Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

We’ve got until 2030 to get climate change under control: UPDATE: Trump says he has read latest report; he doesn’t believe it.

Recommended Posts

Ok for you who are too obtuse to figure this out-

Increasing temperatures and decreasing rainfall is attributed to a warming climate. This dries out the environment. When a fire starts because of a downed power line or some other source it rages because there is lots of dry fuel to burn. 

Sunshine doesn’t start the fire you obtuse deniers. 

Edited by Snorkelson
Trying not to call you what you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 4:29 PM, D Baseball said:

Like Solyndra ? 

Solyndra is a case study in the problems with private for profit enterprise as much as it is government run investment. Solyndra misled the US Governemnt filing for the loan. Their misleading sales numbers cost taxpayers $500 million and private investors a $1 billion. Solyndra was part of a larger loan repayment guarantee program. The idea was to create a portfolio. Some would fail but those failures would be balanced out by successes. I believe there is still ~$40 billion worth in that pot of money that Bush created for the program. So we are still doing this kind of investing and still have a large pool of money allocated to continue it if government leaders so choose. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rhc said:

It is still funny to think that people believe that us small piddly humans can destroy the Earth.

Oh my, a new poster! Welcome! I don't know how you found this thread, but your input is appreciated.

BTW, nobody is claiming humans can destroy the Earth. What humans can do, and unfortunately are doing, is making this planet less habitable for humans. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rhc said:

It is still funny to think that people believe that us small piddly humans can destroy the Earth.

Just because you don't understand how it's possible for humans to degrade living conditions on the planet doesn't mean it isn't happening. And there's not much funny about any of it.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rhc said:

It is still funny to think that people believe that us small piddly humans can destroy the Earth.

welcome to the board

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rhc said:

It is still funny to think that people believe that us small piddly humans can destroy the Earth.

only with a uranium pu-36 explosive space modulator

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whoknew said:

BREAKING: Trump on dire warning issued by his administration on economic effects of climate change: 'I don't believe it'

Trump Buried a Climate Change Report He does not Believe

He WANTS the world to be destroyed. His ultimate revenge for being picked on his whole life for being an idiot. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rhc said:

It is still funny to think that people believe that us small piddly humans can destroy the Earth.

We won't destroy the earth.  Mother Nature will decide she's had enough of our BS and snack the human race back to the stone age 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

Ok for you who are too obtuse to figure this out-

Increasing temperatures and decreasing rainfall is attributed to a warming climate. This dries out the environment. When a fire starts because of a downed power line or some other source it rages because there is lots of dry fuel to burn. 

Sunshine doesn’t start the fire you obtuse deniers. 

I currently live out west and it seems like every year recently they forecast an el nino and it rains a lot.  We haven't been in a drought in a few years.  Rainfall is not decreasing.  The way it works is that warmer temps create more moisture evaporation from the oceans and that creates more rain, not less.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

Ok for you who are too obtuse to figure this out-

Increasing temperatures and decreasing rainfall is attributed to a warming climate. This dries out the environment. When a fire starts because of a downed power line or some other source it rages because there is lots of dry fuel to burn. 

Sunshine doesn’t start the fire you obtuse deniers. 

What if you use a magnifying glass?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, butcher boy said:

I currently live out west and it seems like every year recently they forecast an el nino and it rains a lot.  We haven't been in a drought in a few years.  Rainfall is not decreasing.  The way it works is that warmer temps create more moisture evaporation from the oceans and that creates more rain, not less.  

Your first three sentences are all false.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mile High said:

We won't destroy the earth.  Mother Nature will decide she's had enough of our BS and snack the human race back to the stone age 

I've been reading stories lately about mining the moon (which needs a better name) and can't get The Time Machine out of my mind. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday at the press gaggle, President Trump said that he had read the latest report from 13 government agencies, and hundreds of scientists. His verdict? “I don’t believe it.” 

What now? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can anyone deny it when we know that the oil companies knew in the 80s that they were causing climate change and like the tobacco companies, they hid it and fought against anyone trying to expose it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This test is pretty damn depressing: 

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/11/opinion/climate-calculator/

In a sense I get where Trump and the other skeptics are coming from: it’s a lot easier simply to pretend that climate change isn’t happening than to try and deal with it in any reasonable way. Because what would happen if a group of politicians said, “OK we’re really going to deal with this now, we’re going to force our economy to make the minimum changes necessary”? I think what would happen is that they would be bolted out of office in a few months. The public would never put up with it. 

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This test is pretty damn depressing: 

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/11/opinion/climate-calculator/

In a sense I get where Trump and the other skeptics are coming from: it’s a lot easier simply to pretend that climate change isn’t happening than to try and deal with it in any reasonable way. Because what would happen if a group of politicians said, “OK we’re really going to deal with this now, we’re going to force our economy to make the minimum changes necessary”? I think what would happen is that they would be bolted out of office in a few months. The public would never put up with it. 

odd that there wasn’t anything in there about agriculture and eating habits.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't believe it."  And that's it.  We are not dealing with this on a macro level for at least 2 more years.  There are certainly parallels to gun control - More disasters caused by severe drought, fire, hurricane, flooding, etc. brought on by global warming leaves us nothing to do but say thoughts and prayers and hang ribbons in the front yard.  Study after study is telling us to do something as these natural disasters are getting worse and worse and yet it's nothing but thoughts and prayers.  We can't even discuss it because we refuse to believe the science.  My poor kids.     

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

How can anyone deny it when we know that the oil companies knew in the 80s that they were causing climate change and like the tobacco companies, they hid it and fought against anyone trying to expose it. 

It's crazy how people will culturally connect with a group of people which keeps them from thinking critically regarding anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dedfin said:

It's crazy how people will culturally connect with a group of people which keeps them from thinking critically regarding anything else.

Not really.  Admitting that climate change is real and needs imminent action requires sacrifice on the micro level.  That means riding public transport, working closer to home, investing in solar, eating less meat, not buying so much stuff etc.  Most people aren't willing to do that and choose to ignore it like everyone else around them.  It's way more convenient.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mookie said:

Not really.  Admitting that climate change is real and needs imminent action requires sacrifice on the micro level.  That means riding public transport, working closer to home, investing in solar, eating less meat, not buying so much stuff etc.  Most people aren't willing to do that and choose to ignore it like everyone else around them.  It's way more convenient.  

Right, that's why governments need to act.  People are eating too much meat and not enough vegetables?  Governments should tax meat and subsidize veggies.  People are driving their cars too much and not using public transport?  Raise gasoline taxes, subsidize public transit.   Align the incentives of individuals with what they should be doing to help the earth. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mookie said:

Not really.  Admitting that climate change is real and needs imminent action requires sacrifice on the micro level.  That means riding public transport, working closer to home, investing in solar, eating less meat, not buying so much stuff etc.  Most people aren't willing to do that and choose to ignore it like everyone else around them.  It's way more convenient.  

I'm talking about people connecting to others regarding a cultural connection and disregarding their previous economic altogether in favor. That IS crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

People are eating too much meat and not enough vegetables?  Governments should tax meat and subsidize veggies

This seems hard to make happen in a democracy. The meat lobby is stronger than the vegetable lobby. Also, meat is delicious.

Taxing meat seems overambitious. I'm not even sure there's a politically feasible way to reduce subsidies for it. (Initiatives like California's Prop 12, which just passed, seem like maybe the best we can hope for.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Right, that's why governments need to act.  People are eating too much meat and not enough vegetables?  Governments should tax meat and subsidize veggies.  People are driving their cars too much and not using public transport?  Raise gasoline taxes, subsidize public transit.   Align the incentives of individuals with what they should be doing to help the earth. 

I get it, and believe that $5/gal gas would certainly change the thinking of many, but it's not getting touched on the macro level for at least two-three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

I'm talking about people connecting to others regarding a cultural connection and disregarding their previous economic altogether in favor. That IS crazy.

Understood.  That cultural connection breakdown extends much further than climate change deniers.  It also infects the thinking of many on the correct side of the issue to the point where they won't do anything unless government tells them to.  They are on the correct side of the issue ideologically, but they are also a big part of the problem IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mookie said:

Understood.  That cultural connection breakdown extends much further than climate change deniers.  It also infects the thinking of many on the correct side of the issue to the point where they won't do anything unless government tells them to.  They are on the correct side of the issue ideologically, but they are also a big part of the problem IMO.

