What Would Reagan Do About Climate Change?

[Phantasmal]

Taking measures to help reduce pollution, I am all for that.
Making up shit to scare people into a scheme that is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth (cap and trade)... yeah... not for that.
Lying about potential outcomes and cause/effect relationships diminishes the environmental effort

The fear mongers are a detriment to the movement.

Okay, went and educated myself on cap and trade and climate changes. You being the big business supporter would naturally take this positions, that polluters should not have to change because it would ruin the US economy.

I being the Earth Day hippy, feel that polluters should cut down on pollution because if we kill off the Earth, everyone's economy will be ruined.

I generally don't pay attention to these back and forth's because it makes sense to me not to poisin our environment.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Okay, went and educated myself on cap and trade and climate changes. You being the big business supporter would naturally take this positions, that polluters should not have to change because it would ruin the US economy.

I being the Earth Day hippy, feel that polluters should cut down on pollution because if we kill off the Earth, everyone's economy will be ruined.

I generally don't pay attention to these back and forth's because it makes sense to me not to poisin our environment.

I have said it many times but it is worth repeating. Why do you think Goldman Sachs and others, who were responsible for the sub prime crisis, are so massively in favour of carbon trading? Do you really think they have turned overnight into environmentalists?

http://www.examiner.com/article/rolling-stone-exposes-goldman-sachs-and-the-carbon-credit-scam

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I guess I missed, because I usually don't follow these arguments, what climatologist have to do with cap and trade?

They are the ones pushing the theory that CO2 levels increasing is the cause (or primary cause) of global warming. Hence the need to regulate CO2 emissions. The cap and trade scheme is the primary way to regulate the emissions that has been come up with to date. But it doesn't work. It simply redistributes wealth and pumps up energy prices (esp. electric in areas of coal power plants).

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Okay, went and educated myself on cap and trade and climate changes. You being the big business supporter would naturally take this positions, that polluters should not have to change because it would ruin the US economy.

That is not even close to my position.

I being the Earth Day hippy, feel that polluters should cut down on pollution because if we kill off the Earth, everyone's economy will be ruined.

I generally don't pay attention to these back and forth's because it makes sense to me not to poisin our environment.

Actually, that is incorrect. My position against cap and trade is due to:

1) It doesn't do much to reduce global emissions. It simply makes those industries that produce more CO2 emissions give money to industries that do not. Which can lead to the redistribution of wealth from firm to firm, state to state, or country to country.

2) I think the cap and trade schemes are going to be massively abused by Wall Street. They already trade the emissions.

I am all for reducing pollution and coming up with ways to do so that have the least impact economically. But I agree it needs to be done. One way, algae, it consumes many of the pollutants. Put algae plants adjacent to the big coal plants. It is obviously a cost that the coal plants would have to pay, but it can partially be recouped through the oil the algae produces and the food biproduct that is left over.

Get rid of grain based ethanol. It is not efficient use of our water or our food.

Convert more to nat gas (vs. coal plants or gasoline in transportation) consumption.

Build nuclear facilities.

Continue investing in alt energy R&D

There are many things that we can do that don't involve political/wall street schemes.

 

[Phantasmal]

They are the ones pushing the theory that CO2 levels increasing is the cause (or primary cause) of global warming. Hence the need to regulate CO2 emissions. The cap and trade scheme is the primary way to regulate the emissions that has been come up with to date. But it doesn't work. It simply redistributes wealth and pumps up energy prices (esp. electric in areas of coal power plants).

Thanks, it isn't one of my hot button issues, I was confusing the phrase with something else. Thanks for bringing me up to step.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Tom, I don't go by reports, I go by personal observation.

she can see glaciers from her kitchen window....no wait, that's Russia....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The ocean level is rising moron.

Again, are you so ignorant you've never learned about ocean convection? Seems like you people would try to understand how something actually works before you start telling us all about it. If enough ice melted to raise the ocean significantly enough to actually 'swallow up' lands, it would cause such a cooling effect, the ocean convection would cease to work, and everything in the ocean would die. Before we ever had to worry about the first acre of real estate going under water, we'd have a much bigger problem of a completely lifeless and stagnant ocean.

 

[Rune]

No, I do not think consumption levels of today are sustainable, nor do I think that we shouldn't be doing everything possible to reduce pollution. what I do find absurd is the 'consensus' shouting by the fear mongers and the outright meltdown of their computer models over the past decade+ with regards to CO2 driving warming.

and yes, I was exaggerating with the chicken little... we do have problems and things that we can do to correct those problems. I personally feel the fear mongers are a detriment to that.

I don't hear you sounding the alarm much, quite the opposite in fact, so if it weren't for "fear mongers" nothing would be happening.

 

[Rune]

Again, are you so ignorant you've never learned about ocean convection? Seems like you people would try to understand how something actually works before you start telling us all about it. If enough ice melted to raise the ocean significantly enough to actually 'swallow up' lands, it would cause such a cooling effect, the ocean convection would cease to work, and everything in the ocean would die. Before we ever had to worry about the first acre of real estate going under water, we'd have a much bigger problem of a completely lifeless and stagnant ocean.

It doesn't all melt on the same day Dixie. Your scenerios of barren oceans are disturbing only from the point of view that even you believe yourself.