An Honest Politicians Answer for solving Climate Change

[Into the Night]

Air quality in the US (and in the developed world, for that matter) is the cleanest it has ever been.

Indeed it is. We can thank good ole' capitalism for that! It was engineers that designed and created the EGR systems that reduced smog. It was engineers that created the scrubbers in coal plants to eliminate acid rain. It was engineers that created the FADEC engine design used in cars and aircraft today to make them much more efficient than they were.

Engineers cleaned up the air, the water, and the land. Government has done NOTHING except take credit for it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Indeed it is. We can thank good ole' capitalism for that! It was engineers that designed and created the EGR systems that reduced smog. It was engineers that created the scrubbers in coal plants to eliminate acid rain. It was engineers that created the FADEC engine design used in cars and aircraft today to make them much more efficient than they were.

Engineers cleaned up the air, the water, and the land. Government has done NOTHING except take credit for it.

We'll disagree on that. There are roles for government regulations, and air quality is one of them.

 

[Into the Night]

You can thank environmental regulations for that.

WRONG. No environmental regulation has cleaned up a single thing.

Engineers and capitalism designed and built the systems we use today to enjoy our cleaner air.

 

[Into the Night]

Except you cannot just do anything you want in your desire to pursue happiness. If I steal your car, I cannot say it was okay to do so "because I desire to pursue happiness." If one's idea of living free imposes harm on others, then there is no right to live in that way without the consent of those being harmed.

Theft is not pursuing happiness. It is not capitalism either.

 

[Into the Night]

We'll disagree on that. There are roles for government regulations, and air quality is one of them.

What has the EPA actually done to clean the air? I'll start with them.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

1) Why are you using a pickup truck to drive back and forth to an office?
2) Why are you using an SUV to drive kids around the neighborhood?
3) Why is your family living in a 3,000sf home instead of a 1,500sf home?
4) Why are you going to a huge open air, high ceiling office space for work every day?
5) Why are you tearing up farm land over an hour drive from your work to get an oversized home cheaper and then spending the difference in mortgage on gas and cars?
6) Why are you even thinking of drinking out of bottled water. Do you know how much gas it took to get that bottle to your lips?

There are a ton of other questions we need to ask ourselves

As a politician, I am going to tell you to stop looking for someone else to solve these problems. If you are a democrat and you care about the environement, then go on a web site and get a carbon consumption analysis for yourself and family. If you are a conservative republican, can I please ask you what conservative means? Would conserving natural resources fall under the mantra of conservative thinking?

There are two ways to solve this problem. One is to tax income higher to solve this problem, but I do not like that because there is no association between cost and source of cost.

Increasing taxes to drive people into smaller homes and increasing energy cost to drive people to use less of it. That is the basic solution to all of our problems.

thanks for reading, we are all human beings, lets treat each other with respect no matter what the views or intellectual level!!!

What problem? Climate change when it occurs is completely natural and has nothing whatsoever to do with what cars we drive or any other man made factor. As for conservation, I am all for it where it makes sense, for instance the lumber industry replants trees after harvesting a forest area.. Same with pollution, I do not feel we should pollute just for the sake of polluting. I do like clean air and clean water. That's just common sense. However the man-made climate change hoax is just an example of how off the wall the left has become.

 

[Jack Hays]

What has the EPA actually done to clean the air? I'll start with them.

I have no interest in listing regs or researching effectiveness. I believe their efforts were worthwhile.

 

[Media_Truth]

What problem? Climate change when it occurs is completely natural and has nothing whatsoever to do with what cars we drive or any other man made factor. As for conservation, I am all for it where it makes sense, for instance the lumber industry replants trees after harvesting a forest area.. Same with pollution, I do not feel we should pollute just for the sake of polluting. I do like clean air and clean water. That's just common sense. However the man-made climate change hoax is just an example of how off the wall the left has become.

Can you name one major scientific organization that agrees that "man-made climate change" is a hoax? Can you answer this question without a conspiracy theory claim?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Can you name one major scientific organization that agrees that "man-made climate change" is a hoax? Can you answer this question without a conspiracy theory claim?

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

The burden of proof is on the nutjobs that are pushing man made climate science.

 

[Quaestio]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

The burden of proof is on the nutjobs that are pushing man made climate science.

You didn't answer his question. His question was: "Can you name one major scientific organization that agrees that "man-made climate change" is a hoax?". Clearly you can't, because there aren't any.

So instead you provide a link to an old opinion piece by The Heartland Institute's non-scientist spin-doctor James Taylor in Forbes magazine that completely misrepresented the original article from the business Journal "Organizational Studies"

How about the original article?

"Science or Science Fiction? Professionals' Discursive Construction of Climate Change"


It was a survey of engineers and geoscientists (and their "attitudes towards regulatory measures") who worked in petroleum and related industries in Alberta Canada. It was published in a Business Journal.

What were you trying to prove? That you're prepared to use lies and misrepresentation to support your opinion? Or that you're too silly to not even fact-check your own link?

