This is going to get us coming and going

[BenedictGomez]

the green movement has it priorities mixed up or maybe I'm interpreting them the wrong way.

My greatest confusion is that, IF they genuinely believe in man-made Global Warming, why are their "solutions" so entirely ineffectual and useless? You cant have it both ways.

You either believe in the science and call for dramatic changes based on IPCC findings like calling on people to eat less meat or become vegetarian, focus doggedly on China and India, tell people they shouldn't own pets, etc.... OR you dont.

But the things they currently lobby for to help "make a difference" are in actuality generally entirely useless IF you believe the science. Worse? They tend to be financially crippling and will hurt America's economy and cost jobs, while simultaneously having no impact on Global Warming IF you believe the science.

Yeah, lets make a multi-BILLION dollar change that affects our output .000000000000000000001% per day, while China and India are increasing same output 1% per week, etc... Lets make everyone drive expensive, crappy, hybrid cars that have a ridiculously SLIGHT net beneficial impact versus a regular car, while the developing world is adding vehicles on the road at a record pace per day. Lets make gas more expensive and worse for your cars, because of some absurdly small perceived environmental "benefit", which is highly debatable to begin with. Lets stop using cost-effective energy and intentionally drive up the price of less-favored energies to make our Solar and Wind lovechild projects more plausible.

The "changes" that the Green movement tends to rally around are generally useless IF you believe in man-made Global Warming science, but they are extremely expensive. I personally think they're being led about by the nose, and the motive is usually $$$$$$.

 

[drjeff]

My greatest confusion is that, IF they genuinely believe in man-made Global Warming, why are their "solutions" so entirely ineffectual and useless? You cant have it both ways.

You either believe in the science and call for dramatic changes based on IPCC findings like calling on people to eat less meat or become vegetarian, focus doggedly on China and India, tell people they shouldn't own pets, etc.... OR you dont.

But the things they currently lobby for to help "make a difference" are in actuality generally entirely useless IF you believe the science. Worse? They tend to be financially crippling and will hurt America's economy and cost jobs, while simultaneously having no impact on Global Warming IF you believe the science.

Yeah, lets make a multi-BILLION dollar change that affects our output .000000000000000000001% per day, while China and India are increasing same output 1% per week, etc... Lets make everyone drive expensive, crappy, hybrid cars that have a ridiculously SLIGHT net beneficial impact versus a regular car, while the developing world is adding vehicles on the road at a record pace per day. Lets make gas more expensive and worse for your cars, because of some absurdly small perceived environmental "benefit", which is highly debatable to begin with. Lets stop using cost-effective energy and intentionally drive up the price of less-favored energies to make our Solar and Wind lovechild projects more plausible.

The "changes" that the Green movement tends to rally around are generally useless IF you believe in man-made Global Warming science, but they are extremely expensive. I personally think they're being led about by the nose, and the motive is usually $$$$$$.

Well put BG!!

 

[fbrissette]

The "changes" that the Green movement tends to rally around are generally useless IF you believe in man-made Global Warming science, but they are extremely expensive. I personally think they're being led about by the nose, and the motive is usually $$$$$$.

While I don't entirely disagree with the above, it is only fair to mention that the motive behind the 'pro-development' and 'climate change-denying' machine is also $$$$$$. There are actually very very few decision makers that are really concerned with the welfare of middle-class families.

The basis of all environmental problems on earth is pretty much the same - we are too many, and we consume too much. Climate change is only part of this mess.

 

[dlague]

My greatest confusion is that, IF they genuinely believe in man-made Global Warming, why are their "solutions" so entirely ineffectual and useless? You cant have it both ways.

You either believe in the science and call for dramatic changes based on IPCC findings like calling on people to eat less meat or become vegetarian, focus doggedly on China and India, tell people they shouldn't own pets, etc.... OR you dont.

But the things they currently lobby for to help "make a difference" are in actuality generally entirely useless IF you believe the science. Worse? They tend to be financially crippling and will hurt America's economy and cost jobs, while simultaneously having no impact on Global Warming IF you believe the science.

Yeah, lets make a multi-BILLION dollar change that affects our output .000000000000000000001% per day, while China and India are increasing same output 1% per week, etc... Lets make everyone drive expensive, crappy, hybrid cars that have a ridiculously SLIGHT net beneficial impact versus a regular car, while the developing world is adding vehicles on the road at a record pace per day. Lets make gas more expensive and worse for your cars, because of some absurdly small perceived environmental "benefit", which is highly debatable to begin with. Lets stop using cost-effective energy and intentionally drive up the price of less-favored energies to make our Solar and Wind lovechild projects more plausible.

The "changes" that the Green movement tends to rally around are generally useless IF you believe in man-made Global Warming science, but they are extremely expensive. I personally think they're being led about by the nose, and the motive is usually $$$$$$.

You also got to love the activist celebrities that hold concerts that people drive to and get stuck in traffic where they idol, or they fly planes or drive buses with road crews, or promote products whose very making could involve chemicals and pollution. Or they act in movies that people go watch at hundreds of thousands of theaters or cinemas worldwide, or think of the production of a movie and what is involved. Or politicians who discuss global warming and live in large houses, drive big cars (have more then one) and fly air force one to play golf.

This group is trying to tell us how to live but they themselves never set the example. F' that! The green movement has their head up their ass and is conflicted as to how best get change to take place. They are fractured but different interests just as our society is - it will only get worse.

 

[dlague]

While I don't entirely disagree with the above, it is only fair to mention that the motive behind the 'pro-development' and 'climate change-denying' machine is also $$$$$$. There are actually very very few decision makers that are really concerned with the welfare of middle-class families.

The basis of all environmental problems on earth is pretty much the same - we are too many, and we consume too much. Climate change is only part of this mess.

We will only become more and consume even more product that is dependent on factories of some sort!

 

[jack97]

We will only become more and consume even more product that is dependent on factories of some sort!

While I don't agree nor do I do agree entirely with the above...... I'll throw out something that is counter intuitive. The population trends for developed countries have plateaued. According to the numbers, women in these places do not have many children, hence the growth is stagnate. It's the developing countries where population is growing; they still live in the old backdrop of infant mortality. Medicine is expensive and its availability is not guaranteed. So on average, they have six children hoping that two will survive to adult hood and look after them when they get old. However, once a country develops, infant mortality drops and the cost of raising kids skyrockets. Researchers who have been tracking this say it takes about 1 to 2 generations for women to produce less children which stabilized the growth.

BBC vid which talks about this trend.

 

[fbrissette]

While I don't agree nor do I do agree entirely with the above...... I'll throw out something that is counter intuitive. The population trends for developed countries have plateaued. According to the numbers, women in these places do not have many children, hence the growth is stagnate. It's the developing countries where population is growing; they still live in the old backdrop of infant mortality. Medicine is expensive and its availability is not guaranteed. So on average, they have six children hoping that two will survive to adult hood and look after them when they get old. However, once a country develops, infant mortality drops and the cost of raising kids skyrockets. Researchers who have been tracking this say it takes about 1 to 2 generations for women to produce less children which stabilized the growth.

BBC vid which talks about this trend.

In the mean time:

 

[Not Sure]

In the mean time:

If that was a Stock Market chart the voices would be screaming unsustainable.

 

[Smellytele]

That is one of the worst graphs I have ever seen and pretty much useless.

 

[fbrissette]

That is one of the worst graphs I have ever seen and pretty much useless.

Feel free to post one you like. It will nonetheless show that it ain't getting better anytime soon. And those billions new people, they all want to live (and consume) like us (barring the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, that wants us to go back to the middle age...)

 

[Smellytele]

What I mean is the graph does not need to go back before 1850 let alone to the year 0. Does the graph show that the quality of life has increased with the invention of the internal combustion engine letting more people survive to breeding age?

 

[Puck it]

Fuck fossil fuels and nukes, let's just go back to the pre-Victorian Era. Because if we rely on solar and wind, that is where we would be. Just sayin'. And none of us would be skiing.

 

[fbrissette]

What I mean is the graph does not need to go back before 1850 let alone to the year 0. Does the graph show that the quality of life has increased with the invention of the internal combustion engine letting more people survive to breeding age?

Fair enough. I picked the first image on google. Oil consumption is a good proxy for 'consumption' in general which was the point I wanted to make. Despite all the talk about sustainable development, the way this planet is going is definitely not sustainable. And while I understand the 'don't wreck the economy' crowd, pretending everything will fix itself in the future is not helping.

 

[Puck it]

Fair enough. I picked the first image on google. Oil consumption is a good proxy for 'consumption' in general which was the point I wanted to make. Despite all the talk about sustainable development, the way this planet is going is definitely not sustainable. And while I understand the 'don't wreck the economy' crowd, pretending everything will fix itself in the future is not helping.

Don't you get it, we move to other planets when we run out of stuff here. Hollywood has gotten right.

 

[fbrissette]

Fuck fossil fuels and nukes, let's just go back to the pre-Victorian Era. Because if we rely on solar and wind, that is where we would be. Just sayin'. And none of us would be skiing.

Nobody wants to go back to the Victorian Era and nobody believe we can solely rely on solar and wind (beside the idiots and the morons).
But may be we can we find some middle ground between the apocalyptic world of Al Gore and the 'don't do anything in case we wreck the economy' approach ? (especially since 2009 has shown that the economy can wreck itself without having to invoke any environmental measure).

 

[Puck it]

Nobody wants to go back to the Victorian Era and nobody believe we can solely rely on solar and wind (beside the idiots and the morons).
But may be we can we find some middle ground between the apocalyptic world of Al Gore and the 'don't do anything in case we wreck the economy' approach ? (especially since 2009 has shown that the economy can wreck itself without having to invoke any environmental measure).

You mean idiots and morons like most liberal progressives, like $7 a gallon gas like most progressives want. Our beloved ski resorts would crumble to disrepair.

The problem right now is no one wants to meet in the middle on these matters.

 

[fbrissette]

You mean idiots and morons like most liberal progressives, like $7 a gallon gas like most progressives want. Our beloved ski resorts would crumble to disrepair.

In all fairness, you should also mention the idiots and morons conservative extremists who believe in wild capitalism, faith-based science and think that women should stay home and have kids.

The problem right now is no one wants to meet in the middle on these matters.

No one wants to meet in the middle on any topic nowadays (except when it comes to bombing muslims).

 

[steamboat1]

You can't be right & I can't be right because you're wrong.

 

[marcski]

You mean idiots and morons like most liberal progressives, like $7 a gallon gas like most progressives want. Our beloved ski resorts would crumble to disrepair.

The problem right now is no one wants to meet in the middle on these matters.

Doesn't Europe have $7 gas? There are still ski resorts over there.

(Not saying I agree or want $7/gal gas...just raising a point).

 

[twinplanx]

Don't you get it, THEY will move to other planets when we run out of stuff here. Hollywood has gotten right.

fixed it for ya. The meek shall inherit the Earth. While the elite blast off on THERE spaceships that WE built/funded for them...

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk