• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Relevence of U.S. Politics in Facing AGW

Trakar

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
12,637
The Climate Change Election - http://www.usnews.com/news/the-repo...ction-is-critical-for-stopping-climate-change

For as long as Americans have voted and pundits have bloviated, each presidential election cycle has seemed The Most Important in All History.
Next year, though, may truly – actually, seriously – be different, if climate scientists are right. The next candidate Americans send to the Oval Office, experts say, may also be the very last who can avert catastrophe from climate change.

"It is urgent and the timeframe is critical and it has to be right now," says Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown Law. "We can't lose another four years, much less eight years."
This is not an overnight ice age or a rise of the apes. But global warming is already here, parching the American West, flooding coastal cities, strengthening storms, erasing species and inflaming armed conflict, with a rise of just 0.85 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.

And it's going to get worse, experts say.

Last year, a U.N. panel of scientists predicted the world had until 2050 to slash emissions by as much as 70 percent to keep temperatures from rising another 1.15 degrees by the end of the century. That's the threshold of an unstoppable cycle of Arctic and Antarctic melting, the release of heat-trapping gases that had been caught in the ice, more warming, more melting, more warming, more melting – until the glaciers and ice caps disappear.

But some researchers – including the man who first presented the facts on climate change to Congress in 1988 – say that that tipping point may come even sooner, perhaps as early as 2036: Humans, in short, are having an even greater impact than expected…

"Republicans and Democrats have argued over issues for years, but I can't think of an example where one party didn't even say that the issue exists," says Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University who has advised Evangelical and conservative climate action groups, and who has urged policymakers to address warming.

Four of the five Democratic candidates has pledged or supported Obama administration efforts to cut the heat-trapping emissions that cause climate change: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee. Former Sen. Jim Webb has said he'd expand the use of fossil fuels and once voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating certain greenhouse gas emissions

Among the Republicans, eight of the 17 candidates have hedged: Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Jim Gilmore, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki and Rand Paul have acknowledged that humans do contribute to global warming, but have questioned or stopped short of saying how much – a position at odds with the findings of a vast majority of scientists.…

What is at stake here isn’t the relevance of science, it is the relevance of politics (public policy) in the U. S. that is at stake.
 
What is at stake here isn’t the relevance of science or politics, it's the relevance of the U.S. itself that is at stake.

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." - Donald Trump

"It's hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change." - Hillary Rodham Clinton.

We are at a fork in the road. Do we turn left, or right? One way leads to a brighter future, the other to destruction. One way shows we are living in the real world, the other that we are dangerously deluded. Which will we choose? Politics is not the relevant factor, it is us. If we choose destruction then we shouldn't be surprised when the U.S. becomes an irrelevance.

The rest of the World will move forward without us. In the future when historians try to pinpoint the moment we 'jumped the shark' it will be November 8, 2016 - when we elected Donald Trump as 45th president of the United States.
 

Attachments

  • fork.jpg
    fork.jpg
    90.9 KB · Views: 5
The problem is that no candidate is actually running on a platform of real solutions to climate change. And if they did, they couldn't be elected because most of the American public either doesn't believe it's as big a problem as some scientists say or climate change is very low on their agenda.

And even if the US elected the "right" person for the climate, we are but a drop in the bucket. Every other major nation would have to do the same thing.

I mean, seriously, is the global community actually going to be able to cut emissions by a big enough margin? Is everyone going to curtail the modern conveniences -cars, manufacturing, etc- enough to make a difference? I think not.
 
I mean, seriously, is the global community actually going to be able to cut emissions by a big enough margin? Is everyone going to curtail the modern conveniences -cars, manufacturing, etc- enough to make a difference? I think not.

What do you suggest we do?
 
The problem is that no candidate is actually running on a platform of real solutions to climate change. And if they did, they couldn't be elected because most of the American public either doesn't believe it's as big a problem as some scientists say or climate change is very low on their agenda.
I agree, until people start getting hit in their pocket books and they believe it's from GW, the people will blissfully go on their way.
And even if the US elected the "right" person for the climate, we are but a drop in the bucket. Every other major nation would have to do the same thing.

I mean, seriously, is the global community actually going to be able to cut emissions by a big enough margin? Is everyone going to curtail the modern conveniences -cars, manufacturing, etc- enough to make a difference? I think not.
I refuse to accept my most favorite skeptical fallacy, The Perfect Solution Fallacy. We need to lead. My word, the Republicans are pissing all over themselves saying the U.S. needs to lead, except here.

Let's lead the world with acting on GW.
 
Ah, a man after my own heart!

The problem is that no candidate is actually running on a platform of real solutions to climate change.

Check.

And if they did, they couldn't be elected because most of the American public either doesn't believe it's as big a problem as some scientists say or climate change is very low on their agenda.

Check.

I saw some guy put it neatly the other day in terms of threat. He likened it to 10,000 airliners crashing every day. If that happened, I imagine air travel would be sorted pretty quickly. Asking the most-selfish generation in history to leave something for future generations is the problem.

