What should the rest of the world do about America's Climate change denial?

a reply to: LDragonFire

Coal is the issue with China and they also are going to have several more millions of people buying cars in the next decade. They burn coal with zero regards for renewable energy or the proper filters for smoke stacks. Also, having a population of about 1.3 billion people already make them incredibly bad for the environment. Population of 7 billion people worldwide is major reason for our environmental woes.

Just wait until China's massive population start buying cars, houses, things at the Chinese Walmart and become just like the American consumer. The strain on this world will finally break its back

At least i know of tax incentives for solar panels, wind turbines at my college being put up, clean coal, natural gas etc.

How many humans suffered and died recently in India from a relentless extreme heatwave?

These kind of extremes are going to become more common, more widespread, more frequent. Not just heat, but extreme climate shifts, cold, hot, flooding, droughts and regional or isolated devastating weather events. That is climate "change" the ultimate unmitigated future outcome would be considered a near extinction level event.

There really is nothing mankind can do to undo, or stop this process now. It is too close to the point of no return now.

Adding to impending global pain, misery and suffering by attempting to deal with it now in ways that are doomed to fail just seems to be acts of cruelty.

imo

Trouble is for the last 18 years we've been cooling....
Has this been addressed?

a reply to: LDragonFire

The US leads the world when it comes to climate change denial, but most of the world believes its happening now, and something should be done about it.

I agree with that statement.We , the US , should be pressing the science the rest of the world is missing . And get them to stop blindly following their leaders who are HEAVILY invested in the carbon tax Ponzi scheme.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

Really? "The rest of the world?" Ever go to China, or Russia, or India, Africa, or South America...etc... You think America is doing all the bad stuff to the Earth...lol

I think once China can no longer use a butter knife to cut their air then maybe we are all heading in the right direction.

The real solution would be to ban dihydrogen monoxide. That stuff is terrible for your lungs, and it kills more people on a global scale every day than smog. Its every where, man. They put it in our food and everything we drink. Someone call the EPA. Where is Agenda 21 when you need it.

The rest of the world can pay us to reduce whatever it is they think needs to be reduced. I am happy to comply as long as the rest of the world pays. It solves the problem. I don't care about the stupid restrictions put on us because they are funded by the rest of the world and the rest of the world is happy because they have a fake solution to their fake problem.

Also, I think you have more to worry about from China and India than you do the US, although, I understand it is more fun for people like you to attack America.

Go bother China, they are exempt from carbon tax and keep making all them poisonous products because they lack basic regulations.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LDragonFire
I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

Really? "The rest of the world?" Ever go to China, or Russia, or India, Africa, or South America...etc... You think America is doing all the bad stuff to the Earth...lol

I think once China can no longer use a butter knife to cut their air then maybe we are all heading in the right direction.

The way Los Angeles , Atlanta , Detroit all used to be. But that changed. The US woke up and installed the EPA and strict regulations against the companies that were polluting.That is REAL pollution. Carbon Dioxide is not POLLUTION. It is natural and we all need this as well to breathe.

a reply to: Metallicus

China and India are not publicly and politically denying climate change. I expect they are being forced into action because of real world events.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I guess your saying these countries have a high rate of climate change denial?

The USA is not the biggest polluter nowadays. Over the past 30 years you have cleaned up your act immensely.
Of course, exporting millions of jobs and industry to China certainly helped. .
Now China and India are the worst polluters.
I remember 30-40 years ago, everyone in Europe complaining about "Acid Rain" from industry....how all the trees in Europe will be dead by 1985. How all the waterways will be polluted and unusable.....
Well, we know how that worked out.......
Scientists tell us that the World is Warming, Greenhouse effect by too many clouds etc etc.
Scientists tell us that too many clouds will reflect lights rays back into space and the ice age will come.
Scientists tell us that too much pollution in the air will reflect sunlight back into space and we will cool.
Scientists tell us that too much pollution in the air will keep heat in and create a runaway greenhouse.

I say just the Frequent Atmospheric Rectal TurblenceS...F.A.R.T.S. of 7 billion Humans everyday creates More pollution than all the cars, trucks, planes trains and other automobiles in the Whole World.

I say tax F.A.R.T.S.......the Methane Tax.....
Then see how China and India and Africa go....

