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.

 

What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: coastlinekid
a reply to: jrod




Because this change has occurred in such a short amount of time, it is of great concern.


I wouldn't compare man's paltry influence to a giant asteroid darkening the sky for a serious amount of time...

again,... get over yourself...



My general feeling is that those who are adamantly anti-AWG are simply either ignorant of relevant science OR even worse, profoundly resistant to changing the consumption and production methodology of our society and wish to remain comfortable and exploiting the environment as desired.

The latter seems to be especially true for the wealthy, manufacturers, corporations, etc.
edit on 20-4-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Hey bub, you accidentally send that to me.
Not coastlinekid



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Hey bub, you accidentally send that to me.
Not coastlinekid


Whoops, my apologies friend. Don't even know how that happened.
edit on 20-4-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: here4this
a reply to: Grimpachi
That is precisely what I have been trying to get across. In my first post I actually went by the original thread title. I did not expect anyone to want to start a debate...and I sure do not want one. In fact , in my second post I quoted the thread title...and looks as if I will have to do it AGAIN....
What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?
I merely answered the question
NUFF SAID


So if what you stated is what 'conservative' policy 'intellectuals' think about climate change is accurate, then we can conclude that they are extremely ignorant of the problem we face.

Hopefully the conservative think tankers can come up with something better than your talking points, otherwise this thread will get boring.

It's good to be skeptical, being a skeptic does not including ignoring a common cause.



posted on Apr, 20 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It's the fingers man, weird stuff really...



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

And again, given that there is a real threat inaction, denial, or blocking real action by anybody is actually a threat to us all, and hence worthy of discussion and derision.

Having said that, there very much are real actions being discussed and even negotiated as we speak in the Conference of Parties and United Nations post-2015 sustainable development agenda. In fact, they are negotiating things related to this this very week here in NY.

The problem is that both parties in the US are owned at the high level by big business and elite interests, and seem to be reticent to do much about it.


Let me clue you in to a dirty little secret. It's a secret that nobody wants to talk about on the left because it would mean that all their support would be flushed down the toilet. It's something called nonpoint source pollution. You see the dirty little secret with it, yes I know I cited a water pollution source but I assure you it's across the board, is that big business isn't the bad guy. The bad guy is you and me. Sure big business plays a part, but so do we.

Until somebody tells Americans that they need to start having a standard of living more on par with European nations or, GASP, African nations, then you can take all of the "feel good" global warming solutions and stick them in the same category as you put the global warming deniers. Bad solutions are no better than no solutions. Placebo effect doesn't work with environmental science.

I do love that "sustainable" label though... it really is in vogue. I would say the most sustainable development is to stop development. We have enough people on the planet.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

And again, given that there is a real threat inaction, denial, or blocking real action by anybody is actually a threat to us all, and hence worthy of discussion and derision.

Having said that, there very much are real actions being discussed and even negotiated as we speak in the Conference of Parties and United Nations post-2015 sustainable development agenda. In fact, they are negotiating things related to this this very week here in NY.

The problem is that both parties in the US are owned at the high level by big business and elite interests, and seem to be reticent to do much about it.


Let me clue you in to a dirty little secret. It's a secret that nobody wants to talk about on the left because it would mean that all their support would be flushed down the toilet. It's something called nonpoint source pollution. You see the dirty little secret with it, yes I know I cited a water pollution source but I assure you it's across the board, is that big business isn't the bad guy. The bad guy is you and me. Sure big business plays a part, but so do we.

Until somebody tells Americans that they need to start having a standard of living more on par with European nations or, GASP, African nations, then you can take all of the "feel good" global warming solutions and stick them in the same category as you put the global warming deniers. Bad solutions are no better than no solutions. Placebo effect doesn't work with environmental science.

I do love that "sustainable" label though... it really is in vogue. I would say the most sustainable development is to stop development. We have enough people on the planet.


First, sustainable means simply not doing any development that harms the environment irreparably, or has social consequences. It's literally just holistic responsibility and not having excess. So, no conservative if they are honest with themselves can claim real "conservative" principles such as personal and macro responsibility, balancing the checkbook, and not passing the buck to the next generation, and be against sustainability, as literally that is the macro application of all of these. Unfortunately, most conservatives are not that. They are "liberals" with the environment and social welfare, overspending the environmental bucks, not balancing the environmental checkbook for future generations, etc.

Second, the United States actually has a lower standard of living than many European countries, to address your point. It does have a much higher standard than most of Africa.

While you have points about there being limits to general growth and development worldwide, population growth, and standard of living, there ARE solutions that do not require decreasing population nor standard of living.

