Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Climate talks fail

Page 6 of 44 [ 691 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 44  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

19 Dec 2019, 10:05 pm

Kiprobalhato wrote:
if it were up to me brazil would be reduced to a 200 mile wide strip of land along the coast. they don't have the capacity to be it's custodians, nobody does.


I normally wouldn't advocate interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign country but it would be safe to say that Bolsanaro is a bigger threat to the security of this planet than Saddam Hussein ever was....and we know what to happened to Saddam...



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

19 Dec 2019, 10:39 pm

EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
I don't think climate activists know which end is up.


If keeping the trees is so important, why is Trump expanding logging on public lands?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for ... blic-lands


Last time I checked Trump isn't a climate activist. What's relevant are extra trees being cut down for all the paper bags that climate activists want used in lieu of plastic, which somewhat defeats conservation.


So what you're saying is that you were using some argument just to try to either point out climate activists as hypocrites or idiots, is that what you were doing?

Boy, you love to be critical, don't you?

How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do? Or would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

19 Dec 2019, 10:45 pm

beneficii wrote:
How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do? Or would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?


In my experience if your question is too direct Ezzy is likely to make the response about you.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

19 Dec 2019, 11:02 pm

cyberdad wrote:
beneficii wrote:
How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do? Or would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?


In my experience if your question is too direct Ezzy is likely to make the response about you.


In that case, I'd like to proffer a quote from Teddy Roosevelt:

Quote:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,406
Location: Everville

20 Dec 2019, 12:16 am

beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
I don't think climate activists know which end is up.


If keeping the trees is so important, why is Trump expanding logging on public lands?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for ... blic-lands


Last time I checked Trump isn't a climate activist. What's relevant are extra trees being cut down for all the paper bags that climate activists want used in lieu of plastic, which somewhat defeats conservation.


So what you're saying is that you were using some argument just to try to either point out climate activists as hypocrites or idiots, is that what you were doing?

Boy, you love to be critical, don't you?

How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do? Or would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?



Plant trees, keep up the scientist's grants to discover cleaner means of energy and adjust accordingly(no windmills, please), countries that won't pay their fair share get garnished in trade, recycle, move to hemp based plastics (if possible), no more plastic or paper bags. That sounds like a great start, too me. The government has an entity for Mosquito patrol in Florida, they must have someone who oversees this already.

But what sound ridiculous is handing over an enormous amount of money to a globalist and expecting them to do the right thing with it.


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.

Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

20 Dec 2019, 12:22 am

Persephone29 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
I don't think climate activists know which end is up.


If keeping the trees is so important, why is Trump expanding logging on public lands?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for ... blic-lands


Last time I checked Trump isn't a climate activist. What's relevant are extra trees being cut down for all the paper bags that climate activists want used in lieu of plastic, which somewhat defeats conservation.


So what you're saying is that you were using some argument just to try to either point out climate activists as hypocrites or idiots, is that what you were doing?

Boy, you love to be critical, don't you?

How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do? Or would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?



Plant trees, keep up the scientist's grants to discover cleaner means of energy and adjust accordingly(no windmills, please), countries that won't pay their fair share get garnished in trade, recycle, move to hemp based plastics (if possible), no more plastic or paper bags. That sounds like a great start, too me. The government has an entity for Mosquito patrol in Florida, they must have someone who oversees this already.

But what sound ridiculous is handing over an enormous amount of money to a globalist and expecting them to do the right thing with it.


No one is seriously proposing handing over money to a globalist, but I guess that's just the way you gotta prime the debate.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

20 Dec 2019, 12:27 am

beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
I don't think climate activists know which end is up.


If keeping the trees is so important, why is Trump expanding logging on public lands?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for ... blic-lands


Last time I checked Trump isn't a climate activist. What's relevant are extra trees being cut down for all the paper bags that climate activists want used in lieu of plastic, which somewhat defeats conservation.


So what you're saying is that you were using some argument just to try to either point out climate activists as hypocrites or idiots, is that what you were doing?