Might be a new industry....BottleOFarts.
Then we can sell fresh air in a bottle.

Of course, you all will have to buy all your fresh air and clean water from us down here........

originally posted by: ausername
How many humans suffered and died recently in India from a relentless extreme heatwave?

These kind of extremes are going to become more common, more widespread, more frequent. Not just heat, but extreme climate shifts, cold, hot, flooding, droughts and regional or isolated devastating weather events. That is climate "change" the ultimate unmitigated future outcome would be considered a near extinction level event.

There really is nothing mankind can do to undo, or stop this process now. It is too close to the point of no return now.

Adding to impending global pain, misery and suffering by attempting to deal with it now in ways that are doomed to fail just seems to be acts of cruelty.

imo

To add to this...

The "point of no return" once beyond it. A rapid acceleration into what I would describe as "climate chaos" which I believe will eventually stabilize, into a much colder climate, or ice age. If it goes that way, it is difficult to see how much if any of humanity can survive through it all.

imo

originally posted by: LDragonFire
With the threat from climate change a worldwide issue that will only get worst, what should the other countries of the world do about the climate change denial from the USA?

I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

I wonder if the countries of the world could band together and force the USA to comply threw economic means?

NOTHING! There isn't a damn thing the rest of the world can do about it!

The US leads the world when it comes to climate change denial, but most of the world believes its happening now, and something should be done about it.

You would condone attacks? This kind of zeal, make no mistake this is zealotry if your OK with it, is exactly why there are deniers.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I didn't condone nor call for a attack, I'm not countries of the world......

a reply to: LDragonFire

I know!!!!!!

We should pay money to Al gore and the globalists! That way when they fly all over the world in their private jets to lecture us, we can pat ourselves on the back for being good slaves. Then we can return to our 200sq Ft apt while gore returns to one of his many mansions, and feel good about ourselves for being good slave minimalists.

Seriously, who really buys this garbage anymore. There must be some psychological thing with wanting to have scams pulled on you. You could simply pick up a history book, go back 700 years and see for yourself that this scam is nonsense.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: JDmOKI

Lead by example?

Here is the problem. They don't have any real solutions to anything other than a financial trading scam that they want to implement no matter what the "problem" of the decade is and everyone pretty much knows about it.

Carbon Trading Scam is the goal, not reducing anything other than everyone's wallet.


www.unepfi.org...

This report constitutes the second part of a major two-phase study on the financial services sector and climate change commissioned by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiatives (UNEP FI) Climate Change Working Group (CCWG).

At the project finance level, data from the World Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund indicate that
returns can be enhanced by several percentage points, although other practitioners have to date
fared less well.

Making full use of carbon finance opportunities plus other sustainability
benefits (which can increasingly be monetized) can only become more important in future.

However, a clearer picture has emerged of the measures that need to be taken to stimulate greater trading activity, and the
market will grow in the coming years, providing the political will to reduce emissions and
assign carbon a value is there. Forecasts of the future GHG credit trading market project a
rapid growth from $10 billion by 2005 to over $2 trillion per year by 2012.

Recommendations for overcoming these barriers

(1)
The formation of an ‘awareness raising’ task force of senior finance sector executives to inspire
individual financial institutions, industry associations, financial regulators and other industry
umbrella associations to support education and engagement on climate change using this study’s
reports as a blueprint for action.
(2)
The formation of a team to develop a quantitative analytical methodology – the “
Carbon
Asset
Pricing Model” -- for capturing the asset pricing and valuation implications of climate change and
carbon regulations.
(3)
The formation of a parallel project team to examine methods for capturing, monetizing and
optimizing the full range of environmental aspects within project finance settings.