However, I think you and I actually agree that most Americans, let alone worldwide people, may not be willing to do the actions necessary to shift the modes of production and consumption and lifestyles such that we do mitigate climate change and environmental destruction.

This brings up a binary problem: We can either take substantive action now and before catastrophe in about 40 years, or wait for it because people are too selfish and end up having to take very serious action much later, after catastrophe has hit. Either way all people, conservative, liberal, and everything in between, will eventually get that sustainability is necessary, that we cannot destroy the environment, that business does not trump the ecosystem that we live in.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

Second, the United States actually has a lower standard of living than many European countries, to address your point. It does have a much higher standard than most of Africa.

While you have points about there being limits to general growth and development worldwide, population growth, and standard of living, there ARE solutions that do not require decreasing population nor standard of living.

However, I think you and I actually agree that most Americans, let alone worldwide people, may not be willing to do the actions necessary to shift the modes of production and consumption and lifestyles such that we do mitigate climate change and environmental destruction.

This brings up a binary problem: We can either take substantive action now and before catastrophe in about 40 years, or wait for it because people are too selfish and end up having to take very serious action much later, after catastrophe has hit. Either way all people, conservative, liberal, and everything in between, will eventually get that sustainability is necessary, that we cannot destroy the environment, that business does not trump the ecosystem that we live in.


You know... I think I like you. One of the problems I have when discussions about this topic happen is that there seems to be a duality. We have one conversation that is "Err meh god global warming, companies are bad mmmm 'kay"... then we have "sustainable meh god save the world".

You seem to be somewhat realistic on the topic, which is severely lacking in the climate change side. I do disagree with you about the standard of living in the US, but I'd be happy to review the data.



posted on Apr, 22 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

Second, the United States actually has a lower standard of living than many European countries, to address your point. It does have a much higher standard than most of Africa.

While you have points about there being limits to general growth and development worldwide, population growth, and standard of living, there ARE solutions that do not require decreasing population nor standard of living.

However, I think you and I actually agree that most Americans, let alone worldwide people, may not be willing to do the actions necessary to shift the modes of production and consumption and lifestyles such that we do mitigate climate change and environmental destruction.

This brings up a binary problem: We can either take substantive action now and before catastrophe in about 40 years, or wait for it because people are too selfish and end up having to take very serious action much later, after catastrophe has hit. Either way all people, conservative, liberal, and everything in between, will eventually get that sustainability is necessary, that we cannot destroy the environment, that business does not trump the ecosystem that we live in.


You know... I think I like you. One of the problems I have when discussions about this topic happen is that there seems to be a duality. We have one conversation that is "Err meh god global warming, companies are bad mmmm 'kay"... then we have "sustainable meh god save the world".

You seem to be somewhat realistic on the topic, which is severely lacking in the climate change side. I do disagree with you about the standard of living in the US, but I'd be happy to review the data.


The economic and social data on the US Is clear. As an international development practitioner, I have had to study all of the research on country-level trends, standards of living, etc.

Many Americans only hear the archaic propaganda on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC saying "America is the best country in the world." While a great country, on a multitude of variables the US is falling behind many other developed countries. The evidence is all there. Similarly, most people parrot that line they heard from politicians and the news, without having the global education to realize it is not longer true.

For example, several countries have higher income per capita. Several European countries have far higher standards of mental health, happiness, medical care, child care, and so on. Multiple countries are doing FAR better on education than the US.

Also, despite the so called "myth of the meritocracy" present here in the US, economic studies show that socio-economic mobility is decreasing rapidly in the US and has been for decades. Again, a number of countries show much higher levels of social mobility.

As to realism, real action necessitates realism, as I am sure you would agree. The thing is, I invite you to join the environmental and climate change community. Contrary to what you might have heard, the majority of people in it have been working on such issues for a longggg time, may even do it professionally, and are keenly aware of all of the challenges facing mitigation.

Go to a climate change or environmental conference. They will go through laundry lists of both challenges and solutions, data, experts, studies, etc.

We have no problem with people being "realists" about challenges and solutions. The bigger issue is that a large proportion of the right-wing is practicing active denial, which isn't being realistic but instead putting their head in the sand. They need to come to the table and start brainstorming solutions with the rest of the world. Note that quite literally the right wing in the US is in a shrinking minority worldwide. While the right is screaming about "Climategate," virtually all countries are sending diplomats and experts to negotiate solutions. Many of the right don' t know it because they are in such an insular, nationalistic communication/news bubble, that reinforces anti-science and xenophobic viewpoints.
edit on 22-4-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join