|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
For Freida Lockaby, an unemployed 56-year-old woman who lives with her dog in an aging mobile home in Manchester, Ky., one of America's poorest places, the Affordable Care Act was life altering.
The law allowed Kentucky to expand Medicaid in 2014 and made Lockaby – along with 440,000 other low-income state residents – newly eligible for free health care under the state-federal insurance program. Enrollment gave Lockaby her first insurance in 11 years.
"It's been a godsend to me," said the former Ohio school custodian who moved to Kentucky a decade ago.
Lockaby finally got treated for a thyroid disorder that had left her so exhausted she'd almost taken root in her living room chair. Cataract surgery let her see clearly again. A carpal tunnel operation on her left hand eased her pain and helped her sleep better. Daily medications brought her high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol level under control.
But Lockaby is worried her good fortune could soon end. Her future access to health care now hinges on a controversial proposal to revamp the program that her state's Republican governor has submitted to the Obama administration.
Next year will likely bring more uncertainty when a Trump administration and a GOP-controlled Congress promise to consider Obamacare's repeal, including a potential reduction in the associated Medicaid expansion in 31 states and the District of Columbia that has led to health coverage for an estimated 10 million people.
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, who was elected in 2015, has argued his state can't afford Medicaid in its current form. Obamacare permitted states to use federal funds to broaden Medicaid eligibility to all adults with incomes at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level, now $11,880 for individuals. Kentucky's enrollment has doubled since late 2013 and today almost a third of its residents are in the program. The Medicaid expansion under Obamacare in Kentucky has led to one of the sharpest drops in any state's uninsured rate, to 7.5 percent in 2015 from 20 percent two years earlier.
Kentucky's achievement owed much to the success of its state-run exchange, Kynect, in promoting new coverage options under the health law. Kynect was launched under Bevin's Democratic predecessor, Steve Beshear, and dismantled by Bevin this year.
Bevin has threatened to roll back the expansion if the Obama administration doesn't allow him to make major changes, such as requiring Kentucky's beneficiaries to pay monthly premiums of $1 to $37.50 and require nondisabled recipients to work or do community service for free dental and vision care.
Budget pressures are set to rise next year in the 31 states and the District of Columbia where Medicaid was expanded as the federal government reduces its share of those costs. States will pick up 5 percent next year and that will rise gradually to 10 percent by 2020. Under the health law, the federal government paid the full cost of the Medicaid expansion population for 2014-2016.
In a state as cash-strapped as Kentucky, the increased expenses ahead for Medicaid will be significant in Bevin's view — $1.2 billion from 2017 to 2021, according to the waiver request he's made to the Obama administration to change how Medicaid works in his state.
Source
|
|
|
Canada11573 Posts
@Fwi
Wow. That is rather big government/ authoritarian of you. I don't at all agree that government should be involved in engineering family size through tax penalties. The most I could see (and would still oppose) getting rid of the current tax breaks for families. But I don't really know why you would need to have the government get involved- the birth rate in Canada is 1.61, US is 1.88. That is already below the numbers needed to maintain current populations short of immigration. Of course there are exceptions (pretty much all my married friends are already above the national average.) But current birth rates will naturally do the job that you want government to do.
|
Well, the exponential factor with the one child policy was certainly less than it would've been without the policy.
Population growth in developed countries is not an issue. Every developed country experiences negative native population growth. Immigration accounts for the real population increases, if any. One child policies are impossible in developing countries as a dominant political stance is the expansion of personal liberties.
The population can be sustainable. The issue is sustainable at what cost, because no one wants to pay 2x more to buy everything, and 2x might not be enough. Carbon taxes make products more expensive to account for the tax, kills revenue, allows local companies to be undercut by cheaper imports without the carbon tax restrictions, moves companies offshores to developing countries who cannot afford to tax kill foreign businesses hiring local population. The economic problem is complex.
|
On November 21 2016 06:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 06:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 21 2016 04:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote:There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions). Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."
The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama. 45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean. Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution. what population control measures do you support? I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there. We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc. So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions. I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow. But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones. I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita.
China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity. Currently there are 5 working people for about every retiree. In 2040 this would have collapsed to 1.5 working people for every retiree. The current median age in China is about 30. It will go upto 46 in 2040, and with advances in medical technology and increasing lifespan, this is going to become an increasingly bigger problem.
