192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 06:08 am
@neptuneblue,
Ive always preached the common sense experience that environmental regulations were a job creator. These studies join the ranks of earlier similarly concluding works.
Regs have always promoted entirely new fields. Most of my applied science businss has been in response to mining regs, put into ffect in the Nixon years in which a steady growth of about 1% a year. Combine that with new scientific "bucket chemical ngineering and design" .Thats been going on pretty steadily for the last 40 years.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  5  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 06:30 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Not at all. The only solution that climate lunatics will accept is the destruction of the American economy. Not True...

Having other countries shoulder a fair portion of the burden is not acceptable to them. Try looking at the U.S....

Offsetting fossil fuels with nuclear power is not acceptable to them. Because it creates toxic waste which has a new set of problems...

Research into putting sunlight-blocking particles into the upper atmosphere is not acceptable to them. You seem to forget we globally survive on sunlight...

It is pretty clear what their real goals are. It's pretty clear that doing nothing is not an answer...


Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change
Glenn Althor, James E. M. Watson & Richard A. Fuller
Scientific Reports volume 6, Article number: 20281 (2016)

Abstract
Countries export much of the harm created by their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because the Earth’s atmosphere intermixes globally. Yet, the extent to which this leads to inequity between GHG emitters and those impacted by the resulting climate change depends on the distribution of climate vulnerability. Here, we determine empirically the relationship between countries’ GHG emissions and their vulnerability to negative effects of climate change. In line with the results of other studies, we find an enormous global inequality where 20 of the 36 highest emitting countries are among the least vulnerable to negative impacts of future climate change. Conversely, 11 of the 17 countries with low or moderate GHG emissions, are acutely vulnerable to negative impacts of climate change. In 2010, only 28 (16%) countries had an equitable balance between emissions and vulnerability. Moreover, future emissions scenarios show that this inequality will significantly worsen by 2030. Many countries are manifestly free riders causing others to bear a climate change burden, which acts as a disincentive for them to mitigate their emissions. It is time that this persistent and worsening climate inequity is resolved, and for the largest emitting countries to act on their commitment of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Introduction
The current generation is the first to feel the effects of anthropogenic climate change1,2. Despite their well-known harmful impacts to the world’s climate system1,3, greenhouse gases (GHG) are deliberately emitted by countries to drive economic growth and enhance human wellbeing4. Spatially localised environmental issues, such as city air pollution5, may result from high GHG emissions, but the most damaging and long lasting consequence, that of global climate change6, is not constrained within the border of the emitting country1. Rather, by polluting the Earth’s atmosphere with GHG emissions through fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and agricultural activities, emitting countries are degrading the world’s climate system, a common resource shared by all biodiversity, including people7,8.

Because the impacts of GHG emissions can be felt beyond a country’s border, and the impacts of climate change on countries are highly variable, there is potential for some emitters to contribute more or less to the causes of climate change than is proportionate to their vulnerability to its effects9,10,11. This inequity has not gone unnoticed in international climate negotiations or global reporting1,3. As far back as 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) committed to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, in which countries have a common responsibility in reducing GHG emissions, but historic emissions and differences in current development levels mean that countries have different levels of emissions reduction obligations9. Both of the previous IPCC Assessment Reports have acknowledged the inequity in the causes and effects of climate change1,12 although operationalising the principle has proved difficult13. This is primarily because developing and developed countries continue to disagree over the extent of each other’s responsibilities13,14. One major impediment to resolving such debates is a poor quantitative understanding of the magnitude of the global inequity in emissions and impacts. ‘Free rider’ countries contribute disproportionately to global GHG emissions with only limited vulnerability to the effects of the resulting climate change, while ‘forced rider’ countries are most vulnerable to climate change but have contributed little to its genesis15,16. This is an issue of environmental equity on a truly global scale17.

Here, we measure the current pattern of global climate change equity, and assess whether the situation will improve or worsen by 2030, using data on GHG emissions17 and newly available national climate change vulnerability assessments18. We address the lack of a contemporary, qualitative assessment of global climate equity that incorporates key variables. Previous studies have been limited to CO2 emissions datasets, omitting the most potent and long lasting GHGs1,6,16, and used vulnerability variables that do not capture the complexity of climate change threats, and cannot be forecasted. Here, we use the most recently available datasets based on comprehensive national vulnerability assessments and comprehensive GHG emissions data to produce an easily replicable snapshot of the relationship between countries’ GHG emissions and their vulnerability to the negative effects of climate change17,18, and forecast this to 2030. We employ economic metrics, the Gini and Robin Hood coefficients19, to quantify the present level of equity in GHG emissions. Only through a proper empirical understanding of the pattern of climate equity now, and how it will change in the near future, can signatories of the UNFCCC make meaningful progress toward resolving the inequity in the burden of climate change impacts.

Results
Greenhouse gas emissions are spread highly unevenly across the world’s countries (Fig. 1), with the top ten GHG emitting countries generating >60% of total emissions, and three countries, China (21.1%), the United States of America (14.1%) and India (5.2%) being by far the largest contributors. A Gini coefficient of 80.9 indicated extreme inequality in the distribution of emissions among countries, given that the index can only vary between 0 (perfectly even responsibility) and 100 (one country responsible for all emissions)19. A Robin Hood index of 64 indicated that 64% of GHG emissions would need to be redistributed to achieve an even distribution among countries19. Vulnerability to the impacts of climate change was also unevenly spread among countries, with 17 countries acutely vulnerable to climate change impacts in 2010 (Fig. 2). The majority of these were island countries located in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans (n = 7, 35.3%) and African countries (n = 8, 47%). By 2030 the number of acutely vulnerable countries is predicted to rise dramatically (n = 62; Fig. 2), and the majority of these will again be island (n = 20, 32.8%) and African (n = 27, 44.2%) countries.

Countries least vulnerable to the impacts of climate change were generally the highest GHG emitters, and conversely those most vulnerable to climate change were the least responsible for its genesis. This inequity held true for both 2010 and 2030, with a negative relationship between emissions and climate vulnerability in both years (2010: ρ = −0.4, n = 175, p = 0; 2030: ρ = −0.37, n = 175, p = 0). The only exception is in 2030, where countries acutely vulnerable to climate change will have slightly higher average emissions than those in the severe category (2030: severe = 48.83 mtCO2e, acute = 103.13 mtCO2e).

In 2010, of the 179 countries assessed, 28 (15.6%) were in the same quintile for GHG emissions and vulnerability to the negative impacts of climate change. This indicates that their vulnerability to climate change approximately matched their relative contribution to its genesis (Fig. 1). Ninety countries (50.3%) had GHG emissions in a higher quintile than their 2010 climate vulnerability, and 20 (11.2%) countries were free riders, with GHG emissions in the highest quintile and climate vulnerability in the lowest quintile (Fig. 1; see Supplementary Table S4 online). Sixty-one (34%) countries had GHG emissions in a lower quintile than their climate vulnerability, and six (3.4%) countries were forced riders, with GHG emissions in the lowest quintile and climate vulnerability in the highest quintile (Comoros, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu; see Supplementary Table S4 online).

By 2030, climate change inequity will rise further, with an increase in the proportion of countries that are forced riders (n = 20; 11.2%), but fewer free riders (n = 16; 8.9%) and equitable countries (n = 23; 12.8%; see Supplementary Table S4 online). Free riders are typically located in the world’s sub-tropical and temperate regions, while forced riders are frequently located in tropical regions (Fig. 1).

Greenhouse gas emissions were positively correlated with GDP (2010: ρ = 0.84, n = 175, p = 0; Fig. 2c), while climate vulnerability declined with increasing GDP (2010: ρ = −0.69, n = 175, p = 0; 2030: ρ = −0.65, n = 175, p = 0; Fig. 2d). Our analysis considers the absolute contribution of each country to climate change, but we also examined climate change equity in per capita terms to provide a more complete picture of emissions responsibilities. The patterns were broadly similar, with, for example, Australia, Russia and the United States of America remaining free riders (see Supplementary Fig. S3 online). However, several populous major emitters (e.g. United Kingdom, China, and Brazil) were no longer categorised as free riders.

