abuse children for decades would find pushing such an idea from a pulpit in the name of Jesus repulsive.
Trust me, Evangelicals are just as guilt-based. The only difference for a Catholic is your priest knows about it (if you bother telling him). Evangelicals are supposed to confess their sins too (and cry about it on TV).
It's not impossible. Give people jobs. We got a lot done during and after WW2. New tech can make even cheaper energy.
I am no longer religious but I absolutely held onto the belief in the idea of contrition and atonement.
Many disastrous effects are current, and many more will happen in the near future. Handwaving this as "50-100 years" again suggests that one should take a good long look at the current research as well as current events. Fortunately, NASA has a page to compile predictions and reference current events.
Protests of carbon taxes and other measures to reduce future emissions are in large part due to the people and organizations who have promoted for decades the idea that anthropogenic climate change and global warming aren't real, as well as promoting other non-problems as serious problems, such as immigration from the global south, or the totally fake idea that there's any such thing as a "white genocide."
Hmmm, that just might work. Implementation is the hard part though.
Atonement is no problem for the truly contrite. I would say without some kind of atonement, confession is meaningless. Actions, not words. The same goes for politicians in my book...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mlive.com/news/flint/2019/08/months-after-dire-warnings-flint-spills-2-million-gallons-of-raw-sewage-into-river.html?outputType=amp
I used to swim in the Flint River when I was a kid...
Important to note the CO2 emissions here. In Mt of CO2 per International Energy Agency, all 2016.
Germany: 731 per cap: 8.88 t
France: 292 per cap: 4.38 t
USA: 4833 per cap: 14.95 t
Edit to add: Total corrected, per capita stats added. https://www.iea.org/statistics/?country=USA&year=2016&category=Emissions&indicator=TotCO2&mode=chart&dataTable=INDICATORS
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/leaked-documents-show-brazil-bolsonaro-has-grave-plans-for-amazon-rainforest/
Like I said, it's class warfare, and despite my distaste for that term, there's no other way to describe it. Rich folk and woke celebrities keep their jets and their golf courses and all the rest while trying to convince the poors to eat maggots and walk miles to work, while every facet of their life is actively made worse by these people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/03/maggots-could-revolutionize-global-food-supply-heres-how/?noredirect=on
The solutions to these international problems always seem to fall on the backs of ordinary people and not on the most powerful and influential, or even the people who bear the most responsibility.
So yes, it's perfectly valid to ask why it is *you* that has to sacrifice, and nobody else.
The wealth of the owners of the fossil fuel companies far outstrips any celebrities you're referring to. As well their influence on policy, especially in the USA. If you want to start talking in a Marxist fashion, on this issue, that's great. But I think what you're exhibiting here is a false consciousness.
I don't understand anyone who is upset at the kinds of celebrities you seem to be referring to here, but not upset at the actual magnates of extraction industries, who very much do have politicians under their thumb, who literally have paid for misinformation in the media about this issue, and who literally hide their wealth abroad from taxation.
If you're going to get upset about private jets, golf courses, and lavish lives, well, your ire should be pointed at the heads of Exxon, Shell, BP, the Koch brothers, long before you should start talking about some Hollywood celebrity with a conscience. And if you're worried about wealthy people bending the system to their advantage "while every facet is made worse" for the rest of us, you might wanna take a closer look at who funds the Republican party.
Public presentation = Leaked document
Remove privileges = Hate speech
And according to your text " Amazon River in the city of Óbidos, a hydroelectric plant in Oriximiná, and the expansion of the BR-163 highway to the Suriname border."
This doesn't sound authoritarian. Asking those who know the forest and will be most impacted by an construction their opinion is not authoritarianism.
Now, i don't fully agree with Bolsonaro in relation to Amazonas forest. For him, indigenous must be integrated and the other countries should't intervene in the forest. The workers party in hands wanna force then to live in a tribal society and all types of interventions on the forest, including from companies who polluted . Both are wrong. Is that hard to allow those who wanna leave the community to leave and those who wanna life in their community to stay? And let the locals protect the forest?
I believe corporate execs fall into the "rich folk" category I was talking about. And of course you are right that Exxon, BP, the Republicans, etc. are all also complicit. All of these things can be true at once. Republicans are members of the social elite just like the Democrats. By no means am I blind to this.