Green authoritarianism

[AtlantaAdonis]

I've come to the conclusion that we cannot save the planet within the parameters of the constitution (especially with a right-wing supreme court and a Senate representation scheme that favors red states). We are going to need to elect a progressive strongman that is not afraid to circumvent and undermine the norms of government and can do what needs to be done to save the planet. I know this comes with risks, but we can either save the planet or follow our "kawnstitution" off a cliff.

It's just not going to be enough to have progressive state legislatures and governors getting behind it. Someone has to force the less environmentally-conscious red states to be more energy efficient and pollute less. I don't like it, but the first Democrat to say they don't care about the "kawnstitution" and just want to save the planet from the dire crisis it's in will be getting my vote. Basically, we need a Green Donald Trump without the racism and ignorance and bigotry.

Thoughts?

 

[OlNate]

I've come to the conclusion that we cannot save the planet within the parameters of the constitution (especially with a right-wing supreme court and a Senate representation scheme that favors red states). We are going to need to elect a progressive strongman that is not afraid to circumvent and undermine the norms of government and can do what needs to be done to save the planet. I know this comes with risks, but we can either save the planet or follow our "kawnstitution" off a cliff.

It's just not going to be enough to have progressive state legislatures and governors getting behind it. Someone has to force the less environmentally-conscious red states to be more energy efficient and pollute less. I don't like it, but the first Democrat to say they don't care about the "kawnstitution" and just want to save the planet from the dire crisis it's in will be getting my vote. Basically, we need a Green Donald Trump without the racism and ignorance and bigotry.

Thoughts?

Thoughts? You still don't understand what "progressive" means. Authoritarianism doesn't work, as proven time and time again. You can't force people, you need to engage them. The key is to keep researching until you can replace existing tech with something else in such a way as to either keep the same convenience factor, or better, in order to appeal to the portion of society you would need to carry such an initiative.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Just a complete and total crazy pipe dream! NEVER going to happen the United states. Never!

:usflag2:

 

[ttwtt78640]

Crony capitalism is bad news regardless of the political slant of those "influencing" the 'private' market by government fiat.

 

[DaveFagan]

I've come to the conclusion that we cannot save the planet within the parameters of the constitution (especially with a right-wing supreme court and a Senate representation scheme that favors red states). We are going to need to elect a progressive strongman that is not afraid to circumvent and undermine the norms of government and can do what needs to be done to save the planet. I know this comes with risks, but we can either save the planet or follow our "kawnstitution" off a cliff.

It's just not going to be enough to have progressive state legislatures and governors getting behind it. Someone has to force the less environmentally-conscious red states to be more energy efficient and pollute less. I don't like it, but the first Democrat to say they don't care about the "kawnstitution" and just want to save the planet from the dire crisis it's in will be getting my vote. Basically, we need a Green Donald Trump without the racism and ignorance and bigotry.

Thoughts?

Rescind Citizens United and make lobbying illegal is where I would start.
/

 

[OrphanSlug]

This is a very similar way of thinking that took feminism and turned it so damn militant they ended up running off too many women.

 

[longview]

I've come to the conclusion that we cannot save the planet within the parameters of the constitution (especially with a right-wing supreme court and a Senate representation scheme that favors red states). We are going to need to elect a progressive strongman that is not afraid to circumvent and undermine the norms of government and can do what needs to be done to save the planet. I know this comes with risks, but we can either save the planet or follow our "kawnstitution" off a cliff.

It's just not going to be enough to have progressive state legislatures and governors getting behind it. Someone has to force the less environmentally-conscious red states to be more energy efficient and pollute less. I don't like it, but the first Democrat to say they don't care about the "kawnstitution" and just want to save the planet from the dire crisis it's in will be getting my vote. Basically, we need a Green Donald Trump without the racism and ignorance and bigotry.

Thoughts?