Remember that this not only affects the economy - This is also going to affect the military, with fewer able bodied men available to enter armed services, and is also going to affect geopolitical dynamics indirectly.
Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits?
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more
The current way population is distributed has a lot to do with how white men went and took over vast continents and then redrew the boundaries to suit their needs. Most of Asian countries by contrast, were brutally subjugated by the British, and therefore could not indulge in the same degree of empire building.
Essentially your solution would once again benefit white people further due to the aggressive militaristic tendencies of your ancestors, in addition to all the benefits that you have already reaped due to your nation building (such as increased access to natural resources).
Also, it really smacks of elitism - what you're essentially saying is that a person in a developed country has the right to do whatever the fuck he pleases, whereas a person in a less developed country can't do the same, just because of the country he was born in - a factor he has no control over?
|
Urbanization and industrialization are effective mechanisms to get a poor country to stop growing in population, but I doubt true large scale development plans are in the cards for most of Africa. Not only that, but if the goal is to polute less, industrializing is bound to increase polution early on (even if it ends up better long term because of population stabilizing), unless the country has massive untapped hidraulic power possibilities.
|
China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity.
The one child policy, again, is a political stunt. In 35 years, according to the government (and that's a highly contested number), 400mio births were prevented. That number isn't confirmed. The one child policy for example allows you by default to have a second child if the first one is a girl (not that rare of an occasion), amongst other numerous exceptions.
Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits?
Back to step one. Maybe start (not you personally) with not driving a 6.7l V8 hemi pickup truck for grocery shopping, "because you need a car that big". Or eat some chicken instead of beef.
edit:
Sidenote, "per capita" is actually the fairest measurement, because it takes personal behavior into account, like consumption and "wastefulness".
|
On November 21 2016 07:52 Falling wrote:
@Fwi
Wow. That is rather big government/ authoritarian of you. I don't at all agree that government should be involved in engineering family size through tax penalties. The most I could see (and would still oppose) getting rid of the current tax breaks for families. But I don't really know why you would need to have the government get involved- the birth rate in Canada is 1.61, US is 1.88. That is already below the numbers needed to maintain current populations short of immigration. Of course there are exceptions (pretty much all my married friends are already above the national average.) But current birth rates will naturally do the job that you want government to do.
We already do it... We give different tax breaks for poor people, we can play with these numbers more to achieve an exact result. I was actually referring more to giving larger tax breaks in developed countries to get than number closer to two. The system in place is intentional to have the population where we want it.
I don't like the idea of having a government tell you how many kids to have, but someone has to if it's becoming a problem, no? Doing it in an implicit way as possible is obviously the best, and an invisible hand opposed to explicit regulation is better. Same idea as pollution... I mean that's my perspective if you want to seriously combat pollution, which I'm iffy about doing as is, depends on your value of current vs future generations, so varies on this personal value.
|
On November 21 2016 08:00 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 06:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:On November 21 2016 06:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 21 2016 04:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote:There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions). Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."
The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama. 45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean. Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution. what population control measures do you support? I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there. We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc. So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions. I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow. But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones. I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita. China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity. Currently there are 5 working people for about every retiree. In 2040 this would have collapsed to 1.5 working people for every retiree. The current median age in China is about 30. It will go upto 46 in 2040, and with advances in medical technology and increasing lifespan, this is going to become an increasingly bigger problem. Remember that this not only affects the economy - This is also going to affect the military, with fewer able bodied men available to enter armed services, and is also going to affect geopolitical dynamics indirectly. Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits? Show nested quote +I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more The current way population is distributed has a lot to do with how white men went and took over vast continents and then redrew the boundaries to suit their needs. Most of Asian countries by contrast, were brutally subjugated by the British, and therefore could not indulge in the same degree of empire building. Essentially your solution would once again benefit white people further due to the aggressive militaristic tendencies of your ancestors, in addition to all the benefits that you have already reaped due to your nation building (such as increased access to natural resources). Also, it really smacks of elitism - what you're essentially saying is that a person in a developed country has the right to do whatever the fuck he pleases, whereas a person in a less developed country can't do the same, just because of the country he was born in - a factor he has no control over?
