Global Warming A Back Door To Socialism - And Now Even The UN Admits It

Were not talking about poop and are instead talking about the odorless, colorless gas you breathe out with every breath. CO2. AND China the one the author claims is "doing it right" has only, drastically increased its CO2 output, while the US has reduced CO2 more than any other nation in the world.

 

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

 

The goal is make the US a plantation. Currently, half of my day is spent working for the government free of charge. They are not satisfied with that so they are coming up with reasons to take the other half.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting we should continue to pollute our air and contaminate our soil as much as we want, but businesses are motivated my money. Give them tax incentives to reduce pollution.

 

Wind turbines will not cause homes, towns, etc. to be scrubbed from the face of the planet.

Solar panels will not bake portions of the planet.

A failure of either of these generating devices will not cause widespread catastrophic damage. The worst thing that might happen to a wind turbine is that it spins itself apart (there some pretty cool videos of this by the way). The damages would be very localized and minimal. Maybe someone could get electrocuted by a malfunctioning solar panel? But that would be risk of any power generating device so it's not unique to solar panels. And I have no idea how a solar panel array or wind farm could make an entire region uninhabitable for decades.

 

And most of the time, nuclear power plants just make a lot of electricity. Like literally, most all of the time. I read a recent study about the amount of land that the US, by itself, would require to replace coal fired power by using wind turbines. The estimate was ~19%. So, roughly a 5th of the US land surface area covered with wind turbines. Can you dig it? And what's up in MA where turbines are being forcibly removed via court challenges by the ultra rich who don't like the way they mess up the view? I suppose those lands can't then be used for wind turbines... huh?

 

Again, if China and India and other developing nations like Brazil don't get on board, there is not a damn thing we do that will have any measurable impact. A 1/2 point of a percentage realistically...its a joke. Destroy our economy and for what? For the feels? How about the UN comes down hard on the people doing the most damage for once?

Stop with the facts=) As long as its not in their back yard, they're cool. It applies to most of their Elitist views...immigration, crime, drugs, environment, ect.

 

I'm not opposed to nuclear fission power or anything. In fact, I see it as a viable energy option moving forward. Nuclear fusion on the other hand is the holy grail. It could provide our energy needs for millennia and does not come with the catastrophic failure risk that fission does. This is because the fusion reaction exists in a form in where the default state is off. Even the smallest perturbations cause the reaction to cease. Fission reactions exist in a form where the default state is full bore on. Even the smallest perturbations can cause it to chain react yielding uncontrollable amounts of power. Fission is a delicate balance of preventing it from going out of control. Fusion is a delicate balance of preventing from stopping prematurely. On said another way, fission is easy to get going and hard to stop. Fusion is hard to get going and easy to stop.

 

So,what do you guys suggest we do about this?

 

We ween ourselves off of fossil fuels as the market NATURALLY shifts, when EVs become affordable for average consumers. Solar power will also become more affordable as tech advances. What we don't do is completely **** ourselves and destroy the economy as China laughs at us, while they technically do nothing, while claiming they are. Can't trust a single thing they claim they're doing...its freaking China....the treat their people like cattle and have ZERO oversight. If the UN truly cared, they would demand the rest of the world start applying sanctions on China and India. THAT's where the problem really is. What we don't do is become vegans, eliminate airplanes, pay everyone NOT to work, build bullet trains THAT FAIL(look at the CA train to nowhere debacle) and have zero clue how to pay for it all.

Think about this. Genius scientists claim we should go to Mars to colonize there. Now think hard. Its another planet with a toxic atmosphere and no life, millions of miles away. Its easier to fix THAT planet than ours? HUH? Do you know how much barren land we have right here that is 1,000,000X more hospitable and doesn't 'require hopping in a freaking space ship? Yet these geniuses say we should spend trillions to go someplace far more dangerous than Antarctica or the worst deserts. /HELLO MCFLY??

 

So, that actually makes sense to some extent. I don't see any evidence that we can trust the free market to fix this problem, it almost certainly needs to be forced, but I also agree that moving to mars won't help. Not that that is a scientific consensus of any sort.

 

Pine for it if you will, doesn't mean that it's going to be available or on line any time soon does it? I totally understand the difference and the inherent dangers. It still doesn't mean that fusion is here tomorrow. Which still doesn't then address the very onerous wind farm conversation, nor the solar footprint, or the need to store their energy for non productive portions of the day when the wind stops, or the sun sets. Also, it cannot address the basic logistic needs of so much of our economy. Battery options are simply unable to produce enough or sufficient power to substitute for so many combustion enabled services, nor is there sufficient battery capacity to run them if there was.

I understand the angst that folks create for themselves because they've been exposed to the possibilities and are limited by the current ability of science to deliver on it.

 

Continue to invest in better options. What else? Carbon fuels are going to be with us regardless. The optimization of human endeavor though isn't to severely curtail our development by artificially removing energy autonomy. The race shouldn't be to divest ourselves of our autonomy but to create new options that improve it. Wherever you see the progressive narrative, the conversation is always about having to destroy, never to improve.

 

Ok, so if the problem was home grown terrorism, should we also just sit back and hope the market takes care of that?

 

Sorry, you lept to something absent a link. Perhaps you're asking does all of the hot air generated by the breathless mouthbreathing of progressives artificially raise the CO2 output? Perhaps...

And frankly, I might as well hope for a free market cure for home grown terrorism. It's not like the liberal police state is doing much to curb it. We see illicit drugs transcend our national boarders hourly. We watch in horror as progressive policy underpins human trafficking and misery to underpin their social narrative and programs. What could the market do that is worse?

But don't fail to recognize that having received an answer that you're unable to respond to isn't an invitation from folks like me to run around hysterically because you can't think of a better response.

 

I completely agree with you.

Ironically, if I were to post this same sentence I would be accused of advocating for the dismantlement of capitalism, a one-world government, or even murdering people.

 

So, I'll ignore the nonsense. There is no debate to be had about agw, it is happening and caused by us. The debate to be had us what to do. So, if the free market doesn't respond appropriately to the threat, then what do we do? It seems we have to use the government.

 

Have you ever looked at the difference in air quality in Los Angeles between 1970 and 2000?

 

The only irony here is that you don't recognize your own commentary on the subject. I'm not the one who parroted the IPCCs leaders suggesting that we must then radically transform the economy, or adopt technology that relies on slave like services. Suggesting that investing in "better options" doesn't then also include "radical change" that you have advocated for. So, I see no irony, or parity there.

 

I'd suggest you're simply wrong. Clearly, there is very much a debate about AGW. As in, lack of evidence. More, the hyperbole you'd attach is entirely superficial to the conversation. There are reasons that improving energy autonomy is important, both politically as well as economically. Neither of those is encompassed by your assertion. Clearly, you also don't understand that our market enterprises are all, working towards what the future might hold. I doubt anyone at any energy company on the planet (ok maybe gasprom) isn't working towards a world where plentiful energy isn't on the ticket. What we do now, though, cannot be artificially driven by folks who's real agenda isn't making energy more available, but to artificially restrict it's use based on some BS Malthusian nightmare that you seem whole heartedly to support. That seems to undercut your credibility here.

We have governments that should in fact try to accomplish their basic tenants, and producing security for our nation is one of them. I would point out that ignoring how poorly the liberal police state has effectively produced this security is up for serious conversation. We should be asking why and when government will effectively control the borders, and the illicit drugs that pass across it every day. But that isn't on your agenda.. is it?

 

I should be more clear. There is no debate to be had on climate change from a scientific or realistic perspective. Exactly like gmos, or vaccines, there is a POLITICAL debate in the court of public opinion, but there isn't any actual doubt about the reality among anyone who knows what they are talking about.

The border of course isn't really that big of a deal, but climate change of course is.

The question now is simply how to handle it. But in the other hand, let the free market build the wall right?

 

I really don't know what you're yammering on about now. Climate changes. It has, it does, it will. Fundamentally, our science cannot and has not demonstrated a testable trigger. And just as we are unaware of what caused the last full blown glacial period, we also are unable to identify the trigger that abated it. But that is a far cry from suggesting, as you just did that somehow you can definitively suggest that the current modifier is entirely anthropogenic in nature. Science doesn't suggest it, nor if they are being honest, will they. So, what you have written is important. "there is no doubt among those who know".. That's orthodoxy, faith even. Not science.

I'll let you host a gang of MS13 and you can get back to us on the "not really a big deal" BS you just wrote. I don't doubt that you are unaware of what real threats to you might be. It speaks to a fairly entitled version of a world that simply ignores things that actually threaten you.

 

So, people have always gotten cancer, doesn't mean that there aren't things that cause cancer more than the background rate. Again, there is no scientific debate about agw. It's just reality today some sectors are trying to get people to ignore.

And, I don't think any American is honestly losing sleep over ms13. I mean maybe cowards, but they not a real threat in this country. Unless you have some evidence.

 

We're not going to have to force people to buy electric cars, once they become more affordable. The market will flock to them. Even solar roof tiles will be logical when you have to spend a similar amount to replace your whole roof. It will be a no brainer. That right there solves the biggest issues. No gas for cars and a whole lot less oil for power....thats a huge win and it can happen with very little govt interference. The interference will actually be on the power companies preventing solar roofs from happening on a mass scale. Auto companies are already on board. As long as they can sell cars, they don't care where the fuel comes from.

 

Right, but the oil industry absolutely does. Do, shouldn't there at least be efforts to minimize their interference?

 

I might tend to agree with you that there isn't a lot of scientific debate about AGW. There isn't sufficient evidence, or data of it to debate. And what do you suppose folks are working to ignore? What is there to pay attention to? The idea that on average, global temps have rebounded from their dismal post little ice age averages? Doesn't that seem, to you, to be a good thing? That glaciation might be temporarily suspended to allow for ecosystem rebirth and regeneration? You seem unclear about the idea that what you'd rather then see is cold, war, and famine which is the history of human existence during cooling episodes. Why do you suppose that appeals to you?

Your comment on MS13 is emblematic of the arrogance folks like you perpetuate. I hope it never bites you. But the more you adopt it, the more likely it might.