ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Exile009 wrote:

Actually, both India and China are already set to exceed their climate pledges (yes, they have climate change targets as well) - http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/15/india-china-track-exceed-paris-climate-pledges/

I am personally talking about having everyone follow the same strict guidelines, not allowing China, India ect to get exemptions, and then set their own guidelines.

If the world (as we know it) is going to end, then the only solution I see is to create very strict guidelines, and then enforce them by any means necessary.

And Scrotie, your plans sounds great, but how do we force every other country to get on board? Having the USA (and a few others) do a good plan is nice, but everyone has to follow the plan, not just the USA.

Damn, messed up with quoting, sorry for repost...

---

There are two completely separate things that you need to believe about "climate change" (funny how it's not "global warming" anymore, its like they try to be as generic as possible :)

1.) You need to believe that global warming is mostly caused by peoplekind and not a natural fluctuation (ice age/warm period).

2.) Then you need to believe that the proposed UN political solutions will actually help in any way and are not just a globalist socialist re-distribution scam.

Since I'm not a scientist, I give 1.) the benefit of the doubt and assume it's mostly true. But I get logically stuck at 2.)

If the danger was so real and imminent, then China and India (that's like 3 billion people combined) would not get such an easy deal. China would be treated for what it is: a developed country, like USA, and the second biggest world economy. India has a space program and a nuclear arms race, but at the same time they are "poor 3rd world" according to the UN and need help, funding, special treatment...

There would also be calls for programs that would try to limit the growth of populations in the 3rd world. But there is no such thing. So, I'm expected to believe that "global warmee is an imminent planetary catastrophe, but at the same time we need to bring 10.000.000.000 people into the 1st world middle class and give them laptops and cars... yeah, no.

I'm also expected to believe that we should ignore nuclear energy, with silly windmills and crappy solar panels being enough to power the gaming rigs for 10 billion people playing path of Exile 5 in 2100.

EDIT:
Another point. The same leftists who believe in the Paris accord and global warming, also believe that populations in the West need to grow (with immigration): Influential Liberal advisers want Canadian population to triple by 2100

So people who believe in global warming, limiting & taxing carbon emissions, etc.. don't want to find an equilibrium to growth, but want the populations of the 1st world (= 1st world consumption) to increase. Yeah, call me skeptic...

Multiple mistakes in your post Morbo.

First, those "people" aren't all the same. Believe it or not, there's opposition to the idea of increased population.

Second, it's not because X does not do something that you shouldn't do it. If you have to wait for someone else to do something, then you are looking at complete stagnation and that benefit no one, especially in a context where doing nothing = complete doom.

China should be doing a lot more than it currently does to combat pollution, I don't think you'll see anyone arguing otherwise. Same goes for India. The thing though, is that both of those country are being in term of technology, especially India. Helping them develop/implement greener technologies to reduce pollution helps EVERYONE on the planet. Pollution, especially air pollution, is a global thing. Water pollution too but it's slower. Ground pollution is the only one that can be localized but even then, it often leaks into water pollution and can become global too. Thus, it is far better to concentrate efforts on these countries. That said, you are correct that there should be serious economic sanctions implemented against heavy polluters. The reason there's not is that economists have a bigger impact on decision making than ecologists. Making money is somehow seen as more important than making sure we can stay alive in 100 years, it's a terrifying mindset...


Solar and wind power are both far more efficient than you give it credit for. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/8/17084158/wind-turbine-power-energy-blades

Solar can be installed everywhere. A city that would have solar panels on all of it's rooftops would generate a LOT of electricity at very low cost. Solar also has a huge amount of potential for improvement as it's current conversion efficiency is around 15%. Nuclear energy has it's own set of problems. It's extremely costly to build, it's huge, it creates waste that is extremely dangerous, needs very high quality of workers and always has a risk of catastrophic failure.

PS, the term climate change was born because global warming does not just mean increased temperature. It's destabilizing climate as we've known it for millenias. Hurricanes/tornadoes are stronger than ever, flooding is happening in areas that never had it, drought are happening in a alarming pace, forest fires are more common than ever and the arctic closed environment is disappearing, with its extremely cold temperature being sent down. It's why it was changed.

Here is how much China is "like the U.S."....

Learn some basics, before making any plans for war, ok ?


https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

Maybe you take a look at some other countries, too.
If you look around the world, lots of countries cannot even pay for their own security...

"

faerwin wrote:

you are correct that there should be serious economic sanctions implemented against heavy polluters.

The point is the aims must be realistic. It needs some time, effort and money to change your energy supply to non-fossile and non-nuclear (lots of radioactive waste for thousands of years, nono) energy. Energy networks cost money, pumped storage power plants as well and so on. Not every country can do that fast, if there is too little international support (https://climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/GCF%20and%20Paris%20Brief%202016.new_.pdf).

Sanctions would be counter-productive if the aims for a specific country are not realistic.

So unless that happens: different aims, different pace.

But those who have the money, should make this a priority. Btw to a huge extent they have the money because they are industrialized and contributed most to the atmospheric CO2 over the years.

I don´t see how anyone can not understand that. It is a little frustrating , I have to admit.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

All I know is how to dig holes in the ground, manage ppl, deal with city hall and a bit about geo politics. Not fucking science

To know something about geo politics means to know science. About geo politics. One of the most complicated things there is in human relations. Thanks for the insights though.

Understanding that global climatic cycles are ongoing and inevitable, the whole conceit that, right now, humankind is somehow influencing those cycles in any meaningful way is laughable on its face. That said, there will eventually be warmer periods and ice ages to come. The problem is to know which will be next, how soon it will come, and if human society as we know it will be able to cope with it.

This business of "offsets" and "carbon credits" is just climate profiteering. ='[.]'=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Understanding that global climatic cycles are ongoing and inevitable, the whole conceit that, right now, humankind is somehow influencing those cycles in any meaningful way is laughable on its face.

It´s either science or stupidity. You may choose.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html

If too many people decide they want to listen to ignorant echo chambers, humanity is done.

edited. Don't want to be rude.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"

faerwin wrote:

Pollution, especially air pollution, is a global thing. Water pollution too but it's slower.

I certainly agree on pollution. The thing is that westerners (esp. we in Europe) already have strict anti-pollution legislation and we are in the process of going more and more toward "green" energy. But iirc the Paris accord gives a complete pass until 2030 to China to do whatever they want. The argument "West polluted 40 years ago" is irrelevant, because now it's supposed to be an emergency. The agreement is also non-binding (iirc), so what's all the fuss of Trump bailing out? In the end it might turn out no one (except maybe EU / Canada) will respect the terms.

Believe it or not I'm actually an environmentalist, I'm just not buying the UN "solutions". I think that combating pollution (air, water, sea, soil), soil depletion (due to mono-culture farming), deforestation, etc... are all more important than profit margins of global capitalism. I support environmental conservation over "GDP" and the fanaticism of "infinite capital growth".

But what is driving all this pollution? It's consumerism. It's people going on vacation on the other side of the planet 3X per year. It's buying a new iPhone every year. It's urbanization and people migrating to cities. It's behaving like zombified pigs, eating ourselves into an early grave & "fixing" ourselves with drugs. It's also women in Africa having 7 kids on average, while they could maybe only afford one. And then they need to be saved with foreign help - medicine, food, education, jobs...

It's the consumerist lifestyle (I want cheap crap and I want it now) + profit margins, that is driving production from the 1st world, into the 3rd where they can pollute all they want. And rabid consumerism cannot be legislated, it can only be rejected consciously by each individual. Enough people consciously tuning down their opulent lifestyle can do more about pollution than any UN agency.

---

But global population growth and the idea that everyone needs to reach western style living, is what will prevent any real changes, imo. Despite new technologies being worked on and implemented (not fast enough), it will still be cheaper to run on fossil fuel, until we squeeze every last drop of oil and coal. You have billions of people that are technologically and socially behind the western civilization and for the foreseeable future they wont be able to afford "clean" energy. Nor will they feel the need to.

There are people, cultures & political systems that don't give a damn about environmental conservation, not even on a local level. India is a stinking dumpster with garbage lying and floating around. Ditto Africa & meso-america. The Chinese regime in their haste to catch up with the West, has poisoned everything they can - rivers, lakes, soil, city air. You have communities that don't bother removing the trash infront of their noses. Expecting such people to care about the environment on an even more abstract global level, is futile imo.