(03-29-2019 11:38 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 09:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I suggest we dismantle our economy and shirk technology? That seems like a really far reach, no?

Where did I say that you suggested that? I didn't. I'm saying that's the impact of the green policies currently being proposed.
We cannot move FROM fossil fuels until we have a viable alternative to move TO. And right now, that something to move TO is what's lacking. And setting an arbitrary deadline with no available alternative is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity.
So we destroy our economy, the rest of the world says no f-ing way, and in the end we go broke and have infinitesimal effect on global temperatures a century from now. I can think of one way that we might have a significant effect. Once we go to farming without fossil fuels, our food production will drop so precipitously that half the world will starve, and the other half will kill each other fighting over what food is left, and that will certainly reduce human impact on the environment.
It's an absurd goal. I know, people say JFK challenged us to go to the moon in a decade, and out of nowhere came a space program that got it done. Except that's not what happened. We already had a space program, we already had astronauts, three of them had already flown in space, and the rockets tat eventually took us to the moon were already being developed. We would have been on the moon by probably 1975 or so without JFK's challenge. He just ratcheted it up a bit.
That's not the case with green energy. We have some things that work, but most of them have limited applicability. We don't have answers to the scale and infrastructure issues that inevitably prove to be the hard ones. We don't have a practical way to take a green road trip.

I have a great idea...let's let the free market work and figure out when the right time is to allow green tech to supplant fossil across the various energy uses of our economy. It's pretty f'ing simple...just sit here and do nothing and let the 7.5 billion people on planet earth self select their energy source. Think we need a price on carbon because it is evil and the Galveston seawall might need to be 6 inches taller in 50 years? Put a price on carbon, force every country to pay for it via tariffs when they import to the USA, and let the market figure it out. Wind, Solar, Algae farts, energy efficiency, not eating meat, taking covered wagons in lieu of aircraft...we will figure it out quickly once a carbon price is established. This back and forth about what can work or won't work is all idiot-speak for statists and idiots who think that driving a Prius is going to save the polar bears.
The Texas electric grid (ERCOT) routinely has more than 50% renewable penetration (IE the amount of electricity consumed at any point can be over 50% renewable) and Texas enjoys the most renewable capacity installed of any state and is pretty high up on the list if we were a country. New renewable projects continue to be built in Texas at this very moment. How did this happen? The PUCT put in place some pretty basic ground rules, the federal government implemented the PTC, and the free market went to work in a resource rich state. The government literally did nothing outside of a few one pagers, and the Texas grid has no problems handling over 50% renewables which people said was "implausible" etc. a few years ago. They were full of it...we are cranking out the wind power and solar is not far behind as y-o-y solar capacity growth is coming in around 25%-50% in a state with zero incentives for solar and zero carbon price.
It is simple, if you think carbon has a price, create an economy for carbon and everything else will follow. The results of the action will be wildly different than the mentally deficient GND. The fact that we are even having this discussion makes me think how many people are brain damaged. We might not even need a market for carbon as technology (Moore's law etc) is rapidly dropping the cost of renewables to the level of incremental costs of fossil fuel extraction. The arguments over the GND are the dumbest **** I have ever heard since the theories that Trump is a Russian plant.

Yep.

One interesting point, renewables are far more attractive under a deregulated pricing model than under the traditional regulated utility model. Texas probably has the most deregulated electricity market in the country and we have the greenest supply. The two are far more than coincidental.

Did I just see y’all agree with Obama on something?

Edit: seriously, I can’t believe a critique of the GND is that it’s not some form of a policy that the Obama admin had supported - in his case using the free market via a cap and trade or carbon tax.

I for one completely agree with y’all that we can leverage the free market to tackle a lot of our problems.

(03-30-2019 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I just see y’all agree with Obama on something?
Edit: seriously, I can’t believe a critique of the GND is that it’s not some form of a policy that the Obama admin had supported - in his case using the free market via a cap and trade or carbon tax.
I for one completely agree with y’all that we can leverage the free market to tackle a lot of our problems.

Carbon tax has been a republican proposal since at least the 1990s. Milton Friedman supported it as early as the 1970s. The fact that Obama may or may not have gotten onboard with an idea that came from the right does not make it his idea, nor does it make him a conservative.