Discussion
Climate change inequity is globally pervasive, and correlated with economic output. Some countries, such as China and the United States of America, are in a win-win position of achieving economic growth through fossil fuel use with few consequences from the resulting climate change, while many other, mostly Island and African, countries suffer low economic growth and severe, negative climate change impacts (see Supplementary Table S4 online). The beneficiaries of this climate inequity have few incentives to meaningfully reduce or halt their GHG emissions. Despite many of the broad issues around climate equity being well known well-funded global mechanisms that are being implemented still do not exist. This has serious consequences for our ability to slow the rate of climate change, and reduce the wellbeing implications for forced rider countries.

There are several global policy frameworks currently being debated that could address elements of the problem. The Paris Agreement20, secured at the 21st UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP21), for example, sets an ambitious target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. However, the 160 indicative nationally determined contributions (INDCs) pledges submitted by signatories to the UNFCCC prior to COP2121, indicate that current targets for GHG emissions are unlikely to limit warming to below 2°C22 With no binding agreement established at COP21 for INDCs, there is no clear indication of how successful the Paris Agreement will be20. Addressing GHG emissions is clearly an important first step in ensuring the burden of climate change is not amplified in the future. However, the historic commitment to GHG emissions reduction by key free riders has been slow. Only 50 countries ratified the previous Doha Amendment to the Kyoto protocol, which did not include key free riders such as the United States and Russia23. Furthermore, some countries have actually backtracked on their commitments to emissions reductions (e.g. Canada and Australia)24,25.

Likewise, the Paris Agreement calls for urgent and adequate financing of US$100 billion per year by 2020 for climate mitigation and adaptation through the Financial Mechanism of the Convention (FMC)20. However, there is no legally binding mechanism under which parties are responsible for providing this funding. History suggests such funding goals are not always met. For example, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) was established in 2010 under the UNFCCC to mobilise funding support for the least developed countries that are most vulnerable to climate change, yet it remains poorly funded, with only US$10.2 billion received in pledges by November 201526. Addressing these issues around climate funding will play a critical role in addressing climate inequity27.

Conclusion
It is clear climate change inequity must be addressed. If the commitment to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities that was widely accepted early on in the UNFCCC is to be acted upon, member states now need to do much more to hold climate free riders to account. To ensure equitable outcomes from climate negotiations, there needs to be a meaningful mobilization of policies, such as the Paris Agreement, that achieve national level emissions reductions, and to ensure the vulnerable forced-rider countries are able to adapt rapidly to climate change. The provisioning of these policy mechanisms will require a distribution of resources and responsibilities and we believe our results provide one way to understand where these responsibilities lie. The Paris Agreement may be a significant step forward in global climate negotiations. However, as the Agreement’s key policies are yet to be realized, member states have both an exceptional opportunity and a moral impetus to use these results to address climate change equity in a meaningful manner.

Methods
We quantified climate change equity, defined as the distribution of climate change benefits and burdens, using data from two publicly available datasets and national GDP data. National level data sets suffer from some weaknesses such as a lack of accounting for sub-national variability and scaling. Nonetheless, they are still highly useful as global metrics as they provide aggregated assessments at the national level, which is the most meaningful for international policy negotiations.

We extracted data on national vulnerability to the negative impacts of climate change from DARA’s Climate Vulnerability Monitor (CVM)18. The CVM uses 22 climate vulnerability indicators across four impact areas (Environmental Disasters, Habitat Change, Health Impact, and Industry Stress) to evaluate the vulnerability of 184 countries to climate change impacts for the years 2010 and 2030. Each of the 22 indicators is individually aggregated from various data sources and models and then combined to determine a country’s overall climate vulnerability, measured by impact to share of GDP and mortality (as these impacts are comparable across the wide range of countries). The CVM calculates vulnerability projections for 2030 using human population growth, mortality and GDP predictions. The CVM uses five vulnerability categories (low, medium, high, severe and acute) which are determined using a mean absolute standard deviation method18. The CVM categories do not of course capture the full complexity of national climate vulnerability, as capturing this would require an impractical degree of data. However, we consider the 22 indicators used by the CVM as capturing a high enough level of complexity to provide a meaningful approximation of national vulnerability.