Boy, you love to be critical, don't you?

How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do?would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?


Somewhere between drastic immediate emergency action and doing nothing.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

20 Dec 2019, 12:57 am

EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
I don't think climate activists know which end is up.


If keeping the trees is so important, why is Trump expanding logging on public lands?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for ... blic-lands


Last time I checked Trump isn't a climate activist. What's relevant are extra trees being cut down for all the paper bags that climate activists want used in lieu of plastic, which somewhat defeats conservation.


So what you're saying is that you were using some argument just to try to either point out climate activists as hypocrites or idiots, is that what you were doing?

Boy, you love to be critical, don't you?

How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do?would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?


Somewhere between drastic immediate emergency action and doing nothing.


In other words, the safe option that is above criticism--aside from criticism for its vagueness.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

20 Dec 2019, 2:36 am

beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
I don't think climate activists know which end is up.


If keeping the trees is so important, why is Trump expanding logging on public lands?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for ... blic-lands

I haven't researched this,
But I believe that is nothing in comparison to the logging/de-forestation in South America.

I find, generally speaking, "Green" policy mostly misses the mark.
Too much virtue-signalling.
Not enough practicality.

Extinction Rebellion super-gluing themselves to the road instead of picking up arms and attacking the biggest CO2 food emitter in the world, China. <chuckle>
Arguments about "Per Capita" statistics do absolutely nothing.
"Ivory tower" nonsense. <shrug>

I'm not a Trump supporter, btw.
I am not a Democrat supporter either.
American politics is interesting but I'm an Australian. :wink:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

20 Dec 2019, 3:36 am

Pepe wrote:
Extinction Rebellion super-gluing themselves to the road instead of picking up arms and attacking the biggest CO2 food emitter in the world, China. <chuckle>


the USA is the second biggest emitter so protest is still practical.

If you check the news protest doesn't really work in China



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

20 Dec 2019, 4:24 am

cyberdad wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Extinction Rebellion super-gluing themselves to the road instead of picking up arms and attacking the biggest CO2 food emitter in the world, China. <chuckle>


the USA is the second biggest emitter so protest is still practical.

If you check the news protest doesn't really work in China


The last time I checked, China was responsible for 30% of plant food,
And America, 15%.
India is worse than America, but we are trying to get a trade deal going with them and I don't want to rock-the-boat :mrgreen:

You are missing the point.
The protesters are going for the soft targets where they know the risk to them is minimal.
Protesting in China could literally mean torture and death.
I'm no hero,
And neither are those eco-warriors. :wink:



Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,406
Location: Everville

20 Dec 2019, 7:16 am

beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
I don't think climate activists know which end is up.


If keeping the trees is so important, why is Trump expanding logging on public lands?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for ... blic-lands


Last time I checked Trump isn't a climate activist. What's relevant are extra trees being cut down for all the paper bags that climate activists want used in lieu of plastic, which somewhat defeats conservation.


So what you're saying is that you were using some argument just to try to either point out climate activists as hypocrites or idiots, is that what you were doing?

Boy, you love to be critical, don't you?

How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do? Or would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?



Plant trees, keep up the scientist's grants to discover cleaner means of energy and adjust accordingly(no windmills, please), countries that won't pay their fair share get garnished in trade, recycle, move to hemp based plastics (if possible), no more plastic or paper bags. That sounds like a great start, too me. The government has an entity for Mosquito patrol in Florida, they must have someone who oversees this already.

But what sound ridiculous is handing over an enormous amount of money to a globalist and expecting them to do the right thing with it.


No one is seriously proposing handing over money to a globalist, but I guess that's just the way you gotta prime the debate.



Oh, c'mon. Promoting 'carbon credits'? Sounds a bit Catholic to me... Instead of plenary indulgences we get carbon credits.


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.

Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

20 Dec 2019, 7:37 am

Persephone29 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
I don't think climate activists know which end is up.


If keeping the trees is so important, why is Trump expanding logging on public lands?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for ... blic-lands


Last time I checked Trump isn't a climate activist. What's relevant are extra trees being cut down for all the paper bags that climate activists want used in lieu of plastic, which somewhat defeats conservation.


So what you're saying is that you were using some argument just to try to either point out climate activists as hypocrites or idiots, is that what you were doing?

Boy, you love to be critical, don't you?

How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do? Or would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?



Plant trees, keep up the scientist's grants to discover cleaner means of energy and adjust accordingly(no windmills, please), countries that won't pay their fair share get garnished in trade, recycle, move to hemp based plastics (if possible), no more plastic or paper bags. That sounds like a great start, too me. The government has an entity for Mosquito patrol in Florida, they must have someone who oversees this already.

But what sound ridiculous is handing over an enormous amount of money to a globalist and expecting them to do the right thing with it.


No one is seriously proposing handing over money to a globalist, but I guess that's just the way you gotta prime the debate.



Oh, c'mon. Promoting 'carbon credits'? Sounds a bit Catholic to me... Instead of plenary indulgences we get carbon credits.


You're talking about cap and trade. FYI, there is precedence for cap and trade for other substances, such as sulfur (to prevent acid rain). This did not involve "handing over money to a globalist", it involved a market system where companies had to pay money to the government and gain ownership of credits in order to pollute. That way they can pay for the damage they're causing. Otherwise, they get off scot-free while we have to pay for the consequences.

Cap and trade is something that, at least, used to be really popular with Republicans, because it involved no interference other than companies being made to pay for the damage they're causing to the environment, and let them trade their credits as they saw fit in a market system.

But in the sharp rightward turn of the past few years, which saw Republicans no longer caring about the environment, who knows what they think. Apparently, you guys think it's fine for companies to pollute and pollute and make ordinary people suffer all the ill effects without any compensation, because y'all respect "winning" now, or something.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,406
Location: Everville

20 Dec 2019, 8:21 am

beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
I don't think climate activists know which end is up.


If keeping the trees is so important, why is Trump expanding logging on public lands?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for ... blic-lands


Last time I checked Trump isn't a climate activist. What's relevant are extra trees being cut down for all the paper bags that climate activists want used in lieu of plastic, which somewhat defeats conservation.


So what you're saying is that you were using some argument just to try to either point out climate activists as hypocrites or idiots, is that what you were doing?

Boy, you love to be critical, don't you?

How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do? Or would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?



Plant trees, keep up the scientist's grants to discover cleaner means of energy and adjust accordingly(no windmills, please), countries that won't pay their fair share get garnished in trade, recycle, move to hemp based plastics (if possible), no more plastic or paper bags. That sounds like a great start, too me. The government has an entity for Mosquito patrol in Florida, they must have someone who oversees this already.

But what sound ridiculous is handing over an enormous amount of money to a globalist and expecting them to do the right thing with it.


No one is seriously proposing handing over money to a globalist, but I guess that's just the way you gotta prime the debate.



Oh, c'mon. Promoting 'carbon credits'? Sounds a bit Catholic to me... Instead of plenary indulgences we get carbon credits.


You're talking about cap and trade. FYI, there is precedence for cap and trade for other substances, such as sulfur (to prevent acid rain). This did not involve "handing over money to a globalist", it involved a market system where companies had to pay money to the government and gain ownership of credits in order to pollute. That way they can pay for the damage they're causing. Otherwise, they get off scot-free while we have to pay for the consequences.

Cap and trade is something that, at least, used to be really popular with Republicans, because it involved no interference other than companies being made to pay for the damage they're causing to the environment, and let them trade their credits as they saw fit in a market system.

But in the sharp rightward turn of the past few years, which saw Republicans no longer caring about the environment, who knows what they think. Apparently, you guys think it's fine for companies to pollute and pollute and make ordinary people suffer all the ill effects without any compensation, because y'all respect "winning" now, or something.