(03-30-2019 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I just see y’all agree with Obama on something?
Edit: seriously, I can’t believe a critique of the GND is that it’s not some form of a policy that the Obama admin had supported - in his case using the free market via a cap and trade or carbon tax.
I for one completely agree with y’all that we can leverage the free market to tackle a lot of our problems.

Carbon tax has been a republican proposal since at least the 1990s. Milton Friedman supported it as early as the 1970s. The fact that Obama may or may not have gotten onboard with an idea that came from the right does not make it his idea, nor does it make him a conservative.

(03-29-2019 07:36 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  I haven’t read too far up this page but the Rice students and alums on twitter throwing a fit about Pence speaking at the Baker Institute on 4/5 is pretty amusing.

This saddens me. Apparently a segment of our student bod has not learned of the First Amendment or what it means.

When I was a student, George Lincoln Rockwell, the head of the American Nazi Party, cam to campus to speak. I went, and heard him refer to my Hispanic family as “ little brown mongrels”.

You need to hear the enemy to understand them. That’s why I watch CNN and MSNBC.

I wish those students would go and hear Pence. Listening does not imply agreement.

(03-30-2019 05:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:38 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 09:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I suggest we dismantle our economy and shirk technology? That seems like a really far reach, no?

Where did I say that you suggested that? I didn't. I'm saying that's the impact of the green policies currently being proposed.
We cannot move FROM fossil fuels until we have a viable alternative to move TO. And right now, that something to move TO is what's lacking. And setting an arbitrary deadline with no available alternative is the absolute pinnacle of stupidity.
So we destroy our economy, the rest of the world says no f-ing way, and in the end we go broke and have infinitesimal effect on global temperatures a century from now. I can think of one way that we might have a significant effect. Once we go to farming without fossil fuels, our food production will drop so precipitously that half the world will starve, and the other half will kill each other fighting over what food is left, and that will certainly reduce human impact on the environment.
It's an absurd goal. I know, people say JFK challenged us to go to the moon in a decade, and out of nowhere came a space program that got it done. Except that's not what happened. We already had a space program, we already had astronauts, three of them had already flown in space, and the rockets tat eventually took us to the moon were already being developed. We would have been on the moon by probably 1975 or so without JFK's challenge. He just ratcheted it up a bit.
That's not the case with green energy. We have some things that work, but most of them have limited applicability. We don't have answers to the scale and infrastructure issues that inevitably prove to be the hard ones. We don't have a practical way to take a green road trip.

I have a great idea...let's let the free market work and figure out when the right time is to allow green tech to supplant fossil across the various energy uses of our economy. It's pretty f'ing simple...just sit here and do nothing and let the 7.5 billion people on planet earth self select their energy source. Think we need a price on carbon because it is evil and the Galveston seawall might need to be 6 inches taller in 50 years? Put a price on carbon, force every country to pay for it via tariffs when they import to the USA, and let the market figure it out. Wind, Solar, Algae farts, energy efficiency, not eating meat, taking covered wagons in lieu of aircraft...we will figure it out quickly once a carbon price is established. This back and forth about what can work or won't work is all idiot-speak for statists and idiots who think that driving a Prius is going to save the polar bears.
The Texas electric grid (ERCOT) routinely has more than 50% renewable penetration (IE the amount of electricity consumed at any point can be over 50% renewable) and Texas enjoys the most renewable capacity installed of any state and is pretty high up on the list if we were a country. New renewable projects continue to be built in Texas at this very moment. How did this happen? The PUCT put in place some pretty basic ground rules, the federal government implemented the PTC, and the free market went to work in a resource rich state. The government literally did nothing outside of a few one pagers, and the Texas grid has no problems handling over 50% renewables which people said was "implausible" etc. a few years ago. They were full of it...we are cranking out the wind power and solar is not far behind as y-o-y solar capacity growth is coming in around 25%-50% in a state with zero incentives for solar and zero carbon price.
It is simple, if you think carbon has a price, create an economy for carbon and everything else will follow. The results of the action will be wildly different than the mentally deficient GND. The fact that we are even having this discussion makes me think how many people are brain damaged. We might not even need a market for carbon as technology (Moore's law etc) is rapidly dropping the cost of renewables to the level of incremental costs of fossil fuel extraction. The arguments over the GND are the dumbest **** I have ever heard since the theories that Trump is a Russian plant.

