• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Honest Politicians Answer for solving Climate Change

charliebrown

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
333
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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!!!
 
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!!!

So...your preferred tactic is to raise taxes and prices to influence people's choices. Why bother? Why not just pass laws that outright TELL people they WILL live in a smaller home? Why not just pass laws that outright TELL people how much energy they will be allowed to use?

Why not just be an honest politician?
 
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!!!

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.
/
 
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!!!

SIAP. How about these questions?
(1) Why do you solely concentrate on reducing CO2 emissions (and methane emissions) when CO2 (and methane) is less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere?
(2) Why do you insist on alternatives to fossil fuels other than nuclear power that haven't been created, tested and approved even though nuclear power is a clean (less CO2 emissions) fuel?
(3) Why do you require the alternative fuel to be good to water and air yet you are against walls which would restrict undocumenteds (and their trash) from entering the US unabated?
(4) Why do you insist on calling a fuel with less CO2 emissions a 'green' fuel when less CO2 in the atmosphere would turn everything grey? Maybe you mean a fuel with less CO2 emissions would be a grey fuel??
(5) Per one through four, what is your position, exactly, on climate change 'cause it doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
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!!!

That (bolded above) is ridiculous (as well as hard to implement) so I suspect that your career as a politician will be quite brief.
 
That (bolded above) is ridiculous (as well as hard to implement) so I suspect that your career as a politician will be quite brief.

I don't know. Obama had that same attitude...especially regarding increasing energy costs. He did pretty good as a politician.
 
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!!!

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!
 
I don't know. Obama had that same attitude...especially regarding increasing energy costs. He did pretty good as a politician.

I don't recall Obama promoting any oversized home taxation or raising the motor fuel tax to discourage commuting to work. Perhaps I missed that - can you provide links?
 
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?
 
I don't recall Obama promoting any oversized home taxation or raising the motor fuel tax to discourage commuting to work. Perhaps I missed that - can you provide links?

I was thinking more along the lines of this:



He targeted coal and energy producers to increase energy costs. Now, for sure, Obama's goal wasn't to reduce energy use by consumers. He was going for artificially making alternative energy more cost effective by raising overall energy costs. But Obama's attitude was similar to the OP's...use the power of the government to influence the choices people make.

And, as I said, that didn't hurt Obama's political career.
 
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!!!

You are confusing polluting the environment with Climate Change.

If you are trying to address pollution, then do so.

If you are trying to control the climate of the planet, please provide a prayer so the rest of us may worship you properly.
 
I don't know. Obama had that same attitude...especially regarding increasing energy costs. He did pretty good as a politician.

If he was not Black, he'd have been ignored by most.
 
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?

It's because a million droplets is more than a single bucket.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of this:



He targeted coal and energy producers to increase energy costs. Now, for sure, Obama's goal wasn't to reduce energy use by consumers. He was going for artificially making alternative energy more cost effective by raising overall energy costs. But Obama's attitude was similar to the OP's...use the power of the government to influence the choices people make.

And, as I said, that didn't hurt Obama's political career.


That (bolded above) is because cap and trade never happened.
 
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?

How, exactly, would you do that without allowing those costs to be passed onto "regular people"?
 
How, exactly, would you do that without allowing those costs to be passed onto "regular people"?

That's the hard part, but it's better to figure that out than to preach belt tightening for people that already had to sell their pants. I don't like the argument that it is hard to hold big polluters accountable so we should just not do it.
 
What if that bucket holds 2 million droplets?



The bucket I keep under my sink is apparently smaller than the one you use pictured above.

:)
 
That's the hard part, but it's better to figure that out than to preach belt tightening for people that already had to sell their pants. I don't like the argument that it is hard to hold big polluters accountable so we should just not do it.

Until that is "figured out" then you are simply forcing "regular people" to bear the costs of your alleged plan to hold the "actual big polluters" accountable. You can't make that argument go away until you have figured out how to keep energy producers (suppliers?) from passing any increased costs of production on to their customers (end users?).
 
He got lucky. He was able to go the EPA route.

Yep, but with the blessing of congress who gave up a "fair share" of their Constitutional power to that executive agency. We now have executive "rule making" which serves the purpose of legislative "law making".
 
Until that is "figured out" then you are simply forcing "regular people" to bear the costs of your alleged plan to hold the "actual big polluters" accountable. You can't make that argument go away until you have figured out how to keep energy producers (suppliers?) from passing any increased costs of production on to their customers (end users?).

I can absolutely make that argument go away. Do you think it's easier to have hundreds of millions of people buy an electric car, reduce the size of their home, and upgrade to more efficient appliances or to find a way to prevent the world's largest polluters from passing on the costs of some sort of carbon tax to those same people? I'm not claiming to know all the answers, but the current strategy of having our citizens bear the burden of whatever screw up a polluting company makes is far from sustainable.
 
I can absolutely make that argument go away. Do you think it's easier to have hundreds of millions of people buy an electric car, reduce the size of their home, and upgrade to more efficient appliances or to find a way to prevent the world's largest polluters from passing on the costs of some sort of carbon tax to those same people? I'm not claiming to know all the answers, but the current strategy of having our citizens bear the burden of whatever screw up a polluting company makes is far from sustainable.

You are simply talking in circles. What way have you found?
 
You are simply talking in circles. What way have you found?

I'm not talking in circles. I'm rejecting the idea that the people should bear the burden for the damage done by large businesses. What is your solution?
 
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!!!

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom