There are some RWs who appear to consistenly view the other side through the wrong end of a telescope. Discrimination is problematic.
You are correct
But your shorter version is a wrong characterization
The solution was not “unfettered free enterprise” but has aspects of increased taxes not reduction while reducing some regulation and providing some incentives.
Boy have you guys got me stereotyped. You cast judgment so quickly without reading because I guess it is absolutely easier that way. The solutions in the OP employed government control and market forces, together.
No! The problems and the solutions cannot be simplified. We are where we are. It is simple to vote for a candidate and hope. I am not contented nor find any comfort with that approach. Hope is for sissies!
Right, I already read Point #10; excerpting it, instead of merely referring to it, does not address the issue of its main logic slump.
And it’s still a logic slump–if we’re supposed to get used to a warmer planet, why bother fiddling around with solutions to a warmer planet?
Like, “10 Solutions for Chronically Flooded Basements”, in which numbers 1 through 9 are helpful hints like “install a sump pump” and “buy many box fans” and “buy a dehumidifier”, and #10 is, “Get used to having a wet basement.” If you’re just going to get used to having a wet basement, then you don’t need to go out and buy a pump, five box fans, and a dehumidifier.
It makes much more sense in the time cube.
Why is it that this is so black and white to you. You seem not to comprehend that there are shades of gray. Basements are wet and you can eliminate the wet but basements are also damp and you can dehumidify them constantly but they will always be slightly more damp than the rest of the house. It is just the nature of basements and what makes them comfortable in arid climes but makes them unpopular in humid climes.
If you buy into global warming due to green house gas the best you can do is keep the globe from getting hot and there ain’t much that can be done to keep it from getting warm so deal with it!
The proposed solutions for the US deal directly to keep the globe from getting hot while at the same time deals directly with the overall US energy shortages and demand while increasing your standard of living.
So everybody wins
The environmentalists get cleaner natural gas in short term and near carbon free nukes in the long term
The middle class gets to keep there investments in the oil and gas industry and can pass these to their children.
The risks of obtaining an adequate nonrenewable energy supply is eliminated for the US.
The US trade deficit is eliminated.
The transition to renewable energy sources can take as long as 40 years to complete for the US.
The Oil and gas industry has 40 years to transition into other energy segments.
The plastics and chemical industries have plenty of US oil reserves for 100’s of years of production.
The HELL?
With these two posts combined,* I* am Captain Planet!
Right. Nine things to do to keep the globe from getting hot–and one thing at the end that says, “The globe is going to get hot, there’s nothing you can do to prevent it, so get used to the idea.”
And thus the nine suggestions for preventing the globe from getting hot in the first place are totally pointless.
You need to say either, “Here are some things you can do to prevent the globe from getting hot”, or, “The globe is going to get hot, there’s nothing you can do to prevent it, so get used to it.”
But not both.
This is very black and white. Why is it so gray for you?
For all those who are confused, I can summarize the OP’s prescription for action:
- Global economic catastrophe due to energy shortage
- Blame Obama
- ???
- Profit!
One can criticize the OP for a lot of things, but I will say this: there certainly are a lot of statistics in there. On second look, those are just quote boxes.
But that’s the sort of stuff an ObamautomatonobotiPhone would say.
Well, I do think this is an oversimplification, as most in the scientific community is talking about a combination of mitigation and adaptation, simply because indeed we are committed to a certain amount of warming regardless of what we do (see. e.g., this just-released joint statement [PDF file] from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the analogous bodies in all the other G8+5 nations).
However, where it becomes counterproductive is when adaptation is used as an excuse to ignore (or not try very hard) on the mitigation part.
Dilute! Dilute! OK!
Facts are facts and trends are trends and extrapolations are permitted… The whole AGW argument are based on such things, by the way.
When you get your paycheck or SSI or other renumeration what is left over after living expenses is your profit. Which you save for a raining day! Taxing profit of companies takes away from profit of its shareholders who are people just like you and me . Now if you don’t save anything by living frugally then you are doomed to remain destitute until you die! And you will ask yourself at the end: Just what was life all about?
I did not blame Obama for any of this. Nor did I blame democrats. Search my OP!