I do not think the planet is in need of saving, and certainly would not be willing to sacrifice our constitutional republic, and our freedoms
in the name of a perceived threat which is not supported with empirical data.
The idea that you see circumventing our freedoms and our rule of law, as a solution, makes me think you do not understand the problem.
Globally, Humans, have a very real energy problem, the problem is that we do not have enough stored hydrocarbons to allow
the entire population to achieve a 1st world lifestyle. Failure to do this will result in continued unrest and war, between the haves and the have not s.
We can minimize the energy necessary for a 1st world lifestyle, but what we cannot do is lower standards through fiat.
What we need is for an alternate energy solution to be natural lowest price solution.
This will happen on it's own as the remaining oil is more expensive and difficult to extract.
Government can do a few things to smooth the path, like unifying the grid connection laws into something that
agrees with both home generator and electrical utility.
The Federal government could also reduce the fuel excise taxes on fuels that were carbon neutral (Man made from atmospheric CO2).
We could set an example of how to achieve independence from fossil fuels to the rest of the world, without compromising
ether our freedoms or our economy.

 

[Fledermaus]

Rescind Citizens United and make lobbying illegal is where I would start.
/

On what basis?

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

Thoughts? You still don't understand what "progressive" means. Authoritarianism doesn't work, as proven time and time again. You can't force people, you need to engage them. The key is to keep researching until you can replace existing tech with something else in such a way as to either keep the same convenience factor, or better, in order to appeal to the portion of society you would need to carry such an initiative.

There you go again Ole Nate with your notions of trying to reason with people who aren't reasonable.

We can either try can come to an understanding with people who think there's wisdom in a document written by a bunch racist, slave-owning creationists or we can make real progress and be thanked by future generations. The root-word of "Progressive" is progress don't forget.

 

[Visbek]

I've come to the conclusion that we cannot save the planet within the parameters of the constitution (especially with a right-wing supreme court and a Senate representation scheme that favors red states). We are going to need to elect a progressive strongman that is not afraid to circumvent and undermine the norms of government and can do what needs to be done to save the planet. I know this comes with risks, but we can either save the planet or follow our "kawnstitution" off a cliff.

It's just not going to be enough to have progressive state legislatures and governors getting behind it. Someone has to force the less environmentally-conscious red states to be more energy efficient and pollute less. I don't like it, but the first Democrat to say they don't care about the "kawnstitution" and just want to save the planet from the dire crisis it's in will be getting my vote. Basically, we need a Green Donald Trump without the racism and ignorance and bigotry.

Thoughts?

Pass.

There is really no question that the federal government has sufficient powers to make the kinds of changes that can reduce the nation's environmental impact. Congress is well within its power to subsidize sustainable energy sources, to set up its own energy companies if it wants (just like the TVA), to establish carbon taxes, or set up carbon trading schemes, to push federal and military sources to sustainable power sources where it's feasible, set up fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and so on. The EPA also rather definitively won its case, establishing its authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant (which, yeah, it is).

It is the lack of will, not the lack of legal authority, that has resulted in some glaring gaps in our policies.

We should also note that despite the bad news, the US has actually done pretty well at some tasks -- e.g. reducing CFCs, beating back smog and more obvious emissions, slashing the costs of solar and wind.

The problem with the authoritarian approach is that it's only a matter of time before the Supreme Maximum Leader figures out that he or she is no longer accountable, and then 99 times out 100 the nation is screwed. No matter what ideology that individual starts with, they are far too likely to go off the rails and pose a serious threat to the nation as a whole.

I.e. Lee Kuan Yew is the rare exception, not the rule, and not the answer.

 

[DaveFagan]

On what basis?

Corporations are "fictitious entities" and absolutely proven in all Corporate Charters, not flesh and blood citizens of our Nation. Current Corporate Lobbying is legalized BRIBERY.
/

 

[Fledermaus]

Corporations are "fictitious entities" and absolutely proven in all Corporate Charters, not flesh and blood citizens of our Nation. Current Corporate Lobbying is legalized BRIBERY.
/

Corporations are an allowed entity by law. The corporation you are crying about is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization... Your OPINION is noted as to what a legal corporation is or what it does.

You have given no RATIONAL reason for being rescinded.

