patrick.net

1. Less people. No potential future tech needed.
1b. Sign up Girls 15-25 for Depo-Provera Shots, aggressive campaigning in HS around the country, esp in poor ass areas. $250 cash for each quarterly shot (MUCH cheaper than Food Stamps, HUD, Medicaid, and eventually Prison for the future bastards)
2. Stop taking low CO2 emitting third worlders and bringing them to high CO2 emitting countries - stop third world immigration
2b. CUT food and med aid to the Third World.
3. More density
4. POV fees gradually rising to $20k per year. Cars are the most difficult problem.
5. Renewables are doable. But switching to Renewables WHILE adding tens of millions of EVs is NOT doable, not to mention the massive pollution involved with Rare Earth refining.
6. 3+ and 4 Gen Nuclear Reactor Investment

Republicans tend to deny climate change, so the argument tends to stay there.

-------------

Why are all the "Independent's" and Republicans in lockstep on this? I mean, everyone knows pollution is bad, and the adverse effects impact everyone, everywhere. Is it the abandonment of reason, in exchange for blind faith, that Christianity demands of them? Love thy brother. Heaven is a place on Earth. If God gave us all that is good on Gods Green Earth, why do they seem so hell bent on aiding and abetting the destruction? Are they intentionally trying to bring about the Rapture?

Islamic terrorists could never dream up such a wide reaching jihad, as the Christian mission to literally destroy the planet. Maybe a more important question, is 'Are their actions derived from Free Will, or have they been brainwashed to act this way?'

Dan8267 says

You're philosophy of "the everyday man has no power and therefore should disconnect from politics" is just plain stupid. Do I have to explain why?

I think you do need to explain why. Explain why people that live in the Bay Area believe that the rest of the world population who live hand to mouth would actually care what they think let alone follow their lead. You should spend a few years in a third world country like I have, where people just throw their garbage anywhere and have been doing it for generations even though they run commercials on TV asking them to quit. Where they pour waste oil and chemicals on the ground in the nearest vacant lot, where they burn fields after the harvest, where they release HVAC gases to the open air. Where you can buy concentrated acids and amonia at the hardware store. Where people still use firewood to cook with.
Nobody is saying that pollution is good. It's just that arguing about it on PATNET sure as hell isn't going to change anything.
Please don't even mentions FINES. The police just take bribes and pocket the money.
I made my point and didn't even call you "stupid".

errc says

Why are all the "Independent's" and Republicans in lockstep on this? I mean, everyone knows pollution is bad,

Yeah - but we are talking about Carbon Dioxide. Otherwise known as plant food and the gas we exhale from our lungs. Kind of weird how CO2 is considered "pollution" when it is vital for the existence of Life on our planet.

Anyhoo - yesterday brought news that the Climate doom monger's models are wrong again. Even Michael Mann contributed to this paper.

"In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble"
https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

The climate models are ALWAYS wrong. But we are to believe the latest prediction about the year 2100?

Talk about having religious faith!

errc says

Republicans tend to deny climate change, so the argument tends to stay there.

-------------

Why are all the "Independent's" and Republicans in lockstep on this? I mean, everyone knows pollution is bad, and the adverse effects impact everyone, everywhere. Is it the abandonment of reason, in exchange for blind faith, that Christianity demands of them? Love thy brother. Heaven is a place on Earth. If God gave us all that is good on Gods Green Earth, why do they seem so hell bent on aiding and abetting the destruction? Are they intentionally trying to bring about the Rapture?

Islamic terrorists could never dream up such a wide reaching jihad, as the Christian mission to literally destroy the planet. Maybe a more important question, is 'Are their actions derived from Free Will, or have they been brainwashed to act this way?'

TELL 'EM!

Works for me - try this.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

komputodo says

I think you do need to explain why.

www.youtube.com/embed/HzEifN4xt18

When people do not oppose evil, you get the Holocaust, Darfur, ISIS, honor killings, and the lost of liberty.

The fact is that the problems our nation faces, including climate change, are not technologically or administratively difficult to solve. The only reason these problems exist is the lack of political will to solve them. And that is why the common man needs to demand policy change. The one and only thing the common man can really do in our society is foster the political will necessary to make wise policy.

But if you don't believe in the value of this and want people to stop talking policy and politics, then lead by example and shut up.

komputodo says

Explain why people that live in the Bay Area believe that the rest of the world population who live hand to mouth would actually care what they think let alone follow their lead.

We don't need poor countries in Africa to cut coal emissions. We need the United States to. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand this subject matter at all. The U.S. has caused more pollution and climate change than all other nations combined. So yes, it does matter what we do. The other major countries that can make a difference are willing to do so. So again, it matters what we do. This is not politics. It's the difference between foolishness and wisdom.

I don't give two shits about your stupid cultural war with hippies. I don't care whether you like NASCAAR or the Beatles. You stupid fucking cultural preferences don't matter. This isn't about culture wars. Climate change is about science, engineering, and basing our policies so that we don't destroy the very ecosystem that we are completely dependent upon.

There are no honest economic arguments that support polluting and uncontrolled climate change. The cost of these problems is several order of magnitudes more than avoiding the problems, and it's only getting worse. It is nothing but the short-sighted greed of the few that causes us to ignore this problem. You and your family will be poorer because of climate change. You are not saving yourself money. You are costing yourself and everyone else a lot of wealth. So even if wealth is all you care about, it still makes no sense to destroy the vast majority of wealth our species possesses, which is our environment, and I mean that in dollars. The cost of transforming Earth after fucking it up is far greater than the cost of not fucking it up. The lost economic productivity of fucking up the Earth is greater than the cost of not fucking up the Earth.

#shortsightedFoolishness

Dan8267 says

We don't need poor countries in Africa to cut coal emissions. We need the United States to. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand this subject matter at all. The U.S. has caused more pollution and climate change than all other nations combined.

Notice the same switch that clown (John Oliver?) also uses: when subject of US being lesser polluter now than some other countries he promptly goes for "but in the past US polluted more". The past is the past. US economy is now much cleaner than the most of the rest of the world, so it's them who need to catch the fuck up.

Dan8267 says

We don't need poor countries in Africa to cut coal emissions. We need the United States to. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand this subject matter at all.

Well I don't live in the USA anymore and I don't burn coal. Therefore, I shall leave it in your capable hands to save the world with your rhetoric.

Straw Man says

The past is the past. US economy is now much cleaner than the most of the rest of the world, so it's them who need to catch the fuck up.

Yep - and we are going to help the biggest polluters like China and India reduce their carbon output with our natural gas exports.. Those evil US oil industry capitalists and frackers will do more to reduce the world's carbon emissions in the next 20 years than all of the European windmills and solar panels combined!

But Dan think the US owes the world reparations or something.......

It's almost as if the American Left are in cahoots with Putin and China. We need an investigation!

errc says

Why are all the "Independent's" and Republicans in lockstep on this?

As I wrote above and before, they're not. That isn't the problem.

The problem is none of the four largest parties proposes any actual solution. The Democrats and Greens wail about warming and tear their hair and gnash their teeth that the end of the world is nigh, and Democrats demand you pay more taxes to their corrupt patronage networks including global foundations, but they don't propose any solution. To the contrary, in 2016 Democrats campaigned on war between the USA and Russia, which would cause hugely adverse environmental consequences, although you could argue nuclear winter might alleviate global warming. The Libertarians apply the Hippocratic oath to government, but not each other. The Republicans make everything worse, actually subsidizing the most polluting industries. Those are all different policy choices, not lockstep at all.

If it makes you feel virtuous to tear your hair out and gnash your teeth, then go ahead, but don't pretend you're accomplishing anything until you can point to a geo-engineering system that could actually solve the problem. Please don't waste your breath blaming people for not joining the "end of the world is nigh and there's nothing to be done about it" chorus. Doom and gult sell, from Isaiah 3k years ago to AGW today, because human nature has not changed. Science advances, but those who would impair the advanced countries to subsidize and empower backwards kleptocracies are not helping. At least some of the independents can see that both major parties make the problem worse, while one adds insult to injury by pretending to make it better and expecting you to believe.

Why I bought a house with a swimming pool... spent yesterday in 101 degree valley heat without breaking a sweat!

BoomAndBustCycle says

Why I bought a house with a swimming pool... spent yesterday in 101 degree valley heat without breaking a sweat!

Amen, brother!

Straw Man says

Notice the same switch that clown (John Oliver?) also uses: when subject of US being lesser polluter now than some other countries he promptly goes for "but in the past US polluted more". The past is the past.

So, then you aren't for going after terrorists that did their crimes "in the past"? That's foolish.

It's also a dumb as shit argument because pollution doesn't suddenly cease after it has been released. It lingers in the environment for centuries. So America's "past" pollution is presently still in the environment and fucking things up. The polluters should be charged for the cleanup costs, which measures in the hundred of trillions. That's why polluting doesn't make economic sense.

But then again, the conservative right has always been piss poor at running businesses, so why would they be good at the business of environmental management?

Straw Man says

US economy is now much cleaner than the most of the rest of the world

That's bullshit.

And China has 4.5 times the population of the U.S.

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

socal2 says

But Dan think the US owes the world reparations or something.......

No, I think climate change deniers like YOU owe the world reparations. If you promote policies that increase pollution, you are as liable for its costs as the polluters. Pollution is theft, plain and simple, and you thieves should have to pay back your victims just like any criminal.

Dan8267 says

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

Yes. For you. You see how small that piece of pie that belongs to the US? 17% fucking percent. So even if we believe for a second that your definition of "doing something" (which exclusively consists of talking, as you described in your "5 bullet points"), bitching and moaning exclusively about US is not going to make that much difference. You should switch your attention to the other 83%.

Dan8267 says

It's also a dumb as shit argument because pollution doesn't suddenly cease after it has been released. It lingers in the environment for centuries. So America's "past" pollution is presently still in the environment and fucking things up. The polluters should be charged for the cleanup costs

Go ahead, charge dead polluters from the past.

Straw Man says

Go ahead, charge dead polluters from the past.

General Electric is dead? Then I guess you don't mind us charging them.

Dan8267 says

Straw Man says

Go ahead, charge dead polluters from the past.

General Electric is dead? Then I guess you don't mind us charging them.

Go ahead, little fella.

Dan, more civility.

Straw Man, less lying.

Some lies cost lives.

So hot in Phoenix, some planes are grounded.

They may keep hitting records, and maybe even record a max temperature this year.

Dan8267 says

Straw Man, less lying.

Less than 0? It's going to be hard to implement.

Rew says

So hot in Phoenix, some plans are grounded.

Dan8267 says

Anyone who cannot distinguish between weather and climate should be ignored when it comes to policy making.

Yes yes weather.
They are breaking multiple hottest days records from recent history though ... again.

Straw Man says

Yes. For you. You see how small that piece of pie that belongs to the US? 17% fucking percent.

Also considering we have the biggest economy in the world and a very large landmass ranging from very hot to very cold climates, not too shabby.

How much do you want to bet Dan kicking it down in Florida is running his AC 24/7? Fucker is a environmental criminal using all that AC. I don't have AC at my house in San Diego County.

Straw Man says

Less than 0? It's going to be hard to implement.

You can increment your lie count for that lie.

Straw Man says

Rew says

So hot in Phoenix, some plans are grounded.

Dan8267 says

Anyone who cannot distinguish between weather and climate should be ignored when it comes to policy making.

1. You are being hypocritical. You often site short-term weather in your faulty attempts to discredit global warming.
2. Rew does have a point that repeated record breaking does indicate climatic changes.

socal2 says

How much do you want to bet Dan kicking it down in Florida is running his AC 24/7?

You would have lost that bet. More importantly, it's irrelevant. How does the use of air conditioning prevent the U.S. from implementing a carbon tax or other pollution tax?

Electricity generated by means producing pollution would be taxed as needed to clean up the pollution, increasing the cost and price of that electricity. More efficient energy production, whether that be by polluting and paying the tax or not polluting in the first place, would be selected by the invisible hand of the free market. Why do you hate the free market?

Dan8267 says

More importantly, it's irrelevant. How does the use of air conditioning prevent the U.S. from implementing a carbon tax or other pollution tax?

You want people to pay higher taxes on energy so you can live in a flood prone part of the world that needs AC a big chunk of the year.

socal2 says

You want people to pay higher taxes on energy so you can live in a flood prone part of the world that needs AC a big chunk of the year.

No. I want the true cost of any good or service, including electricity, to be paid for by the users of that good or service instead of subsidized by stealing from others. This means, by definition, that the cost of producing electricity is not shifted from consumers to non-consumers of that electricity by letting the producers pollute.