China did it more rapidly than others, and obviously there's going to be an economic cost, but its a hit we will have to take, we can't just keep expanding our population forever to keep that working age percentage the same, people are living longet, etc. Eventually it'll catch up to us... I don't know the ideal policy details, but some way that minimizes intrusion, economic cost, etc.
My intention isn't to be elitist, but the other alternative is we let the rest of the world fully develop on their accord, and then we will have a world population of 15-20 billion, and then what? Unless we have a massive breakthrough technology how do we deal with that long term? Or maybe that's what we wat to bank on, idk.
If we have 15-20 billion people living like all of Europe does, that's like 10x larger population that the Earth can currently sustain. We can only cut out emissions so far before we live like cavemen.
|
On November 21 2016 08:39 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 08:00 Piledriver wrote:On November 21 2016 06:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:On November 21 2016 06:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 21 2016 04:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote:There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions). Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."
The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama. 45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean. Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution. what population control measures do you support? I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there. We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc. So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions. I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow. But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones. I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita. China's one child policy is already showing its effects which are about to get worse over the next couple of decades with an increasingly aging population that directly affects its economy and productivity. Currently there are 5 working people for about every retiree. In 2040 this would have collapsed to 1.5 working people for every retiree. The current median age in China is about 30. It will go upto 46 in 2040, and with advances in medical technology and increasing lifespan, this is going to become an increasingly bigger problem. Remember that this not only affects the economy - This is also going to affect the military, with fewer able bodied men available to enter armed services, and is also going to affect geopolitical dynamics indirectly. Also China/India supplies most of the cheap labor of the world currently. Once we have successfully decimated their working population, where will we get the cheap labor needed to sustain our consumption habits? I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more The current way population is distributed has a lot to do with how white men went and took over vast continents and then redrew the boundaries to suit their needs. Most of Asian countries by contrast, were brutally subjugated by the British, and therefore could not indulge in the same degree of empire building. Essentially your solution would once again benefit white people further due to the aggressive militaristic tendencies of your ancestors, in addition to all the benefits that you have already reaped due to your nation building (such as increased access to natural resources). Also, it really smacks of elitism - what you're essentially saying is that a person in a developed country has the right to do whatever the fuck he pleases, whereas a person in a less developed country can't do the same, just because of the country he was born in - a factor he has no control over? China did it more rapidly than others, and obviously there's going to be an economic cost, but its a hit we will have to take, we can't just keep expanding our population forever to keep that working age percentage the same, people are living longet, etc. Eventually it'll catch up to us... I don't know the ideal policy details, but some way that minimizes intrusion, economic cost, etc. My intention isn't to be elitist, but the other alternative is we let the rest of the world fully develop on their accord, and then we will have a world population of 15-20 billion, and then what? Unless we have a massive breakthrough technology how do we deal with that long term? Or maybe that's what we wat to bank on, idk.
I don't get what your even advocating for. We (the western world) are already dropping the working age percentage (average age is going up), native population growths are already in the negative (less then 2 children per family)
We don't have to slow population growth. We are immigrating in people to keep up.
And yes the world is waiting for technological breakthroughs, we have been consuming the earths resources at a higher rate then is being generated since forever. We have been in a race to revolutionize resource consumption or colonize other planets before we run out since what? the bronze age?
Heck if you wanne stop the earth's population growth your probably better off uplifting the 3e world since increases in wealth coincide with lower birth rates.
|
Birth controlling the first world into oblivion while the third world continues to expand does not strike me as a sane plan to stop climate change.
|
On November 21 2016 06:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 06:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 21 2016 04:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote:There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions). Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."
The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama. 45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean. Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution. what population control measures do you support? I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there. We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc. So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions. I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow. But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones. I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita.
So developed countries, which are better off to take care of children, should limit reproduction but developing and 3rd world countries should be off limits? You do realize what that entails in the long run?
Edit: What xDaunt said.
An interesting idea I heard about a while ago, was that the best way to take care of Climate Change, if you really cared about it, is austerity and stop running the World (and GOVERNMENTS) on DEBT.
DEBT is essentially taking resources from the future and bringing them to the present, making our sons and grandsons pay the cost.
