I haven't seen a plan either -just a barrage of "ideas". This thing from Schummer is just another "idea". wdwinder asked about goals or "targets" that should be met, or would actually "help" the situation. I replied by saying that has been established.

BUT, I totally agree with you, that a PLAN to meet those goals seems to be allusive and a source of great debate. Case in point, this thread. Many have ideas as to how to address it, but no one (that I'm aware of) has established a complete plan that gives clarity to the people who care to try and will also produce the necessary results.

I could sell my boat, 'Vettes and Cayenne and buy electric cars, put solar panels up and so on...but is that going to help the big picture (in a meaningful way)? Yes. No. Maybe? Sort of...that is unclear to me.

 

My captian planet villan name is smoggish speedly.

 

Dont forget to sell your current home and move into a tiny house....

This is where the head bumping begins between the 2 sides. The left feels urgency and would love to see everyone in the country comply with what you've written.... Thats where it appears to many of us that there is the underlying "control" agenda... Because complying with those things is taking away freedoms that we enjoy. I like having a 4000 SQ ' home, I like having a ZR-1.... Just as Im sure you like your boat and Porsche.... Its a slippery slope when entertaining these "ideas" to relinquish things weve undoubtedly worked very hard for. So while the earth has warmed 2 degrees Celsius, do we really want to sell everything we own, buy an electro-car and live in a 600 SQ ' home in order to probably NOT reverse that? Hell No! The right doesn't see that urgency and doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water...

 

There is no overall plan that I have seen as well, but that's because it is a very complex problem and I don't think we know exactly what levers to push to fix it. In terms of a goal, what I have seen is trying to reduce the increase in average temperature over time.

We don't have all the precise answers, but we can (and should) act on what we know. What we know is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes it to retain thermal energy from the sun, this alters the temperature. Climate is a very complex interaction of currents and weather patterns, and what drives weather patterns, the difference in temperature from one area to another. If the average temperature is altered, you will change those patterns, in the atmosphere, this change results in altered weather patterns, in the sea, it causes melting of ice caps, which raises sea level, but it also alters current strengths and patterns, which in turn affects the atmospheric conditions and weather patterns. All of these changes don't have a singular result, calling it global warming is a misnomer and maybe just labeling the whole disease by a symptom. These slight temperature changes create extreme weather events, and they do so on a more frequent basis.

Since we know CO2 emissions contribute to this issue and we don't know the whole answer, isn't curbing/reducing these emissions just the common sense approach??

If you look at this sentence in your post, I think it is very illuminating:

I believe the answer is no, it will not help. Selling something does not change the equation. Every transaction has a seller and buyer and while your personal level of emissions will decrease, the buyer of your stuff will use it and still create the emissions. The only way to reduce something is to eliminate it. Which is what the point of this program really is. We may not agree with it, but in these terms, no reasonable person can argue that it is not effective. Removing the emission sources is the only way to reduce the emission. In this case, the government is acting as the buyer in the transaction who takes the loss on the deal.

 

Right? That is defintely part of it. I blow $300-$400/month worth of natural gas out my inefficient, vaulted ceiling/roof every winter. Does that help the situation? Not at all. What should I do about it that will make a meaningful diff? I'm not sure.

Yeeeaaahhhh.....Not sure about that. I'm not sure this is "left" or "right"...or has anything to do with "Control". Yes, I'm sure that there are overzealous "control freaks" (on BOTH sides), but I don't see that as being an over riding theme. Concern over our environment -the place that supports our life, is not the same as "control" or compliance.


Not really. I don't want to. I like my toys, I like my house. But neither do I want the consequences. I know that I don't want to "plow forward in ignorance" add to or exacerbating the problem. And I know that I'm DEFINITELY not going to call names, label and be disrespectful to people who have a legitimate point on the matter, backed by actual data. So I try to learn more about it every chance that I get.


It's interesting to me that as the population has increased, economies of scale, + more "brains" have allowed us more access to more things; better homes, cars, toys etc. Right? The average person in 1925 (for example) couldn't afford a 3000 sq' home, many cars, boats, travel, and so on. We can now, but the same increase in population is going to force limitations on what we can do, and ultimately limit the very "freedoms" that you're talking about. Can 8 billion people live in 3000' homes, have multiple cars/boats/toys, produce the resulting emissions and trash....all on this same planet? I don't think that is sustaining, but maybe I'm wrong....



.

 

I totally agree. I just attended a presentation recent here in UT on the subject. The presenter was Dr Robert Davies and the presentation was (surprisingly, to me) attended by many UT business leaders, including Mitt Romney. All presumably "Right"....right? But they're at least intelligent enough to go, listen and try to learn a thing. Anyway Dr Davies presentation very clearly explained where he beleives "we are at", at this point and an increase in temp is unavoidable -he says. Then he laid out several action measures and the results...and none of them look good at all. ^This^ is "proof" of nothing. The point was to agree that it is complex, and best case at this point is curbing the rate of increase....increase is happening already.




with this too. If I seel my boat....someone else is going to run it...probably more than I do. So will I feel all proud and self righteous by selling my stuff. Not exactly b/c I know the things are well maintained and will go on polluting for years regardless of who owns them. So what do I do? IDK yet. I'm waiting, listening. thinking....but don't have clarity.

 

I think it goes beyond just a feeling of control, many of the hard core climate change activists, petition the government to force everyone through legistlation to live the lifestyle they think is enviromentally friendly.

I studied geography at a university level and have university accreditation, and I will just say at that time myself and 75% of my class mates and proabbly 50% of the professors did not feel the science was settled.

