The First 100 days

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.

  1. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    It's nothing but a con for wealth redistribution. You are looking in the wrong direction.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Nothing of the above addresses the ECONOMIC question. Why give up known benefits of fossil fuels now for a possible risk in the future? Also, a risk that seems to be smaller and more delayed than believed 20 years ago.
     
  3. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Deez, read this:

    https://mises.org/blog/studying-cli...t-economics-and-politics#.WTGOcIP5070.twitter

    Nevertheless, in the imaginary world of physicists and climate scientists who can't comprehend the complicated realities of economics and public policy, simply wishing something to be so makes it so. If we just wish really hard that all our problems are solved, surely the good people in government will make it happen.
     
  4. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The US has made good strides. Based on the data we now are the worlds second biggest CO2 emissions contributor though we drop to 10th on a per capita basis. In comparison, China is the runaway leader in C02 emissions yet is 45th in the world per capita (2013 World Bank data).

    Based on the data above, the US only emits .4 metric tons more per resident than we did in 1960. We've been a leader in this movement since the '70's when smog filled our city skylines, sewage spilled into our waterways and all refuse was "trash" to be put in a hill. That's good, right? During that same period UK has reduced their emissions by 37%. So, we can continue to lead and pull the rest of the world along with us. They were ready to follow and now will continue in that direction without us.

    The most disturbing part of Scott Pruitt's multiple interviews since yesterday is his inference that "we're done". He cited our 16% reduction in CO2 emissions since 2000. Additionally he pointed to a 62% reduction in air particles since 1980. These statistics were cited to show that we've accomplished a lot while growing our economy. He's right. Of course, it was the environmental movement that pushed us to those gains that are now being undone by this administration. If you listen to Pruitt you'd think we've reached panacea. We're done and the environment is now fine in the inference.
     
  5. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    CO2 per GDP is a telling stat. China is 9th, Russia is 15th, Australia is 27th, and the US is 43rd. Looks like the US is leading the 1st world in when it comes to CO2 emissions on that basis.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    Wearing blinders concerning an issue, even one like man made climate change based on fraudulent data, is problematic. That type of thinking repeatedly creates other problems in the economy. As mchammer said, we can buy into the lies and issue even more regulations, but at what cost to living standards, incomes, and all other alternatives available? You want to help the poor and minorities, quit issuing regulations based on theoretical outcomes. Those outcomes rarely come to fruition, and laws and regulations often have the exact opposite of the intended effect. However, the regulations are never checked empirically, the useless programs live on year after year, and the politicians that enacted them are not punished often enough.
     
  7. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Why GDP and not per capita? Not challenging but I want to understand the reasoning.
     
  8. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    It could be, but I'm skeptical of that too. If it is, then Europe (which leads the charge on this sort of thing) is even more self-loathing than I thought. Furthermore, there are legitimate reasons to deemphasize fossil fuel use that have nothing to do with climate change. That's why I do favor measured investment in the development of renewable and clean renewable energy.

    However, the key word is "measured." We can invest in the science of renewable energy and making it economically viable without crushing energy consumers by forcing it on them too early or imposing onerous taxes and surcharges on them. We can also invest in the science of them without dumping obscene amounts of taxpayer money to try to distort the energy market to make renewables look cheaper than they are.

    One of these days I might post a copy of my electric bill. It's a sight to behold.
     
  10. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Worked for Sara Silverman. Well.. sort of.

    This is completely dishonest. Plenty of scientists who are skeptical of climate change are involved in research. But even if it's not true, the argument that flawed research should be allowed to stand unchallenged is pretty convenient if you want to believe the flawed research.

    Why would it make sense to compare per capita numbers when one group is spread out over large areas, one group is packed into dense spaces and has completely different energy needs, and another group has a higher birth rate and larger families. Comparing a family of eight to four families of two isn't exactly apples to apples (for examples).
     
  11. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Germans today -- If the Russians attacked a NATO ally, should Germans fight to support that ally?
    Majority says "No"



    [​IMG]
     
  12. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    As with most issues today, there seems to be a ridiculous commitment to be mutually exclusive in your view or opinion.

    I highly doubt either side is totally correct. Why not invest in new technology or science in a measured basis while keeping your economic engine primed? Why throw ridiculous amounts of government money at it while good old USA entrepreneurship can get that done?

    I have never studied global warming very hard. I will say the fact Obama signed the accord and CNN opposes leaving it leave me on the side of Trump.
     
  13. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    They should both be considered but economic production requires more energy and therefore more CO2 emissions. For every dollar of economic output, the US economy emits half as much CO2 as China. For all of the flack the US gets on CO2 emissions, we are actually pretty damn efficient given that we are the largest economy in the world, the 3rd largest oil producer in the world, and the worlds largest refiner.
     
  14. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    THIS! It's clear as the sky is blue.
     
  15. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    I guess you can keep it going and doing your part by selling your vehicle and start riding a bike to work.
     
  16. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 7
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Thanks Obama

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Brad Austin

    Brad Austin 2,500+ Posts

    This is what most Americans are blind to and it pisses me off to no end. They read Obama spent a billion here and there and shake their heads and move on.

    But most don't realize how many billions Obama wasted for absolutely no benefit to our people or even worse...to our detriment.

    Billions to Iran for what? More aggressive, much better funded and equipped, 'death to America' enemy. And we have no control/access over inspections to judge compliance.

    A billion already invested in a flawed Paris Deal never intended to work under its 'voluntary' structure and allowing major polluters to continue with no restrictions.

    $7 billion in school improvements grants with no results.

    100's of billions in overhead to subsidize a terminally flawed Obamacare.

