Is climate change in your top 5 areas of concern?

[ALiberalModerate]

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

More like climate change is hard so we probably won't do anything of substance about. This is particularly true when you consider we have a political party that doesn't even recognize the problem.

 

[Nilly]

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

Reducing smog in LA isn't really contiguous with tackling our nationwide energy supply and demand.

More like climate change is hard so we probably won't do anything of substance about. This is particularly true when you consider we have a political party that doesn't even recognize the problem.

So lets try to change that. I can certainly understand you feeling that it won't be changed, and I can understand the pragmatism behind it. But unless climate it's a higher priority of people like you (i.e. in your top 5), then it won't be of any priority to our politicians.

The politicians priorities (should) mirror the peoples.

 

[antiquity]

Reducing smog in LA isn't really contiguous with tackling our nationwide energy supply and demand.

Simple...stop driving or heating your home. Problem solved.

 

[antiquity]

So lets try to change that. I can certainly understand you feeling that it won't be changed, and I can understand the pragmatism behind it. But unless climate it's a higher priority of people like you (i.e. in your top 5), then it won't be of any priority to our politicians.

The politicians priorities (should) mirror the peoples.

 

[Howler63]

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.

I giggled at this. Well done.

 

[Nilly]

Which is why we have to shift the people's perceptions.

My comment wasn't to suggest that because nobody cares about climate change politicians shouldn't tackle it. It was to suggest that (unfortunately) in order to get politicians to tackle climate change we'll need to raise awareness of it in the public sphere.

Maybe a better word in brackets in my last post instead of 'should' would have been 'typically'.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

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.



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

You have your main area of concern, I have mine. I don't see why everyone needs to be on the same page and have the same concerns and priorities. As long as nothing is neglected for the sake of something else - as long as we have people looking out for these different areas of concern - we'll be fine in the end.

 

[Josie]

Irretrievable damage to habitability and survival of the USA =/= ending humanity. As for human civilization, that's a threat that would only present itself a long way down the road (if at all). In all likelihood, it'll be pretty easy for the majority for people like us in rich countries to deal with climate change. The issue is really there for the other 6bn people on the planet.

Climate change very much will lead to irretrievable damage to habitability around the world. Floods and droughts are already making sure of that.

I'll believe it when the people fear-mongering about the dangers of man-made global warming actually show me that they actually believe what they're saying.

 

[Josie]

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.

I'm not implying it at all --- and neither is Al Gore. He's explicitly saying it.

 

[Nilly]

You have your main area of concern, I have mine. I don't see why everyone needs to be on the same page and have the same concerns and priorities. As long as nothing is neglected for the sake of something else - as long as we have people looking out for these different areas of concern - we'll be fine in the end.

Well, from the bottom of my heart I would urge you to reassess the threat posed to us by various issues, but I appreciate your reasoning and final sentiment.

 

[USViking]

I voted NO.

My Top 5 in approximate order of concern, highest to lowest, are:

Militant Islam
Russia
China
Syria
Zika and other possible new diseases

Donald Trump will make the list if he gets elected.

 

[Nilly]

I'll believe it when the people fear-mongering about the dangers of man-made global warming actually how me that they actually believe what they're saying.

I'm not implying it at all --- and neither is Al Gore. He's explicitly saying it.

Listen to the science. The climate experts, who's models since 1992 have been correct to within 3%.

I, and most scientists, don't care if you believe mankind is going to go extinct or not. That is all speculation. That we are changing our climate at an unprecedented rate and that it carries an extremely large risk to human and animal life is what we know, and is what we want to prevent.

 

[Josie]

Listen to the science. The climate experts, who's models since 1992 have been correct to within 3%.

I, and most scientists, don't care if you believe mankind is going to go extinct or not. That is all speculation. That we are changing our climate at an unprecedented rate and that it carries an extremely large risk to human and animal life is what we know, and is what we want to prevent.

What are you doing to stop it?

 

[Russell797]

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?

All life on Earth will die due to global warming, but not due to AGW. The ageing Sun will see to that.

The IPCC does not say or even imply that humanity is threatened with extinction due to AGW.

Most of those quotes are comments taken out of context to imply they refer to AGW when they do not or the quotes are being misrepresented, like the one claiming a 5% chance of humans going extinct in the next hundred years. That means a 95% chance they will not. We may go extinct within the next 100 years but not because the globally averaged temperature increases by 2-4C degrees or even 6C degrees. People would live comfortably in Canada and Siberia in areas currently not suitable.

 

[Nilly]

What are you doing to stop it?

I posted what I would like done in post 41, and have already said how I believe that the govt is the best way to handle this problem (and why I think that).

In terms of personally. I eat meat substitutes where available (I grew up veggie, and whilst some stuff like bacon can't be faked, chicken definitely can - I also support lab grown meat), carpool and take public transport where possible (kinda hard in AZ, Phoenix has the light rail but it only goes west/east). When I lived in London I would use the tube all the time. I work closely with solar companies (my roomate works for first solar so I've extended some business lines through him). An Americans carbon footprint is almost always bigger than someone from another countries so it's only small things we can do on a personal level.

Finally, I vote green. Attitude towards climate change is probably the biggest predictor of my vote. If Trump switched his stance to combatting it and Hillary went vice versa I'd be severely tempted to switch (I'd probs further consider stein too)

 

[Russell797]

What are you doing to stop it?

