And then you repeat what you said and nothing about the huge middle you are avoiding.
The risk is that ocean acidification, ocean rise and disruptions in climate are not going to be a walk in the park; mass migration, and disruptions if not wars caused by them are very likely when one takes the most likely predictions into account that will take place if nothing is done. And doing nothing is the current GOP mantra and it is really foolish.
It is likely that already the climate changes were a factor in the loss of crops in places like Russia, that in turn generated food shortages in many middle eastern nations that then turned into riots that so far have been turned against dictators, but I do wonder how long our luck would last if democracies begin to be affected.
And here is where I wonder if you are aware of the dangers to freedom, by not doing something today we are ensuring that when disasters become more prevalent and undeniable caused by AGW, then the changes that would be imposed by future governments to deal with the issue will be worse for freedom that if we had done something sooner.
I’m not here to argue those things. I made it clear what I was saying wouldn’t happen. I wasn’t interested in a totally different debate. Unless you believe, like the OP does, that the Earth is going to be depopulated within (or technically immediately after) the life span of living GOP politicians, you should presume we do not have any disagreement on what is projected to happen in regards to climate change.
The one thing I will say is, many GOP politicians favor doing things not just about climate change but various other environmental causes. Look at things like the “Western Climate Initiative” GOP governors have put their states into those programs and have pledged greenhouse gas reductions. I won’t deny the GOP is less activist but I will say that you guys are just contributing to the high level of political stupidity when you act like either party is 100% black or 100% white. Not everyone in the GOP is on the same page about climate change and we can point to individual GOP leaders that are working to address it. Maybe not to the same degree you personally want, but you can’t say they aren’t addressing it at all, across the board. It’s precisely those kinds of statements that has made America a place where anyone who knows anything about politics comes off sounding like an idiot, because they learn just enough to bash people they disagree with and paint with massively broad strokes.
Uh, that is the line most environmentalists and democrats use too, it is not only because of CO2 emissions that we have to make changes.
And you said that after making an across the board generalization that GOP politicians are special or different from the Democrats regarding other environmental efforts that also involve AGW to a certain degree.
You do indeed notice that the GOP is not doing efforts in the necessary degree, and the reality is that during the elections the few GOP candidates that made the good effort to support the science were targeted by the teabaggers for removal, giving us the current denialist leadership.
And unless you can point to me the GOP leader that is telling others to back off of this unscientific path, then I would have to say that the evidence is there to say that on this subject the GOP does deserve to be painted as the denier party.
That would be unanimous, and it would also be under the Clinton Administration. But it is indeed the Republican Party’s fault. Obviously.
So, why is it that you are choosing to affix blame directly on the GOP? Because they publicly embrace business, while the Democrats do so around the edges to pander to their base and pretend that they care about the environment? Because they discuss things in terms of costs while the Democrats appeal to your emotions even as they know that implementation of strict environmental policy will lead to economic ruin, which will lead to the death of the Democratic Party for at least a generation?
There is more than enough blame to go around. The real problem is that every politician has precisely one goal: reelection. You don’t get reelected by bringing ruination to your constituents. Is that short-sighted? Absolutely. But it is what it is, and to the Republicans’ credit they have always been up front about it.
Obviously there has been no change whatsoever from then to now, none I tell you! [/sarcasm]
BTW the Kyoto protocol had several issues that eventually did it in; however, that was then, now even more evidence has piled up that points to the need to do something, and the last vote was regarding the EPA and its ability to regulate CO2.
What the recent vote showed is that the Republicans have not learned anything. As for the democrats that do not learn, one can point to 19 Democrats that joined Republicans in the house to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. Fortunately the measure failed in the Senate. There 4 democrats, that had mostly coal connections, supported the Republicans.
So, it was close, but all the Republicans did demonstrate that they are for polluters and not for the people, and for denying science. In the Democratic side we need to bust some heads, but on your side…
Conservatives believe the ideal society is a small group of elites that rule and then a great big mass of everyone else. As this, in their opinion, leads to the most stable society. They believe a strong middle class leads to chaos and revolution and the world is truly better off without that. The Republican Party is their tool to bring this about in America. Every policy they have supported in the last 60 years or so are attempts to lay this ground work.
They are also the party of Corporate interests and the Religious right and lucky for them, a lot of their goals dovetail together. For the ones that don’t, they use propaganda and misinformation to convince their base that they do.
I won’t call them evil (although, to be sure, there are evil people in their Party) but I will say they are completely wrong about how America should be and they need to get out of any kind of political power ASAP.
I used to not believe in evil. I thought that for the most part people acted in a way that made sense to them. I can see thinking welfare will lead to people not working, or that tax rates are too high, or that states should have more political power and the Feds less. I don’t agree with these positions, but I can see that there is a case to be made for them.
But, when Sarah Palin made up the Death Panel story I realized that we are dealing with evil. It’s deliberately fabricated; not an exaggeration or misunderstanding, just a bald faced, pants-on-fire lie. The result was to halt any reasoned debate about actual issues. And not because she really opposed the Obama plan (it was a similar to what Republicans have proposed), but just for the sake of being elected and selling books.
You’ve obviously read something into my post that wasn’t there. I never claimed that the GOP was unique in that some GOP politicians were addressing aspects of environmental protection outside of AGW. Where did I say that? Remember this is a text based medium so you should not make inferences when the plain text simply does not suggest I was inferring anything; if we were having a verbal conversation obviously there is greater ability to gauge the “real meaning” of someone’s words. You should not have presumed I was saying anything I did not actually say.
