So, What Is Greta Thunberg Accomplishing?

Well the wealth care little about the shenanigans going on in Washington!

 

?? Are you serious? If there is anyone in the world who cannot accuse others of obstruction, it is a Republican.

 

Mitigate at this point in time means only, we do without, we spend high dollars, we suffer power and consumer product outages, while good old China, Tiawan, S Korea, India and all the other major polluters/contributors to global warming go on like usual! And we won't say a word because without their pollution and contribution to rising flood water we wouldn't have 80% of the things that keep us alive

Total denial is all the DNC contributes to America and Americans..

 

Band-Aid. He did not even attempt to address the US policies -- like the evil and insane War on Drugs -- that have turned Latin America into a necklace of corrupt and impoverished $#!+-hole countries that people want to flee at any cost.

Band-Aid. He did not even attempt to reverse the commitment of US government agencies like NASA, NOAA and EPA to anti-fossil-fuel nonscience.

Band-Aid. He did not even attempt to make NATO a more responsible organization that enables and preserves peace rather than helping project US hegemony and fomenting and prosecuting expensive and ridiculous US-led regime-change wars.

Band-Aid. He did not even attempt to address the US policies -- like the outrageous expansion of US government-issued IP monopoly privileges for the unearned profit of the privileged -- that have made US products uncompetitive in world markets.

As I knew was the case, you have not the slightest understanding of what the real problems are.

 

OTC, they spend a great deal of money making sure those shenanigans serve their financial interests.

 

I am for anything and everything that helps with the environment as long as:

1. There are no penalties against fossil fuel companies

2. There are no increased regulations on fossil fuel companies

3. There is no purposely attacking fossil fuel companies in any way, shape, or form or legislative attempts that would lead to them going out of business by that legislation alone

4. No increase in energy or other prices (for example plastics) to Americans due to going green

5. No increase in the national debt or deficits due to going green which also includes the US will not be the world's piggy bank in paying for going green, including us paying for green technology in developing and third world countries.

6. No jobs are lost to going green and this extends to not putting coal miners, etc out of business in one area and creating green energy jobs in a different area. Creating green energy jobs in California to offset lost fossil fuel jobs in West Virginia does not help those who lost their jobs in West Virginia. If coal miners and other fossil fuel jobs are going to be lost in one area then the green jobs created should happen in the very same area

7. No increased taxes for average and below Americans and a case by case basis for richer Americans as long as those increased taxes on the rich do to not translate into higher costs for the poorer (which is just about always).

8. We cannot decrease the standard of living in the US due to going green at the expense of countries like China taking advantage of our weakness to further their clout in the world. It's alright for the US to be an environmental leader of the world as long as none of these things I mentioned are violated.

Most importantly, the left needs to quit with their lying in implying that if we did what they wanted, global temps would decrease because they won't, especially when the world's population grows exponentially, negating any progress that is actually made. And, they need to talk about the environment in terms of reality, not their far left fantasies which are simply unrealistic. We also need a world population plan and that plan needs to be realistic as well and that plan needs to be about actually decreasing population, not decreasing the rate of population growth. As with decreasing the rate of global temp increases (meaning temps will still rise), we need to understand that decreasing the rate of world population growth means that the population will continue getting larger if you only decrease the rate of growth. We will never get anywhere if the left won't have an honest discussion which, so far, they have utterly failed to do.

There's probably more stipulations I could think of.

 

Depends what you consider big. I've never seen any credible science that shows the risks of nuclear power are greater than those of other energy sources. The lowest-probability events are just more serious. Problem is, people aren't very good at understanding the meaning of low-probability events. Hence the amount of money they spend on lottery tickets.

People would move away, and the site would slowly recover. It won't be long before we have robots that can just go in and clean up radioactive contamination. Most concerns about radiation hazards are overblown because again, people are very bad at understanding the risks.

 

It was absolutely hilarious how Biden stopped us from being energy self sufficient so that we could be a "greener" country and meet our so called obligations to the world environment while he got down on his hands and knees and begged Saudi Arabia and Opec to increase fossil fuel production, which would have hurt the world environment to the very same degree that he could claim the US met our world environment obligations. They don't really give a damn about the world environment, they just want to be able to claim the US is doing our part while we actually force other countries of the world to pollute more. But, we did our part!

 

Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind.

But, I found this recent article interesting:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/star...gh-may-life-220016923.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

Are you claiming an accident at a nuclear power plant could resemble an attack with a nuclear weapon? Or are you concerned that terrorists could get their hands on nuclear fuel and make such a weapon? If so, let me reassure you: neither concern is grounded in reality.

You do understand that hydrogen would first have to be extracted from water or natural gas at full thermodynamic energy cost, don't you? Hydrogen is only an energy source it you are talking about fusion.

 

I am suggesting that it is theoretically possible a severe accident at a plant could resemble a nuclear bomb. I mean what happened at Chernobel could be just a small example of what could happen. And, I am suggesting that a terrorist attack on a plant could accomplish the same thing. Not really that worried about terrorists stealing nuclear fuel from a plant and using it to make a weapon.

 

Can't read what you quote?