 

[DaveFagan]

Corporations are an allowed entity by law. The corporation you are crying about is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization... Your OPINION is noted as to what a legal corporation is or what it does.

You have given no RATIONAL reason for being rescinded.

"Not flesh and blood Citizens of our Nation."
/

 

[flogger]

"Not flesh and blood Citizens of our Nation."
/

Green guilt is all . If you cant deal with that then good luck you planet killer :wink:

 

[Fledermaus]

"Not flesh and blood Citizens of our Nation."
/

Represents the flesh and blood Citizens of our Nation.

You have given no RATIONAL reason for being rescinded.

 

[DaveFagan]

Represents the flesh and blood Citizens of our Nation.

You have given no RATIONAL reason for being rescinded.

You're weaseling! Just another fieldmouse dropping. SHAME!
/

 

[Steve Case]

I've come to the conclusion that we cannot save the planet within the parameters of the constitution (especially with a right-wing supreme court and a Senate representation scheme that favors red states). We are going to need to elect a progressive strongman that is not afraid to circumvent and undermine the norms of government and can do what needs to be done to save the planet. I know this comes with risks, but we can either save the planet or follow our "kawnstitution" off a cliff.

It's just not going to be enough to have progressive state legislatures and governors getting behind it. Someone has to force the less environmentally-conscious red states to be more energy efficient and pollute less. I don't like it, but the first Democrat to say they don't care about the "kawnstitution" and just want to save the planet from the dire crisis it's in will be getting my vote. Basically, we need a Green Donald Trump without the racism and ignorance and bigotry.

Thoughts?

Young children like to scare themselves by imagining that there’s a monster under their bed

 

[Keridan]

This OP is such the epitome of the whole issue with AGW that a thousand page book couldn't do it better.

Leftists may or may not believe in man-made climate change, but they certainly will use any little indicator or 3 degree temp change between years to make it seem like the world is about to end. Why? So people will think more government and fewer constitutional freedoms are the answer and they will take full advantage by painting themselves as the ones who can use that massive destruction of freedom to save the world.

Right wingers may or may not believe in man-made climate change, but they sure will use any article, study or anything else they can to argue humans have no impact on climate. Why? Power and profit. They want to save people from themselves and, more dramatically, the leftists. They are more likely to stay in office if they show the world isn't ending and they are the only hope of stopping those demonic and power-hungry tree huggers.

The horrible thing is that there is no way to truly assess the danger and make a plan in this scenario. Every time I read an article that proves AGW or one that proves it never happened, I find 3 articles "proving" the opposite before I get through 4 paragraphs in.

It's obvious we have some impact on the world. It's getting hard to say how bad it is. Once upon a time, we wouldn't make it out of the 70s. As we came close, we were just assured that gloom and nasty doom would ensure that the wold would drown in melted ice caps before the 2000 mark came around. I think 2012 was a special mix of monks and Al Gore (ya know, internet inventor guy) that told us someone was going to flip the switch on the sun and we would die a cold death.

Latest I have heard is that the boogie man was going to spend the next hundred years plotting to ensure our demise. Of course, as he has grown smarter, we have to act immediately and sign away rights or have the right wingers properly prove the temperature will never change by act of man. This time we don't get to see it proven wrong until 90 years after action has been taken.

Sorry for the 6 page response, but this drama goes on and on. I could write a few more books and only answer a couple of the arguments.

To really fix this, the only action government should take is to release all the real information. They should then incentivise the guys on the right track and maybe get a little extra tax from the worst offenders.

The climate efforts from the Department of Energy should never be managed by the same folks who brought us the wonder that is the Department of Education.

 

[OlNate]

There you go again Ole Nate with your notions of trying to reason with people who aren't reasonable.

We can either try can come to an understanding with people who think there's wisdom in a document written by a bunch racist, slave-owning creationists or we can make real progress and be thanked by future generations. The root-word of "Progressive" is progress don't forget.

AA, what progress is there in chasing a methodology that has been proven time and time again to fail? It's self defeating...the antithesis of progressivism.

