It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans IN; Climate Change OUT

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Meh...Climate Change, Global Warming, blah, blah, blah. It is what it is. George Carlin said it best in my opinion.

I used to care about the environment, but really don't so much about the worlds anymore. It has been turned into such political theater and taxes that I just don't care. I still try not to pollute though.

Scientists on one side say something and scientists on the other side dispute it. And they are both being paid by their respective sides. I don't really trust most scientists anymore because they are constantly being proven wrong. They sound a lot like priests to me preaching crap these days.

Humanity will either adapt or it won't...I'm fine with that. Such is the cycle of life.




posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

a reply to: Astrocyte

I think that's pretty clear, at least for the next 2 years there will be nothing done in American politics about Climate change.


Except for Executive Branch actions ..............



WASHINGTON--As part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, EPA today released plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change impacts such as flooding, sea level rise, severe weather and temperature extremes. These Sustainability Plans and Climate Change Adaptation Plans coincide with the fifth anniversary of President Obama’s 2009 Executive Order on Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance, which set aggressive energy, climate and environmental targets for agencies, and detail how EPA’s actions have already contributed to reducing the Federal Government’s greenhouse gas emissions by more than 17 percent since 2008 – the equivalent of permanently taking 1.8 million cars off the road. ..........


EPA Releases Climate Plans on Fifth Anniversary of President Obama’s Sustainability Initiative/Plan Builds Capacity to Protect Human Health and the Environment in a Changing Climate -- Release Date: 10/31/2014




Obama administration unveils controversial emissions cap on power plants


EPA Climate Change page




posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
These threads go round and round in circles, nothing new is offered.

Interesting all these "97%" scientist statements.

If you read the quote supplied on the first page or so, it says.

97% of scientists ASSUME humans are responsible for climate change....or something like that.

Assuming is not a scientific study...it is a guess.

10 years ago, the "Global Warmists" quite clearly stated.....We would have no water by 2010, there would be no Ice caps by 2010, the oceans will rise 3 metres by 2010, the World will be in drought and millions will die....etc etc.

Here we are 2015 almost........Nothing has changed.


Yes we have climate change, No...new taxes wont prevent that.
Yes we have droughts, we have had them since man walked on 2 legs, we still have the La Nina/El Nino effect.

If you want to do your bit, stop driving your car, buy a bicycle/moped, plant some trees, stop burning gas or wood for your winter fire, stop having children, recycle everything, eat less, collect water via water tanks, install solar/wind generators, kill yourself...etc etc.

That will help more than taxing everybody.

Clearly there are too many humans on Earth.......time for a cull perhaps?.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Climate Change is a losing argument. Either you understand the science, or you don't. You can't argue with someone that doesn't understand, especially if they believe that they do understand. The focus needs to go back to pollution.

Hey. Do you think we should be dumping toxins into our water and skies?

You dont?! Neither do I.

You do? You're an idiot.

End of discussion.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

the taxes are a means by which to place pressure on the marketplace.

If you tax gasoline, and thereby increase gasoline prices, there is more incentive for the market to respond with a more fuel efficient car.

that's basically the idea behind some of these environmental-tax-proposals.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: NonsensicalUserName





the taxes are a means by which to place pressure on the marketplace.

If you tax gasoline, and thereby increase gasoline prices, there is more incentive for the market to respond with a more fuel efficient car.

that's basically the idea behind some of these environmental-tax-proposals.


But that's not what it does.

All it does is increase the burden on poor people and squeeze even more from the budgets of the middle class.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: gort51




10 years ago, the "Global Warmists" quite clearly stated.....We would have no water by 2010, there would be no Ice caps by 2010, the oceans will rise 3 metres by 2010, the World will be in drought and millions will die....etc etc.

You can support these claims, of course.
Or not. Because they didn't.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




But that's not what it does.

Really?
www.energytrendsinsider.com...