And even if the US elected the "right" person for the climate, we are but a drop in the bucket. Every other major nation would have to do the same thing.

Check.

I mean, seriously, is the global community actually going to be able to cut emissions by a big enough margin? Is everyone going to curtail the modern conveniences -cars, manufacturing, etc- enough to make a difference? I think not.

Check-mate!

When global airlines are booking up expected sales of $5T in the next 19 years, I'm not seeing a lot of forward commitment.

Given there needs to be a massive reduction in fossil fuel use in the next ten or so years to deliver a rise of 2o or less, I say there is zero chance of the rise being kept anywhere near 2o.
 
I agree, until people start getting hit in their pocket books and they believe it's from GW, the people will blissfully go on their way.
I refuse to accept my most favorite skeptical fallacy, The Perfect Solution Fallacy. We need to lead. My word, the Republicans are pissing all over themselves saying the U.S. needs to lead, except here.

Let's lead the world with acting on GW.

And which candidate is actually going to do something in time to make a difference?

Our political parties will talk about making changes but they don't really have the power to make the changes because it comes down to us, the people. And, by and large, we don't want to change. Humans will eventually destroy the Earth.
 
And which candidate is actually going to do something in time to make a difference?

Our political parties will talk about making changes but they don't really have the power to make the changes because it comes down to us, the people. And, by and large, we don't want to change. Humans will eventually destroy the Earth.
I have a hard time arguing with that :(

Edit - However, that doesn't mean I won't take the existing candidates position into consideration when voting. In the mean time I will do what I can to keep the subject alive.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that no candidate is actually running on a platform of real solutions to climate change. And if they did, they couldn't be elected because most of the American public either doesn't believe it's as big a problem as some scientists say or climate change is very low on their agenda.

And even if the US elected the "right" person for the climate, we are but a drop in the bucket. Every other major nation would have to do the same thing.

I mean, seriously, is the global community actually going to be able to cut emissions by a big enough margin? Is everyone going to curtail the modern conveniences -cars, manufacturing, etc- enough to make a difference? I think not.

Ah, the "you first!" mentality! What are we, a world full of kindergartners? Jeez! :rolleyes:
 
And which candidate is actually going to do something in time to make a difference?

Our political parties will talk about making changes but they don't really have the power to make the changes because it comes down to us, the people. And, by and large, we don't want to change. Humans will eventually destroy the Earth.

Humans will not destroy the earth , earth will destroy humans
 
Ah, the "you first!" mentality! What are we, a world full of kindergartners? Jeez! :rolleyes:

Huh? I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter which political entity goes first. The people those political entities represent don't want to change. We won't elect the people who promise to save the planet by doing what it actually takes -greatly curtailing transportation, manufacturing, etc -IOW completely reshaping how the modern economy operates.
 
Huh? I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter which political entity goes first. The people those political entities represent don't want to change. We won't elect the people who promise to save the planet by doing what it actually takes -greatly curtailing transportation, manufacturing, etc -IOW completely reshaping how the modern economy operates.

How come Germany was able to do it? And same with a number of other European countries? They still have a bit of a ways to go, but they are really far ahead of us. And China will soon start leapfrogging, with their new measures in place.

It certainly can be done, and there is probably a better than 50% chance that it will be. Especially with the magnitude of increasing technology. There is an excellent article from the blog "Wait But Why" that explains this very well*.

* I mean the ever-increasing levels of technologies.
 
Last edited:
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth. Keep the economy strong, driving technogical advancement, and descendents will live better lives, with warming, than they would without and a slower economy. Regulatory and tax burdens slow it murderously already.

Stop murdering people by weakening the economy. I will take year 2100 tech with GW over 2070 tech in 2100, with no GW, and so would you, if you care about saving lives.

Had people in 1900 slammed on the brakes, leaving us with 1970 tech, we would be vastly worse off, with no GW, than we are today.
 
Last edited:
Stop murdering people by weakening the economy. I will take year 2100 tech with GW over 2070 tech in 2100, with no GW, and so would you, if you care about saving lives.

Absurdly incorrect. No amount of technology will stop the oceans rising on a warming planet.
 
The problem is that no candidate is actually running on a platform of real solutions to climate change. And if they did, they couldn't be elected because most of the American public either doesn't believe it's as big a problem as some the vast majority of scientists say or climate change is very low on their agenda.

And even if the US elected the "right" person for the climate, we are but a drop in the bucket. Every other major nation would have to do the same thing.

I mean, seriously, is the global community actually going to be able to cut emissions by a big enough margin? Is everyone going to curtail the modern conveniences -cars, manufacturing, etc- enough to make a difference? I think not.

FTFY.

I see some deniers are banking on having delayed action for long enough to be able to stop outright denial and switch to the "it's too late/difficult to do anything about it" crap.
 
Absurdly incorrect. No amount of technology will stop the oceans rising on a warming planet.

You ever heard of a levee or a dike? You could also move people inland from the coasts a bit. Rising ocean levels over a period of decades is hardly some intractable problem. Actually, the real estate market is telling us that it's not much of a problem at all.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom