When is Enough ,Enough?

We should be listening to the science. Call it fear mongering, but shit could be getting real sooner rather than later, and once it does there's no going back.

Planet at Risk of Heading Towards Apocalyptic, Irreversible ‘Hothouse Earth’ State (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xbdnk/planet-at-risk-of-heading-towards-hothouse-earth?utm_campaign=sharebutton&utm_source=reddit.com)

Seriously your defense is becuase the rest of the World isn't doing it..........we shouldn't do it either????

No, my point is that if the world as a whole is pouring 36GT into the atmosphere, a policy change affecting less than 0.2GT isn't going to be what dooms or saves our grandkids. Saying that it will is a narrative put forth to enact more invasive regulations.


Pleas explain , what are "natural strides" that people are making becuase the want to not have to.
...

See this is the way the free market works, as resources have scarcity they cost more. As resources are made available, scientists and other evil big businesses look for the best way to make money. IF the concept of saving the world is marketable, and it is, companies will move to improve their positions in those markets. It won't happen as quickly as brute force govt regulations, but as I said, the US regulations aren't going to significantly change the global situation, at least not at the cost of individual freedom.

We should be listening to the science. Call it fear mongering, but shit could be getting real sooner rather than later, and once it does there's no going back.

Planet at Risk of Heading Towards Apocalyptic, Irreversible ‘Hothouse Earth’ State (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xbdnk/planet-at-risk-of-heading-towards-hothouse-earth?utm_campaign=sharebutton&utm_source=reddit.com)

From your article
Cutting carbon emissions to limit climate change to 2 degrees C, as proposed in the Paris climate agreement, won’t be enough to avoid a “Hothouse Earth,” said co-author Johan Rockström, executive director of Stockholm Resilience Centre.

The reality is that global temperatures aren’t driven by human emissions of carbon alone, says Rockström—natural systems such as forests and oceans also play a major role.

A lot of this is already happening without leadership from national governments. Individuals, communities, and companies understand these are the things we need to do and we are starting to limit our impacts on the Earth, Richardson told Motherboard.

I can agree with "SCIENCE" and still say that invasive government regulations are not the way to achieve anything, even in global climate change debates.

But liberals, in my opinion, must demonize their opponents and portray their way as the only way, because their policies when enacted have repeatedly and consistently failed to achieve most of their supposed goals.

From your article






I can agree with "SCIENCE" and still say that invasive government regulations are not the way to achieve anything, even in global climate change debates.

But liberals, in my opinion, must demonize their opponents and portray their way as the only way, because their policies when enacted have repeatedly and consistently failed to achieve most of their supposed goals.

I don't know, I tend to like the idea of protecting and preserving national parklands, stopping illegal dumping into our oceans and rivers, reducing air pollution, and protecting endangered species, to name a few. I'd say policies enacted for all of the above are important and have achieved something.

I don't know, I tend to like the idea of protecting and preserving national parklands, stopping illegal dumping into our oceans and rivers, reducing air pollution, and protecting endangered species, to name a few. I'd say policies enacted for all of the above are important and have achieved something.

you didn't highlight the word invasive.

It's like the old joke, would a lady have sex with me for $1 million, she says sure. What about $20, she says what am i a whore??

I think, a super majority of us citizens would agree that all those things are important, the difference comes down to where the line ought to be drawn. But often instead of rational debate, it becomes a - you want to destroy the earth and all that is within it narrative.

NO ONE WANTS TO DESTROY THE WORLD (except the guy from GI Joe Retaliation)

you didn't highlight the word invasive.

It's like the old joke, would a lady have sex with me for $1 million, she says sure. What about $20, she says what am i a whore??

I think, a super majority of us citizens would agree that all those things are important, the difference comes down to where the line ought to be drawn. But often instead of rational debate, it becomes a - you want to destroy the earth and all that is within it narrative.

NO ONE WANTS TO DESTROY THE WORLD (except the guy from GI Joe Retaliation)

I don't think any living person wants to destroy the world. However if you're a person or a business whose profit is held back by an environmental regulation, no matter how good it is, you'd definitely like to see that regulation removed so you can make more money.

I don't think any living person wants to destroy the world. However if you're a person or a business whose profit is held back by an environmental regulation, no matter how good it is, you'd definitely like to see that regulation removed so you can make more money.

And that's where sane discussions ought to be able to had about regulatory oversight. But again, that's not the discussion that is usually had by us. Even in this thread mentioning cancelling of the fuel standards by Trump, it is greeted with a cry that the grandchildren will not have a safe world, or we must trust the scientists, even when reasonable (imo) stats show that those standards have a near negligible effect on the world wide output (.2Gt vs 36Gt or 1/2 of 1% of the total).

I don't know the solution, because honestly when you are greeted by the world will die, or your just ignorant, comments it's hard to try to continue the debate about where reasonable standards should be.

IF we could have zero emissions and not affect liberty, economic growth, and individual choice, I would be all for it, but life IS tradeoffs. Where does one end and the other begin. If you only look at SCIENCE, you miss the need for individual and corporate growth. If you only look at corporate growth you miss the need for SCIENCE.

(by the way, the SCIENCE is a nod to Penguins of Madagascar, and Kowalski in particular)

I don't think any living person wants to destroy the world. However if you're a person or a business whose profit is held back by an environmental regulation, no matter how good it is, you'd definitely like to see that regulation removed so you can make more money.

On the other hand, whole segments of the economy are being created by market forces based on the concerns over global climate. When the Prius was introduced the following happened:
Incredibly, first-month orders defied all projections and sales reached 180,000 (against a target of 10,000) while waiting lists stretched to seven months.
and firms are looking more and more at that segment.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224549709595430?src=recsys

To G1's reply, in a free market there is always a cling to the "old ways" but as the new becomes the norm they either die or progress. No one is saying that the corporations should be allowed outside the laws on the books

This is absurd ,please defend this to me?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/23/world/plastic-great-pacific-garbage-patch-intl/index.html


https://phys.org/news/2018-03-pacific-plastic-dump-larger.html





And lets not forget the Drinking water in Flint Mi.


https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/04/officials-say-flints-water-is-safe-residents-say-its-not-scientists-say-its-complicated/


https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/03/nothing-to-worry-about-the-water-is-fine-how-flint-michigan-poisoned-its-people




Yes dumping the EPA is good for business's and trump wants that at any cost including risking the lives of all Americans but hey fuckem....we're winning!

We should be listening to the science. Call it fear mongering, but shit could be getting real sooner rather than later, and once it does there's no going back.

Planet at Risk of Heading Towards Apocalyptic, Irreversible ‘Hothouse Earth’ State (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xbdnk/planet-at-risk-of-heading-towards-hothouse-earth?utm_campaign=sharebutton&utm_source=reddit.com)

MTK , I agree with you but the trump cult will never admit defeat on any issue no matter how many people die becuase of it.