Is climate change in your top 5 areas of concern?

[Russell797]

I never said climate change was life threatening...and I don't much care even if it is - I will be long dead before it effects me and I do my part so my conscious is clean.

Climate change is up to individuals...not the government.

And the balanced budget is NOT up to individuals after the election. The masses cannot force governments to balance budgets...they can only threaten to not vote for them if they don't balance it. The politicians are directly responsible for the fiscal budgets...not the masses.

But climate change is ALL about the masses. They can economically boycott corporations that do not clean up their act. They can buy only products that are better for the environment. They can drive less and walk/ride more.
Politicians can do little. Look at Kyoto? Big hoopla...hardly any change in the end.
If the masses truly want climate change to stop - only they can truly stop it.

If you wait for politicians to stop it, you are naive. Because I guarantee you they won't.


This obviously means more to you then it does to me.

We are done here.


Good day.

Consumers have little say over the source of their energy production. Electric generation and the vehicles people operate are the largest contributors to CO2 emissions on a global scales. This is not a single nation problem, it's a collective world problem. Even if the U.S. could determine it's emissions by simple consumer choice, the U.S. only contributes about 15% of total global emissions. What is required is a globalized effort by all industrialized and emerging economies to change the way energy is produced and utilized. That means governments, not individual people must act.

 

[Russell797]

My answer to the thread topic is yes. I place it as the number one problem faced by humanity. Other issues will come and go, but climate change will be a constant impediment to world stability, on all scales from local communities, regions, countries and the world as a whole including the very health of the biosphere.

 

[Fletch]

It's in my top 1.

Would be interesting to the split of ages in the yes/no camp. Must be easy for people who are older to just think 'screw you, got mine' when it comes to climate.

Since it is your number one priority, have you given any thought as to what could be done to actually stop climate change from happening? If so, I would like to know what you have come up with.

 

[Fletch]

My answer to the thread topic is yes. I place it as the number one problem faced by humanity. Other issues will come and go, but climate change will be a constant impediment to world stability, on all scales from local communities, regions, countries and the world as a whole including the very health of the biosphere.

Yes, yes, we know you liberals think the sky is falling. But same question to you as I posed to the other Chicken Little liberal in a panic over the weather--what do you propose be done about it?

 

[jimbo]

The problem comes when consumers know jack **** about what they're talking about.

A person is smart. People are dumb.

The problem with liberals or progressives if you prefer is that they think that only they know jack **** about anything. And since progressives/liberals believe that government is the cure for all ills, they should be in charge of government.

 

[jimbo]

Nobody is saying anything about ending humanity. It's these kind of exaggerations that misrepresent climate change.

Actually most warmers are saying just that. A quick Google search turns up hundreds of sites with the same theme. Here's the first:

Mankind will be extinct in 100 years because of climate change, warns expert | Daily Mail Online

 

[Russell797]

Yes, yes, we know you liberals think the sky is falling. But same question to you as I posed to the other Chicken Little liberal in a panic over the weather--what do you propose be done about it?

As quickly as possible transition from fossil fuels to low carbon emitting alternative energy sources. The cause is the emission of CO2, the solution is to greatly reduce on a global scale those emissions. If we can't or won't do that then we will continue to increase the radiative forcing which is driving up the globally averaged temperature. Simple as that. Easier said than done though obviously.

 

[AlbqOwl]

When considering a new President or any elected official who can bring about change, we always consider which areas we are most concerned about. Is climate change in your top 5 areas of concern for your country? Why or why not? Feel free to share your top 5 if you want.

My only concern is when government uses climate change as a justification to expand government power over more aspects of our lives and to move us closer to a one-world government. I do not believe for a minute that 99% of those in government have any personal concern about climate change because they do not change their own lifestyle in any way. But they sure love the excuse it gives them to take away more of the people's liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

So any candidate running on a climate change platform gets a tick in the minus column from me. And those who put people before unproven science get a tick in the plus column from me.

 

[jimbo]

You are implying the extinction of the species which no one in science is saying is even a remote possibility. Will civilizations be severely tested and disrupted? The answer is a definite yes if we consider a time frame measured in decades to centuries. Sea level rise and a shift in arable regions will do that.