Yep.

One interesting point, renewables are far more attractive under a deregulated pricing model than under the traditional regulated utility model. Texas probably has the most deregulated electricity market in the country and we have the greenest supply. The two are far more than coincidental.

Another interesting point, new technology in fracking and the amount of oil and gas production now online is driving coal out of business leaving space for wind and solar.

Is this statement true: '25%-50% in a state with zero incentives for solar and zero carbon price'?

There's definitely still a federal subsidy AND I thought the great state of Texas was kicking in serious money to develop solar farms using economic development grants.

Wish I understood the economics and safety issues of the nuclear solution better. Carbon tax plus robust nuclear development program would MAGA.

(03-30-2019 08:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I just see y’all agree with Obama on something?
Edit: seriously, I can’t believe a critique of the GND is that it’s not some form of a policy that the Obama admin had supported - in his case using the free market via a cap and trade or carbon tax.
I for one completely agree with y’all that we can leverage the free market to tackle a lot of our problems.

Carbon tax has been a republican proposal since at least the 1990s. Milton Friedman supported it as early as the 1970s. The fact that Obama may or may not have gotten onboard with an idea that came from the right does not make it his idea, nor does it make him a conservative.

And I didnt day it originated with him or it made him a conservative. It does mean you agree with him. I don’t believe there was significant republican support for this proposal, though.

(03-30-2019 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 08:22 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 07:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I just see y’all agree with Obama on something?
Edit: seriously, I can’t believe a critique of the GND is that it’s not some form of a policy that the Obama admin had supported - in his case using the free market via a cap and trade or carbon tax.
I for one completely agree with y’all that we can leverage the free market to tackle a lot of our problems.

Carbon tax has been a republican proposal since at least the 1990s. Milton Friedman supported it as early as the 1970s. The fact that Obama may or may not have gotten onboard with an idea that came from the right does not make it his idea, nor does it make him a conservative.

And I didn't day it originated with him or it made him a conservative. It does mean you agree with him. I don’t believe there was significant republican support for this proposal, though.

I think it's more him adopting our idea than our agreeing with him. This might be one place where the criticism that republicans opposed a republican idea because of Obama may make some sense. That comment is often made about Obamacare, but does not make sense there for several reasons that I have stated many times. But it might apply here.

Aw, c’mom, 69, let the lad have his little victory lap. He needs something to feel good about while Trump takes his victory laps.

#nocollusion. #witchhunt

(03-30-2019 12:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Aw, c’mom, 69, let the lad have his little victory lap. He needs something to feel good about while Trump takes his victory laps.
#nocollusion. #witchhunt

Yeah, I'm just an old meanie.

These comments are adapted from those on another forum, by a Rice friend whose name I will not divulge:

According to the law as I understand it, the Special Counsel is required only to return a report to the Attorney General. It is the AG's sole discretion as to its fate after that, no matter WHO the subject might have been. This is a significant change from the law at the time of the Starr investigation. At that time the then-called Special Prosecutor had to report to congress.

The report is a prosecutorial document and, in a normal world, the AG would prosecute those recommended in the document and would keep the document itself secret, since it could contain adverse information about those not recommended for prosecution. Some of that information about others may require redaction as a matter of law. Additionally, classified information (probably intel methods and sources) will require redaction before disclosure to anyone not having the appropriated clearance and need to know. It is my understanding that Rosenstein and Mueller are participating in the redaction process.

In this case, however, the AG has said he will release as much of the report as he is allowed to under the law, and I'm sure he will in a timely fashion.

The Left knows this, and all this sturm and drang on the Left is simply to keep the Trump hatred pot boiling. I would expect that the Democrat lawyers on Mueller's team have inserted a bunch of BS allegations in the report, even though they did not legally rise to the level of prosecutable offenses, especially in the absence of an underlying crime or evidence that any such acts justified any prosecution for conspiracy (the crime, collusion is not a crime) or obstruction. Off everything I've seen and heard, there is no case for conspiracy, but even less of a case--virtually none--for obstruction.

The reason they did this was to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Democrats in Congress for impeachment. They have probably miscalculated in that most of the country is so tired of the whole saga that it will punish those Democrats for it.