I'm a big fan of the government walking hand in hand with our business/tech industry to solve our problems. We can look at dealing with our climate change as an example. I thought the initiatives the past few Presidents enacted to give companies incentive to make green energy breakthroughs was a great idea. Make it so green energy is cheap enough to where it only makes sense to use it. We've seen that solar energy is nearly as cheap as some fossil energy now. That didn't just happen. The Federal government funded academic research and gave tax credits as a way of pushing this technology ahead. (even W did this stuff) That's great stuff and it needs to continue!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bipartisan-climate-fee-backers-to-plant-flag-during-lame-duck

Quote

Bipartisan Climate Fee Backers to Plant Flag During Lame Duck

Posted Nov. 26, 2018, 6:21 AM

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), two Republicans to introduce carbon fee bill that would return money to consumers

With virtually no chance of passage, measure seen as effort to start discussions for next Congress

A small group of Democratic and Republican House members plans to introduce a carbon tax bill this week, the first bipartisan climate legislation in a decade.

While it has virtually no chance of moving during the lame-duck session of Congress, the bill could be a starting point for climate legislation after Democrats assume House control in January.

According to a bill summary obtained by Bloomberg Environment, the measure would apply a $15-per-metric-ton carbon fee to the U.S. oil, gas, and coal industries, but rebate all of the revenue as a dividend to households to shield them from increased fossil fuel costs related to the carbon fee.

The bill, which has been in the works for months, is set to be introduced this week by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), joined by Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Francis Rooney (Fla.). It is meant to plant a flag for climate change efforts in the 116th Congress that opens in January, where Democrats will be in charge of the House for the first time since 2010.

Congress needs to act, Deutch said, citing increasingly dire scientific warnings of economic damage from climate change, including the latest U.S. National Climate Assessment issued Nov. 23.

“More than a dozen federal agencies just warned us that if we don’t take dramatic action, climate change will knock 10 percent off of our GDP by the end of this century,” Deutch said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment. “Putting a price on carbon can help change the behavior of polluters. We hope our bipartisan bill will spur action on climate change before it’s too late.”

Effort to Spark Discussion

The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act is meant to spark debate in what remains a long-shot bid to move broad climate legislation in the next two years—given that Republicans will still control both the Senate and the White House.

The bill’s backers also hope to bring some additional Democratic co-sponsors aboard before its formal introduction.

The bill’s $15-per-metric-ton carbon price is a modest starting point compared to the $24-per-ton proposal offered over the summer by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), co-chairman of a bipartisan House climate caucus who lost his re-election bid Nov. 6.

While details could change before the bill is introduced, the Deutch bill as drafted would increase that $15-per-metric-ton carbon price by $10 per metric ton per year until certain targets are reached, which the authors project would lead to dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions: a one-third cut over the next decade and a 90 percent emissions cut by 2050, all compared to 2015 levels.

Exemption for Agricultural Fuels

As drafted, the bill would exempt agricultural fuels from the carbon fee. It proposes a “regulatory adjustment” to avoid “duplicative” climate regulations, though which specific regulatory authority might be rolled back isn’t clear. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) vehicle efficiency standards would remain in place, according to the bill description.

Democratic control of the House beginning in January comes nearly a decade after the collapse of President Barack Obama-backed cap-and-trade legislation. It’s unclear whether House Democrats next year might rally behind a carbon tax, or perhaps might try to resurrect cap and trade legislation.

“I think the likelihood that any significant climate legislation being agreed upon by a Republican Senate and a Democratic House is very slim, " said Alex Flint, a former Republican staff director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

And Sarah Hunt, CEO of the nonprofit Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, said Congress should “focus on achievable climate solutions first,” like increased support for energy technologies and research and development.

“Republicans and Democrats can agree on several greenhouse gas emissions reducing strategies, including building efficient infrastructure, clean energy sector job growth, and advanced energy technology R&D,” Hunt said.

Climate Solutions Caucus

But Flint, who now heads the Alliance for Market Solutions—which works to persuade Republicans to embrace a carbon tax—claimed that unveiling a bipartisan carbon tax bill now “confirms there has been an evolution among Republicans on how to address climate.”

“Climate change is much more important than partisan politics, and we’re gratified this group is moving forward together to address this urgent threat,” Mark Reynolds, executive director of the environmental group Citizens’ Climate Lobby, which has pushed for bipartisan carbon fee legislation that refunds the revenue to consumers, said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment. The group also sent volunteers to Washington earlier in November to advocate.