The US is committed to better environmental behavior. It's not committed to helping the world pay for China and India's carelessness. Or anyone else's for that matter. If they want to play, they have to pay. If they don't pay, they get into trouble for it. But, we will not reward bad behavior by picking up the tab. China pays NOW, not in 15 years, NOW. Or, we'll focus on our own and screw the climate accord who wants to let China have a pass for the next 15 years.


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.

Neurocognitive exam in May 2019, diagnosed with ASD, Asperger's type in June 2019.


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

20 Dec 2019, 8:29 am

Persephone29 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
EzraS wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
I don't think climate activists know which end is up.


If keeping the trees is so important, why is Trump expanding logging on public lands?

https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for ... blic-lands


Last time I checked Trump isn't a climate activist. What's relevant are extra trees being cut down for all the paper bags that climate activists want used in lieu of plastic, which somewhat defeats conservation.


So what you're saying is that you were using some argument just to try to either point out climate activists as hypocrites or idiots, is that what you were doing?

Boy, you love to be critical, don't you?

How about this? What do you think of the climate and climate change? Do you think there's anything we need to do? Or would it be good to just let the chips fall where they may?



Plant trees, keep up the scientist's grants to discover cleaner means of energy and adjust accordingly(no windmills, please), countries that won't pay their fair share get garnished in trade, recycle, move to hemp based plastics (if possible), no more plastic or paper bags. That sounds like a great start, too me. The government has an entity for Mosquito patrol in Florida, they must have someone who oversees this already.

But what sound ridiculous is handing over an enormous amount of money to a globalist and expecting them to do the right thing with it.


No one is seriously proposing handing over money to a globalist, but I guess that's just the way you gotta prime the debate.



Oh, c'mon. Promoting 'carbon credits'? Sounds a bit Catholic to me... Instead of plenary indulgences we get carbon credits.


You're talking about cap and trade. FYI, there is precedence for cap and trade for other substances, such as sulfur (to prevent acid rain). This did not involve "handing over money to a globalist", it involved a market system where companies had to pay money to the government and gain ownership of credits in order to pollute. That way they can pay for the damage they're causing. Otherwise, they get off scot-free while we have to pay for the consequences.

Cap and trade is something that, at least, used to be really popular with Republicans, because it involved no interference other than companies being made to pay for the damage they're causing to the environment, and let them trade their credits as they saw fit in a market system.

But in the sharp rightward turn of the past few years, which saw Republicans no longer caring about the environment, who knows what they think. Apparently, you guys think it's fine for companies to pollute and pollute and make ordinary people suffer all the ill effects without any compensation, because y'all respect "winning" now, or something.



The US is committed to better environmental behavior. It's not committed to helping the world pay for China and India's carelessness. Or anyone else's for that matter. If they want to play, they have to pay. If they don't pay, they get into trouble for it. But, we will not reward bad behavior by picking up the tab. China pays NOW, not in 15 years, NOW. Or, we'll focus on our own and screw the climate accord who wants to let China have a pass for the next 15 years.


Generally, cap and trade is implemented on the national level, not international level.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


SoloSailor
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2015
Age: 62
Posts: 354

20 Dec 2019, 11:29 am

Pepe wrote:
I haven't researched this,
But I believe that is nothing in comparison to the logging/de-forestation in South America.

Fun fact: In many areas of the US there are more trees now than 300 years ago- mostly do to reforestation efforts carried out by logging companies.

Timber companies generally understand that forests are a renewable resource that can provide greater benefits to all involved if/when they are properly managed.
Unfortunately, beginning in the late 1970s, science based conservationism began to be replaced with the emotional rhetoric of enviromentalism as a matter of public policy. In the early 1990s, the Clinton administration effectively eliminated conservation efforts altogether by placing a moratorium on most logging within national forests. One of the consequences of this policy has been the increased incidence of massive wildfires due to such basic practices as tree thinning and removal of understory fuels being curtailed- or even outright prohibited. Now, instead of a few temporarily unsightly clear cuts scattered around in the forest, entire forests are burning to the ground.
But muh global warming. Ya,that's the ticket.


_________________
Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible.
-Frank Zappa