|
Post by prozyan on Feb 9, 2019 18:46:46 GMT -5
I don't disagree Don.
My point was simply when you are the lone industrial powerhouse in the world it isn't that hard to develop a strong middle class based on industry.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 9, 2019 21:59:48 GMT -5
The Interstate Highway system is also largely responsible for the US being a massive carbon contributor. By destroying both long-distance and commuter mass transit The interstate highway system didn't destroy mass transit any more than the free market destroyed it by offering up four-passenger automobiles to transverse those highways. And the highways didn't destroy free will or thoughtful consideration any more than the free market did, and continues to do every day, via advertisements that tell you how you can get what you most assuredly want for the low, low price of whathefuckever it is. And yet the glorious free market continues to provide those behemoths, precisely because that's what a huge percentage of people still want: their very own behemoths.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 8:16:04 GMT -5
I believe future generations, such as they are, will curse those alive now for their lack of urgency in trying to solve this problem -- for prioritizing short term economic ease over their long-term well-being.
In short, I'm with Mark.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 10, 2019 12:10:43 GMT -5
The Interstate Highway system is also largely responsible for the US being a massive carbon contributor. By destroying both long-distance and commuter mass transit The interstate highway system didn't destroy mass transit any more than the free market destroyed it by offering up four-passenger automobiles to transverse those highways. And the highways didn't destroy free will or thoughtful consideration any more than the free market did, and continues to do every day, via advertisements that tell you how you can get what you most assuredly want for the low, low price of whathefuckever it is. And yet the glorious free market continues to provide those behemoths, precisely because that's what a huge percentage of people still want: their very own behemoths. The Interstate Highway system and related road-building projects, along with ridiculously low user fee rates on petroleum products and subsidies to automakers all are examples of socialization of costs, which gives consumers a false sense of the actual expense of, in this case, auto transportation vs. mass transit. Of course, if costs are understated, consumption is increased. It's all basic economics. We all know that if you subsidize anything, you get more of it, and less of the other alternatives. In this case, what you got was gas-guzzlers instead of economically sensible mass transit. In European countries, where infrastructure developed more organically over a longer period, and governments provided less socialization of costs, we see a much more sensible balance for the most part. As for the "free" market, what is that of which you speak? As we've shown, government both highly regulated and highly subsidized the auto industry at the expense of other forms of transit. They wrote the rules, but they wrote the rules to favor the auto and petroleum industries who owned them, not their constituents. Corporations, some of whom were involved in writing those rules, took advantage of this intentional tilting of the playing field to maximize profits. That's what they're supposed to do. At least according to the laws we have now. Once upon a time, they were required to show a social good as part of their charter, but they bought their way out of that rule many moons ago. No doubt the game is rigged. But you gotta blame the people writing the rules at least as much as the ones doing what's "legal," whether it's ethical or not. Ethics is not the responsibility of corporations these days; government claims that mantle. The buck stops there.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2019 12:32:54 GMT -5
I believe future generations, such as they are, will curse those alive now for their lack of urgency in trying to solve this problem -- for prioritizing short term economic ease over their long-term well-being. In short, I'm with Mark. This sentiment--that future generations can "blame" previous generations--is one I find interesting, for a host of reasons. And I'm going to use it as a jumping off point in a thread in the philosophy room (I'll add a link here when I'm done). ETA: here it is. But respective to the issue of global warming/climate change, blame--such as it is--can be parceled out specifically much more easily than generationally, imo. Everyone--across time--who has a greater carbon footprint than at least the world average (if not greater than the bare minimum to survive, or even a negative one) gets some of that blame, going back thousands of years. Everyone today--who is aware of climate change and thinks it's a problem--who isn't adjusting every aspect of their lives to combat it not only gets their fair share of blame, but also gets to be a raging hypocrite (I'm looking at you Al Gore, though you're just the poster child). And for Ms. O-C, I'd be willing to wager a fair amount of money that over the course of the next several years, her personal carbon footprint goes up exponentially. Because that's how life works, how it's always worked: people not only move through life stages with economic components, they also use more resources as such become affordable and/or their access to such increases.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 10, 2019 12:49:13 GMT -5
I think it's worthy to worry about climate change, but this doesn't help because it's not just unrealistic, it paints the picture of those who are concerned with it as being nuts.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 10, 2019 13:20:28 GMT -5
This proposal is unrealistic, utterly impossible financially, and downright silly in much of it, right up to phrases like "farting cows". It goes far beyond saving the environment, and I'm just amazed at how many Dems are signing right onto it. It just shows how far left a large faction of the Democratic party is willing to go. We talked earlier about how AOC would be as a congressperson. I see her as becoming increasingly arrogant with her continued praise in the media, and millions of Twitter followers, and sycophant Dems. How else can one explain a 29 year old bartender freshman rep attempting to overhaul the entire country with a plan that is so poorly thought out? Who does this? And she doesn't seem hesitant to lie to try to avoid criticism of part of this proposal and its FAQ which was originally on her website. I guess she's turning into a typical politico. www.businessinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-aoc-green-new-deal-controversy-unwilling-to-work-line-faq-2019-2
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 10, 2019 13:27:15 GMT -5
Just a question. Are cow farts really that much more damaging to the environment than horse farts, pigs farts or for that matter human farts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 14:28:44 GMT -5
It fascinates and appalls me that anyone sees climate changes as a "political" issue.