Why do the Democrats cling so bitterly to the myth of Russian collusion? The Mueller report does not satisfy them. Despite the efforts of a well-funds and well-equipped two year investigation by an unbiased team, they cannot accept the results. They hold on to the thought that Mueller must have missed something, something so plain and readily apparent that it will be instantly obvious if only they allow Schiff and Nader to look.

UFO’S anybody? Illuminati?

The Republicans may not be the party of health care. The Democrats are definitely the party of conspiracy theory.

In October of 2016, the big question the Democrats had was “could Trump and the Republicans accept defeat”? Now we know the Democrats are ones who can dish it out but take it.

It is an article of faith to them that there MUST have been cheating, how else could they lose? So if it cannot be found, then think they just need to look harder.

What a bunch of dolts.

(03-31-2019 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why do the Democrats cling so bitterly to the myth of Russian collusion? The Mueller report does not satisfy them. Despite the efforts of a well-funds and well-equipped two year investigation by an unbiased team, they cannot accept the results. They hold on to the thought that Mueller must have missed something, something so plain and readily apparent that it will be instantly obvious if only they allow Schiff and Nader to look.

UFO’S anybody? Illuminati?

The Republicans may not be the party of health care. The Democrats are definitely the party of conspiracy theory.

In October of 2016, the big question the Democrats had was “could Trump and the Republicans accept defeat”? Now we know the Democrats are ones who can dish it out but take it.

It is an article of faith to them that there MUST have been cheating, how else could they lose? So if it cannot be found, then think they just need to look harder.

What a bunch of dolts.

It all somewhat reminds me of Serena Williams’s antics in the 2018 US Open final. Unwilling to accept that she was getting out-played, she conjured up a theory that the chair umpire — and somehow the entire tennis world— was out to get her, for something. Fortunately that embarrassment blew over, but not after much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual victimhood industry ands its brain-dead fellow travelers.

The fact that that set of wailers and teeth-gnashers overlaps considerably with the current set is perhaps mildly interesting.

(03-31-2019 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It is an article of faith to them that there MUST have been cheating, how else could they lose? So if it cannot be found, then think they just need to look harder.

I think among the inner circle were has to be some feeling of, "We cheated with the Russians and still lost. So they must have created more than we did."

I'm reminded of Bear Bryant's comment about paying players, "When it's fourth and goal at the one yard line, how do you know the other team didn't pay them more." I think there's a lot of feeling that the other side must have paid them more.

I don't think the Russian objective was to elect Trump, but rather to sow maximum discord and dissension. When that is the goal, and one candidate has an 80-90% chance of winning, you maximize discord and dissent by supporting the almost certain loser. Only problem is, Trump won. But democrats have so wildly overreacted in the aftermath that the Russians have achieved their goal. Congrats, democrats, you've given "the Russians" exactly what they wanted.

Where democrats go from here is not clear. My guess is that they will go nuts trying to parse the Mueller report for anything that could be played up as potential indicia of wrongdoing by Trump and his campaign, and blaming "redaction" for any inability to do so. My guess is that will be very likely to trigger a massive backlash. I certainly hope so.

I wish the Mueller probe had focused more on "the Russians" and ways to combat their efforts to interfere than I am expecting, instead of turning into what appears to have been a failed Trump lynch mob. Foreign hacking and other interference are serious problems that we have needed to address for decades. Trump drives me up the wall with his insistence that there was no Russian interference. Given the lax security in the Clinton camp, I'm guessing the Russians and the Chinese and a few more hacked somewhere in 2016. They will interfere any way they can in 2020 and beyond, just like they have forever, and we to them. If we want to win that war, and I do, then as a matter of self-defense we need to be able to cut them off at their knees.

I guess where I come down, based solely on what has been leaked, is that I do not see any reasonable case for conspiracy (which is the crime, not "collusion"), but I come closer on conspiracy than I do on obstruction. There are at least some things that could be "collusion" if we had a lot more evidence to go with them, but obstruction is just absurdly out in left field.