GHG Market Framework Study – Module 1 13 UNEP FI
July 2002 Innovest SVA
From the perspective of changing climate conditions, the derivation of value is relatively
straightforward, at least in principle. Insurers, reinsurers, lenders and investors will need to
adapt the way they conduct their business to account for climatological shifts or face the
prospect of disproportionate financial loss or lower investment returns (or, where economic
productivity is actually enhanced by climate change, missing out on new markets). However,
in practice, actuarial data limitations and other analytical barriers mean that this process of
change will be far from easy.
From a mitigation perspective, however, the value creation process is more complex (see Figure
3). The critical initial step, our research suggests, is the commitment by policymakers to
emissions reductions. This, in turn, provides validation for both emissions trading (and the
various GHG market support services), and the pursuit of low carbon intensive technology
solutions. These market-based activities will lead to the establishment of a ‘price’ for carbon,
which is a prerequisite for GHG assets and liabilities to be included on the balance sheet and for
MOMENTUM ON CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION IS GATHERING PACE.....
At the present time, a number of powerful external forces are converging to make climate change and
carbon-related issues relevant to financial services companies. These include:


Strengthening scientific consensus on the impacts of climate change


E.U. and Japanese ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.


Political progress on GHG mitigation within the U.S., both in the White House and on Capitol Hill


The launch of the Carbon Disclosure Project, a coalition of institutional investors (with collectively over $5
trillion in assets under management) pressing major companies to disclose investment-relevant information
concerning their greenhouse gas strategies and emissions.


The success of the Dutch ERUPT program, in which the Dutch Government paid out nearly US$40M to 5
successful project bids for 4 million metric tons of CO2 allowances.


The experiences of the World Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund, which is in the process of expand to support
greater market interest, and which has led to the emergence of a series of similar ‘spin-off’ funds.


The formation by Gensec Bank of the first weather hedging products in South Africa, and the intended
expansion of this service to other emerging markets.


The success of Australia’s green energy certificates trading scheme.


Increasing focus on climate change as a corporate governance and accounting issue for pension fund trustees
and fiduciaries.


The steady growth of the emissions trading market, where over 70 transactions have now been reported
involving some 95 million tons CO2eq.


Growing willingness of respected mainstream financial institutions to stir debate over implications of climate
change for the finance and insurance business.

EMISSIONS TRADING MARKETS

Financial institutions appear to be interested in Emissions Trading Schemes for two
reasons:
the chance to make money from trading GHG-related securities; and, the
need to understand the implications of emissions trading for the companies that are
their clients or in which they invest.

Forecasts of the future GHG credit trading market project rapid growth from $10 billion
by 2005 to over $2 trillion per year by 2012, the end of the Kyoto Protocol’s first
commitment period
22
. Leading companies undoubtedly recognize that the finance
sector will play an important role in the operation of this international market. The
UNEP FI, for example, supports emissions trading because it is an economically efficient
market based instrument that encourages the transition to a more sustainable
economy
23
. The formation of regional emissions trading schemes (in the U.K., Denmark.,
Slovakia, Northeast U.S. and, of course, the pan E.U. system under development), and
the various GHG exchanges (the Chicago Climate Exchange, for example) will soon
make emissions trading a reality for all financial institutions.

Here's Another little thought I've been toying with.

Now, I do think the climate is changing. I'm in total agreement with everyone else that the climate is changing Ok?
What I have a hard time swallowing is that A) Its only just now starting to change and B) Man, in his relative short period of life on this planet, has managed to FUBAR it already. Does this make me a Denier? Or simply a follower of the Scientific Process, in that I require empirical, unaltered, repeatably observable data? One should never theorize before you have data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts (à la UN and NOAA scientists changing temps).

Secondly, I do not like being called names by the former "science guy", who has a background in mechanical engineering (yet I don't see anything related to climatology in his resume), nor the "Cosmos" host/astrophysicist (who again seems to be lacking a climatology background). Especially since one of these gentleman is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a "U.S. non-profit scientific and educational organization whose aim is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims."

I suppose though that if you need a couple cheerleaders (who are widely loved, as I love them) to promote your side of things, these two are your best bet.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I didn't condone nor call for a attack, I'm not countries of the world......

Then why even bring up

I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

?

a reply to: LDragonFire

LOL Why should military threats or sanctions be an option? Those should always be the last possible options, not the first. Why don't other countries just focus on doing their part? If a country wants to be left behind, let them. Who says we all have to grow at the same pace? They should focus on improving their infrastructures so they can fully exploit renewable energies. And they can also perfect the process of recycling so they produce no waste. They don't have to wait on us for that.

It's the same when it comes to high speed rail. If America or any other country wants to stick to old technology, let them. That doesn't mean the rest of the world has to stick with old technology too.