It's a scientific issue. And 99% of the world's scientists are in agreement that the situation is dire, that man's contribution is unquestionable yuuuge, and we have a very limited window in which to mitigate it. Already we are seeing the effects, and they are quickly getting worse. If we do nothing, your kids and grandkids are fucked. They may already be fucked.
That's not a crackpot expremist far-left political position. That's the position of fucking CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.
Here's something I've always wondered. It's extremely easy for me to see the political motivation of politicians on the right to deny climate change (or at least deny that man has anything to do with it), or that it's worth taking some hit to the economy to do something about it-- though that hit would likely be temporary, as businesses would evolve to cope with the new reality; new inventions would emerge, etc.): It's partly just denial of Unpleasantness (who wants to believe we've fucked the planet? not voters!) and partly economic (big donors are big businesses and investors, and they don't want to lose profits!)
But what the fuck do you think the "political" motivation is on the left to believe in this? Taking aside that climate scientists overwhelmingly are saying this, what do we lefties gain by imposing restrictions to save the environment, other than saving the environment? If the economy gets hit, so do we. We're the "elite," remember? We have investments and businesses.
I'm not going to fucking joke and engage in nitpickery over this. It's not fun or funny, and I doubt I'm going to learn more from you all than from scientists. But I would sincerely like to hear what you think the political motivation of people like, e.g., me and Mark, is. (We think we care about the future of the planet, and that this shouldn't be a political issue at all.)
ETA:
Do I think AOC's Green New Deal will be carried out? I do not. But aiming in that general direction? I think it would be a good thing. I agree with Mark that it's intended to be aspirational.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 14:42:52 GMT -5
That's one reason standards of living have always lagged behind the US. We were a decade or more ahead of the European consumer. Have you been to Europe? Like, recently? Go visit. They do not lag behind the US. Indeed, we lag behind many European countries. Seriously, go visit Sweden or Germany some time.
|
|
|
Post by prozyan on Feb 10, 2019 15:26:40 GMT -5
Recognizing climate change and its effects and believing that the New Green Deal is ridiculous are NOT mutually exclusive positions.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Feb 10, 2019 15:55:27 GMT -5
prozyan is correct.
There are many ways to approach climate change even within the perspective that this is an urgent problem. Why are so many people looking to this ridiculous proposal as if it’s the correct way or the only way? I am very curious what actual scientists think of this proposal. Haven’t had time to look.
To also address Cassandra’s question about climate change and politics - what is this proposal if not intensely and radically political? That’s a big part of its problem.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 10, 2019 16:24:00 GMT -5
It fascinates and appalls me that anyone sees climate changes as a "political" issue. Agreed but unfortunately it's absolutely become an issue that smarmy morons in Washington use to cudgel their political opponents over the head with. It's mostly been reified into a political weapon with very little attention given anymore (by many politicians) that it's still an actual threat that desperately needs actual action. I agree with the overall sentiment here but I wanted to point out a bit of overexaggeration, just to be more clear on the facts. It's "97% of published climate science research" - and I don't think it would be unreasonable to extrapolate that to "97% of climate scientists" - not "99% of the world's scientists." I'm unaware of a poll being done of the climate change opinions of all scientists across all fields in the entire world. I'm a scientist, but not a climate scientist, so my "scientific opinion" on climate science doesn't really matter. On that topic, I'd be a false authority (if I tried to present my opinion "as a scientist" as if that somehow gave it more credibility in a domain outside the scope of my expertise). But, it is true that there's an overwhelming consensus among scientific experts in that field and I find people who dispute that consensus to be incredibly ignorant and unreasonable. Okay, just saw this. See above re: clarification. I think many of them do it because they view it as the moral thing to do (and I agree with them). But, I'm sure the motivation is also there that doing so leads to getting re-elected by one's constituents for supporting climate change initiatives. Here's where I think you and I disagree. I don't see AOC's GND document (and the FAQ she released) as "[aimed] in that general direction." I think she overshot it by a few solar systems by banking far-left into looney tunes territory. Parts of it make sense but other parts come across as so farcical as to be an inept parody. "Farting cows?" Providing income to people "unwilling to work?" Getting rid of airline travel? (sorry, Hawaii! Sorry international travelers!) When politicians on the left go this far into loony land that they've lost the plot (on reality), which unfortunately AOC seems to do a bit more regularly than most Dems, it's fodder for gleeful Republicans hoping to use it as ammo in 2020. And, they're not really wrong to think that: Yes, I know that "Republicans gonna Republican," but these Dems who are swerving so far-left so fast like they're dodging a deer on a dark road risk turning off the majority of Democratic voters because the majority of Democratic voters don't like far-left policies. Indeed, the majority of the population (roughly 80%) are turned off by far-left policies/ideology. If the GND, or at least the ancillaries surrounding it, had been aggressive yet reasonable, pragmatic yet aspirational, and based on...well...on reality, then I think it could've been a very strong indictment of the Republicans' ridiculously indignant, nonchalant pooh-poohing of the seriousness of the issue and their idiotic intransigence on it. The best way to combat crazy is to be rational and sane not "just as or even more crazy." When one acts so crazy that even crazy people think you're crazy, it's time to rethink the approach. Instead, we got farting cows, paying people with taxpayer money to be freeloading layabouts, and ending air travel as we know it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 16:57:22 GMT -5