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
We have missed the time to do something about the destruction of our environment quite a while ago - we could stop all fossil fuel use tomorrow and it wouldn't save us - our bed was made quite a while ago. Most people really have no idea of the extent of the necessary environmental damage we must incur to maintain our modern standards of living, but the absolute DRASTIC change of our natural environment over the past 200 some odd years speaks for itself. The raw numbers do not lie, our planet is dying, and I'm sure most people in power are very aware of it, but it's a lose lose situation at the moment - We could dismantle modern society right now, but it wouldn't change the powers in effect. You can argue who or what is to blame all you want, but it won''t make one bit of difference when this planet becomes a lifeless rock, again.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Syyth007



The raw numbers do not lie, our planet is dying

No it isn't. It's got a couple of billion good years left.

But it will be getting more and more uncomfortable for us over the next hundred years. But, if we can get our collective asses to do something now it won't continue for the hundred years after that. Trouble is, we have to give something up for something that won't show any immediate results. Humans don't operate well on that level.

edit on 11/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Astrocyte

Much more science fiction than science.

Climate change is real. But it is not something new- even during the course of human history. Otherwise we wouldn't be finding ancient cities burried beneath the sand or under the seas.

I believe man will adapt. Each new generation will see their 'world' as normal.

I suppose if YOU lived for another 500 years or so, you might fall into a deep depression or be moved to criminal behavior. But your geat, great grandchildren will just see you as that nutty relative.






This.

The whole fear mongering over man made climate change has produced nothing concrete, other than as an excuse to tax people more. No one yet has shown how or why government is somehow capable of reversing or stopping a natural phenomenon that has occurred on earth since the earth began. Or that humans are having any significant influence on the climate. The whole "97% of scientists consensus" is a crock when you actually dig deep and see the truth behind the numbers.

If the government really cared about the environment, it would be more aggressively seeking alternate energy sources, and more wide scale harm reduction. But it doesn't. AGW is just their latest money making racket.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: projectvxn




But that's not what it does.

Really?
www.energytrendsinsider.com...


Correlation does not equal causation. This cannot be directly attributed to taxation.

Yes really:
www.brookings.edu...



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf



If the government really cared about the environment, it would be more aggressively seeking alternate energy sources, and more wide scale harm reduction. But it doesn't.

Actually, it does.
By providing tax credits for the use of alternative energy systems, for example.
www.irs.gov...

The trouble is, the government runs on politics, not innovation. Trouble is, if the government tries to invest in alternative energy research, it gets shot down. When it provides low cost loans for startups, it gets criticized.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Correlation does not equal causation. This cannot be directly attributed to taxation.
That's true. There are things other than taxes which cause higher fuel prices (which increase demand for higher mileage vehicles) but taxes are indeed part of it. Of course, consumer demand is not the only reason for increased mileage either, there are government mandates.

I don't think anyone said that there aren't economic impacts. Yes, changing things doesn't always come at no short term cost. That's a big part of the problem, looking in the short term rather than the long term.

edit on 11/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Agreed.

But these are not short term solutions and making poor people and middle class folks pay more to solve a problem like this and potentially making them poorer is not the way to go. People have the mistaken notion that in order to do something about climate change we have to "sacrifice" our way of life. That simply isn't true.

Every single day I see advances in technologies. Every single day I read a paper or read a story about new research being conducted in energy, energy storage, fuel efficiency, and renewable goods in general.

I don't want government funding companies. I don't want government attempting to create markets by making other markets go out of business, or simply making them prohibitively expensive. That isn't a solution, and too much of that will destroy an economy. What I would like to see is more science and engineering funding to individual scientists, engineers, universities, and institutions that produce these new technologies. Which, as many would note, IS Constitutional, and DOES NOT require a huge shift in politics or destructive economic policies.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

People have the mistaken notion that in order to do something about climate change we have to "sacrifice" our way of life. That simply isn't true.
I disagree. The status quo is just that. Stick with it and nothing changes.




What I would like to see is more science and engineering funding to individual scientists, engineers, universities, and institutions that produce these new technologies.
So would I. Where does the money come from? But with the politics against it...

edit on 11/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The money is already there.