...But even if we say there is a climate problem, the issue I have again is a lot of the solutions proposed are very socialist/marxist. Usually involveing taxes, regulations, resitution payments to developing countries etc...

It seems very little attention is given to the 'smart' enviromental solutions. A Couple examples of smart solutions are locally in B.C Canada the adjacent city uses green waste to power a good chunck of its municipal vehicles, they quietly built a methonl plant next to the dump for this purpose. Why don't we use green waste and biomass to make fuel for more vehicles, most of it just rots?

another example, the gas company in the region recaptures methane from old landfill sites and supplies up to 10% of home natural gas from this source... another non socialist solution...

C02 eating super algae farms, why do we not invest in these types of things???


An example of less well thought out solutions that recieve way more government funding locally the government has put in both provincal and federal carbon taxes, the money doesn't go into green tech it just goes to the government's general coffers Our provincal government decided to take on a MEGA hydro electric project that will flood thousands of acres of farmland, disrupt and re-reroute a major continental river, require a decade of heavy machinery use en mass, the massive amount of concrete will leach/emit C02 forever after its completed and the whole thing is over budget not to mention the land was expropriated by force and upset local first nations. Then to justify it they legislated all new vehicles must be electric by 2040 and give $5-10K subsidies to switch to an electric vehicle, thus making everyone reliant on the government power company (monopoly) that has raised our elecricity rates massively over the last few years...why not 100% new vehicles must be powered by renewable energy? well because they want to have new customers for thier government electric projects, and nevermind the enviromental disaster the dam causes. Oh and by the way the government power company stopped paying anyone who generates thier own power and supplies it to thier grid at the same time! Oh and the real kicker is my province already without this project produces more electricity than it uses and sells a lot to the states, so it wasn't needed, the grid on the other had cannot support more than a small fraction of households using electric cars and it is publically known the entire grid must be redone before 2040 yet no plan is in place because more taxes or revenues are needed to do it. This is what I mean by socialism and climate change seem intertwined, all the funding and attention goes to socialist and big government solutions not smart caplitalist based ones.

Why not use some carbon tax money to provide and interest free loan to any company that builds a large scale methonyl plant using local under utilized green waste and provide people the same subsidy to convert thier gas vehicle to run on methonyl or other renewable energy, why only focus the money on electric cars and the government run power company? Why waste public money on huge projects when cheaper capitalist solutions are avaliable?

 

You say "the government takes the loss on the deal" as if the money spent on this program belongs to the government. Any money spent by the government is first taken from a taxpayer. The taxpayers are the ones taking a loss, NEVER the government.

 

Well said! Thier is no government money its all tax payer money.

 

The thing everyone is missing in this discussion... Earth has been warming on it's own. Throughout human history, this has been happening. CO2 or not, earth changes its temperature in cycles. We KNOW that it's part of it's natural order, it does this, and at times it has been much colder or much warmer.

Climate change is not some unnatural catastrophe for the Earth. It is however a very expensive and costly in terms of human life issue when our civilization has invested in the idea of geography and climate being static. Take a trip to Doggerland if you're interested in seeing it first hand. Pack your scuba gear, because its located in the north sea, complete with human settlements.

One does not "solve" climate change. Humanity has to change how it views the planet, and recognize that we are insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Climate will change. We can adjust how we live to react and adapt, or we can try to stop an inevtiable force and have massive fatalities in the coming years.

 

I didn't think that needed to be said, it's obvious.

Society in general and governments in particular are bargains, you trade something (liberties in the form of laws, taxation,etc) to get something (protection, social order, justice, infrastructure, etc).

All you need to know is outlined in the preamble to the US Constitution. Just remember the lessons taught to you by Schoolhouse Rock!

 

Well said, and I agree that there is a natural cycle. But if the natural cycle has such grand consequences, isn't that more reason to not contributing to altering or amplifying those changes?

 

Right...that has been mentioned several times in this thread...w/o context. The vid of some billionare talking to scientists at his wedding, about core samples mentioned it too. Of course the earth has changed temps. Of course.

1. Has it marketdly changed temps w/in 100 years? As has been observed "now"?
2. How did life fair, through those temp cycled? Did life thrive? Suffer? Did people enjoy 3000' homes, Corvettes and boats through the last temp increase? IDK...but I'm going to say that I doubt it.

I don't think anyone doubts or denies that the temps on earth have changed throughout history.

 

I'm actually Canadian, (american consitution doesn't apply to me) but I do understand what you are saying about the social contract and trading certain freedoms for the advantages of an organized society/ civilization.

 

I think you would be extremely surprised at how many people believe the "government" is some entity with its own money... The intelligence level of many voters is not what you think it might be...

 

MOVE THIS TO THE Politics, Religion and Controversy section !!! Lots of trash talking on this thread, none of which has to do with C4s.....
If I wanted to hear right wing trash talk and conspiracy theories,etc., I would go to the Politics, Religion and Controversy thread....

 

Global warming is good!
This beautiful Yosemite valley (CA) used to be filled solid with glaciers! Who do we blame for that disaster?

 

No one held a metal object to your head and forced you to read it. It is a bunch of C4 guys arguing amongst themselves.

There are plenty of threads I choose not to read.

 

Ayuh. There is this, too though....

 

Looks like Ohio, but with a different kind of tree. The emerald ash borer (brought in from China) has killed more than 20 million ash trees out east here. My couple acres is loaded with dead trees, as are the neighbors, in fact everywhere.

Global trade has done more than just hurt jobs.