There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[Coreece 190]

11 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

13 minutes ago, normiss said:

*toe

Dammit - Fixed

 

That's all you found wrong.

You also didn't use the proper sentence structure, and you probably should've swapped the hyphen and coma around.

Just like a conservative that doesn't care about anything or anyone, especially the children!

[normiss 622]

22 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Dammit - Fixed

 

That's all you found wrong.

Not that I was looking for any grammatical errors, I suppose not.

The attitude of ignoring the effects of the changes to the planet that sustains us and the refusal to realize the need for and commitment to changes in our behavior and efforts to counter those behavioral impacts, I guess not. Seems like it's worth the effort to me.

Our life expectancy alone is declining. I'd prefer to not be so self centered as to have a fuck you attitude to the future. Maybe I'm not so selfish that way.

[mbohu 77]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Unless you can get China to "Toe The line" Immediately

Absolutely. But who is working on getting China to toe the line on that? It seems like this argument is generally only used in order to argue against doing something domestically. No one I know, who uses that argument, is actively working on convincing or pressuring China on this issue. All the organizations I know about, that are doing ANYTHING about China in this regard, are the same organizations that are pressuring the US (and pretty much any other big country) to do more.

[wmw999 2,146]

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

It is something that we cannot stop.  We will have to overcome and adapt.

Unless you can get China to "Toe The line" Immediately - but even that won't matter, not really.

 

You're absolutely right. But we shouldn't just give up and say "fuckit" because we can't get China to toe the line immediately. We keep doing the right thing because it's right for the world. 

Each department in a company should work toward the goals of the company, not of just that department. And the goals of the company should be whatever it actually makes or does, not just the raw generation of money (that's how Enron happened). 

Wendy P.

[turtlespeed 212]

38 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

You're absolutely right. But we shouldn't just give up and say "fuckit" because we can't get China to toe the line immediately. We keep doing the right thing because it's right for the world. 

Each department in a company should work toward the goals of the company, not of just that department. And the goals of the company should be whatever it actually makes or does, not just the raw generation of money (that's how Enron happened). 

Wendy P.

I'm not suggesting to do nothing.

I'm suggesting that we need to rethink our approach, and our focus.

I'm suggesting that we double on getting those places that are not as diligent as we are, on track.

I'm suggesting that the environmental activists make their way over to the countries like China and India before pronouncing doom and apocalypse here.

I'm suggesting reason, and logic.

[Coreece 190]

10 hours ago, normiss said:

Maybe I'm not so selfish that way.

I'm convinced!   Normiss is just a sockpuppet of Mother Theresa's.

[mbohu 77]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm suggesting that the environmental activists make their way over to the countries like China and India before pronouncing doom and apocalypse here.

But, like I said: THEY ARE. In fact, these organizations are the ones that ARE working in these places. The talking heads that use the "But China!" excuse, on the other hand aren't doing diddly squat there and it is clear they have no intention to do anything. Here is an example map of one organization. The dark orange is where they work. This one does not work in China (China probably DOES pose some real challenges, because of their regime, so that would need more political support to really get something done) but they DO work in India:

[turtlespeed 212]

9 minutes ago, mbohu said:

But, like I said: THEY ARE. In fact, these organizations are the ones that ARE working in these places. The talking heads that use the "But China!" excuse, on the other hand aren't doing diddly squat there and it is clear they have no intention to do anything. Here is an example map of one organization. The dark orange is where they work. This one does not work in China (China probably DOES pose some real challenges, because of their regime, so that would need more political support to really get something done) but they DO work in India:

Sorry - 

I can't resist - your Chart makes it look like most of the world has accepted cookies, but there are still quite a few holdouts.

I realize that.

What I am saying is that we need to transfer the majority of the budget money to get everyone on a more even playing field.

If I sweep up the leaves in my yard, it does nothing for the neighborhood.

The right thing to do is to pay to have everyone else's yard cleaned up, while you do your own.

[DJL 232]

23 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Sorry - 

I can't resist - your Chart makes it look like most of the world has accepted cookies, but there are still quite a few holdouts.

I realize that.

What I am saying is that we need to transfer the majority of the budget money to get everyone on a more even playing field.

If I sweep up the leaves in my yard, it does nothing for the neighborhood.

The right thing to do is to pay to have everyone else's yard cleaned up, while you do your own.

That's accurate, we need to be the ones paying for everyone else's yard.  We're asking other countries to not do exactly what it was that made us rich and they're not in a position economically to make the capital investment.  Furthermore, countries like China and India which thrive on a monoculture of cheap manufacturing won't lift a finger if they're undercut by neighboring countries using cheap coal and dirty processing methods.  What we can do is use this as an opportunity to entrench ourselves into a developing economy that we helped to create.

[mbohu 77]

Well yes. All of that is true and all of that has to be accounted for and thought about. It's certainly an issue that we (the most developed parts of the world) are now asking less developed countries NOT to do what we have done in order to get as wealthy as we got, because we are suddenly realizing that the way we did it is actually not sustainable if EVERYONE did it. That is an extremely tough ask.
That is why we have to offer something BIG. That is why we have to probably show that we are now willing to do 5 times as much to make up for what we already took previously. That is why it may be necessary to first do SO much more: Not because that in itself will solve the problem, but because that may just give us some of the leverage and moral authority to ask these other countries to be better world citizens than we were when we were in their shoes.

44 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The right thing to do is to pay to have everyone else's yard cleaned up, while you do your own.

Well, that's a bit much to ask. In this case, what would be better would be to get together and come up with some kind of regulation that applies to all. That way, the one who is willing to do their part does not get to carry that burden by themselves for all the others.

One thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that--for the very reason you point out in this example--regulations can actually HELP the businesses (or countries) that they apply to. If I am running a business in a way that is ethical beyond the standards of others, and there is cost involved with this, then I am making myself less competitive in relation to these others. If there is then regulation that penalizes others if they do not do the same as myself, then that helps me to be on a level playing field again. That's why we crazy progressive actually like (some) regulation, even if it sometimes seems to limit our own "freedoms".
So: To come back to the issue discussed here: International regulations (well, all we can do there are really "agreements" rather than regulations, as we do not have the infrastructure for "regulations" and there is currently way too much fear of developing such infrastructure, so it won't happen)--International Agreements are what can help here, and these agreements can only work if we are committing ourselves to them and, as the above point explains, for some time actually give MORE than our share to them.

[mbohu 77]

54 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

The right thing to do is to pay to have everyone else's yard cleaned up, while you do your own.

Oh, and as DJL is pointing out (if I follow him) in this example it would be more like we previously dumped all our leaves in everyone else's backyard and now we are suddenly asking for everyone to just clean up whatever happens to be in their own yard.

[DJL 232]

14 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Oh, and as DJL is pointing out (if I follow him) in this example it would be more like we previously dumped all our leaves in everyone else's backyard and now we are suddenly asking for everyone to just clean up whatever happens to be in their own yard.

I didn't want to stretch the leave cleaning metaphor too much but that's one way to put it.  We've put the world in this situation.

 

19 minutes ago, mbohu said:

One thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that--for the very reason you point out in this example--regulations can actually HELP the businesses (or countries) that they apply to.

And not even in the long term.  There are many countries dealing with pollution and smog issues caused by unregulated manufacturing.  Their politicians and business owners would be more than happy to catch up with the developed world.

[wmw999 2,146]

I nothing else, if the US benefitted disproportionately from despoiling the earth (yes, in part because of capitalism), then maybe we should pay disproportionately for leaning how to continue that level of innovation and technology while NOT despoiling the earth. 

When capitalism has real problems to surmount it’s great. If it’s mainly about moving a static market around via advertising and accounting tricks, it’s not so good. 

Wendy P. 

[mbohu 77]

3 minutes ago, DJL said:

Their politicians and business owners would be more than happy to catch up with the developed world.

Yes, and we need to help them, so this does not create a competitive disadvantage for them and makes it harder for them to catch up.
This may SEEM unfair to us, because why should we do our own part and ALSO help THEM to do their part (isn't that their business?) but because we did not do our part when we were in their position, that is why we now have to do more. And yes: this needs to be sustainable for us as well--and that may be where the discussion will be: What is actually sustainable for us, how much do we OWE, so to speak, how much can we now ask from others, etc. I am sure China has a different view on that than we do, and other poorer nations will have an even different view. It won't be an easy negotiation, but it needs to be engaged in.

