Runnin
Well-known member
That subtly demeans a woman of color by making her look like an old Mexican lady.
Last edited:
Meme & Quote Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
That subtly demeans a woman of color by making her look like an old Mexican lady.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
That stuff within the energy sector is not going to happen in 10 years. But a lot of it is going to happen, here and elsewhere, in the next 20-50 years. You know what else is going to happen? Sea level rise as a result of anthropogenic climate change, among other things. Framing it the way you do (and phrasing it in terms of coastal real estate prices) is whistling past the graveyard.
US carbon emissions rose last year by 3.4% after 3 years of decline. The Trump Administration has proposed moving backwards in a lot of areas—coal plant emissions, fleet mileage standards, etc—that have a direct bearing on this in the future. Saying that action is pointless because we “only” represent 14% of global emissions is irresponsible. China, the #1 emitter (of course, we’re #2) has far more aggressive decarbonization plans than the US over the next few decades. It’s interesting to me to see how this debate has shifted from outright denialism to acceptance of climate change but insistence that mitigation is impractical or impossible.
So I guess my question is this: does climate change present massive humanitarian and economic risks?
57Brave
Well-known member
sturg33
I
Honestly, that wasn't meant to be a cynical answer. If the market believed that the coasts will be under water, the property prices would not be where they stand today. Likewise, I'm curious to see if the scientists predicting the gloom are investing in land in say, Iceland. It would make sense for them to, no? If AOC is as concerned about demise as she says, she wouldn't be flying home instead of trains, and she wouldn't be trying to push through free college in her climate deal. That's just an observation - but I think it's worth asking yourself the same thing.
I think the market will continue driving improvements for us in the future if we allow it. I know you disagree. The EV industry is growing. I just started looking into a company called Memphis Meats about a carbon friendly meat production. It looks encouraging.
China and India's carbon emission growth were the highest they've had in nearly a decade last year. While the US has their emission under control, these countries are growing like wildfire. I'm not ready to completely wreck our own economy hoping the other countries in the world get their act together.
I've never denied climate change and still don't. I question what can be done about it... and I question if the doomsayers are actually right. I don't, for example, believe the world will end in 12 years like AOC.
The suggestion here is to completely dismantle the greatest economic machine in the world that is already moving in the right direction (a machine that has yielded the world's richest people and most prosperous people by a long shot) in what appears to me a "semi-educated guess" on solving a problem that we don't know if it is actually a problem and if it is, whether it's actually solvable
Well, so far the doomsday predictions have been wrong. We were supposed to be under water or frozen by now... but we're still kicking. There's no harm in the doomsayers continuing to predict the end times. They can keep doing it, and there are no consequences for being wrong. But people will pay to hear them speak. They'll publish papers. They'll write books. They'll make movies. They'll keep flying, i'm sure. They'll keep predicting the end times will come unless there is a serious government intervention to save us. I'm sure that for the rest of my life, there will never be a shortage of these predictions.
It reminds me of the time you and I were talking about California's financial problems... you said something to the effect of "I've been hearing about this inevitable collapse for years... I'll believe it when I see it"
Well, scientists have gone on record saying we'd be under water by now. First it was cooling. Then it was warming. Then it was climate change. The solution was always the same - more government.
Does it present massive humanitarian risks? If the doomsayers are right - sure it does. So does letting a collectivist socialist government take over our country like we are seeing in other parts of the world and in history.
Does it present massive economic risks? If the doomsayers are right - sure it does. But I'm pretty comfortable that the economic risks are actually less than that of the implementation of this Green New Deal - which actually would both completely bankrupt us as well as destroy private enterprise as we know it, which would mean the profits AOC is counting on confiscating won't be there to fund the project of green energy and healthcare for all. It's worth thinking beyond step 1 of what implementing this "plan" would actually do. It's really ugly, and we can say that with a lot more certainty than we can potential climate disasters.
sturg33
I
No. But I think the government intervention in it has been mostly a failure.
But I'm glad thats the takeaway you had from my post
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
not sure where to put this, but in light of the epstein news...it's insane how we coddle and protect the super rich in this country. they can do no wrong, and when they very clearly do something very wrong, they easily maneuver out of it using their money and connections. it's disgusting. people standing up for a child molester just because he's "fun" and rich.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
But this has been public knowledge for a long time. I hope everyone involved gets what they deserve.