The first few Google search results:

(climate change will end humanity)

Search Results
Mankind will be extinct in 100 years because of climate change, warns ...
Home | Daily Mail Online...
Daily Mail
Jun 19, 2015 - Will YOUR child witness the end of humanity? ... to overcrowding, declining resources and climate change, according to a prominent scientist.
A child born today may live to see humanity's end, unless… - Reuters
blogs.reuters.com/great.../a-child-born-today-may-live-to-see-humanitys-end-unless/
Jun 18, 2015 - The question is, can we avoid catastrophic climate change?” In the years since, emissions have risen, as have global temperatures. Only two ...
How it will end - Steve Kirsch
How it will end
How it will end ... Ostensibly, we will die due to the effects of global warming. ... is more than a 5% chance of a mass human extinction in less than 100 years. ... The climate changes we are seeing today are just the tip of the iceberg; they are ...
This Is What the World Will Look Like After Climate Change | Mother ...
Mother Jones...
Mother Jones
Sep 8, 2015 - Climate change will be the end of the world as we know it. ... And even if human tastes evolved, those fish wouldn't fill us up; most gobies clock ...
Are We Approaching the End of Human History? | BillMoyers.com
billmoyers.com/.../noam-chomsky-are-we-approaching-the-end-of-hu...
Bill D. Moyers
Sep 9, 2014 - The short, strange era of human civilization may be drawing to a close. ... in a new draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ... painful lessons on the depths to which the species can descend.
Global Warming Will Destroy The Earth In The End - Forbes
Forbes Welcome
Forbes
Jul 19, 2015 - But as time goes on, the Sun will continue to heat up. ... solutions, such as spiraling Earth farther out from the Sun to a more suitable climate. ... Global warming will destroy life on Earth in the end: not just human life, but all life ...
Humanity Is Getting Verrrrrrry Close to Extinction | VICE | United States
www.vice.com/.../near-term-extinctionists-believe-the-world-is-going-to-end-ver...
Vice
Aug 20, 2013 - The link between rapid climate change and human extinction is basically this: the ... They may not believe that humans will ALL be gone by the middle of the ... that had previously been reserved for the end of the 21st century.
Climate change will alter the Earth. But it could destroy humanity | Grist
grist.org/article/climate-change-will-alter-the-earth-but-it-could-destroy-humanity/
Grist
Dec 14, 2015 - This is an oft-used phrase in the fight against climate change — one meant to relay the gravity of global warming as well as to inspire action.
Human extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction
Wikipedia
In future studies, human extinction is the hypothetical end of the human species. In the near ..... The axial precession is the process in which the climate will change in terms of how the earth rotates about its own axis. Raup did find that every 26 ...

 

[Russell797]

The first few Google search results:

(climate change will end humanity)

Search Results
Mankind will be extinct in 100 years because of climate change, warns ...
Home | Daily Mail Online...
Daily Mail
Jun 19, 2015 - Will YOUR child witness the end of humanity? ... to overcrowding, declining resources and climate change, according to a prominent scientist.
A child born today may live to see humanity's end, unless… - Reuters
blogs.reuters.com/great.../a-child-born-today-may-live-to-see-humanitys-end-unless/
Jun 18, 2015 - The question is, can we avoid catastrophic climate change?” In the years since, emissions have risen, as have global temperatures. Only two ...
How it will end - Steve Kirsch
How it will end
How it will end ... Ostensibly, we will die due to the effects of global warming. ... is more than a 5% chance of a mass human extinction in less than 100 years. ... The climate changes we are seeing today are just the tip of the iceberg; they are ...
This Is What the World Will Look Like After Climate Change | Mother ...
Mother Jones...
Mother Jones
Sep 8, 2015 - Climate change will be the end of the world as we know it. ... And even if human tastes evolved, those fish wouldn't fill us up; most gobies clock ...
Are We Approaching the End of Human History? | BillMoyers.com
billmoyers.com/.../noam-chomsky-are-we-approaching-the-end-of-hu...
Bill D. Moyers
Sep 9, 2014 - The short, strange era of human civilization may be drawing to a close. ... in a new draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ... painful lessons on the depths to which the species can descend.
Global Warming Will Destroy The Earth In The End - Forbes
Forbes Welcome
Forbes
Jul 19, 2015 - But as time goes on, the Sun will continue to heat up. ... solutions, such as spiraling Earth farther out from the Sun to a more suitable climate. ... Global warming will destroy life on Earth in the end: not just human life, but all life ...
Humanity Is Getting Verrrrrrry Close to Extinction | VICE | United States
www.vice.com/.../near-term-extinctionists-believe-the-world-is-going-to-end-ver...
Vice
Aug 20, 2013 - The link between rapid climate change and human extinction is basically this: the ... They may not believe that humans will ALL be gone by the middle of the ... that had previously been reserved for the end of the 21st century.
Climate change will alter the Earth. But it could destroy humanity | Grist
grist.org/article/climate-change-will-alter-the-earth-but-it-could-destroy-humanity/
Grist
Dec 14, 2015 - This is an oft-used phrase in the fight against climate change — one meant to relay the gravity of global warming as well as to inspire action.
Human extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction
Wikipedia
In future studies, human extinction is the hypothetical end of the human species. In the near ..... The axial precession is the process in which the climate will change in terms of how the earth rotates about its own axis. Raup did find that every 26 ...