Look, I applaud your passions, prioritizing the environment is a very important effort. But your notions on how to do that are doomed before they begin because you continually think that things that have failed before will somehow work now, simply because you put a tag that reads "progressive" on it. No, bud.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I've come to the conclusion that we cannot save the planet within the parameters of the constitution (especially with a right-wing supreme court and a Senate representation scheme that favors red states). We are going to need to elect a progressive strongman that is not afraid to circumvent and undermine the norms of government and can do what needs to be done to save the planet. I know this comes with risks, but we can either save the planet or follow our "kawnstitution" off a cliff.

It's just not going to be enough to have progressive state legislatures and governors getting behind it. Someone has to force the less environmentally-conscious red states to be more energy efficient and pollute less. I don't like it, but the first Democrat to say they don't care about the "kawnstitution" and just want to save the planet from the dire crisis it's in will be getting my vote. Basically, we need a Green Donald Trump without the racism and ignorance and bigotry.

Thoughts?

Lots of thoughts.

Can you begin by convincing me that there is even a prima facia case for any action to reduce CO2 output at all.

I mean there are lots of very good things about having a slightly warmer world with lots more plant fertility and thus more life.

Can you choose, cherry pick, any place on earth, that has traffic lights, and show any single bad thing about a slightly warmer world, it has to be a single thing just to keep the discussion on track, and show that the local council will have to spend more than the traffic light budget on sorting it out.

If so you have achieved stage one of the process. Which is further than anybody has got so far.

 

[Tim the plumber]

There you go again Ole Nate with your notions of trying to reason with people who aren't reasonable.

We can either try can come to an understanding with people who think there's wisdom in a document written by a bunch racist, slave-owning creationists or we can make real progress and be thanked by future generations. The root-word of "Progressive" is progress don't forget.

I am open to reason. The abovve is an appeal for you to do some reasoning.

 

[Fledermaus]

You're weaseling! Just another fieldmouse dropping. SHAME!
/

Your ignorance of corporations is noted.

 

[Jack Hays]

I've come to the conclusion that we cannot save the planet within the parameters of the constitution (especially with a right-wing supreme court and a Senate representation scheme that favors red states). We are going to need to elect a progressive strongman that is not afraid to circumvent and undermine the norms of government and can do what needs to be done to save the planet. I know this comes with risks, but we can either save the planet or follow our "kawnstitution" off a cliff.

It's just not going to be enough to have progressive state legislatures and governors getting behind it. Someone has to force the less environmentally-conscious red states to be more energy efficient and pollute less. I don't like it, but the first Democrat to say they don't care about the "kawnstitution" and just want to save the planet from the dire crisis it's in will be getting my vote. Basically, we need a Green Donald Trump without the racism and ignorance and bigotry.

Thoughts?

Sorry, but what the planet really needs to be saved from is the fanaticism represented by your post.

 

[Tim the plumber]

There you go again Ole Nate with your notions of trying to reason with people who aren't reasonable.

We can either try can come to an understanding with people who think there's wisdom in a document written by a bunch racist, slave-owning creationists or we can make real progress and be thanked by future generations. The root-word of "Progressive" is progress don't forget.

Any chance of that reasoning stuff?

 

[Deuce]

I've come to the conclusion that we cannot save the planet within the parameters of the constitution (especially with a right-wing supreme court and a Senate representation scheme that favors red states). We are going to need to elect a progressive strongman that is not afraid to circumvent and undermine the norms of government and can do what needs to be done to save the planet. I know this comes with risks, but we can either save the planet or follow our "kawnstitution" off a cliff.

It's just not going to be enough to have progressive state legislatures and governors getting behind it. Someone has to force the less environmentally-conscious red states to be more energy efficient and pollute less. I don't like it, but the first Democrat to say they don't care about the "kawnstitution" and just want to save the planet from the dire crisis it's in will be getting my vote. Basically, we need a Green Donald Trump without the racism and ignorance and bigotry.

Thoughts?

You're wrong