[turtlespeed 212]

25 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Well yes. All of that is true and all of that has to be accounted for and thought about. It's certainly an issue that we (the most developed parts of the world) are now asking less developed countries NOT to do what we have done in order to get as wealthy as we got, because we are suddenly realizing that the way we did it is actually not sustainable if EVERYONE did it. That is an extremely tough ask.
That is why we have to offer something BIG. That is why we have to probably show that we are now willing to do 5 times as much to make up for what we already took previously. That is why it may be necessary to first do SO much more: Not because that in itself will solve the problem, but because that may just give us some of the leverage and moral authority to ask these other countries to be better world citizens than we were when we were in their shoes.

Well, that's a bit much to ask. In this case, what would be better would be to get together and come up with some kind of regulation that applies to all. That way, the one who is willing to do their part does not get to carry that burden by themselves for all the others.

One thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that--for the very reason you point out in this example--regulations can actually HELP the businesses (or countries) that they apply to. If I am running a business in a way that is ethical beyond the standards of others, and there is cost involved with this, then I am making myself less competitive in relation to these others. If there is then regulation that penalizes others if they do not do the same as myself, then that helps me to be on a level playing field again. That's why we crazy progressive actually like (some) regulation, even if it sometimes seems to limit our own "freedoms".
So: To come back to the issue discussed here: International regulations (well, all we can do there are really "agreements" rather than regulations, as we do not have the infrastructure for "regulations" and there is currently way too much fear of developing such infrastructure, so it won't happen)--International Agreements are what can help here, and these agreements can only work if we are committing ourselves to them and, as the above point explains, for some time actually give MORE than our share to them.

I see you are getting around to where irony of it.

Why do WE have to offer something BIG?  I thought being the world's police was bad.  Or, is it now bad only until its good? (Read:When the left agrees with it) 

What exactly did we "Take" and why do we have to put 5 times more of it back?

I think you are actually agreeing with me in that, we cannot have regulations - We cannot enforce them.  (It's like adding more gun laws on top of gun laws - The ones that will disobey will disobey no matter what.)

Why would we be the ones that are responsible for enforcing them anyway?

Make China responsible for that.  They have way more money than we do.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

9 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I nothing else, if the US benefitted disproportionately from despoiling the earth (yes, in part because of capitalism), then maybe we should pay disproportionately for leaning how to continue that level of innovation and technology while NOT despoiling the earth. 

When capitalism has real problems to surmount it’s great. If it’s mainly about moving a static market around via advertising and accounting tricks, it’s not so good. 

Wendy P. 

I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that the US benefited disproportionately.

Every other country has the same opportunities.  China (For One) is benefitting WAY more than we ever did.

[brenthutch 388]

19 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Well yes. All of that is true and all of that has to be accounted for and thought about. It's certainly an issue that we (the most developed parts of the world) are now asking less developed countries NOT to do what we have done in order to get as wealthy as we got, because we are suddenly realizing that the way we did it is actually not sustainable if EVERYONE did it. That is an extremely tough ask.
That is why we have to offer something BIG. That is why we have to probably show that we are now willing to do 5 times as much to make up for what we already took previously. That is why it may be necessary to first do SO much more: Not because that in itself will solve the problem, but because that may just give us some of the leverage and moral authority to ask these other countries to be better world citizens than we were when we were in their shoes

Not going to happen. 

1. No democracy will allow any substantial wealth transfer from their country to another country. 

2. As we speak China is building hundreds of additional coal fired power plants, each with a life expectancy of 40 to 50 years.  We could go   to zero and CO2 levels will continue to rise.

3. Moral authority and $4.50 will get you a mocha latte, not much more. 

[mbohu 77]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Why do WE have to offer something BIG?  I thought being the world's police was bad.  Or, is it now bad only until its good? (Read:When the left agrees with it) 

These are 2 different questions:

Why do we have to offer something BIG: Well, it's not too hard to chart out what would happen if all other countries took the same path to development and prosperity that we took. If they did that, pollution, CO2 emissions, etc. would be off the chart and would not be sustainable at all. We are telling them that they cannot take our path to prosperity, even though WE did it that way. That is a huge ask. That is why we need to have a huge GIVE.
(or to use a different metaphor: We are now 12 year olds that are asking our 6 year old brother to behave as responsibly as we as a 12 year old are behaving, even though, as 6 year olds we did in no way behave like that.)