I don’t blame all Democrats for the failures of the Democrat political leadership. I recognize on every issue out there both parties have a spectrum of positions, not “one true position.” It’s easy, and in fact much more convenient, to focus only on the Glen Beck position or other highly visible stances, but the truth of the matter is much more nuanced than that. I had already stated that:
I stand by that. By and large my party has two major issues when it comes to the environment. A large portion do not care, and a large portion do not believe that anything we’re doing vis-a-vis pollution and etc actually causes meaningful damage. I’ll admit that, but I’ll also say that party platforms and talking points aren’t something that binds individuals by iron.
In America you can basically approach party affiliation in three ways:
Recognize that neither party 100% accurately reflects your views, and thus you choose to not affiliate with either party.
Recognize that one of the two parties is closer to your views on things than the other. Recognize that on some issues you will be in deep disagreement with your party, and do not defend them on that issue. Just say “that’s an area in which me and my party disagree.”
Recognize that one of the two parties is closer to your view on things than the other. On any issue in which you disagree with your party’s stance, try to lie, distort, and wriggle around to convince yourself that your party really doesn’t do anything differently than what you want.
Personally I’ve always picked option two. While on an election-by-election basis I think everyone should always consider the candidates in front of them and select the best individual (regardless of party), I also feel you need to “pick a side” if you wish to be a meaningful part of our political system. Once I picked a side, I have never felt the need to defend my party against all attacks. My party does things I disagree with. Some fellow Republicans recognize this and will even say “yep, the party at large is wrong on that issue.” Unfortunately, some Republicans even when they personally disagree with the party will essentially engage in denial. As a person who has always strongly supported environmental protection, if I was in such denial I’d try to come up with a long list of arguments saying “hey, the GOP really is pretty good on the environment!” That would be bullshit, and that is the kind of bullshit I see all the time from both the GOP and Democrats. People on both sides get so attached to “being right” they can’t just be honest and say “yeah, I support my party overall but they’re fucking stupid on this issue.” I have no problem saying that. I wish more people were of a similar mind.
However, I will also always point out elements of the party that are not lock step with the majority. Mainly because I detest this us vs. them mentality in which people act as though both parties are monolithic.
Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way towards Democrats when they put out stories of old people being thrown out in the cold, forced to eat dog food, etc, when the Paul Ryan’s of the world try to show some leadership in reforming the two entitlements that are making this country bankrupt? Even though the Dems know perfectly well that none of the proposals do anything to anyone who is at or near retirement age? Or any of the other lines, put out there to drum up emotion but lacking a lot of truth… (Bush wanted to abolish Social Security, the Bush tax cuts were ONLY for the rich, etc).
Well, I agree with most of what you said, unfortunately on the issue at hand you can not point at the ones that voted to let the EPA continue regulating global warming gases in the House.
In the senate only **one **Republican seems to have character, it was Susan Collins.
Stay tuned for the Tea Party and other conservatives to aim their guns at her.
Well, to be honest people are fucking scared right now because of endless unemployment and lots of good paying jobs being destroyed by environmental regulation.
Some of the Senate Democrats who also voted against letting the EPA continue regulation global warming did so because their constituents are extremely poor, have minimal job prospects, and heavy environmental regulation will absolutely destroy their livelihood. For poor States like West Virginia, when the EPA shuts down a chemical plant, removing 250 jobs from the local workforce, that has major ripple effects. These are small communities. When Obama takes positions that make people think all the coal mines are going to be shut down, that scares people.
I’m not saying we should coddle people who are stuck in careers with no real future, but we also can’t expect them to ignore the fact we’re impoverishing them and their families and expect them to buck up and be happy because 2-3 generations from now the world will be a better place.
Without getting too far off the rails and making this an environmentalism debate, I have to say that I support realistic change. Realistic changes are things like mandating greater fuel economy, realistic reductions in emissions and et cetera. Realistic change also means recognizing that in the medium and even long term for our society to continue functioning we do need to keep burning coal. We can pump up all the other alternatives as much as we want, but a realist is going to recognize even at break neck production the alternatives will not solve all of our problems.
Unfortunately some environmentalists are extremely unwilling to compromise. This hurts their position, because the reality of it is society is going to continue wanting electricity and when push comes to shove they aren’t going to let the lights go out just to satisfy an agenda. Some environmentalists act as though any efforts to make coal burning power plants less damaging to the environment are fraudulent and a waste. I would counter that since I view it as absolute fact we will be burning lots of coal for a long time, working on making it less damaging to the environment is perhaps the single most important thing we can do in terms of environmental policy, even more important than continuing development and research on wind, solar, and nuclear technology. But I also reject the notion that any of this is all or nothing. Working towards making coal less harmful doesn’t have to happen in lieu of getting better at solar, working towards more deployment of nuclear and et cetera, it should be happening at the same time.
Excuse me? Sarah Palin really did make “death panels” out of whole cloth. Your characterizations are your own. Also, the Ryan plan affects seniors. Not the people who are seniors today, but the people who will be seniors when the plan takes effect.
Over one million foreclosures last year and the same to come this year. That is people being put in the streets. Destroying Medicare and Social Security would put millions more at risk. But think of the bright side, the rich would have even more money and power. George W. Bush Reveals His Biggest Failure Was Not Privatizing Social Security | HuffPost Latest News Bush admitted not privatizing SS was his biggest mistake. With all the bad choices, that was what he came up with.
Not to pee in your soup or anything, foolsguinea, but being despised by morons is not nearly the impediment to my lifestyle that you apparently hope it to be.
People like gonzomax and Der Trihs hate what I stand for. This should keep me up nights?
The thing is that even economists like Lomborg, that said before that we also should not be doing anything yet, threw the towel and are now saying that taxation of CO2 and other changes are needed, the point is that not doing nothing will mean even more disruption and even more job losses.
And Obama is on the record that we have to do that, once again, the current GOP is on the record of doing nothing as “there is no problem to worry about”.