Individual efforts are nice and collectively would make a difference, but if the world does not drastically reduce dependence upon fossil fuels for electrical generation and transportation then individual efforts have the effect of spitting into the wind.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So lets try to change that. I can certainly understand you feeling that it won't be changed, and I can understand the pragmatism behind it. But unless climate it's a higher priority of people like you (i.e. in your top 5), then it won't be of any priority to our politicians.

The politicians priorities (should) mirror the peoples.

I live on the Kansas side of the KC metro. I doubt most of the politicians that represent me even accept evolution, so good luck with them and AGW.

 

[Painter]

I voted NO.

My Top 5 in approximate order of concern, highest to lowest, are:

Militant Islam
Russia
China
Syria
Zika and other possible new diseases

Donald Trump will make the list if he gets elected.

/respect to you for being Conservative and knowing Trump belongs on that list.

 

[Harshaw]

I will put it in the top 5 when coastal property values start dropping.

 

[LaylaWindu]

I didn't answer because it varies on how specific i make my list. If my list is broad then it makes the list if its more specific thn no it gets pushed off the top 5.

1.) Economy (Healthcare/ infrastructure/ education/ fiscal matters I think these very much tie together)
2.) constitution and civil rights
3.) Foreign Policy, Military, National security
4.) environment and energy
5.) political side show

 

[Fletch]

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

From wiki:


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.

Actually I am not going to critique your plan. What I am going to do is thank you for posting it. I cant tell you how many times I have asked that question and received no response, so I appreciate the effort and the honesty on your part. The only thing I would say is that implementing what you suggest would take years, perhaps decades and only impact the US. The rest of the world would go on polluting to their hearts content. So while your goals may be laudable, the results would be negligible.

 

[Russell797]

I'm not implying it at all --- and neither is Al Gore. He's explicitly saying it.

Al Gore said humans will go extinct as a consequence of AGW? I don't think so. Even if he did, such a statement is not supported by science.

 

[Hawkeye10]

NO in the political sense and NO in joining the "WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING" freakout, because we dont know squat and we have a lot of pressing problems at the moment.....but this could be big. I worry what my grandkids will be facing by the time they die. I sometimes worry about how they will die, how unpleasent it might be (starvation, lack of oxygen or lack of water).

Great thread idea, I wonder why we here at DP dont talk about climate change and the politics around it a whole lot more than we do.

I mean, there has to be interest.

RIGHT?

:neutral:

 

[Nilly]

Actually I am not going to critique your plan. What I am going to do is thank you for posting it. I cant tell you how many times I have asked that question and received no response, so I appreciate the effort and the honesty on your part. The only thing I would say is that implementing what you suggest would take years, perhaps decades and only impact the US. The rest of the world would go on polluting to their hearts content. So while your goals may be laudable, the results would be negligible.

I appreciate that, and I agree that it would take decades. That's why we need to start sooner rather than later, before things potentially get really bad. As for other countries, yes I agree, but I posted this earlier:

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.

Part of the reason why international treaties and summits are failing to address the issue is because no-one is willing to take that first step. By no means do I think this is an easy problem to solve.

One thing that I think more people disagree with, is that I think the entire national pride thing of being number 1 economy or whatever is worth jack if the world is falling to pieces. I have no issue with our economy falling behind China or whatever if we're at least trying to tackle the problem. Maybe because I'm from the UK originally that factors into it but as long as American's are still employed then it doesn't matter to me what our GDP is.

Finally, I can understand your frustration with many people who do believe in climate change being fear mongers or whatever. I implore you to compartmentalize the people who are clearly fear mongering away from the people who are trying to actually raise awareness of the issues. To actually listen to the scientists and experts who have put their lives work into this. I know I said that I put environment before economy, but this isn't out of a secret agenda to let China overtake the US. It's out of genuine concern for our planet, other people, ourselves and our children. It's through rational dialogue that we're having that we can begin to solve the problem. It's not something we can fix individually.

EDIT: I would also add that most 'sensible' people that advocate doing something about climate change do not suggest that we cut off all 'environmentally bad' things. Even in an ideal green world, we'd still use planes that use oil as fuel simply because that's the most efficient way of doing things. Cutting our own legs off to save the environment is not a solution. Humanity will always have a carbon footprint. What we need to do is to find a balance between what's simply convenient and what is less impactful to the environment. Look at Tesla, for example. Elon Musk understands that if electric cars are to be successful, you can't compromise on the rest of the vehicle, which is why the Model X has won so many awards for being an all around great car. The drive must be towards implementing green technologies as easily and naturally as possible.

 

[Nilly]

No in the political sense or "WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING" freakout, because we dont know squat and we have a lot of pressing problems at the moment.....but this could be big. I worry what my grandkids will be facing by the time they die. I sometimes worry about how they will die, how unpleasent it might be (starvation, lack of oxygen or lack of water).

Great thread idea, I wonder why we here at DP dont talk about climate change and the politics around it a whole lot more than we do.

I mean, there has to be interest.

RIGHT?

:neutral:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/environment-and-climate-issues/

There's a forum dedicated to environmental and climate issues, but personally I don't post in it too much because it's full of the same people throwing insults back and forth. I generally step up when climate threads show up in 'mainstream' forums because that's when you get an audience with the people who are less swayed on the issue and are less set in their ways.