|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Norway28675 Posts
Actually reaching the goals basically includes funding a grand renewable infrastructure project (probably necessitates severe extra taxation on the wealthy) and some degree of rationing of goods that are considered necessities for 'freedom' (meat, airplanes and cars, the latter to a lesser degree).
This doesn't have political support. The alternative of not doing anything, probably leads to a scenario where in the future a whole lot of people want to migrate into the still livable countries. And then you know, maybe we're at the universal income type of scenario, so adding more people means each slice of cake becomes smaller. And then that won't have political support. So maybe we'll close the borders and house all these people in provisional camps located in the 'still barely livable' region while giving them some rice and salt and very very basic education with no real hope of improving their life situation, except that we have a lottery where 1 / 1000 end up being allowed to go live in the west (under the assumption that they've been well behaved, to incentivize not rioting).
Alternatively, we can try to at the very least do everything that we can do that doesn't severely impact our lives. Climate change is not a binary 'either it happens or it doesn't' type of choice. It's a 'it happens either way, but how quickly, how much, and how consequential it ends up being depends on the actions we undertake'. I have a defeatist attitude in terms of completely hindering it, and a dystopic attitude in how I envision climate change altering our world. But we can still do a lot more than we are doing..
|
I have faith, though, the race that lives practically everywhere in almost every every earth climate will be ok!
With the exceptions of nuclear war - I don't think anyone thinks the human race is at risk, just a couple billion of its people
|
Sure we can survive, but as people get richer, they prefer "luxury goods" like clean air and water. Market forces are already favoring cleaner, renewable sources of energy, but US policy is going out of its way to subsidize the stuff that people don't want to score political points.
Your valuation of private cars seems inflated as well. People do not place additional value in a car's ability to emit CO2. Filling the world with more cars also leads to bad commutes, more traffic accidents, and worse roads. Pretty big downsides of an already inefficient system of wasting resources to transport on average 1 or 2 people.
|
On October 10 2018 00:05 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 23:32 Plansix wrote:On October 09 2018 23:08 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 21:30 Aquanim wrote:On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:
...
-I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality.
...
This is a very inaccurate analogy. If your concern is the number of variables, think about what happens when you pour a glass of water. There are a very large number of molecules but the outcome (that most-to-all of the water will end up at the bottom of the glass) is not in doubt. We don't know where each molecule will be but we do know the broad trend. Climate modelling is a more difficult problem, so there is more doubt than pouring a glass of water, and the details are difficult-to-impossible to predict exactly - but the broad trends are not as difficult. EDIT: You may find this more readable than the IPCC report: www.skepticalscience.com I don't agree. The earth is BIG, and there are many and important factors determining the climate, locally and globally, long term and short term. That glass anology makes no sense. Even agreeing how to calculate a global mean temperature from observations is difficult! Studying the links, yes, it seems likely that humans have caused some temperature rise due to CO2 emissions, but how much warmer it will become, the consequeces, how we adapt to it and how much we can do about it is pretty much up in the air. This viewpoint is often used as a safe haven from the potential problems of climate change, but I don’t think you have engaged with what you are saying. If the outcome is up in the air, as you put it, then the results of climate change could be far worse than what is being predicated. The scientists warning about climate change did not pick the worst case scenario for their prediction, but the most likely outcome. Your theory that their prediction is not the most likely allows for them to have undervalued the impact of climate change. Also, the risk for what will take place if they are correct is so high waiting to see what happens is gross negligence. Once the impact of climate change take place, the disruption that it will cause to the status quo will impact our daily lives and political systems. It could cause wars, mass unemployment or other human made disasters that will prevent us from taking action to address the problem. This viewpoint is the Neville Chamberlain of climate change, which seems like wisdom but is in reality folly. Of course they CAN be terrible, up in the air means we have no idea what will happen, for better or worse. I have faith, though, the race that lives practically everywhere in almost every every earth climate will be ok! But don't underestimate what it would take to slash CO2 emissions in half either! Flying? Only for super rich. Private car industry? What? Goods from Asia? Forget about it, transport too expensive. I believe it would be politically impossible. You already see the reactions to things like "normal" (by international standards) electricity prices in Norway and gasoline prices in the US. If you add cutting millions of jobs in entire industries to the equation, it won't be pretty! Yeah, not pretty.
You know what else isn't pretty? Lowering the habitability of the one planet that we have.
|
On October 10 2018 00:16 On_Slaught wrote:
I wonder if NH retiring has anything to do with the IPCC report. I can imagine a scenario where the admin is trying to get her to undermine it or something like that and she says no. If not the timing certainly feels weird. Regardless of why, I agree it isnt great since she is likely to be replaced by someone more radical.
Rand Paul lolllll
User was warned for this post.
|
I did the math a while ago, but the air temp increase for 2C is equivalent to a small nuke(think WW2) going off every 400 square feet, with none of the energy radiating off to space, or being absorbed by the ground.
You'd have to be mad to assume that even half that amount of energy wouldn't cause catastrophic events.
I personally would rather not destroy the one planet that I live on.
|
On October 10 2018 00:05 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 23:32 Plansix wrote:On October 09 2018 23:08 Slydie wrote:On October 09 2018 21:30 Aquanim wrote:On October 09 2018 18:02 Slydie wrote:
...
-I think of climate models similar to programming the football all players of football field into a model and use it to determine the outcome of a match. They will never come close to reality.
...
This is a very inaccurate analogy. If your concern is the number of variables, think about what happens when you pour a glass of water. There are a very large number of molecules but the outcome (that most-to-all of the water will end up at the bottom of the glass) is not in doubt. We don't know where each molecule will be but we do know the broad trend. Climate modelling is a more difficult problem, so there is more doubt than pouring a glass of water, and the details are difficult-to-impossible to predict exactly - but the broad trends are not as difficult. EDIT: You may find this more readable than the IPCC report: www.skepticalscience.com I don't agree. The earth is BIG, and there are many and important factors determining the climate, locally and globally, long term and short term. That glass anology makes no sense. Even agreeing how to calculate a global mean temperature from observations is difficult! Studying the links, yes, it seems likely that humans have caused some temperature rise due to CO2 emissions, but how much warmer it will become, the consequeces, how we adapt to it and how much we can do about it is pretty much up in the air. This viewpoint is often used as a safe haven from the potential problems of climate change, but I don’t think you have engaged with what you are saying. If the outcome is up in the air, as you put it, then the results of climate change could be far worse than what is being predicated. The scientists warning about climate change did not pick the worst case scenario for their prediction, but the most likely outcome. Your theory that their prediction is not the most likely allows for them to have undervalued the impact of climate change. Also, the risk for what will take place if they are correct is so high waiting to see what happens is gross negligence. Once the impact of climate change take place, the disruption that it will cause to the status quo will impact our daily lives and political systems. It could cause wars, mass unemployment or other human made disasters that will prevent us from taking action to address the problem. This viewpoint is the Neville Chamberlain of climate change, which seems like wisdom but is in reality folly. Of course they CAN be terrible, up in the air means we have no idea what will happen, for better or worse. I have faith, though, the race that lives practically everywhere in almost every every earth climate will be ok! But don't underestimate what it would take to slash CO2 emissions in half either! Flying? Only for super rich. Private car industry? What? Goods from Asia? Forget about it, transport too expensive. I believe it would be politically impossible. You already see the reactions to things like "normal" (by international standards) electricity prices in Norway and gasoline prices in the US. If you add cutting millions of jobs in entire industries to the equation, it won't be pretty!
Flying? Well currently short to medium travels are being expected to be operated by electric/hybrid planes. Several designs are being experimented with in operation (Avinor in Norway e.g. got a few they are trying out), where it is looking quite promising. This is expected to be a gradual change over many years. When it comes to long travels, the fuel is currently becoming a mix of of biofuel and regular fuel. This is also expected to increase.
While some of this is because of risk management and regulation, most of it is from the nature of CO2 quotas becoming more expensive over time, creating a more expensive product (e.g flight tickets) if the product suppliers are not able to find a way to reduce CO2 impact of their product.
Private car industry? Not a problem with a hybrid energy mix in 2030 and a mix between renewables/nuclear power in 2050. All four pathways in the report expects private car industry to increase. Shipping? Still no problem!
You would find that if you just glanced the report, it is more costly to not do what is needed. The economical/social impact of going down one of the pathways are way less dramatic than what you think it is. Hell, the fourth pathway with 4% overshoot even accepts a 86% increase in oil consumption compared to 2010, in 2030.
|
Just yesterday, a story ran on Haley accepting free private flights paid for by South Carolina executives. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
|
I remember the days when a single flight on a private plane would trigger a congressional investigation. But now the graft is just common place.
|
Ivanka is a name being raised by some people, including Coulter, to replace Halley. I actually could see that happening, as inappropriate as it is.
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 10 2018 00:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Actually reaching the goals basically includes funding a grand renewable infrastructure project (probably necessitates severe extra taxation on the wealthy) and some degree of rationing of goods that are considered necessities for 'freedom' (meat, airplanes and cars, the latter to a lesser degree).
With the rapid deterioration of the middle class and a lack of autarkic sensibilities, I don't see how either process could ever be implemented. The government would have to install harsh trade restrictions to prevent outside companies from making up the difference. The rich are now eminently mobile and detached from national loyalty so aversion to say, moving overseas, isn't a large deterrent. All of this ignores the impeding end of the current asset bubble too.
On October 10 2018 00:20 Plansix wrote:
Rebuilding a country to run on new types of energy sounds like a job making machine, just like in the 1950s and 1960s we created a crap ton of jobs by building out this countries roads and infrastructure.
The vast changes required to shift and accommodate the country's energy consumption would more resemble the programs instituted under the New Deal. The Federal-Aid Highway Act required less job specialization and a smaller dedicated budget than any theoretical transfer to clean energy.
|
On October 10 2018 01:50 On_Slaught wrote:
Ivanka is a name being raised by some people, including Coulter, to replace Halley. I actually could see that happening, as inappropriate as it is.
Please let him do that. I would LOVE to watch Coulter or Ivanka go through a senate confirmation hearing and the Republicans try to justify voting for either.
|
I meant that Coulter was among the people (it was raised by some CNN peeps too) calling for/predicting Ivanka to replace Halley. Coulter would be hilarious tho.
|
I just brushed up on Coulter's background and she is so wildly under qualified for the job it is sort of amazing that anyone would suggest it. She has a brief 4 year spot working in Congress in the late 1990s. Then book deals, show business and heckling from the cheap seats for the next 18 years. But she is such a shill that I don't' think she would accept Trump's nomination anyways. She is here to heckle, not preform.
|
Ivanka might be less horrible then you'd think tho. It matters little how qualified the person is when they are there to implement Trumps vision. Atleast with Ivanka you get someone who world leaders can talk to that Trump might actually listen to.
Please let him do that. I would LOVE to watch Coulter or Ivanka go through a senate confirmation hearing and the Republicans try to justify voting for either. Really?
They justified Kavanugh. This would be a walk in the park.
|
If I’m allowed one more dystopic post, just two short points.
One of the futures with climate change is like the movie Children of Men, an openly fascist society where immigrants are considered sub-humans that need to be controlled.
And this is a quote from soome show about lliberalism in thefac e of climate chhange. I thought it was kinda cathartic
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 10 2018 00:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Actually reaching the goals basically includes funding a grand renewable infrastructure project (probably necessitates severe extra taxation on the wealthy) and some degree of rationing of goods that are considered necessities for 'freedom' (meat, airplanes and cars, the latter to a lesser degree).
This doesn't have political support. The alternative of not doing anything, probably leads to a scenario where in the future a whole lot of people want to migrate into the still livable countries.
I think a lot of this battle will be about framing. As long as ecology is viewed as something that impacts people a lot, where you have to do most of the work (become vegan, pee in the shower, whatever), it's not going to be the most popular. If you can show that industry is where most of the changes have to go, I don't think you'll encounter as much pushback. A lot of the work that lobbies are doing to counter climate change regulation has been to reframe it as something that you should be doing, rather than them.
|
On October 10 2018 02:26 Gorsameth wrote:Ivanka might be less horrible then you'd think tho. It matters little how qualified the person is when they are there to implement Trumps vision. Atleast with Ivanka you get someone who world leaders can talk to that Trump might actually listen to. Show nested quote +Please let him do that. I would LOVE to watch Coulter or Ivanka go through a senate confirmation hearing and the Republicans try to justify voting for either. Really? They justified Kavanugh. This would be a walk in the park.
Yeah, coulture seems to be really, really liked by the very people that just got in line behind an unknown judge... She would pass in a heartbeat.
Your politics are a pure entertainment show now... Its time democrats understand this.
|
The Democrats in the House understand. That hearing with the FBI agent is proof that they know what is up. The Senate Democrats are still living in fantasy land, with the few exceptions of people like Booker and Mazie Hirono.
|
Israel has detained a US citizen because they suspect she supports a boycott Israeli goods. I am all for nations protecting themselves, but I sort of doubt she is a terrorist threat or risk to security. Maybe a risk to the bottom line of some companies in Israel. It is noteworthy that the University in Israel that sponsored her is going to join her appeal. And even if they are going to deport her, I don’t see why she is being detained. Where is she going to go?
In a groundbreaking case, Israel has detained an American graduate student at its international airport for the past week, accusing her of supporting a Palestinian-led boycott campaign against the Jewish state.
The case highlights Israel's concerns about the boycott movement and the great efforts it has made to stop it. The grassroots campaign has made significant inroads in recent years, particularly among university students and millennials.
Lara Alqasem, a 22-year-old U.S. citizen with Palestinian grandparents, landed at Ben-Gurion Airport last Tuesday with a valid student visa. But she was barred from entering the country and ordered deported, based on suspicions she is a boycott supporter.
An Israeli court has ordered that she remain in custody while she appeals. The weeklong detention is the longest anyone has been held in a boycott-related case, and it was not immediately clear on Tuesday when a final decision would be made.
Alqasem, from the Fort Lauderdale suburb of Southwest Ranches, Florida, is a former president of the University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. The group is a branch of the BDS movement, whose name comes from its calls for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel.
BDS supporters say that in urging businesses, artists and universities to sever ties with Israel, they are using nonviolent means to resist unjust policies toward Palestinians. Israel says the movement masks motives to delegitimize or destroy the Jewish state.
"Lara served as president of a chapter of one of the most extreme and hate-filled anti-Israel BDS groups in the U.S.," said Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan, who spearheads the Israeli government's efforts against the boycott. "Israel will not allow entry to those who work to harm the country, whatever their excuse."
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