There is one other point that I think has gotten insufficient attention. The Clinton camp has almost always acted very cavalierly toward information security--from Sandy Berger stuffing classified information into his socks, to Hillary's server, to the DNC. No, I'm not saying it was their fault that they got hacked, so don't put those words in my mouth, but asking a different question. Does that sloppiness and lack of proper concern for security of sensitive information disqualify Hillary from the presidency? I think it may very well do so. And despite that, she is still my favorite democrat, at least among those who are or might be presidential contenders. My bottom line--Hillary should be in prison, but I still prefer her to any other democrat.

(03-31-2019 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It is an article of faith to them that there MUST have been cheating, how else could they lose? So if it cannot be found, then think they just need to look harder.

I think among the inner circle were has to be some feeling of, "We cheated with the Russians and still lost. So they must have created more than we did."

I'm reminded of Bear Bryant's comment about paying players, "When it's fourth and goal at the one yard line, how do you know the other team didn't pay them more." I think there's a lot of feeling that the other side must have paid them more.

I don't think the Russian objective was to elect Trump, but rather to sow maximum discord and dissension. When that is the goal, and one candidate has an 80-90% chance of winning, you maximize discord and dissent by supporting the almost certain loser. Only problem is, Trump won. But democrats have so wildly overreacted in the aftermath that the Russians have achieved their goal. Congrats, democrats, you've given "the Russians" exactly what they wanted.

Where democrats go from here is not clear. My guess is that they will go nuts trying to parse the Mueller report for anything that could be played up as potential indicia of wrongdoing by Trump and his campaign, and blaming "redaction" for any inability to do so. My guess is that will be very likely to trigger a massive backlash. I certainly hope so.

I wish the Mueller probe had focused more on "the Russians" and ways to combat their efforts to interfere than I am expecting, instead of turning into what appears to have been a failed Trump lynch mob. Foreign hacking and other interference are serious problems that we have needed to address for decades. Trump drives me up the wall with his insistence that there was no Russian interference. Given the lax security in the Clinton camp, I'm guessing the Russians and the Chinese and a few more hacked somewhere in 2016. They will interfere any way they can in 2020 and beyond, just like they have forever, and we to them. If we want to win that war, and I do, then as a matter of self-defense we need to be able to cut them off at their knees.

I guess where I come down, based solely on what has been leaked, is that I do not see any reasonable case for conspiracy (which is the crime, not "collusion"), but I come closer on conspiracy than I do on obstruction. There are at least some things that could be "collusion" if we had a lot more evidence to go with them, but obstruction is just absurdly out in left field.

There is one other point that I think has gotten insufficient attention. The Clinton camp has almost always acted very cavalierly toward information security--from Sandy Berger stuffing classified information into his socks, to Hillary's server, to the DNC. No, I'm not saying it was their fault that they got hacked, so don't put those words in my mouth, but asking a different question. Does that sloppiness and lack of proper concern for security of sensitive information disqualify Hillary from the presidency? I think it may very well do so. And despite that, she is still my favorite democrat, at least among those who are or might be presidential contenders. My bottom line--Hillary should be in prison, but I still prefer her to any other democrat.

I had heard he shoved papers into his pants, his underwear, as well. And into his jacket.

With all that paper stuffed into his clothes, its a wonder he could walk at all.

Evocative of one or two finals at UH with people sitting next to me that rustled noisily with every body movement,

(03-31-2019 01:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It is an article of faith to them that there MUST have been cheating, how else could they lose? So if it cannot be found, then think they just need to look harder.

I think among the inner circle were has to be some feeling of, "We cheated with the Russians and still lost. So they must have created more than we did."

I'm reminded of Bear Bryant's comment about paying players, "When it's fourth and goal at the one yard line, how do you know the other team didn't pay them more." I think there's a lot of feeling that the other side must have paid them more.

I don't think the Russian objective was to elect Trump, but rather to sow maximum discord and dissension. When that is the goal, and one candidate has an 80-90% chance of winning, you maximize discord and dissent by supporting the almost certain loser. Only problem is, Trump won. But democrats have so wildly overreacted in the aftermath that the Russians have achieved their goal. Congrats, democrats, you've given "the Russians" exactly what they wanted.

Where democrats go from here is not clear. My guess is that they will go nuts trying to parse the Mueller report for anything that could be played up as potential indicia of wrongdoing by Trump and his campaign, and blaming "redaction" for any inability to do so. My guess is that will be very likely to trigger a massive backlash. I certainly hope so.