I blame Bush 1 for most of it because the dick head said no new taxes and then renigged so we voted for Ross Perot and Clinton won. Never again!
Yeah…And, look what that got us: the boring monotony of 8 years of prosperity, a balanced budget (briefly…until Bush II turned that into a major deficit), and no major wars. :rolleyes: Thank God we corrected that by getting (it’s arguable to say “electing”) a trigger-happy spendthrift who never met a tax break for the wealthy that he didn’t like!
And in your opening diatribe, not one thought towards energy conservation.
Well jshore I will concede that AGW is a possibility. And I will concede that unlike me most people don’t consider the ramifications of their decisions.
I don’t eat beef because it has high iron but mostly because those cows seems to have detrimental impacts on the BLM lands.
I don’t eat seafood because I consider it rape of the oceans (lacking husbandry) and the ecosystem is on the verge of collapse and starvation is imminent for a lot of the world population.
I have structured my life to avoid the commute.
I have always tried to be frugal and make do with less. It is my farm upbringing.
And so I will tend to error on the side of conservatism because not looking before you leap can result in busting your skull on a submerged boulder. I intend to continue try hard to keep my carbon footprint as small as possible.
And I want policy which instills carbon frugality as a matter of individual choice. The solutions for 2 years, 20 years, and 40 years have taken that into consideration.
But I am of the opinion that AGW does not require that we reduce our standard of living. With Nukes, wind, hydro, wave, ICF, GSHP, privatized metro links, use of CNG we all can enjoy a very good life. And with stability in the middle East and reducing US demand on crude and fighting socialism the entire world can enjoy a very good life, too.
You didn’t read it!
I cannot think why anyone would want to buy the margins and medians of Interstate highways. Unless you envision mass-transit rail lines being built along them? That’s a defensible idea in construction terms, but not the sort of thing the private sector would have any interest in doing on its own; private companies might build light rail as public contractors, but there’s no reason they should own the medians.
Here’s the thing: Mass transit is not profitable. It never pays for itself at the farebox. Some critics on this Board cite that fact as showing ipso facto that mass transit is a bad idea, or not really desired by the public – ignoring the fact that our existing automotive transit system is heavily subsidized by the state and your car would be useless without state-funded streets, roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, traffic-control signs and signals, traffic cops and highway patrol officers, specialized traffic courts, state driver’s licensing agencies, etc., etc. Not to mention an expensive national military establishment whose mission includes, among other things, keeping the sea lanes open for oil tankers.
Your wrong! It got us shit. Boy howdy did I hit a nerve!
The prosperity was a delusion. The gains from the dot com all evaporated when the bubble burst and Bush inherited a recession and terrorist attacks on the twin towers whose early signs were ignored by Clinton and Thank God we didn’t have Al Gore ‘Playing on our fears’ for eight years.
I support household savings rates and McCain policies
**The Household savings rate under democrat administrations has always gone down **
Household savings Under Carter 1977 to 1981 down from 10% to 8%
Household savings Under Clinton 1992 to 2000 down from 7.5% to 2%
The Household savings rate under republican administrations has always gone up
Household savings Under Reagan 1981 to 1988 up from 8% to 12% then dropping back to 7.5%
Household savings Under Bush 1 1988 to 1992 constant at 8%
Household savings Under Bush 2 1981 to 1988 up from 2% to 3% then dropping back to 2%
according to Bureau of Economic Analysis.See Figure 1 of https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/2642/RL33168_20051118.pdf?sequence=1
But the savings rate according to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. See figure 2 https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/2642/RL33168_20051118.pdf?sequence=1
is more telling
Household savings Under Carter 1977 to 1981 down from 14% to 12%
Household savings Under Clinton 1992 to 2000 down from 10% to 1%
Household savings Under Reagan 1981 to 1988 up from 12% to 15%
Household savings Under Bush 1 1988 to 1992 down from 12% to 9%
Household savings Under Bush 2 1981 to 1988 up from 1% to 6%
And by the way the tax break was for those in the 2nd , 3rd ,4th and 5th quintiles, ie. all taxpayers.
Yeah, possibly, but I think the OP can benefit from any simplification, even if it does lean a tad towards the over-. 