Data on GHG emissions (by countries) were exported from the World Resource Institute’s (WRI) Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT)17, a database of national and international GHG emissions derived from multiple sources. The CAIT data set compiles data for the six main GHG gasses (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)) from 185 countries over the period from 1990–2012. We used the 2010 data for this study to match the CVM vulnerability data. The WRI compiled GHG data from UNFCCC reports and complemented with data from several NGO sources17, including emissions data from six major sectors (Land Use Change & Forestry, Energy, Industrial Processes, Agriculture, Waste, and International Bunkers) and several subsectors. The CAIT data set reports at the national level, however we extrapolated per capita emissions results by dividing data by 2010 and 2030 population data from the World Bank28 (see Supplementary Table S4 online).

We excluded the ten countries (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Montenegro, Nauru, Niue, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Serbia, Somalia and Taiwan) with data missing in any dataset, and 179 remained for analysis. In addition, there were also insufficient data available for many of the world’s island and archipelagic countries. Given the negligible GHG emissions and high climate change vulnerability of such countries, the majority are highly likely to qualify as climate forced riders29,30 and as such, we expect that climate forced rider countries are likely underrepresented in our results. National GDP (measured in Current US$) was extracted from the World Bank Group28, who measure GDP as the gross value of all resident producers in an economy plus taxes.

We created a Lorenz curve to represent the variation of GHG emissions among countries using the CAIT dataset, and calculated the Gini index to measure inequity in GHG emissions among countries, and the Robin hood index to measure how much of the total global emissions would have to be redistributed to achieve equity among countries (see Supplementary Fig. S2 online).

We compared the CAIT GHG data and the CVM vulnerability data both in 2010 and 2030 to assess whether the most heavily polluting countries were also those least vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. We divided the CAIT GHG emissions into quintiles, matching the CVM data, to enhance comparability between the datasets and enable visualisation of climate equity in the recent past (2010) and near future (2030). We placed the emissions quintiles on a scale between the highest (acute emissions) and the lowest (low emissions) emitting countries. We also tested the correlations between GHG emissions and GDP against vulnerability to climate change by treating vulnerability categories as ordinal data and undertaking spearman’s rho tests using R statistical software31. R has a computational limitation for p-values lower than 2.2e-16, as such, where values this small were reported we wrote “p = 0”. Additionally, we counted countries in each CVM category and compared them between each time period.

In common with other studies of inequity in climate change32, we used terminology from the economics literature to define ‘free riders’ and ‘forced riders’33, recognising that a strict definition of these terms often applies only to situations where one agent’s use of a resource does not directly incur a cost to another agent. We define climate free riders as those countries in the ‘acute’ GHG emissions quintile and the ‘low’ vulnerability category, as they disproportionately receive benefits from climate change (via the national wellbeing generated by GHG emissions) but pay few costs in the sense they are the least vulnerable to negative climate change effects34,35. Conversely, we define climate forced riders as those countries that fall within the ‘acute’ vulnerability category and the ‘low’ GHG emissions quintile, as they are the most susceptible to the negative consequences of climate change but receive the least benefits. Those countries that we define as equitable, fall in the same emissions quintile and vulnerability category (for example, low emissions quintile, low vulnerability category), as their emissions benefits are concomitant with their climate change burden.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 06:38 am
Quote:
The former Republican US presidential candidate and incoming senator for Utah Mitt Romney has launched a scathing attack on Donald Trump, saying he has caused dismay around the world.

Writing in the Washington Post, he said Mr Trump had not "risen to the mantle" of the presidency.

Mr Romney has been fiercely critical of Mr Trump before but won his backing for his run in Utah.

