I really don’t understand the right wing perspective on this. Keep in mind that you won’t be able to be snarky on the internet towards liberals anymore if we don’t figure out a way to keep surviving on this planet and prevent society from collapsing.
…did you happen to miss the fact that I asked XT some very specific questions? Speaking of which:
Pretend that you didn’t write the posts I quoted, then read them as if someone else had written them. Do your post read like they are describing the actions of a 16 year old girl?
Did you miss that I asked you some very specific questions?
Can you be very specific for a moment and share with us "what is so “suspicious” about her “narrowly crafted list?” Why do you think that “a lot of folks hadn’t noticed?”
Are her words and actions “left-leaning?” Sure. But what part of her narrowly crafted list is suspicious?
Wow; I’m having flashbacks to that Lyndon LaRouche infomercial I watched back in the 80s because I was bored out of my skull and everything on the other channels was even more lame.
Just to reiterate, we are looking at 1.5 degree increases by 2050 and 3-5 degree increases by 2100 is we don’t do anything. That is not a hellscape.
There is nothing you can do politically (short of throwing the world into a new great depression) that will move those numbers around very much. And frankly as new economies come online, things might get worse before they get better.
Cap & trade is basically meaningless for most industrialized countries where the conversion from coal to natural gas; the improving economics behind solar, electric vehicles, tankless water heaters, non-centralized climate control, LED lights, smart energy, etc.; the increase in work from home opportunities and ordering stuff online instead of going to the store.
Cap & trade is not going to go anywhere for industrializing countries, you are not going to get countries like brazil, China, India where they are trying to get their citizens up to our standard of living to slow down their growth in order to address climate change. Unless the industrialized nations decide to build nuclear power plants for them, they are going to keep burning fossil fuels, especially as their prices stabilize due to lower demand from industrialized nations.
This problem is lot closer to the global overpopulation problem than the cold war. We are not going to scold out way out of this, we are not going to politick our way out of this. We will have to science our way out of this.
The right wing plan is the same as the left wing one - avoid the hard questions, don’t do anything to piss off your base, shift the blame, and hope for the best.
If you are challenging me to a duel, you are supposed to say “I will have a friend call on you.” To which the response is “I didn’t know you had one, but thanks for the heads up - I will give particular instructions to the servant girl to lock up the spoons.”
Cribbed, more or less, from Dickens in The Pickwick Papers.
In any event, perhaps you could explain how Warren and Sanders are following the science by rejecting the only remotely reasonable technology available that is scalable and doesn’t emit GHG. Or how bold and daring it was for Time to herald a sixteen year old for telling us to do something or other about climate change, without specifying what exactly.
Why don’t you tell us what the hell you’re doing except trying to snark on the internet? What valuable contribution to solving the problem are you offering? You do realize that just trying to tear other people down is the opposite of being constructive right?
No, you uncouth barbarian. I was supposed to claim that I **would **have satisfaction. Sheesh, the sheer Donning-Krüger nerve of those colonial peasants.
I suspect you are talking about the societal aversion to nuclear power?
And you’re right, the aversion is illogical and harmful to our society:
But the aversion is from both sides. Conservatives are no more likely to embrace nuclear power than liberals AFAICT.
The anti-nuclear power crowd has done with nuclear power what the anti-vaccine crowd hopes to do with vaccines. They want the irrational fear to be so pervasive throughout society that even rational people will have an irrational fear of it.
Alledgedly.
Or rather, it’s all sunk cost. Yes, we should have invested more into nuclear back then (and now we’d have a huger nuclear waste issue but NO MATTER). But that’s too late now. Nuclear is not the answer any more, to the extent that it might have been at some point. The simple time cost of building new nuke plants, and the billion checks and regulations those have to observe (FOR GOOD REASON) keeps that particular solution strictly out of the ecuation.
So while, by all means, be my guest if you want to say “I told you so” (because who doesn’t love that ?) ; don’t even begin to pretend that’s still a reasonable course today. Or that nuke power is in any way, shape or form a future-proof, renewable, durable solution for that matter. Even if it worked (which it doesn"t, not really) it would still be swapping plague for necrotizing fasciitis.