I've seen many other science deniers post this same link in the past and none of them ever fact-checked Taylor's opinion article either.

 

[Quaestio]

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

The burden of proof is on the nutjobs that are pushing man made climate science.

So are you claiming that all the scientists from The Royal Society and the US's National Academy of Sciences and every other major science institution worldwide are 'nutjobs'? Bear in mind that's the sort of absurdity only a real 'nutjob' might claim.

Front Matter | Climate Change: Evidence and Causes | The National Academies Press

 

[Steve Case]

The questions are unimportant because CO2 is not the problem. The sun caused temperatures to go up, and the sun will take them back down.

Co2 isn't the the problem?????

Let me correct that for you.

There isn't a problem.

I really do wish that the folks on my side of the argument, and there is an argument,
would stop allowing the left-wingers to control the debate. Someone has to explain to
me why they think a warmer world is a problem. As far as I know, the polar bears are
fine, Antarctica isn't melting, multi-meter sea level rise isn't happening, forest fires are
less frequent, floods and droughts aren't occurring more often nor are hurricanes or
extreme tornadoes. Heavy industry and the world's economy aren't ever going to be
powered by wind mills or solar panels and contrary to popular belief an increase in CO2
is mostly beneficial.

There ain't no stinking problem.

 

[Media_Truth]

Co2 isn't the the problem?????

Let me correct that for you.

There isn't a problem.

I really do wish that the folks on my side of the argument, and there is an argument,
would stop allowing the left-wingers to control the debate. Someone has to explain to
me why they think a warmer world is a problem. As far as I know, the polar bears are
fine, Antarctica isn't melting, multi-meter sea level rise isn't happening, forest fires are
less frequent, floods and droughts aren't occurring more often nor are hurricanes or
extreme tornadoes. Heavy industry and the world's economy aren't ever going to be
powered by wind mills or solar panels and contrary to popular belief an increase in CO2
is mostly beneficial.

There ain't no stinking problem.

I would call this the ultimate Denial post. Nothing to worry about - wait and see. The question is, what happens if you're wrong, and the tens of thousands of scientists are right? Do you have grandchildren? Great grandchildren? You're right about one thing - WE don't need to worry about it.

 

[code1211]

Why should we separate CO2 from every other negative effect wastefulness costs society?

Because pollution can be shown as a direct, straight line cause of various actual problems that can be addressed by controlling stuff we throw away.

Asserting that the race of man can control the climate of the planet is just silly.

With respect, the actual temperature in my house varies more widely on a daily basis than the average climate of the Globe has varied in the last 2000 years.

There is not a real problem to address and the methodology called for to address the problem that does not exist is ridiculous and will carry catastrophic consequences if implemented including world wide famine and plague.

The globe has been much, much warmer over the last half million years, even within this interglacial, when the CO2 concentration was much, much lower.

CO2 is a trace gas and is NOT the primary cause of climate change. Wonder what is the primary cause? On a cloudless day in August go outside and look skyward at noon.

 

[charliebrown]

Red-Our Corporatist policies are the main cause of pollution.
Example-20% of electricity produced lost to transmission because centralized distribution is what keeps the Big Utilities Big. Renewable Energy is De-Centralized distrubution. Done at the LOCAL level generating jobs at LOCAL levels. Then the energy monies are not siphoned out of the Community and are spent LOCAL. Maintenance is LOCAL. My immediate response was to be
that HONEST and POLITICIAN is an oxymoron, but all you said was true except the red highlighted. Big Energy has fought/impeded the development of Renewables since 1969/70 when Global Warming was first recognized as a serious threat. Property taxes are already the death knell of many small village business centers. They move outside incorporated areas to reduce taxes.

Solution-Downsize the MIC by 70-80% and create a Renewable Energy Army to develop LOCAL infrastructure initiatives such as Renewable Energy, small farms, recreational living areas geared to retired as well as working populations, economic policies that keep LOCAL monies moving in a LOCAL circle instead of being siphoned out of the Community, smokestack taxes that actually reflect mitigation of pollution costs, development of LOCAL Media alternatives with fiber optic or wireless distribution showing LOCAL events i.e. sports/fraternal events/Local News/etc. Local currencies like in Ithaca, N. Y. are viable alternatives. Cut the Big Corporations out of the loop whenever possible and LOCAL earns substantial rewards. Much more, but these are real World solutions at practical leves.
/

Agree with your assessment to support local businesses and communities as much as possible. When we vote for bigger government and when we shop at big box stores, we are unconsciously supporting interests that do not align with our unique communities.

 

[charliebrown]

Jesus...

A "tax" is a "law".

What kind of politician are you?

Applying sales tax on any and all commerce does not limit or force you to do anything. There is enough tax on cigarettes to basically say it is unlawful and yet people still smoke and the government is not running around dragging them into court. Do you really not understand the difference? Do I have give you a history of prohibition? Do you not see the change between law and tax on marijuana? Did you ever wonder why there is usually zero tax on necessities in most states? Although, it does make you wonder why a minimum living area would not be tax free. I agree with you that a tax is a law. Would you agree with me that the enforcement of a tax and a law are very different?

