What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Climate Change thread: UN Report: we need to take action (1 Viewer)

President Trump’s sparse comments on climate at the close of the G7 were both predictable and depressing. He called all exploration of wind and solar power as “dreams”, stated that he knew more about the environment than anyone else, pledged to have clean air and water and do nothing to jeopardize the American economy. 

We will face a stark choice next November on this issue alone. 

 
timschochet said:
President Trump’s sparse comments on climate at the close of the G7 were both predictable and depressing. He called all exploration of wind and solar power as “dreams”, stated that he knew more about the environment than anyone else, pledged to have clean air and water and do nothing to jeopardize the American economy. 

We will face a stark choice next November on this issue alone. 
Click to expand...
making the planet a better place for our kids and future generations OR owning the libs

 
jomar said:
making the planet a better place for our kids and future generations OR owning the libs
Click to expand...
SOme would say "making the planet a better place for our kids and future generations BY owning the libs". Many people, believe me.

They would be wrong, but they'd still say it 

 
I don't think this is a "hoax" but it does seem like Brazils politicians are being targeted over other south American countries.  Why isn't Bolivia catching any flack?  This NASA photo clearly shows fires in other Amazon countries.  This is an Amazon issue centered around poverty, farming, timber industry, seasonal drought, and many things besides the current political leaders.  There was way more deforestation in the 80's and 90's than in the last few decades.  I'm not saying this isn't a problem, or the current president is Captain Planet, but seeing this NASA photo makes me extremely skeptical of anyone specifically targeting Brazil for this problem that's clearly involves the entire continent.

https://www.space.com/amazon-rainforest-fires-2019-nasa-satellite-views.html

ETA I did find a few recent articles searching "Bolivia Fires".  There's a ton of fires in Africa blazing as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Brazil just rejected the G7s attempt to send money. 
Click to expand...
I would not send my money to the government, but to an individual small landowner, or maybe a village council.  Aid into the hands of tyrants, authoritarians, dictators and the like is always a bad idea.  Aid to individuals and small collectives of people, sometimes a good idea. Or such is my limited observation.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
I would not send my money to the government, but to an individual small landowner, or maybe a village council.  Aid into the hands of tyrants, authoritarians, dictators and the like is always a bad idea.  Aid to individuals and small collectives of people, sometimes a good idea. Or such is my limited observation.
Click to expand...
Hinestly not sure money is the answer. If we want to stop clearing the rainforest then we need to find other stuff than farming for these people to do

 
msommer said:
Hinestly not sure money is the answer. If we want to stop clearing the rainforest then we need to find other stuff than farming for these people to do
Click to expand...
What I would have them do is to be a land management steward and oxygen production manager.  that could be the individual landowners profession.  I would pay him for his professional services.

 
I mean Ecotourism has been shown to be a lifesaver to so many areas vs killing off all the animals. I know this is such a simplistic answer, but this area is so much more valuable intact than planting a bean crop once a year 

 
Sinn Fein said:
I believe the exact response was:

"We don't need no money,
Let the mother####er burn.
Burn mother####er! Burn!"
Click to expand...
Technically the answer was: "Eff you, replant your own effing forests!" (also Bolsonaro has deployed 44,000 troops to combat the fire. Hopefully that will be enough. The money pledge was an insult)

 
PhantomJB said:
Forgive me if I don't see the humor in this.
Click to expand...
:shrug:

It is pretty ballsy arrogant of the world to complain about Brazil letting the rain forest burn - which the world had been counting on to help clean up the mess the rest of the world was making...

 
Sinn Fein said:
:shrug:

It is pretty ballsy arrogant of the world to complain about Brazil letting the rain forest burn - which the world had been counting on to help clean up the mess the rest of the world was making...
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is why Brazil told them to get stuffed

 
Don't Noonan said:
Interesting
Click to expand...
Not really. Using US national temperatures is a favorite technique of climate change deniers, because the US Southeast is the site of a famous "warming hole" that counterbalances temperature increases in other parts of the country. Check out NOAA's regional breakdown of US temperature change since 1895. Wavy jet streams have frequently pushed a bunch of cold air to the Southeast since the late 60s, making it an interesting global anomaly that's been the subject of a lot of research. Globally, temperatures continue to rise to all-time highs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
caustic said:
Not really. Using US national temperatures is a favorite technique of climate change deniers, because the US Southeast is the site of a famous "warming hole" that counterbalances temperature increases in other parts of the country. Check out NOAA's regional breakdown of US temperature change since 1895. Wavy jet streams have frequently pushed a bunch of cold air to the Southeast since the late 60s, making it an interesting global anomaly that's been the subject of a lot of research. Globally, temperatures continue to rise to all-time highs.
Click to expand...
Stop using science and proven facts to make these outlandish claims. Our "president" has already stated that he knows more about "climate" than anybody else and it's all a hoax. Okay.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump pushes to allow new logging in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest

President Trump has instructed Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to exempt Alaska’s 16.7-million-acre Tongass National Forestfrom logging restrictions imposed nearly 20 years ago, according to three people briefed on the issue, after privately discussing the matter with the state’s governor aboard Air Force One.

The move would affect more than half of the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest, opening it to potential logging, energy and mining projects. It would undercut a sweeping Clinton administration policy known as the “roadless rule,” which has survived a decades-long legal assault.

Trump has taken a personal interest in “forest management,” a term he told a group of lawmakers last year he has “redefined” since taking office.

Politicians have tussled for years over the fate of the Tongass, a massive stretch of southeastern Alaska replete with old-growth spruce, hemlock and cedar, rivers running with salmon, and dramatic fjords. President Bill Clinton put more than half of it off limits to logging just days before leaving office in 2001, when he barred the construction of roads in 58.5 million acres of undeveloped national forest across the country. President George W. Bush sought to reverse that policy, holding a handful of timber sales in the Tongass before a federal judge reinstated the Clinton rule.

Trump’s decision to weigh in, at a time when Forest Service officials had planned much more modest changes to managing the agency’s single largest holding, revives a battle that the previous administration had aimed to settle.

In 2016, the agency finalized a plan to phase out old-growth logging in the Tongass within a decade. Congress has designated more than 5.7 million acres of the forest as wilderness, which must remain undeveloped under any circumstances. If Trump’s plan succeeds, it could affect 9.5 million acres.
Click to expand...
 
This is the lineup for tomorrow's (9/4) CNN Climate Town Hall:

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro will be interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer at 5 pm ET

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang will be interviewed by Blitzer at 5:40 pm

California Sen. Kamala Harris will be interviewed by Erin Burnett at 6:20 pm

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar will be interviewed by Burnett at 7 pm

Former Vice President Joe Biden will be interviewed by Anderson Cooper at 8 pm

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will interviewed by Cooper at 8:40 pm

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren will be interviewed by Chris Cuomo at 9:20 pm

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg will be interviewed by Cuomo at 10 pm

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke will be interviewed Don Lemon at 10:40 pm

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker will be interviewed by Lemon at 11:20 pm

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/3/20847535/cnn-climate-town-hall-2020-presidential-democrats

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Democrat presidential hopeful Andrew Yang is calling on CNN to reschedule the seven-hour climate change town hall set to take place on Wednesday so the news outlet can report on the effects of climate change, Hurricane Dorian.

“It would probably be better for @cnn to report on Hurricane Dorian and the actual effects of climate change rather than having us talk about climate change,” Yang tweeted on Tuesday. “We can always reschedule while Mother Nature is on her own timeline.”

It would probably be better for @cnn to report on Hurricane Dorian and the actual effects of climate change rather than having us talk about climate change. We can always reschedule while Mother Nature is on her own timeline. https://t.co/8J0oicRtgg

— Andrew Yang (@AndrewYang) September 3, 2019
Click to expand...