A load of crap from media sources. Show me per reviewed studies which indicate any of that non-sense is realistic on time scales relevant to human societies. Individual nut cases can say whatever they want in the media.

 

[jimbo]

A load of crap from media sources. Show me per reviewed studies which indicate any of that non-sense is realistic on time scales relevant to human societies. Individual nut cases can say whatever they want in the media.

In other words, you got nuthin' to dispute the claims. So attack the messengers. Which if you bothered to check most are people on your side. The doomsday side. Those articles back themselves up with scientist quotes.

BTW, the original statement was:

"You are implying the extinction of the species which no one in science is saying is even a remote possibility."

IPCC to name 1, is not in science?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

When considering a new President or any elected official who can bring about change, we always consider which areas we are most concerned about. Is climate change in your top 5 areas of concern for your country? Why or why not? Feel free to share your top 5 if you want.

Hell no.

1) Isis
2) Terrorism
3) Domestic Unrest (riots, etc)
4) Gun Rights / laws / overregulation / underregulation - all this
5) The endless and unsuccessful efforts to get the above 4 things under control and on the right track.

The last thing I give a damn about is climate change.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

My top 5 issues are:

1. Economy.
2. Foreign Policy / Terrorism
3. Environment / Conservation (which climate change falls under).
4. Civil liberties / SCOTUS appointments.
5. Fiscal Policy.

The next one would be healthcare which I think also falls under fiscal policy.

Climate Change is a big concern with me but I don't think we will do anything of substance about it. Unfortunately we humans are very poor at judging and reacting to long term risks. For example, there are people that are armed to the teeth because of fear of home invasion or terrorism, but smoke 2 packs a day. The odds of them being a victim of a home invasion or terrorist attack are millions to one. The odds of them dying a slow painful death due to cancer because they are a heavy smoker, 1 in 3. Mitigating AGW would require some pretty significant changes. Considering that its hard to get most people to exercise sufficiently and eat right despite its positive impacts on their long term health, I just can't see most people making significant changes to combat AGW despite the long term environmental and economic risks of AGW.

 

[humbolt]

I put a Stop sign in my front yard as my part in the effort to halt climate change. No, no thank you's are necessary. Just doing what I can. If I feel real energetic today, I might come up with a climate change hashtag later on. On a sadder note, my favorite truck is in the shop getting new ball joints. I'm forced to drive the big truck. It uses so much fuel that fence posts ignite when I drive by.

 

[Tim the plumber]

When considering a new President or any elected official who can bring about change, we always consider which areas we are most concerned about. Is climate change in your top 5 areas of concern for your country? Why or why not? Feel free to share your top 5 if you want.

If you follow the Environment and Climate subsection of this forum you will notice that I am part of the skeptic croud.

The reason I don't consider climate change directly as a major issue is that I cannot find anything in the predictions that is at all scary.

It is the most serrious issue in the world indirectly however, this is due to the fact that at least 10 million people per year die unnecessarily as a result of using food as fuel. I think that this number is way lower than it really is but that's the figure that is backed a scientific paper. This has been the case for at least 20 years.

That's more deaths than WWII by a very long way. Only the Mongols killed more. Although given a few more years even they will be beaten.

 

[Nilly]

The problem with liberals or progressives if you prefer is that they think that only they know jack **** about anything. And since progressives/liberals believe that government is the cure for all ills, they should be in charge of government.