Again, why do you hate free markets? Let people decide if the electricity is worth buying and how much to buy. Stop stealing from some people to subsidize others. That's socialism. In fact, it's the worst kind of socialism, counter-productive socialism that creates financial incentives for waste without providing any economies of scale.

Deniers have to deny.

Self reinforcing feedback loops or in patnet language, "You started something you can't stop,ASSHOLES!"

Dan8267 says

How does the use of air conditioning prevent the U.S. from implementing a carbon tax or other pollution tax?

So your solution is by moving some numbers on a screen from one account to another will save the planet? That's interesting.

komputodo says

So your solution is by moving some numbers on a screen from one account to another will save the planet? That's interesting.

That's how free markets work. You change the price of things, and people change how much they buy. It's like magic.

In any case, using a pollution tax to clean up pollution is more than simply moving some numbers on a screen. If the pollution is cleaned up, then it is no longer a problem.

Again, why do you people hate the free market so much? Why do you hate efficient allocation of resources? Why do you insist on government picking winners and losers by letting some people steal from others? Why do you only like the absolute worst kind of socialism, the socializing of costs while privatizing profits?

Global Warming has become the Mother Of All Guilt Trips, inclusive of any number of subsidiary guilt trips.

Of course, libs like nothing more than a guilt trip and run at it holding their dresses over their heads with their panties around their knees.

Ceffer says

like nothing more than a guilt trip and run at it holding their dresses over their heads with their panties around their knees.

It isn't only "libs," and in fact it isn't even real liberals, but it is part of human nature:

No solutions allowed, only insistence on self-flagellation and mandatory shared sacrifice:

Ceffer says

Global Warming has become the Mother Of All Guilt Trips,

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the assholes creating methylmercury poisoning of the food supply aren't feeling guilty. And I don't care. Just like with rapists, I don't give a damn if they feel guilty or not, just that they are made to stop, at gunpoint if necessary.

This is an opinion article, and it's wrong. Predicting apocalypse is so farfetched, liberal gullibility is laughable.

Dan8267 says

That's how free markets work. You change the price of things, and people change how much they buy. It's like magic.

Huh? Who is "you"? A government bureaucrat or academic who has never even run an ice-cream stand?

socal2 says

Huh? Who is "you"? A government bureaucrat or academic who has never even run an ice-cream stand?

I'm not sure I can dumb this down to a level you'll understand, but I'll try.

Porky Pig owns a restaurant. Every day he steals eggs from Daisy Duck and uses them to cook breakfast for the other animals. He charges $5 for a plate of eggs. Since he steals the eggs he uses, producing a plate of egg costs only $3 leaving Porky with $2 in profit.

Governor Disney finds out that Porky has been stealing eggs and puts a stop to it. Now Porky has to pay Daisy for all the eggs he takes. It now costs Porky $8 to produce a plate of eggs. Porky must now charge $8 to break even and $10 to get the same profit margin. Whatever Porky decides to charge, his customers can decide whether or not the new price is worth it or if they would be better off eating at Goofy's Flapjack House.

Before Disney stopped Porky from stealing, Daisy was in effect forced against her will to subsidize Porky's business. This helped Porky a lot, and maybe his customers a little, but at the cost of a far greater expense to both Daisy and Goofy and the society as a whole. This is not free markets. This is socializing the costs of Porky's business while privatizing the profits. It distorts the market and causes misallocation of resources.

It is only after Governor Disney prevented Porky from stealing that we find out the true costs of Porky's product and what is the best allocation of Porky's eggs versus Goofy's flapjacks. If Porky goes out of business, that is the free market saying that Porky should never have been in business in the first place and his business was extremely wasteful, impoverishing society on the whole. If Porky stays in business, it will be at a lesser volume whereas Goofy will get more business. More importantly, the society as a whole will be wealthier.

Polluting is nothing less than the theft of public wealth, specifically the wealth contained in a well-functioning and productive environment. To shift the costs of production of anything from the producers of the product to society at large is theft, no different from what Porky did.

When the government, Disney in our story, stops the theft that does mean the government is setting prices or picking winners and losers. The free market sets the prices but only after the government stops the theft. If the government policy allow and even encourages the theft, then the government is picking winners and losers. By allowing corporations to pollute, our government is undermining the free market by stealing from us all to subsidize businesses that the free hand of the market says are losers.

Is this simple enough for you to understand, or do I need to draw pictures?