https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20...ans-000955

(09-11-2019 07:28 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/20...ans-000955

Good article, but it is lacking one thing. Solutions. What good does it do to get everyone to believe climate change is real without putting forward real solutions to the problem. And to add any "real solution" will require getting China on board as well.

Climate change has always occured, so not sure that's in dispute. The only thing is to what impact humans have on any current change. Having said that, I see nothing wrong with doing what we can to perserve our environment.

77 percent of younger Republicans feel climate change is a serious threat, one percentage point higher than Democrats. 51 percent of Republicans over age 39 agreed the problem was a serious threat compared with 95 percent of Democrats.

Support for a federal carbon tax, further restrictions on methane emissions, and a national renewable energy standard was virtually identical among both Gen Z and Millennials of both parties, with a gap of 2 percentage points or less on each response.

https://grist.org/article/on-climate-cha...democrats/

I'd like to see one single link to a plan that the Trump Administration has identified as a potential solution. I can easily point out thousands of links to Democratic plans. And arguing about whether humans can have an impact on making a change is useless. If we try something and it doesn't help make a change, that's still better than doing nothing but complaining about China, India and Africa.

I don't think you can justify a carbon tax.

According to all the current "sources", solar and wind energy are now economically viable on their own. Electric cars are real and improving each day.

I see no reason for a carbon tax. People are voting with their money. At this point a carbon tax is starting to look like the funding of children's health care with cigarette taxes. It is a gimmick that has little impact on the long term direction of events.

(09-11-2019 08:13 AM)Claw Wrote:  I don't think you can justify a carbon tax.

According to all the current "sources", solar and wind energy are now economically viable on their own. Electric cars are real and improving each day.

I see no reason for a carbon tax. People are voting with their money. At this point a carbon tax is starting to look like the funding of children's health care with cigarette taxes. It is a gimmick that has little impact on the long term direction of events.

How does using MORE electricity help anything? And don't electric cars use rubber tires? Are the plants they are made run off solar or windmills? The climate will always change. Smog is a real thing, but is not a big issue in America anymore. America is not the problem when it comes to the environment. Raising taxes has never cured anything in the history of the planet. All it does is make the ones raising the taxes richer.

(09-11-2019 07:40 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Climate change has always occured, so not sure that's in dispute. The only thing is to what impact humans have on any current change. Having said that, I see nothing wrong with doing what we can to perserve our environment.

And there is no proposed solution that does anything for the climate. It just impoverishes the wealthy nations. Its a cult.

Politico

Science

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-...tter-under

Trump makes no sense when it comes to climate change. He rolled back an Obama plan on LED light bulbs last week, which affects about half of the light bulbs on the market. And then he freaking jokes about it --

"I'm not a vain person. ... But I look better under an incandescent light than these crazy lights that are beaming down," Trump told a crowd in Fayetteville, N.C., on Monday.

Has one person in the U.S. even complained about having to go to those energy saving lightbulbs. Do companies care? They still make plenty of money on the energy efficient bulbs. Trump is leading our planet to ruin, and folks here are laughing.

(09-11-2019 09:47 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-...tter-under

Trump makes no sense when it comes to climate change. He rolled back an Obama plan on LED light bulbs last week, which affects about half of the light bulbs on the market. And then he freaking jokes about it --

"I'm not a vain person. ... But I look better under an incandescent light than these crazy lights that are beaming down," Trump told a crowd in Fayetteville, N.C., on Monday.

Has one person in the U.S. even complained about having to go to those energy saving lightbulbs. Do companies care? They still make plenty of money on the energy efficient bulbs. Trump is leading our planet to ruin, and folks here are laughing.

Pretty much everyone I know complained about the new bulbs at first. Mainly due to the fact the cheap ones were gone and all the required replacements were much more expensive.

(09-11-2019 08:04 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'd like to see one single link to a plan that the Trump Administration has identified as a potential solution. I can easily point out thousands of links to Democratic plans. And arguing about whether humans can have an impact on making a change is useless. If we try something and it doesn't help make a change, that's still better than doing nothing but complaining about China, India and Africa.

When China, India, and Africa are going to be putting out the majority of greenhouse gases, then it makes no sense to do drastic things elsewhere and pretending those changes will equate to something that matters. If the U.S. were able to go to zero emissions, what effect would it have on worldwide levels when nothing is done with the above?

We live in a world of finite resources, as in money. If we spend X number of dollars on a climate change initiative that turns out to be worthless, that is money that couldn't be spent elsewhere on other worthy needs/causes. Better to throw money down a climate change rathole that to do a clean water project in Africa, for example?

If it was real, the solution would be civil engineering. Instead, these same politicians are buying up waterfront real estate protected by the same concrete sea walls that were erected 60 years ago... even Bernie Sanders. The sea is not going to be stopped by a solar panel or an electric car.

Between 2020 and 2100, Africa’s population is expected to increase from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion. Projections show these gains will come mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, which is expected to more than triple in population by 2100.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...e-century/

That is tripling the population of current day population China or India.

They are not serious about climate change. They just want to tax people.

If the world's leaders were serious they would be combining efforts to create technology to cool the planet instead of redistributing wealth. Such as...

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160425...al-warming

http://discovermagazine.com/2018/jun/sho...cool-earth

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076777

(09-11-2019 10:09 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Between 2020 and 2100, Africa’s population is expected to increase from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion. Projections show these gains will come mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, which is expected to more than triple in population by 2100.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...e-century/

That is tripling the population of current day population China or India.

Get those people some condoms forchrissakes.....

(09-11-2019 09:47 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-...tter-under

Trump makes no sense when it comes to climate change. He rolled back an Obama plan on LED light bulbs last week, which affects about half of the light bulbs on the market. And then he freaking jokes about it --

"I'm not a vain person. ... But I look better under an incandescent light than these crazy lights that are beaming down," Trump told a crowd in Fayetteville, N.C., on Monday.

Has one person in the U.S. even complained about having to go to those energy saving lightbulbs. Do companies care? They still make plenty of money on the energy efficient bulbs. Trump is leading our planet to ruin, and folks here are laughing.

Actually, the companies were complaining. The rules about to go into place 1-1-20 impacted specialty bulbs (the round bathroom type shouldn't really be hard to replace-but the rest might be like the chandelier bulbs) so its not as simple as the 60 W lamp bulbs. And its the philosophy that the market will take over. The CFLs they first came out with were not only more expensive, they were worse for the environment because of the mercury and disposing of them. They are rapidly getting replaced in the market by LEDs.

Personally, I have no problem with the rules, but it doesn't upset me either. LEDs will take over those other options as the technology is put into products.

(09-11-2019 10:23 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 10:09 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Between 2020 and 2100, Africa’s population is expected to increase from 1.3 billion to 4.3 billion. Projections show these gains will come mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, which is expected to more than triple in population by 2100.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...e-century/

That is tripling the population of current day population China or India.

Get those people some condoms forchrissakes.....

Won't help, the masses won't use them. Anything resembling universal K-12 is a joke, and a big time luxury. 95% of the population growth will be dirt poor people who live day to day in massive shanty hoods, no electric, plumbing, pollution and garbage everywhere.

(09-11-2019 10:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 09:47 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-...tter-under

Trump makes no sense when it comes to climate change. He rolled back an Obama plan on LED light bulbs last week, which affects about half of the light bulbs on the market. And then he freaking jokes about it --

"I'm not a vain person. ... But I look better under an incandescent light than these crazy lights that are beaming down," Trump told a crowd in Fayetteville, N.C., on Monday.

Has one person in the U.S. even complained about having to go to those energy saving lightbulbs. Do companies care? They still make plenty of money on the energy efficient bulbs. Trump is leading our planet to ruin, and folks here are laughing.

Actually, the companies were complaining. The rules about to go into place 1-1-20 impacted specialty bulbs (the round bathroom type shouldn't really be hard to replace-but the rest might be like the chandelier bulbs) so its not as simple as the 60 W lamp bulbs. And its the philosophy that the market will take over. The CFLs they first came out with were not only more expensive, they were worse for the environment because of the mercury and disposing of them. They are rapidly getting replaced in the market by LEDs.

Personally, I have no problem with the rules, but it doesn't upset me either. LEDs will take over those other options as the technology is put into products.

When we moved into our house 3 years ago, I replaced every bulb with an LED. The ones they have to convert can lights with the screw plug adapter made it pretty easy. Cost a couple hundred dollars and I don't know if it's better for the environment or not. Haven't changed a light bulb in 3 years though

I think this article is total crap and devoid of rational thought. It was written by someone with an agenda who twisted thoughts and words to suit his preconception.

I don't think there is anyone alive who doesn't believe that Human activity has negatively impacted the earth. This has been 'settled science' since at least the 70's under Nixon. The question asked in the survey was merely this. Similar to the 70's, younger people are more concerned about it than older people. That hasn't changed either. What changes is the responsibilities being placed on people and thus the priority such altruistic ideals represent.

The difference in the answer comes from age related skepticism about the purposes of the question. Older people believe that it is intended to support the insane proposals from the left that have no solution, but merely want to take money from wealthy nations and give it to poorer nations. Such payments would clearly be funded by taxes in one way or another, and of course older people tend to pay more in taxes than younger... so they see themselves bearing the burden... Younger people generally don't have the skepticism or sense of 'realism'

Obama's motto was 'YES WE CAN' and it attracted young voters.
Reality has set in for most of them who have now realized that what it meant was - 'YES WE CAN, but clearly not all by ourselves and yet other than as token gestures, that is how the rest of the world insists it be done.'