Plenty of liberals don't know jack ****. Plenty of liberals have far larger carbon footprints than plenty of conservatives. And it's precisely because the effects on the environment are seldom seen and felt on an individual scale (until it's too late, anyway) and because the environment is of little interest to corporations (wildlife aren't consumers), that's where govt has to step in. I already put forward why I think this is an issue that requires govt intervention in post 21.

Actually most warmers are saying just that. A quick Google search turns up hundreds of sites with the same theme. Here's the first:

Some random microbiologist and a writer....

See, it's very simple.

That climate change is anthropogenic, and that we're approaching (or have passed) various tipping points is scientific consensus.

That it is not anthropogenic, is agreed on by a few crackpots.
That it will cause mankind to go extinct, is agreed on by a few crackpots.

The reality is, we don't know exactly what will happen to mankind. We might be fine. We might not. It's likely that most people will survive it. That doesn't mean it isn't a catastrophe.

Since it is your number one priority, have you given any thought as to what could be done to actually stop climate change from happening? If so, I would like to know what you have come up with.

Firstly, I would make adherence to the precautionary principle a statutory requirement in decisions concerning the environment.

From wiki:

The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk.

The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action) when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.

Secondly, massive investment into public transport in cities. Once there is a semblance of a transit system in place (with the mode of transport depending on the city, bus/tram/subway, driven vs driverless etc), I would implement congestion charges in inner cities (fee's to drive personal vehicles in certain areas at certain times) which would reduce traffic (less cars sitting around in the city) and would raise money to further extend and maintain the transit system. Exemptions to the congestion charge could be made in specific circumstance (lack of ability to pay coupled with lack of access to public transport or something - although efforts would be made to make access to public transport as far reaching as possible). As traffic flow lessens, pedestrianize certain streets/zones of the city.

Thirdly, a focus on enabling more renewable energy over fossil fuels. This includes nuclear. Nuclear energy is incredibly important in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Classic renewables (solar/wind/hydro) are brilliant, but are too intermittent to provide for America fully. Renewable energy would be used where it is viable (which is in a surprising amount of places). Govt grants would be given to companies pursuing battery technology, with the caveat that once breakthroughs are made, that battery technology is used on the energy grid, or if not, patents made available to those that would use it on the energy grid. Companies would be free to use said battery technology in other enterprise how they wish, which would be incredibly profitable for them, given our need to either increase the efficiency of lithium ion batteries, or replace them all together.

Fourthly, reduce all funding towards increased fossil fuel infrastructure. This doesn't mean ban oil or coal, but it does mean no more pipelines or factories.

And finally, as you inevitably critique my plan (it's by no means perfect, I didn't have any of this planned out before I wrote this post) you'll recall I put climate change as my number 1 issue. That means it becomes before economy.

 

[Nilly]

Hell no.

1) Isis
2) Terrorism
3) Domestic Unrest (riots, etc)
4) Gun Rights / laws / overregulation / underregulation - all this
5) The endless and unsuccessful efforts to get the above 4 things under control and on the right track.

The last thing I give a damn about is climate change.

1) ISIS
Last) Climate change

Honestly, don't know whether to laugh or cry. And I just want to preface this by saying that the following isn't aimed specifically at you Aunt Spiker but to everyone who would put terrorism above climate change.

ISIS could barely fill football stadium, and the death toll due to them has been estimated at a couple of thousand outside of Iraq and Syria, with the death toll inside Iraq and Syria ranging from anywhere between 20,000 - 200,000 in the last few years, with the higher estimates down to not only ISIS but also things like the civil war in Syria, foreign airstrikes etc.

All lives are precious and I don't mean to say those lives don't matter. But compare that to the obesity epidemic which claims more than 150,000 American lives per year. Just because these deaths don't come with some guy in a mask shouting foreign words in front of a camera doesn't mean they are any less meaningless. If your criteria for ranking the ISIS threat so high is due to risk to life (please let me know other factors that come into your decision) then there are hundreds of other issues that should be taking precedence.

My top 5 issues are:

1. Economy.
2. Foreign Policy / Terrorism
3. Environment / Conservation (which climate change falls under).
4. Civil liberties / SCOTUS appointments.
5. Fiscal Policy.

The next one would be healthcare which I think also falls under fiscal policy.

