That was one of the most ignorant posts I have ever seen.
The problem is one of emissions, while it is related to our standard of living the solutions proposed actually do decouple the emissions part from affecting the economy much, as reported many times by scientists and economists it is calculated that about 1% of the GDP is what it will be needed to take care of the issue.
It will cost more the more we wait.
A drop in the birth rate below replacement would do more environmental good than just about any other policy.
Like if we can not chew gum and not walk at the same time. Fail again. The reason why I’m saying that is that most of the denier sources that the Republicans use also are opposed to family planning or to be more precise, they deny also that environmentalists do talk about family planning regarding this issue.
Bad analogy. It’s not walking and chewing gum, it’s chewing gum and spitting it out at the same time.
Spitting into the wind…
To the tune of “Fame” from David Bowie:
Lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame, lame. reply 
The point stands, you got it wrong because of ignorance, and for continuing to depend of media that is only full of deniers, both of what it needs to be done and also about what the environmentalists are really saying. As it was shown, even the family planning advice is also a part of the whole message.
As it turns out, virtually all Republican candidates are not only ignorants, but willful ones.
I got nothing wrong. Liberals are just as much deniers. Gotta make choices in the real world.
Doubling down on ignorance is not pretty.
Here is once again Richard Alley, a Republican scientist demonstrating how wrong you are for pressing the point that implies that Liberals want to stop progress or to avoid making choices:
[QUOTE] Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - "leave it to future generations." In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. [/QUOTE]Just like the ones that claimed before that our way of life was going to end by cleaning our water sources, removing lead from fuel, removing acid rain causing compounds got it wrong. By refusing to look at the evidence that shows that making the needed changes does not lead to ending progress.
adaher’s post does point out something useful (although obviously I think we can deal with both)-that is there is a reactionary strain in certain strands of environmentalist thought. The left is fundamentally or at least ought to be fundamentally about the interests of Mankind and its greater good and thus we should be environmentalist for that reason-pollution increases the likelihood of illness while climate destablization results in more flooding and other natural disasters. However, the left nonetheless ought to be willing to think big and embrace the great achievements of modernity in creating mass middle-class, consumerist societies in the Western world which has given hundreds of millions a standard of living unimaginable but a little while ago historically. Thus we should embrace healthy and moderate population growth which will ensure a stronger basis for a social welfare state, a growing economy, and whose living standards will continue to rise as technology and productivity outpaces population growth. Indeed it should be noted that many of the original prophets of demographic doom and gloom such as Malthus were deeply reactionary with a great contempt for the working class. Certainly it takes but little imagination to note a certain racialist and classist undertone in fears of hordes of people destroying the Earth, as in the feverish apocalyptic fantasies of that cretin Erhlich. A healthy growing population is probably necessary to avoid the increasing stagnation (which has produced a most weird, eldritch, and beautiful cultural effloresence) of the Japanese Empire’s economy or the conflicts in Europe over immigration (immigration in a growing population is far more desirable as it tends to reduce nativist fears of demographic overwhelming). The more radical environmentalist groups-Zero Growth, Voluntary Human Extinction, Deep Ecologists etc.-are probably the most reactionary people on the planet rejecting not just the modern social welfare state or Enlightenment values but the Judeo-Christian conception of the value and primacy of humanity under God and instead returning to the pagan night where humanity cowed under the dark and forboding forces of Nature and a single human life was but of cheap value.
While I have no use for the Zero Population Growth crowd, I don’t think the government should be subsidizing the decision to have children over the decision not to either. Not for any environmental reasons, but simply because it’s hard to say that all reproductive choices are equal while only subsidizing one of them.
Yeah, we CHOOSE to do whatever we can to put women in charge of their own lives, their own bodies, and their own CHOICES. Because it’s been demonstrated that that CHOICE leads to lower birth rates and smaller families, without anybody having to force anything on anybody.
This is the sort of thing Republicans should be absolutely, positively for - a setup where people empowered to make their own decisions leads to optimal outcomes, without the heavy hand of the state having to do anything. After all, that’s pretty much how conservatives define optimal outcomes (whether they seem optimal or not): those resulting from people making their own decisions without any government intervention.
But you know who’s against this? Oh yeah, conservatives. Practically all Republican politicians anymore. They’ve gone well beyond being the anti-abortion party, and are well along the road of being the anti-contraception party.
Meanwhile, the Dems are overwhelmingly for women having equal educational and employment opportunities, full access to every sort of contraception, and the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy if it comes to that.
So we Dems and liberals have already made the right choices, both for the agency and autonomy of women, and for the fate of the earth at the same time. Republicans deny full agency to women, putting the ‘rights’ of corporations (e.g. Hobby Lobby) ahead of that, and of course the Republican party, with very few exceptions anymore, denies that global warming needs to be addressed.
There’s no equivalence here, none at all. We’re the good guys, the GOP and the conservative movement are the bad guys.
It’s not a matter of subsidizing a choice. Again, it’s a matter of recognizing what helps the economy and the country. Some of us believe that caring for children is work that helps the economy, and therefore providing an incentive to do this work to care for children is good for the economy, and good for the country, and well worth the cost.
Well, besides not finding the return key , I think you are missing also that the quotes and links provided show that the left (and most Republican scientists BTW) already think big.
Sadly, the propaganda from the Right wing media and also the corporate one frames the discussion by automatically denying also what it was actually said about embracing the achievements, the very point of accepting a 2 degree increase is based precisely on acknowledging that we can not quit our emissions cold turkey, we have to change gradually; but change we must, and it does not mean that the left is denying progress.
The right wing and the corporate one are convincing many that this is not the case because they do concentrate on nutpicking, that is that they only show the very extreme environmentalists that in reality are not minded much, if at all, by the Democrats. On this issue the framing of the discussion is so distorted that the middle of the road approach taken by many Democrats and liberals has been turned into a radical one by the Republicans that are in the pockets of one industry.
Okay, so climate change is a lower priority than economic growth.
They’re not binary. Incentivizing caring for children doesn’t necessary mean more children – in fact, it might lead to fewer children if it leads to more prosperity, since more prosperous people typically have fewer children.
The policy also leads to less prosperity, since even though people get leave, women especially are less likely to advance in their careers if they take frequent leaves. That leaves them poorer.
Not necessarily, especially if men are more likely to use these policies if available – further, caring for children might lead to other positive economic impacts (like children who are better able to contribute to the economy when they grow up).
You’re seeing this in an overly-simplistic fashion.
Yeah, but men won’t take it as much. And there will be more of a stigma for those who do.
I"m not against paid leave. If a company chooses to do it. I support the FMLA, but I don’t think paying people to do no work when they actually have a job is good policy. In the modern age, Kasich is right. We should be encouraging more telecommuting. It’s pro economic growth and pro environment at the same time.
This is once again refusing to look at the evidence, this insistence on trying to make those in favor of cleaning our atmosphere to be also in favor of ending economical progress is asinine.
The real scaremongering does come indeed from the ones that claim that cleaning our act would end civilization as we know it.
Caring for children is not “no work” – it’s work, and from what the parents I know tell me, a whole lot of work. Telecommuting is often not compatible with caring for children.