Anyone on the right believe in climate change here?

[MikeMcMann]

My other issue is that USA is only one factor in this, it's hard not to throw your hands in the air when China and India are going to still pollute massively, when countries in Africa will still undergo major desertification, and Brazil will absolutely destroy the rain forest.

This topic makes me sad.

That was the major problem with Kyoto.

Because US and other polluters would be forced to buy Carbon Credits from corporations in China and the emerging world where the regulations were less, the result would have actually been more CO2 and not less as better equipped first world factories were mothballed or slowed in production in favour of more polluting factories in emerging markets that did not have the limitations imposed.

This fact alone exposed how much politics, and not climate concern, was behind the initial push as the scientists were the ones pushing Kyoto while claiming we need to act urgently while knowing it would make the situation worse.

 

[LC Shepard]

Im not really on the right. I am a moderate libertarian and I believe climate change is real and is significantly impacted by human activity.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Experts have already claimed it's impossible to reverse at this point, so fuck it. Let the world burn. I'll be too dead to care when it becomes a serious threat to humanity anyways.

Ya it was Gore's declaration that unless we took "drastic measures" to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a "point of no return" in a mere ten years. A "true planetary emergency".

Well guess what. that was in Jan 2006 and we are in Aug 2016. So point of no return achieved.

Or is it? Or will the left keep saying there is a new and upcoming point of no return to try and generate an emotional and hysterical reaction that is not thoughtful and well considered??





This is the type of crazy shit the left was pushing back in 2008 on main stream tv, and they wonder why others want to make sure the topic is analyzed thoroughly and not just emotionally.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Im not really on the right. I am a moderate libertarian and I believe climate change is real and is significantly impacted by human activity.

Not trying to put you on the spot (ok guess I am kind of) but can you share what insights you have that could address the magnitude of the other factors such as natural climate deviation/change and what percent they represent compared to man made contributions because that is hugely important in this debate.

Again not pointing the finger specifically at you but I have never seen anyone address that aspect which means their 'belief' (and you speak to belief, is approaching more religious type 'faith' belief then science based questioning belief.

 

[scoopj]

Center-right independent, and yes, I believe in climate change/global warming and that man influences it.

 

[Metusalemi]

Just curious why not French or US power plant?

I'm thrilled with the Russian record with all things nuclear.

Well... our current project with the French is not going so well...

http://www.jeremyleggett.net/2014/0...now-the-most-expensive-building-in-the-world/

I don't know no US, though.

 

[Metusalemi]

The amount of time humans have existed (50k ish years) is 5/100000th's of the amount of time life has existed (2.5 billion years)
Talking about Earth's atmosphere and using a segment of time that small isn't very good sampling.
Also, why is it 400k-800k years back ALWAYS the amount of time used to discuss our co2 levels? Is there something special about that period? Or is it that if we go back any further, co2 levels are WAY higher(up to a factor of ten) than current?

I don't know, but I would guess that is the oldest ice we can find on Earth and scientist use air bubbles in old ice to see the components of air in that time period.

If we're looking at average levels throughout history instead of cherrypicking periods of time, we are well below average.

I don't think they are cherry picking anything (See above). How can you say we are well before average? Average of what? It also should be obvious that there has never been such amounts of fossil fuels burned in such short time as there are in the last 100 years.

Just watch the episode of Cosmos I linked.

 

[Ruprecht]

The amount of time humans have existed (50k ish years) is 5/100000th's of the amount of time life has existed (2.5 billion years)
Talking about Earth's atmosphere and using a segment of time that small isn't very good sampling.
Also, why is it 400k-800k years back ALWAYS the amount of time used to discuss our co2 levels? Is there something special about that period? Or is it that if we go back any further, co2 levels are WAY higher(up to a factor of ten) than current?
If we're looking at average levels throughout history instead of cherrypicking periods of time, we are well below average.

Considering the reason we're concerned about climate change is the effect on food security and human society, looking at a period that extends well past the existence of humanity isn't exactly "cherry picking". The last time CO2 was this high was the mid-Pliocene, which predates the spread of grasses, the forebears of modern cereal crops and the rising populations of (now domesticated) grazing animals.
CO2 averages on a geological scale are largely irrelevant, although the only comparably rapid changes tend to coincide with mass extinction events (of course asteroid impacts and massive volcanic eruptions aren't directly comparable).

 

[Devout Pessimist]

There aren't many people who deny the climate changes. The issue is whether more gov't control and extra taxes will fix it.

I think you pointed out the main issue. I believe most people care for the environment, but they get angry when they see the governments forcing tax schemes and fines under the guise of climate change. It boils down to, "we are going to tax the hell out of you because climate change and if you oppose these taxes and regulations, then you obviously hate the environment."

Canada, one of the cleanest countries in the world, is going full retard when it comes to taxation and regulation in the name of climate change. The provincial and federal governments are regulating and taxing people and businesses to the point that jobs are being lost and it is hurting the economy.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Im not agreeing that burning carbon is severely damaging the sustainability of life in earth.

Im erring in he side of miniscule damage. (to the point where cosmic threats of a gamma ray burst might be objectively more of a threat.)

So again, we have to know the cost of not burning carbon, because its going to be a night and day difference in availability in wealth.

Imagine telling the caveman to not use a campfire but opt to sun drying his deer meat. The caveman is going to need a clear cut answer why because that campfire is obviously essential to living.

Ok, but is someone proposing going cold-turkey or are reasonable people looking to transition? You give people the same thing and without the polluting effects and I don't see why they'd have a problem with that. Do you?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What do you want to do about it?

Transition to clean energy. Why would anyone want to avoid that?

 

[dontsnitch]

Transition to clean energy. Why would anyone want to avoid that?

What do you want to do about it? I can't personally make any transitions. I'm all in favour of clean energy, but so what? You want me to sell my car and walk around? Do you own a car?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You want me to sell my car and walk around?

That's what you think I mean by "transition" or you're just playing dumb because you don't want to admit that the value of curbing pollution is self-evident?

What technological transition occurred in a fashion that your question here reflects? It really needs explained that how this will work is that older machines that burn fossil fuel will be replaced with new machines that don't. Over time the burning decreases and clean energy production increases. More and more people use solar. More and more research is done on clean energy. My company is looking to implement solar at a plant. My state has a goal of transitioning to clean energy over the next 25-30 years. Not terribly complicated to grasp. In order to speed this process up there are tax credits both state and federal.

 

[Ruprecht]

What do you want to do about it? I can't personally make any transitions. I'm all in favour of clean energy, but so what? You want me to sell my car and walk around? Do you own a car?

Besides the political perspective and voting, it's really not that hard to actually make consistent lifestyle changes if you care and believe in personal responsibility.

 

[dontsnitch]

That's what you think I mean by "transition" or you're just playing dumb because you don't want to admit that the value of curbing pollution is self-evident?

What technological transition occurred in a fashion that your question here reflects? It really needs explained that how this will work is that older machines that burn fossil fuel will be replaced with new machines that don't. Over time the burning decreases and clean energy production increases. More and more people use solar. More and more research is done on clean energy. My company is looking to implement solar at a plant. My state has a goal of transitioning to clean energy over the next 25-30 years. Not terribly complicated to grasp. In order to speed this process up there are tax credits both state and federal.

Lets not get off on the wrong foot. I see the value in curbing pollution. My point is that the common person who prides himself on *knowing* climate change is real does so because it's in style. They don't do anything different than someone who "denies" it.

If you're in a position to implement change, and do, well hats off to you.

 

[dontsnitch]

Besides the political perspective and voting, it's really not that hard to actually make consistent lifestyle changes if you care and believe in personal responsibility.

In the two party system, voting based on one particular policy means you end up voting against other policies.

 

[SomebodyElse]

Pet dogs are a heavy source too.

From the EPA:

"Domestic livestock such as cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels produce large amounts of CH4 as part of their normal digestive process. Also, when animals' manure is stored or managed in lagoons or holding tanks, CH4 is produced. Because humans raise these animals for food, the emissions are considered human-related. Globally, the Agriculture sector is the primary source of CH4 emissions. For more information, see the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks Agriculture chapter."
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html


From the FAO
"Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi."
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

 

[Metusalemi]

What do you want to do about it? I can't personally make any transitions. I'm all in favour of clean energy, but so what? You want me to sell my car and walk around? Do you own a car?

I actually got rid of my car 18 months ago. I've been commuting to work on a bicycle ever since. The temperature varies here between -30 and 30 Celsius (-22F and 86F) and I hop on the bike no matter what the weather is. In my free time I use bicycle or a bus.

I know possibilities for using bus or bicycle differs from country to country and from people to people. All I'm saying, i had the opportunity to do it, so I did it. I know most people just can't do it for practical reasons.

 

[dontsnitch]

I actually got rid of my car 18 months ago. I've been commuting to work on a bicycle ever since. The temperature varies here between -30 and 30 Celsius (-22F and 86F) and I hop on the bike no matter what the weather is. In my free time I use bicycle or a bus.

I know possibilities for using bus or bicycle differs from country to country and from people to people. All I'm saying, i had the opportunity to do it, so I did it. I know most people just can't do it for practical reasons.

You did this based on climate change and pollution?

 

[Ruprecht]

In the two party system, voting based on one particular policy means you end up voting against other policies.

Yes, first past the gate, winner takes all... you're screwed. Over here voting for independents (preferentially) as a means of forwarding specific issues actually makes a difference. We have the same political dissatisfaction that's seen everywhere else, and as a result the independents got more votes than ever this election (not quite another hung parliament, but close). Meaning the major parties will have to deal with them and accommodate their interests in order to pass any legislation.