Climate Change is a big concern with me but I don't think we will do anything of substance about it. Unfortunately we humans are very poor at judging and reacting to long term risks. For example, there are people that are armed to the teeth because of fear of home invasion or terrorism, but smoke 2 packs a day. The odds of them being a victim of a home invasion or terrorist attack are millions to one. The odds of them dying a slow painful death due to cancer because they are a heavy smoker, 1 in 3. Mitigating AGW would require some pretty significant changes. Considering that its hard to get most people to exercise sufficiently and eat right despite its positive impacts on their long term health, I just can't see most people making significant changes to combat AGW despite the long term environmental and economic risks of AGW.

Climate change is hard so we shouldn't do anything about it...?

 

[Nilly]

Climate change is up to individuals...not the government.

And the balanced budget is NOT up to individuals after the election. The masses cannot force governments to balance budgets...they can only threaten to not vote for them if they don't balance it. The politicians are directly responsible for the fiscal budgets...not the masses.

But climate change is ALL about the masses. They can economically boycott corporations that do not clean up their act. They can buy only products that are better for the environment. They can drive less and walk/ride more.
Politicians can do little. Look at Kyoto? Big hoopla...hardly any change in the end.
If the masses truly want climate change to stop - only they can truly stop it.

If you wait for politicians to stop it, you are naive. Because I guarantee you they won't.

Consumers have little say over the source of their energy production. Electric generation and the vehicles people operate are the largest contributors to CO2 emissions on a global scales. This is not a single nation problem, it's a collective world problem. Even if the U.S. could determine it's emissions by simple consumer choice, the U.S. only contributes about 15% of total global emissions. What is required is a globalized effort by all industrialized and emerging economies to change the way energy is produced and utilized. That means governments, not individual people must act.

Great point. Where I am there is only one utility company available to me. APS. They're a private company and I have no say in how they choose to generate their electricity, beyond my vote.

 

[Howler63]

It's not even in my BOTTOM 5.

 

[Nilly]

It's not even in my BOTTOM 5.

I don't think you thought that statement through.

 

[haymarket]

My top 5 deal mostly with if there is a future for us as a people

*** global warming which means the future of the very planet we live on
*** finding a place for everyone to work and be productive in the 21st century in a world where more and more and more people simply become unnecessary for our economy with each passing decade
*** bridging the income gap in America and shoring up the middle class
*** raising taxes so we begin paying for what we are spending from out children and grandchildren futures
*** defeating terrorism decisively

 

[antiquity]

Since it is your number one priority, have you given any thought as to what could be done to actually stop climate change from happening? If so, I would like to know what you have come up with.

Climate change, formal know as Globally warming, will never be solved until countries like China and India, for example, do something about it first. The world's prevailing winds from those countries are the US biggest threat. The fact is the air quality in the US is probably the best it has been in about 50 years.

Los Angles today... Decrease in smog helps Los Angeles children breathe easier, study says

Long-running study published in New England Journal of Medicine shows that exposure to particulates has decreased dramatically in the past 20 years

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/04/los-angeles-smog-children-lung-development-study

 

[Howler63]

I don't think you thought that statement through.

Well thought out. Out of all the things I care about....this isn't even on the list.

 

[Nilly]

Climate change, formal know as Globally warming, will never be solved until countries like China and India, for example, do something about it first. The world's prevailing winds from those countries are the US biggest threat. The fact is the air quality in the US is probably the best it has been in about 50 years.

Los Angles today... Decrease in smog helps Los Angeles children breathe easier, study says

Long-running study published in New England Journal of Medicine shows that exposure to particulates has decreased dramatically in the past 20 years

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/04/los-angeles-smog-children-lung-development-study

India and China are massive threats when it comes to climate change, yes. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything about it first. The US is a world leader, an example to others. We start down a path and other countries will follow suit.

We can say that India and China should do something first, but they're saying the exact same thing about us. Someone needs to step up, and my voice isn't heard in India or China.

 

[antiquity]

India and China are massive threats when it comes to climate change, yes. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything about it first. The US is a world leader, an example to others. We start down a path and other countries will follow suit.

We can say that India and China should do something first, but they're saying the exact same thing about us. Someone needs to step up, and my voice isn't heard in India or China.

I guess you failed to see the study I posted by the New England Journal of Medicine shows that exposure to particulates has decreased dramatically in the past 20 years in the US.

Maybe your voice is heard by why isn't Obama's?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...E81FDB99BCA2D154241FE81FDB99BCA2D15&FORM=VIRE