Deutch co-chairs a 90-member bipartisan House climate caucus formed in 2016 that, until Curbelo’s July bill, had produced little in the way of climate legislation or policy proposals.

Curbelo’s Market Choice Act (H.R. 6463) had only Republican backing—co-sponsored by Fitzpatrick and Rooney.

The fate of the Climate Solutions Caucus is unclear after Republican losses from the midterm elections, which along with retirements means nearly two dozen Republican members, nearly half of the party’s caucus membership, won’t return.

The focus of congressional efforts to grapple with climate change have shifted since the defeat of the cap-and-trade legislation backed by President Obama.

Democratic-led bills have focused on a carbon tax, including the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act (S. 2368), introduced in the Senate in February by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), as well as the Healthy Climate and Family Security Act, introduced in the Senate in January (S. 2352) by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and in the House (H.R. 4889) by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 1:23 PM, timschochet said:

Oh my, a new poster! Welcome! I don't know how you found this thread, but your input is appreciated.

BTW, nobody is claiming humans can destroy the Earth. What humans can do, and unfortunately are doing, is making this planet less habitable for humans. 

Pretty sure us humans have developed nukes that can destroy the Earth, no?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, butcher boy said:

I currently live out west and it seems like every year recently they forecast an el nino and it rains a lot.  We haven't been in a drought in a few years.  Rainfall is not decreasing.  The way it works is that warmer temps create more moisture evaporation from the oceans and that creates more rain, not less.  

wat

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

This seems hard to make happen in a democracy. The meat lobby is stronger than the vegetable lobby. Also, meat is delicious.

Taxing meat seems overambitious. I'm not even sure there's a politically feasible way to reduce subsidies for it. (Initiatives like California's Prop 12, which just passed, seem like maybe the best we can hope for.)

Get rid of the calf tax credits and cows won't have as many young. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were discussing environmental regulations at work today and one of the plant guys said the EPA told him you can pollute as much as you want, you just have to pay more 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, touche' said:
2 hours ago, Zow said:

Pretty sure us humans have developed nukes that can destroy the Earth, no?

 No

Ha! Trick question. The Earth is actually the name of a ska punk band in Oklahoma City, and as far as anybody can tell, they are not resistant to nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, touche' said:

 No

I’m not trying to be flippant it argumentative here but can you please explain or provide citation? I genuinely believed (albeit just been general sentiment) that we could blowup the planet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zow said:

I’m not trying to be flippant it argumentative here but can you please explain or provide citation? I genuinely believed (albeit just been general sentiment) that we could blowup the planet. 

I don't know about that - its a big ####### rock.  I don't think there are enough nukes to doing any lasting damage - its been hit by far more explosive impacts and survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 1:21 PM, rhc said:

It is still funny to think that people believe that us small piddly humans can destroy the Earth.

I think its funny that tiny little raindrops can get together and cause a flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Trump’s interview yesterday with the Washington Post, he stated that because of his high intellect, he simply doesn’t believe that climate change is caused by man, and doesn’t view it as a real concern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, joffer said:

any thoughts on this?  might be a starting point for discussion in the new congress.  it's about as conservative case for climate change legislation as you're going to find - link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

Ben Shapiro says to not worry. Even if your home is literally underwater, you can just sell it and move. STOP PANICKING, liberal snowflakes.

https://twitter.com/cyberwitchlexi/status/1067498796379250695

“Waterfront property.  Close to activities like swimming, kayaking and boating!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

In Trump’s interview yesterday with the Washington Post, he stated that because of his high intellect, he simply doesn’t believe that climate change is caused by man, and doesn’t view it as a real concern. 

At least that's more genuine than him claiming to have read the latest report. Everyone knows he can barely read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we seriously have until 2030, I don’t see why people are getting worked up about it already. We should be focusing on more time-sensitive matters like getting our Christmas shopping done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Zow said:

Pretty sure us humans have developed nukes that can destroy the Earth, no?

You're conflating military weapons [nukes] with climate change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zerp said:

You're conflating military weapons [nukes] with climate change. 

I wasn’t conflating anything and understand the difference. I just (mistakenly) thought we had the ability to blow ourselves and the planet up based on the nuclear power we created. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this