There has been no response yet from the US president.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46734423

More at link.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 08:17 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
Not True...
It is true. They oppose every option other than a crippling setback to the US economy.

neptuneblue wrote:
Because it creates toxic waste which has a new set of problems...
Except, it doesn't. Climate lunatics insist that we treat valuable fuel as waste instead of using it to fuel reactors.

If we stop treating fuel as waste and actually start consuming it, then we don't need to worry about how to dispose of it.

The supposed "problem" of nuclear waste is a fake issue that climate lunatics created to prevent nuclear reactors from being used to stop climate change. They want to use climate change as a weapon to coerce us into destroying our economy, and solving the problem would take their weapon away from them.

neptuneblue wrote:
You seem to forget we globally survive on sunlight...
The idea is to block just enough sunlight to bring the temperature back to normal.

Humanity could actually use the practice, because the sun is going to get larger and hotter as it ages. Our descendants will need to block a lot more sunlight than we will. Eventually we'll be forced to leave the planet altogether, but I anticipate that we'll try to stay and block out the sun for as long as possible.

neptuneblue wrote:
It's pretty clear that doing nothing is not an answer...
Too bad. Because unless we are allowed to pursue an option other than crippling the US economy, we're going to do nothing.

Well, we'll pursue renewables as much as possible. But we certainly won't rein in our energy consumption. Any shortfalls in renewable supplies will be made up by consuming fossil fuels.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 08:31 am
Quote:
Former Cuban President Raul Castro has accused the US of returning to its policy of confrontation.

Mr Castro, who is still head of Cuba's ruling Communist Party, was speaking on the 60th anniversary of the revolution led by his brother, Fidel.

He urged Cubans to prepare for all scenarios to defend their independence and said the revolution "had not aged".

The Castro brothers, first Fidel and then Raul, ruled the country between 1959 and 2018.

Raul Castro handed over the Cuban presidency to Miguel Diaz-Canel early last year.

Relations between Cuba and the US thawed under the Obama administration but President Donald Trump has taken a harder line.

In 2017, Mr Trump reimposed certain travel and trade restrictions eased by the previous US government.

"Once again, the US government seems to be on the road to confronting Cuba and presenting our peaceful and inclusive country as a threat to the region," Mr Castro, dressed in his military uniform, said in a ceremony held near Fidel's tomb.

"Once again, they want to make Cuba guilty of all the evils of the region."

Mr Castro accused "the far right" in Florida - where many Cuban exiles live - of having "confiscated US policy towards Cuba".

"I reiterate our willingness to coexist in a civilised way despite our differences, in a relationship of peace, respect and mutual benefit with the United States."

Mr Castro said new generations of Cubans had "assumed the mission of constructing socialism", adding that "the revolution hasn't aged".

But BBC Central America correspondent Will Grant says Mr Diaz-Canel faces a huge battle in satisfying the demands of today's young Cubans.

A referendum on a new draft constitution will be held in February but many are growing impatient for greater social freedoms and increased economic opportunities, our correspondent says.

Government supporters insist the new constitution will reflect a changing Cuba but critics say it will simply concentrate power in the Communist Party's hands.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-46732788
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 09:35 am
@oralloy,
Please explain what type of fuel could be produced with used radioactive isotopes....

izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 10:29 am
Quote:
A manhunt is underway in Houston, Texas, for a gunman who attacked a young family in a drive-by shooting, killing a seven-year-old girl.

Jazmine Barnes, her three sisters and mother, LaPorsha Washington, were driving when an unknown man pulled up alongside them and opened fire.

Jazmine and Ms Washington were shot, and the seven-year-old died in the backseat as a result of her wounds.

Police believe they were targeted at random and have not confirmed a motive.

Authorities say the unidentified gunman is a bearded white male in his 40s, wearing a red sweatshirt, according to Ms Washington's 15-year-old daughter, who got a glimpse of the man.

He reportedly pulled up beside the family's car in a red pickup truck on Sunday morning and began firing with no provocation, Harris County Police said.