I wish the Mueller probe had focused more on "the Russians" and ways to combat their efforts to interfere than I am expecting, instead of turning into what appears to have been a failed Trump lynch mob. Foreign hacking and other interference are serious problems that we have needed to address for decades. Trump drives me up the wall with his insistence that there was no Russian interference. Given the lax security in the Clinton camp, I'm guessing the Russians and the Chinese and a few more hacked somewhere in 2016. They will interfere any way they can in 2020 and beyond, just like they have forever, and we to them. If we want to win that war, and I do, then as a matter of self-defense we need to be able to cut them off at their knees.

I guess where I come down, based solely on what has been leaked, is that I do not see any reasonable case for conspiracy (which is the crime, not "collusion"), but I come closer on conspiracy than I do on obstruction. There are at least some things that could be "collusion" if we had a lot more evidence to go with them, but obstruction is just absurdly out in left field.

There is one other point that I think has gotten insufficient attention. The Clinton camp has almost always acted very cavalierly toward information security--from Sandy Berger stuffing classified information into his socks, to Hillary's server, to the DNC. No, I'm not saying it was their fault that they got hacked, so don't put those words in my mouth, but asking a different question. Does that sloppiness and lack of proper concern for security of sensitive information disqualify Hillary from the presidency? I think it may very well do so. And despite that, she is still my favorite democrat, at least among those who are or might be presidential contenders. My bottom line--Hillary should be in prison, but I still prefer her to any other democrat.

I had heard he shoved papers into his pants, his underwear, as well. And into his jacket.

With all that paper stuffed into his clothes, its a wonder he could walk at all.

Evocative of one or two finals at UH with people sitting next to me that rustled noisily with every body movement,

Equating Democrats with Coogs?

(03-29-2019 11:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the problem with this Earth is not heat - we can adjust to that. it is overpopulation, and nobody is even talking about that. We are running out of water. We are running out of food. And in a few more generations, both those will reach crisis proportion. And we are wasting out time bitching about climate change. Lad's great-great-grandchildren will have adapted to heat, but how will they adapt to thirst and starvation?

OO... challenges to food supply and fresh water are directly related to global warming.

I agree with you that overpopulation is a massive component/problem.

I also don't think no one is talking about overpopulation. I see plenty of talk about reducing birth rates, especially in the developing world, to around replacement levels. You just don't see that as a focus in the US because overpopulation isn't really a concern here because we he reproduction rates below to near replacement levels.

I also don't see it in the Paris Accords or in any other multi-national agreement meant to combat climate change

Have I just missed it?

Have these other countries agreed to reduce populations/decrease replacement?


Personally, I'd have far less trouble with some of these financial requirements from the US if they were tied to population or development requirements from these other places. You do what you can... and not simply ask one or two parties to do it all while you ignore it and reap the benefits (or at least don't suffer as much)

(03-31-2019 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 11:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the problem with this Earth is not heat - we can adjust to that. it is overpopulation, and nobody is even talking about that. We are running out of water. We are running out of food. And in a few more generations, both those will reach crisis proportion. And we are wasting out time bitching about climate change. Lad's great-great-grandchildren will have adapted to heat, but how will they adapt to thirst and starvation?

OO... challenges to food supply and fresh water are directly related to global warming.

I agree with you that overpopulation is a massive component/problem.

I also don't think no one is talking about overpopulation. I see plenty of talk about reducing birth rates, especially in the developing world, to around replacement levels. You just don't see that as a focus in the US because overpopulation isn't really a concern here because we he reproduction rates below to near replacement levels.

I also don't see it in the Paris Accords or in any other multi-national agreement meant to combat climate change

Have I just missed it?

Have these other countries agreed to reduce populations/decrease replacement?


Personally, I'd have far less trouble with some of these financial requirements from the US if they were tied to population or development requirements from these other places. You do what you can... and not simply ask one or two parties to do it all while you ignore it and reap the benefits (or at least don't suffer as much)

Ive got some shares in the Soylent Corporation that you can buy off me.

It is talked about, just not much, and not by ANY Democratic candidate., and even the low level foot loyal soldiers like we have here don't want to bring it up.

It is talked about, just not much, and not by ANY Democratic candidate., and even the low level foot loyal foot soldiers like we have here don't want to bring it up.