Should we be the world's police man? Ideally no. Ideally that job goes to international organizations and ad-hoc coalitions. Given our size and state of development though we will probably disproportionally contribute in that arena. (And: I don't think it's relevant what "the left" agrees with or not. If "the left" doesn't have the right solution here, let's not care about what "the left" says or wants!)

[mbohu 77]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

2. As we speak China is building hundreds of additional coal fired power plants, each with a life expectancy of 40 to 50 years.  We could go   to zero and CO2 levels will continue to rise.

Yes. And so did we, when we were in their phase of development. That is why we need to give them a path to achieve that development by different means. We are asking them for something that WE weren't asked to do at that time. We are asking the 6 year old to behave like a 12 year old.
(and I hope it's clear that I am talking about the development of a country's infrastructure, economy and wealth, and not the development or capacity of its people.)

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, mbohu said:

These are 2 different questions:

Why do we have to offer something BIG: Well, it's not too hard to chart out what would happen if all other countries took the same path to development and prosperity that we took. If they did that, pollution, CO2 emissions, etc. would be off the chart and would not be sustainable at all. We are telling them that they cannot take our path to prosperity, even though WE did it that way. That is a huge ask. That is why we need to have a huge GIVE.
(or to use a different metaphor: We are now 12 year olds that are asking our 6 year old brother to behave as responsibly as we as a 12 year old are behaving, even though, as 6 year olds we did in no way behave like that.)

Should we be the world's police man? Ideally no. Ideally that job goes to international organizations and ad-hoc coalitions. Given our size and state of development though we will probably disproportionally contribute in that arena. (And: I don't think it's relevant what "the left" agrees with or not. If "the left" doesn't have the right solution here, let's not care about what "the left" says or wants!)

So we need to make these countries abolish Coal, Natural Gas, and all but the bare minimum of all fossil fuel use.

Until that happens, the wheels are spinning, but we are still stuck in the mud.

 

[brenthutch 388]

6 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Yes. And so did we, when we were in their phase of development. That is why we need to give them a path to achieve that development by different means. We are asking them for something that WE weren't asked to do at that time. We are asking the 6 year old to behave like a 12 year old.
(and I hope it's clear that I am talking about the development of a country's infrastructure, economy and wealth, and not the development or capacity of its people.)

That just isn’t going to happen, it is not politically viable.  Just look at what happened in France when they raised the price of diesel fuel a few pennies.  The issue would be demagogued to death. ZERO chance of it getting any further than a white paper from some left wing think tank.

[DJL 232]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That just isn’t going to happen, it is not politically viable.  Just look at what happened in France when they raised the price of diesel fuel a few pennies.

That's because that was an idiotic move that disproportionately penalized those who were already economically dependent upon the cost of diesel.  A better move would've been to simply increase overall taxes to invest in the infrastructure needed for low carbon power production or EVs.  Sales taxes disproportionately affect lower income people.  They knew it but did it anyway.

[brenthutch 388]

It's hard enough raising taxes for infrastructure in ones own country.  Raising taxes to build up another country when we have homeless veterans sleeping under crumbling bridges is a non-starter. (And that is just how it would be characterized by opponents) 

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

That's because that was an idiotic move that disproportionately penalized those who were already economically dependent upon the cost of diesel.  A better move would've been to simply increase overall taxes to invest in the infrastructure needed for low carbon power production or EVs.  Sales taxes disproportionately affect lower income people.  They knew it but did it anyway.

They increased the cost of the thing that was contributing to the problem.

That is what I am hearing being advocated here.  It's not even FOR here in the US - it's to somehow convince someone else to take action.  

Our output of pollutants is 88th in the world.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_by_country.jsp

[brenthutch 388]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

They increased the cost of the thing that was contributing to the problem.

That is what I am hearing being advocated here.  It's not even FOR here in the US - it's to somehow convince someone else to take action.  

Our output of pollutants is 88th in the world.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_by_country.jsp

People make that mistake all of the time, conflating CO2 with pollution.