"We're going to leave every motive out there as a possibility," Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said during a news conference on Monday, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Ms Washington, 30, was shot in the arm during the attack and her six-year-old daughter was injured by the broken glass.

From her hospital bed, Ms Washington tearfully told KHOU 11 News: "I replayed this moment in my head over a million times to see - did I cut this man off?

"Did I make a wrong turn in front of him?"

"Did I do anything wrong to cause this man to fire shots at my car? I didn't.

"I didn't do anything. He fired off at us for no reason."

At Monday's news conference, the sheriff urged anyone with information to come forward, asking locals to review security camera footage in their homes or businesses to help track down the gunman.

"Yes, we know we're in Texas. Yes, we know we have a lot of pickup trucks out there," Mr Gonzalez said.

"But when you put the pieces together, consider that we're looking for a bearded man, possibly in his 40s, driving a red pickup truck. This could be your neighbour. This could be your co-worker."

He also called on the gunman to turn himself in to avoid any further violence.

Jazmine's father, Christopher Cevilla, told reporters his daughter was a "loving, caring" young girl.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46739175
livinglava
 
  -3  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 10:40 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
They want to use climate change as a weapon to coerce us into destroying our economy, and solving the problem would take their weapon away from them.

Too bad. Because unless we are allowed to pursue an option other than crippling the US economy, we're going to do nothing.

Well, we'll pursue renewables as much as possible. But we certainly won't rein in our energy consumption. Any shortfalls in renewable supplies will be made up by consuming fossil fuels.

Let's just be clear on the details of what you are talking about:

When you say 'destroying our economy,' all you are talking about is the fact that people and businesses have to buy more and spend more to make growth happen. Negative growth doesn't 'destroy the economy.' It just makes it harder for investors to make money. There is still economic activity that goes on during recession, but it is 'slimmer pickins' so to speak, and that terrifies a lot of people because they can't distinguish between reduced economic activity and death. There is a BIG difference.

When you say, "unless we are allowed to pursue an option other than crippling the US economy, we're going to do nothing," that's just holding the environmental future hostage to insist on growth. The reality is that growth in its current form isn't going to solve the climate problem or other environmental problems, so if the people aren't willing to prioritize reform over economic growth, then the failure to reform will keep eroding confidence and positive outlooks on the economy, which in itself will undermine growth. You can try to force everyone to deny climate change and environmental problems to keep them all positive about the economic destruction that's going on, but such superficiality usually breaks down after a while.

Finally, you say "we certainly won't rein in our energy consumption," but what makes you think we will always have the option to use as much energy as we want? As the economy erodes itself with its own failure to achieve future sustainability and thus self-confidence, it will begin consuming its own tail, so to speak, and the recession that follows from that will be worse and more difficult to pull out of than one that's caused by intentionally reducing consumption and economic activity to achieve sustainability. In short, we are shooting ourselves in the foot by digging in our heels against reform until we slip and fall in the mud.

And what's worse is that we have loads of socialists who want nothing more than to have the economy fall into the mud so they can rally for yet another round of economic interventions that maintain the anti-environmental status quo, but for the sake of redistribution; i.e. as Obama explicitly did during his administration (although he pretended, and maybe sincerely hoped, that capitalism would be reformed in service of the environment in the process of expanding it for the benefit of all).
izzythepush
 
  4  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 11:03 am
@neptuneblue,
The best fuel.
Ragman
 
  4  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 11:21 am
@neptuneblue,
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him think!
oralloy
 
  -2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 11:33 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
Please explain what type of fuel could be produced with used radioactive isotopes....
MOX
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel
oralloy
 
  -2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 11:34 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
The best fuel.
It's pretty good.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 11:36 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
When you say 'destroying our economy,' all you are talking about is the fact that people and businesses have to buy more and spend more to make growth happen. Negative growth doesn't 'destroy the economy.' It just makes it harder for investors to make money. There is still economic activity that goes on during recession, but it is 'slimmer pickins' so to speak, and that terrifies a lot of people because they can't distinguish between reduced economic activity and death. There is a BIG difference.
Not in my opinion.