That was a well-done post, Optimus , and I appreciate it. And you know, you're likely right that AOC's Green New Deal wouldn't have been snorted at by as many if it had been framed in more moderate (and reachable) terms. But then, it also seems to me that way too often in American politics the center compromise ends up being, not the sensible thing, but the midpoint between whatever the two extremes are. Like, right now, the alt-right, the White House, and too many GOPers in Congress and Republicans generally are way off in whackadoodle land, IMO. I don't want the compromise to be halfway between the sensible course and the "pfft, climate change is fake news! Let's burn more coal!" I wonder, therefore, whether AOC's take might serve a purpose in making a centrist course look...well, centrist. Then too, I think the correct course, in light of what the 97% of the world's climate scientists are saying, is in fact to be found further left than the actual center of what a lot of people are advocating. I think it's imperative we take strong action -- and so many are either in "wait and see" land (time has run out for that, IMO), or in "pfft, fake news" land. Honestly, I don't even know what to say anymore to those who don't see that. ETA: I guess it bothers me to spend time and energy sneering at AOC when IMO the real extremists, the people really out of step with science and reality, the ones who are actually harmful and dangerous to us, are the climate change denialists -- and unfortunately, that includes our President. I know a number of you actually agree with me on that. But, yeah, some of you support Trump. So yeah, if you're good with his BERN MOOR KLEEN KOLE! and IT'S SNOWING SO GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE HUR HUR HUR!" approach, you've got no room, at all, to sneer at AOC, IMO. I mean, AOC's green new deal isn't going to happen. But if we really cared about future generations, well, we might be taking some of it into consideration. It's not as crazy as burning more coal instead of pursuing wind and solar energy, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 10, 2019 17:59:01 GMT -5
I think that far more often than not, the compromise is actually between the middle ground and one of the two extremes. Really, it generally ends up being closer to an extreme than a middle ground. And this is usually a consequence of which extreme position is getting the best press in the moment.
Of course, proponents of an extreme version of a given policy/initiative will argue that their visions is the sensible one, regardless.
Now, on to climate change...
My issues aren't with the idea of climate change, with the idea of man's "culpability" in this regard. They're with the supposed solutions, both with regard to the necessity of these solutions and with their assumed consequences/efficacy.
In this particular situation--the NGD--we have someone arguing for a complete restructuring of US society as a means of--apparently--saving the future.
1) I don't accept it as a given that the future needs this sort of saving, that a "failure to act" on a grand scale means certain doom. 2) I don't believe most of the people offering such grand solutions--scientists or not--have a real firm grasp on how such solutions can impact people in the here and now (much less whether or not they're even workable to begin with). Look at Ms. O-C's arguments, championing the era of WWII to show what can be accomplished. As some have noted, that era was no picnic for people. We tend to glamorize the past more often than not, especially those moments of which we are proud (and there is a lot to be proud of in the WWII era, make no mistake), but people--real people--suffered because of the war, abroad and and at home. They struggled on a daily basis. People who are demanding restructuring huge sectors of the economyand/or cutting out energy sources all for the sake of the future don't really understand how much damage such things can do to a lot of people's lives in the mean time. Telling people that they have to "tighten their belts" and/or deal with the changes for a while because "the future" is easy to say, but I don't know that I want to be around a government that's saying it, when there's a serious lack of understanding on what this means going forward. That's a shit-ton of hubris on display, imo.
I'm all for sensible rules and regulations regarding things like pollution and land use, I'm all for mankind--even through its governments--trying to be better custodians of the planet, I'm all for teaching these things to kids (most in the USA are learning it, actually), I'm all for developing superior/safer/greener sources of power, and so on and so on. But what I'm not for is a totalitarian-esque vision of the future, wherein how one lives is wholly determined by the government.
Think I'm going too far? Maybe. But then maybe that's the only way to drag people back for the lunacy of what's in the NGD (and in the minds of people who actually support such tripe).
|
|