 

[eohrnberger]

Just the political left wanting to usurp the freedom and liberty of the electorate to make choices for themselves.

I'm sure they'd much rather have an electorate comprised on NPCs that blindly and unthinkingly follow the instructions they issue to them, which would never apply to themselves.

 

[charliebrown]

Why not just mandate that employers provide X sq. ft. of living space for all employees within walking distance of the job site? Any employer caught using commuters (as employees) will be jailed for life. Bring plantation life back to America![/QUOT

Since we don't want to have a logical debate that rationally gets society to conserve resources for an ever growing population, I would prefer reduced population rule. I do not think we should take the chinese approach that limited birth rates, I would accept the euthanasia approach to alleviate a large swath of the world population of unproductive humans!!!

Wouldn't that be great!!!!

 

[Mycroft]

Applying sales tax on any and all commerce does not limit or force you to do anything. There is enough tax on cigarettes to basically say it is unlawful and yet people still smoke and the government is not running around dragging them into court. Do you really not understand the difference? Do I have give you a history of prohibition? Do you not see the change between law and tax on marijuana? Did you ever wonder why there is usually zero tax on necessities in most states? Although, it does make you wonder why a minimum living area would not be tax free. I agree with you that a tax is a law. Would you agree with me that the enforcement of a tax and a law are very different?

:roll:

Okay. I give up.

One bit of advice: Don't give up your day job to be a politician.

You are dismissed.

 

[MrPeanut]

I hate applying real pressure to regular people, but damn peanut, WHY the F does anyone need to drive a FULL SIZE PICKUP truck to an office job?

Didn't we notice the massive increase in full sized vehicles when gas prices went down?

If the government wants to incentivize the purchase of certain types of things, to prevent a genuine emergency from occurring, I think that's fine. My argument is solely based on the fact that all of the pressure should be on those who create the most damage. I don't like the idea that there is nothing we can do about the harmful practices of big businesses so we should just ignore them and try to work around those issues. I share your annoyance about trucks being status symbols.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

So are you claiming that all the scientists from The Royal Society and the US's National Academy of Sciences and every other major science institution worldwide are 'nutjobs'? Bear in mind that's the sort of absurdity only a real 'nutjob' might claim.

Front Matter | Climate Change: Evidence and Causes | The National Academies Press

Yes...if they preach man-made climate change without a scientific smoking gun, I absolutely claim that they are nut jobs. Climate change hysteria is not new. It's been around a long time.

The link below includes a list:

120 years of climate scares


The below quoted is right on the money regarding the motivation for the man made climate change hoaxes:

"Scientists seeking funding and journalists seeking an audience agree: panic sells.
“Global cooling is going to kills us all!” “No, wait: global warming is going to kill us all!”
All that’s missing is a back-and-forth of “You shut up!” “No, you shut up!” That is reserved for those who doubt the need for panic.
That’s the gist of an amazing chronology of the last 120 years of scare-mongering on climate, assembled by butnowyouknow.net and reprinted by the estimable Anthony Watts in Wattsupwiththat, who updates it to the present. It is truly mind-boggling:"

 

[bongsaway]

What if I live in a nine hundred sq. ft. home and don't drive, do my taxes still increase?

 

[bongsaway]

Why is the solution to this problem always to put more pressure on regular people? Why can't we hold the major polluters accountable instead of telling everyone to buy expensive electric cars, never travel outside of the country, or learn to live with far less than what is considered standard?

Because money flows from the bottom to the top and the top doesn't want to kill the golden goose. Hold polluters accountable? Oh hell no, let's do away with regulations to help them pollute. It creates jobs now and in the future when we finally decide we need to clean the mess if we want to continue breathing.

 

[bongsaway]

OK, yet $6B in profits from $76B in sales does not seem excessive.

I don't know the answer but maybe somebody does. How much does the top one hundred people in the company pull out from that six billion? I'm just curious and maybe someone who follows this kind of thing has an idea?

 

[Steve Case]

I would call this the ultimate Denial post.

You can call it whatever you want.

Nothing to worry about - wait and see.

It's been over thirty years since this nonsense started.

The question is, what happens if you're wrong, and the
tens of thousands of scientists are right?

What if President Eisenhower was right:

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by
Federal employment, project allocations, and the power
of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded​

Do you have grandchildren?

Seven and I'm afraid that they're being brainwashed.

Great grandchildren?

Not yet.

You're right about one thing - WE don't need to
worry about it.

Your side of the coin is the worry. You guys seem to
actually think that our heavy industries can be powered
by windmills and solar panels.

Eisenhower also said:

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element
of time. As we peer into society's future, we-you and I,
and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for
today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the
precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the
material assets of our grandchildren without risking the
loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We
ant democracy to survive for all generations to come, not
to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.​