The politics of it...The idea that somehow both sides of the isle are in a tug of war to change the status quo is ridiculous to me. They aren't. They are making a ton of money off of the status quo and they are also trying to make a ton of money off of climate change without actually offering up any solutions.

Government is already funding the projects, individuals, and research to make headway here. What I would like to see is a total elimination of corporate subsidies and that money could go toward funding these projects. NASA's budget could be increased. The NOAA's budget could be increased. By billions.

Yes things have to change. But they don't have be to destroyed in order to make that change. I'm not talking about the status quo here. I'm talking about real solutions. Taxing stuff, taxing people, and schemes like cap and trade are not solutions, they are little more than get rich quick schemes. And obviously so.

We are already paying taxes. Trillions in taxes as a matter of fact. The problem isn't that there is a lack of money, it is that the money is not being spent wisely and things that should have priority don't.



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn



The politics of it...The idea that somehow both sides of the isle are in a tug of war to change the status quo is ridiculous to me. They aren't. They are making a ton of money off of the status quo and they are also trying to make a ton of money off of climate change without actually offering up any solutions.
Solutions are discouraged by politics. Fossil fuel interests are making a ton of money off of the status quo. They are using direct political influence as well as indirect (with misinformation campaigns) to maintain it. They point to efforts to support startups which struggle as evidence that there are no viable alternatives. Who is making a ton of money off of climate change?



What I would like to see is a total elimination of corporate subsidies and that money could go toward funding these projects. NASA's budget could be increased. The NOAA's budget could be increased. By billions.
Yeah. Me too. Not going to happen without a big change in the political climate. But guess what, it isn't going to make gas any cheaper. Speaking of that, how much have fuel taxes gone up in the past 10 years as compared to just the price of gas?

edit on 11/10/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Astrocyte

If you truly considered the history of scientific consensus building, you wouldn't be so enamored by the 97% number- assuming that is even true.

Perhaps one should use less 'imagination' and instead deploy some sober critical well-researched thinking less polluted by politics.

This is why I get daily updates from climate depot and climate etc., an update last week from climate depot stated that Antarctic sea ice is at its most its ever been, Antarctica is nearing its high summer, and it has the most sea ice?
Three crap summer in a row in Europe? Awefull winters in north America? even snow in New Zealand that had not seen any for seventy five years? No change in mean global temperature for the last sixteen years?



posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Speaking of that, how much have fuel taxes gone up in the past 10 years as compared to just the price of gas?


Good question. In general they really haven't gone up much.

But at the same time profit margins for oil companies are not that great. We want to assume they are enormous because that is what we're told to believe, but oil companies that produce gasoline have a net profit margin of 6 and a half to 8%, sometimes less depending on the size of the company. Most of their money goes into R & D, exploration, paying employees, and maintaining benefits. Many bigger oil companies also pay to house their employees.

8% profit isn't a large margin.

Tax further, and it is possible we may drive economical fuel out of existence before we have a chance at exploiting alternative method of travel. I am a big fan of electric vehicles and hybrids. I own a hybrid now and am looking into owning a Tesla in the future.

No one is denying that moneyed interests are influencing climate change policy. But we're not really trying to explore solutions, we're just trying to punish one camp or the other and those involved are simply trying to get richer.

Also consider that the vast majority of our food is trucked around the country. Pharmaceuticals and electronics would become more expensive. That means higher healthcare costs as well. We don't really need more of that.

It would affect poor people in ways we don't really think about much. Like the cost of food, electricity, public transportation, healthcare, and other areas affected by the production of oil. What we are talking about here is finding a replacement for oil in general. Not only is that currently not viable, but no one is actually talking about what it would mean to make oil prohibitively expensive in order to "force change" in the industry. It doesn't work that way and it was never going to.


edit on pMon, 10 Nov 2014 16:25:59 -0600201410America/Chicago2014-11-10T16:25:59-06:0030vx11 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join