 
Biden says he’s going to pass his ambitious climate plan, but doesn’t want to ban fracking because he doesn’t think he could get the votes.  :loco:

 
Whoah, I wasn't aware that Bernie wanted to pass the Green New Deal through budget reconciliation. Don't like that answer at all. Between that and nuclear, they started on his worst two topics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alright, here are my rankings of the major candidates' performances tonight:

1. Warren

  • I think her one bad moment was on nuclear - not only is she not in favor of building any more current-generation reactors (understandable), she also wants to phase out nuclear entirely by 2035. Aside from that, she was awfully sharp and well informed - her rebuke of Cuomo's "should the government be telling you which lightbulbs to buy" question was really good. She displayed a lot of ambition but was able to articulate how her regulated-capitalism climate plan is different from Bernie's democratic socialist vision. She also mentioned that as president she would frequently be referencing Jay Inslee's climate plan, which was the best of the 2020 bunch.
2. Buttigieg

  • I wish Mayor Pete had gotten better questions. While other candidates had an opportunity to flesh out their positions on key areas of climate policy, many of the questions Buttigieg got were moral/personal ("How has climate change affected you personally," "What do you think we owe future generations") or straight-up silly ("What's one question about climate change you would ask Donald Trump"). He did well with the questions he was given, though - he was thoughtful and specific, demonstrating a good understanding of the issues. Most importantly IMO, he focused not only on what policies we should be implementing but how we should implement them. I don't share his enthusiasm about a carbon tax (and neither does much of the public), but at least his policies are clearly well-grounded in academic literature. Economists have been in a long-standing love affair with revenue-neutral carbon taxes.
3. Sanders

  • Bernie stumbled out of the gate with his answers on the filibuster and nuclear power. I don't think it's smart to rule out nuclear entirely as he has proposed. I also think it's a little strange how his political revolution would stop short of amending a silly senate rule - contorting your policies so that you're able to squeeze a Green New Deal through the budget reconciliation process is not better than just tossing out the friggin' filibuster! Once he got past those two questions, though, Bernie did extremely well. He gave some clear, heartfelt answers on helping fossil fuel workers transition to the green economy, and his answer to the dreaded "population control" question was spot-on. His climate plan is certainly far-reaching and sufficiently ambitious. 
4. Harris

  • Harris came off as poorly informed in some areas, nuclear in particular - her nuclear answer was extremely vague, not even hinting at any sort of nuclear policy she might have. She also got hung up on plastic straws while answering a question about US supply chains' reliance on single-use plastics. That said, she hit a lot of the right notes on throwing out the filibuster and eliminating fracking. Overall, I'd say this was a somewhat forgettable performance for her.
5. Biden

  • I wouldn't call Biden's performance a debacle, but I wouldn't call it "good" either. He was constantly adrift, jumping from topic to topic without finishing sentences and not giving very clear answers at all. CNN had a gotcha ready for him by pointing out that he's courting donations from the owner of a fossil fuel company tomorrow night. His justification for not banning fracking was that we probably "couldn't get the votes" - but we can get the votes to pass his zero-carbon-2050 climate plan? I did like that he emphasized mass public transit and being a global leader in decarbonization, but nothing in his performance really stood out to me.
 
caustic said:
Alright, here are my rankings of the major candidates' performances tonight:
Click to expand...
That's for posting this.  I was hoping to see a good synopsis of who shook out where.

For me, nuclear energy and carbon taxes are two good litmus tests for people who are serious about climate change versus people who are just pandering.  Or at least those are good litmus tests for people on the left.  I don't know of anybody on the right who holds elected office who takes this issue seriously or responsibly.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Republican legislators are threatening to punish corporations that are trying to fight climate change.
Replies
7
Views
484
The Commish
The Commish
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
Stealthycat
Biden climate change order to tell federal agencies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies
2 3 4
Replies
173
Views
5K
joffer
joffer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top