livinglava wrote:
When you say, "unless we are allowed to pursue an option other than crippling the US economy, we're going to do nothing," that's just holding the environmental future hostage to insist on growth.
Good.

livinglava wrote:
The reality is that growth in its current form isn't going to solve the climate problem or other environmental problems, so if the people aren't willing to prioritize reform over economic growth, then the failure to reform will keep eroding confidence and positive outlooks on the economy, which in itself will undermine growth.
If things get bad, people will start using nuclear power, or start putting particles in the upper atmosphere to block sunlight, or other countries will decide to share a fair portion of the burden of cutbacks, or all of the above.

livinglava wrote:
Finally, you say "we certainly won't rein in our energy consumption," but what makes you think we will always have the option to use as much energy as we want? As the economy erodes itself with its own failure to achieve future sustainability and thus self-confidence, it will begin consuming its own tail, so to speak, and the recession that follows from that will be worse and more difficult to pull out of than one that's caused by intentionally reducing consumption and economic activity to achieve sustainability. In short, we are shooting ourselves in the foot by digging in our heels against reform until we slip and fall in the mud.
There are solutions (the ones I mentioned above) that will allow us to continue our energy consumption. The government just needs the will to ignore leftist America haters and pursue those options.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 12:20 pm
@Ragman,
Quote:
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him think!

A drive by? Stick around, another group think stooge is always welcome.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 12:22 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
killing a seven-year-old girl.

We already know you have no concern for the welfare of young girls in your country. Do not try to say you care about children over here. Thanks.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 12:30 pm
@coldjoint,
Nonsense.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 12:33 pm
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/trump-bolsonaro-1.jpg?w=640&h=619
Two nationalists in control. Good news for Brazil, and continued good news for Americans, or at least Americans who love their country.
Quote:
President Bolsonaro now takes the reins of Latin America’s largest and most populous nation after decades of corruption carried out by Brazil’s far-left politicians. Many will remember a failed assassination attempt on candidate Bolsonaro by opposition from the socialist workers party only a few weeks before the election. Bolsonaro has vowed to end business-as-usual governing which led to rampant corruption.

Many people within the far-left ridiculed Bolsonaro while he was a congressman and stated his Brazil-First outlook was too nationalistic amid a world now driven by global influence. The marginalization by those voices failed and now President Bolsonaro will likely chart a different course. (Sound familiar?)

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/01/01/jair-bolsonaro-inaugurated-as-president-of-brazil/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 12:36 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Nonsense.

I would not even think about competing with your nonsense. Your expertise at nonsense is truly legendary. Laughing
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 12:43 pm
Quote:
Violent migrant MOB attacks border agents, tries to invade border AGAIN

This violence is acceptable to the Left. Violence is acceptable to the Left if it will get them the power they do not have. We have seen it used in our cities, people's houses, and even in restaurants. They migrants failed and will continue to fail. And Leftists will aim their hatred at our Border Patrol for doing their jobs.
Quote:
“Once again we have had a violent mob of migrants attempt to enter the United States illegally by attacking our agents with projectiles,” said Katie Waldman, a Homeland Security spokeswoman. “The agents involved should be applauded for handling the situation with no reported injuries to the attackers.”

In addition to rock-throwers, the migrants also began to try to push women and children from among their group forward onto the border boundary, U.S. officials said, forcing some juveniles to climb over razor wire that the American government has posted in recent weeks as a deterrent to unruly crowds itching to jump the border.

Ms. Waldman said the migrants appeared to be trying to stage a photo-op of their actions in front of “conveniently invited media.”

https://therightscoop.com/violent-migrant-mob-attacks-border-agents-tries-to-invade-border-again/
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Wed 2 Jan, 2019 12:56 pm
@oralloy,


Well, the U.S. building project spent $7.6B so far, then it needed another $48 BILLION more, so the project was scrapped. Don't you think we have cheaper alternatives now?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.97 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 08:21:19