    The endless waste with zero improvement goes on and on. Seriously, America would've been infinitely better off if he hadn't changed a thing and just kept the status quo.

    The interest on our national debt in 2017 is estimated at $266 billion. Sure all these wasted billions look relatively harmless by themselves. But when adding all of Obama's wasted billions together it shows how he bled the country dry on purpose.

    Just avoiding expenses on all these worthless plans he conjured would've at least made a huge dent in paying off our debt interest this year.

    Healthcare would still be good, America would still be environmentally conscious, Iran would know their place is not threatening the U.S., and schools would be the same. Sure we could improve all of these, but Obama spent a fortune to make them all worse.

    Our 100's of billions got nothing in return but broken promises, far worse results, and falling further into debt every year. It's clear as day B.O. was a cancer on purpose.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
  19. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    I think half of America realizes this. The other half has no logic to what they believe. They constantly contradict themselves.
     
  20. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    This goes to Mr. Deez' point. Where is there research then? Even the skeptical scientists agree the Earth is heating up. Only the ignorant claim that's not happening. The skeptical scientists don't appear to producing their own research. At least, it's not getting any publicity if they are. Maybe they need a viable alternate theory as to why the Earth is heating up?

    Of course there are many factors but I think your argument is a better argument for "per capita" rather than adding GDP into the mix.
     
  21. BrntOrngStmpeDe

    BrntOrngStmpeDe 1,000+ Posts

    Seems to me the progression goes a little something like this...

    1. Is the earth getting warmer? I bet there is about a 95% consensus on this.
    2. Is that a problem? Perhaps a little lower number but I think most people recognize that warmer planet=higher ocean levels=changing landmasses and substantial challenges for coastal communities and other crop producing areas.
    3. Is it all natural, or is there a small/medium/large element of human contribution? Here's where the majority of the naysayers seem to jump off the bandwagon. Some seem to doubt that human activity plays any part in it.
    4. If there is manmade contribution, is the human part of the equation significant?
    5. If it is manmade/contributed, is there anything we can do to combat it? I think most would agree that what was done can be undone, but at a cost.
    6. If we can combat it, are we willing to pay the price to combat it? Here's where many business leaders seem to jump. It's going to cost money.
    7. If we are willing to combat it, are we willing to shoulder the lions share of the burden? here's were the Nationalist seem to jump off. "Why aren't they paying their share?"
    8. If we are willing to shoulder the burden and lead, are we willing to do so while major competitors forego the effort and thereby have reduced production costs and potential economic advantage? "We lose economically by pursuing this". "This weakens us in the global markets". "This makes us less competitive".

    I believe that most of the disagreement at level 3 & 4 is really about 6 , 7 & 8 and that it is very difficult to make a "but it costs too much" argument while admitting the problem is real and possible to fix. No matter how many times they asked Pruitt this weekend, he wouldn't say 'yes' or 'no' about the reality of climate change. At this stage of the game, they should be able to put out a paper that says "Here's why we believe it is not real and here is our data and analysis to support that conclusion.".

    I think pulling out of Paris was a bad decision, but if they manage to negotiate a new deal that holds China and India (et al) more accountable, then I'm all for it. But really I think that argument from Pruitt and Trump is just obfuscation. I don't think they have any plan to work for a better deal.

    The GOP is the party of "status quo" and that is largely due to their being in the back pocket of big business. The Paris agreement changes the competition/job landscape and new innovators take advantage of new markets. That doesn't suit the existing power players that are heavily invested in fossil fuels so they make stuff up to support their desired conclusion.

    They're going to look as hapless on this topic as they currently do on healthcare. Spend 8 years bagging on Obamacare, meanwhile never putting out a viable plan of their own....other than...leave it the way it was.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Big Business was largely behind staying in the Paris Accords. At least they were publicly saying so. Even Exxon, GE and others in the energy industry had a Pro-Paris Accords public stance. Of course, they may have known that Trump was going to pull out which makes a public statement easier. One might believe that they also know there is more money to be made in a post-Paris Accord world for them.
     
  23. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Why can't alarmists explain the heating during the medieval warm period when it was equally warm? Why can't alarmists explain the heating between 1910-1940 which is as large as the heating between 1970-2000 when ghg were not as prevalent?
     
  24. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Thank you for proving my point. There is no desire for the skeptics to actually uncover the reason for the current warming but rather to poke holes in the current science. Their entire premise isn't an argument but a counter argument.
     
  25. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    They have - you have been willfully ignorant;

    1) the land based temperature record is corrupted by land use changes called urban heat island effect
    2) beyond that, land use changes heat up the earth regardless
    3) satellite record shows only a 1 degree C per century temp rise - much cooler than land based temp record
    4) sea level rise has been constant for 500 years - so is the earth heating any more than usual?
    5) cosmic rays seeding the clouds is being investigated now (causes cooling or heating if in absence). Preliminary data shows this to be the case. The sun modulates the amount of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
  26. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    See my other post. Second, it is up the alarmists to prove their point. That is how science works.
     
  27. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Again, you are apparently ignorant of the issues. The issue is not warming, which has happened in the past naturally, but CATASTROPHIC warming. That is why the issue is called CAGW - catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

    If the warming is mild (say less than 2 degree C total), warming has a NET benefit. Only unbelievably high warming can cause a problem like sea level rises of 1-2 feet.

    Again, there is NO evidence that this is occurring. It is all based on models.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    This canard is so damn old and tired - please go educate yourself on which party "big business" gives more money to these days.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    Big business was behind the Paris accord because they can work deals with the government to get subsidy money to develop and sell renewable energy sources. Exxon can make money either way if they get in bed with politicians now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

Share This Page