Enviromentally, running the economy on debt means essentially runing the economy on over-consumption of resources.
|
|
|
gotunk -> austerity would certainly fix climate change, if done sufficiently. it's quite possible to run the world renewably, it's just less overall wealth. if people were willing to accept being markedly poorer, the transition could be done.
debt doesn't really cause much of climate change; though it may hurt it a bit. government may run on debt, but the economy as a whole doesn't. so stopping debt spending wouldn't raelly affect climate much, if at all.
also, overconsumption (which isn't terribly well-defined anyways) isn't that relevant ot environmental effect. as the levels of consumption are already far past what the environment can absorb reasonably.
|
A lot of the worst emitters per capita are indeed the less developed nations that haven't developed proper controls to decrease their polluting. You could make an argument that they emit more so that the first worlders don't have to make what they make but they produce less efficiently for sure.
|
On November 21 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:
Birth controlling the first world into oblivion while the third world continues to expand does not strike me as a sane plan to stop climate change.
My understanding was that Fiwifaki's idea was more aggressive population control policy in the developing world, with less aggressive incentives-based population control in developed countries.
But, well, good luck implementing that.
On November 21 2016 09:09 GoTuNk! wrote:
DEBT is essentially taking resources from the future and bringing them to the present, making our sons and grandsons pay the cost.
This represents a larger problem with how governments manage things, but it's very hard to change, particularly in modern democratic countries. As it turns out, most people that vote don't give a shit about what happens after they die, so they'll vote for their own short-term interest, rather than for a nebulous concept of a greater good that's "better for the country". On the other hand, the people who are young enough to be alive when we fuck ourselves over are either too young to vote or choose not to do so.
Healthcare reform is another area where this is a problem. Older people don't care that the system will collapse on itself after they're gone, and young healthy people are healthy, so they don't think about what that would mean for them. So there ends up being not enough impetus for good healthcare reform, and we get half-assed solutions instead.
|
On November 21 2016 09:46 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:
Birth controlling the first world into oblivion while the third world continues to expand does not strike me as a sane plan to stop climate change. My understanding was that Fiwifaki's idea was more aggressive population control policy in the developing world, with less aggressive incentives-based population control in developed countries. But, well, good luck implementing that.
If the climate alarmists were really serious, they'd be whipping up the developed world into a military frenzy and launch a global climate crusade to force their green environmental standards upon the world.
|
On November 21 2016 09:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 09:46 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:
Birth controlling the first world into oblivion while the third world continues to expand does not strike me as a sane plan to stop climate change. My understanding was that Fiwifaki's idea was more aggressive population control policy in the developing world, with less aggressive incentives-based population control in developed countries. But, well, good luck implementing that. If the climate alarmists were really serious, they'd be whipping up the developed world into a military frenzy and launch a global climate crusade to force their green environmental standards upon the world.
Incidentally, and not all that surprisingly, military bases are huge pollutants.
Maybe we should just stick to sanctions instead.
|
On November 21 2016 09:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 09:46 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:
Birth controlling the first world into oblivion while the third world continues to expand does not strike me as a sane plan to stop climate change. My understanding was that Fiwifaki's idea was more aggressive population control policy in the developing world, with less aggressive incentives-based population control in developed countries. But, well, good luck implementing that. If the climate alarmists were really serious, they'd be whipping up the developed world into a military frenzy and launch a global climate crusade to force their green environmental standards upon the world.
Lol, they often can't even convince their countrymen it's a threat worth addressing at all. Whipping them into a military frenzy is like four steps beyond that.
|
On November 21 2016 09:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 09:46 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:
Birth controlling the first world into oblivion while the third world continues to expand does not strike me as a sane plan to stop climate change. My understanding was that Fiwifaki's idea was more aggressive population control policy in the developing world, with less aggressive incentives-based population control in developed countries. But, well, good luck implementing that. If the climate alarmists were really serious, they'd be whipping up the developed world into a military frenzy and launch a global climate crusade to force their green environmental standards upon the world.
That's some pretty dumb political analysis there. So because climate alarmists aren't trying to cause WW3 (which incidentally would be horrible for the environment, especially if nukes got involved), they must be disingenuous in their arguments? How are they supposed to gin up support for a global green crusade if they can't even convince their own country it's not a Chinese hoax?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