Correct, and that's why I do NOT support carbon taxes. Those of us who have more money don't typically mind carbon taxes because we don't have to cut back.

A jackass comment.

So, then, being against carbon taxes because they hurt people whose kids I taught for 30+ years (you did even more to help lower- and middle-income folks—right?) deserves your hateful comments. A real prince, you are. A class act.

It's no surprise you support this guy...



Birds of a feather.

 

A "lefty" who supports school vouchers, medical vouchers, the Keystone pipeline, ending illegal immigration, etc? If that's a lefty, you must be an extreme rightwinger.

 

Perfectly, I've been around to know bragging when I hear OR read it

Although, you clearly defend them with some mysterious plan to make them pay for themselves

Unless the guy cutting back on gasoline WOULD still need to cut or completely eliminate NG, Electric or whatever other sources used to cook, warm and light a home.. Clearly you don't have all the little other things factored in ALL that aside, carbon tax will be covered by the consumers of energy, regardless of how it's created. And the "Raise the price of private jets by 500% if you want rich people to do their share." is simply ridiculous! Lets take Billy Gates for example "Your choice" WHO do you think made and continues to make him rich? You think he and rich folks give a rats ass how much things go up? They simply pass the burden on to their consumers as do most rich folk

You clearly haven't thought this all the way thru!

 

That is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. And even if the one-in-a-trillion chance happened, have you looked at Hiroshima or Nagasaki recently? They are thriving cities.

There are much easier ways for terrorists to accomplish much greater mass destruction using chemical or biological agents.

Nevertheless, you are worried about things that have similarly low probabilities of happening.

 

Depends on the regulation. I think they should do a better job of cutting the escape of natural gas.

We're going to need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Why would we not use fossil fuels in remote areas? We need to reduce burning fossil fuels, not eliminate them.

I don't know if we can avoid higher prices, but driving up prices deliberately is a bad idea.

I disagree here. Mitigating climate change won't be free.

We should definitely being trying to help people displaced by climate change measures. As an economist, I know that trying to establish jobs in places where they aren't viable is a bad idea. We can help displaced workers move, including buying up their homes.

I'm for taxing better off folks, why I don't like the flat tax.

Some poor countries simply don't have the means to deal with climate change. Other rich countries will have to make a greater contribution.

The media is promoting conflict. Liberals can't know their ideas will solve the climate problem. Al Gore and other climate change advocates don't speak for liberals. Likewise, not every conservative buys into climate change being a "hoax."

I think so. But we have religious leaders still thinking in terms of having more of "us" relative to other faiths.

There is no "the left." We have way too much rightwing punditry that sees the world in binary terms.

 

A lack of capital investment created the immediate problem because Joe hasn't been in office long enough to make much difference. In the longer term, however, his policies will make U.S. oil less viable. Energy security is also hurt by cancelling Keystone. It's not our oil, but it is a secure supply.

 

You haven't voted for a "righty" since Gerald Ford, which would have been about 1976. In contrast, when it comes to presidents, I voted for Obama the second time around in 2012, Gore in 2000, and Clinton the second time around and I was a democrat before 1980. . I have also voted for some democrats other than president since I voted for Obama. If I could vote for Manchin I would vote for Manchin even today. Just because you don't usually vote for democrats doesn't mean you're not a lefty and, if I can be critical, you should be voting for people based on more than just one issue, which you seemed to admit that you are a one issue voter. Most of the far right are abhorrent to me but the far left are even more abhorrent and most of the democrats have moved into that territory.

 

Tell that to all of the people who lost their lives or otherwise died, sometime years afterward.

What if terrorists used a fully fueled large airplane (could happen) and flew it at high speeds right into a nuclear power plant?

 

I personally don't like all of these multi-quotes but they are what they are. Suffice it to say that I agree with some of what you wrote and disagree with some of what you wrote. You can probably figure out which is which, especially since you are responding to what I wrote. Unfortunately, I can't like just parts of your post and I certainly can't like your entire post.

However, I will say that since we already owe over 30 trillion dollars, I'm not in favor of adding more to that in the name of simply "mitigating" climate change and I am against putting either businesses or people out of work in the name of Climate Change, increasing costs to consumers due to climate change (including taxes), and I am against being the world's piggy bank, including third world and developing countries. If you broke open our piggy bank, there is no money in it, only IOU's. We don't need to put even more IOU's in it.

 

I know BS deflection and dishonest argumentation when I hear or read it.

There are many millions of Americans who wouldn't think twice if gas was $10/gallon. Maybe you don't get out much. Maybe you do and you're advancing a specious argument.

I told you I oppose carbon taxes. All carbon taxes.

I guess you don't want rich liberals to pay.

The government by it's laws on patents and copyrights.

How do they pass along personal taxes? They don't.

You think you understand how the economy works, but you don't.

 

Their feelings are not the point. Lots more people have died in other ways. What is that supposed to imply?

If by extreme bad luck an engine penetrated the containment (no other part of a jet is dense enough), there would be a release of nuclear fuel in the vicinity. The burning of the jet fuel would be largely irrelevant.

 

Over 200,000 died in the two bombings, including many who died years later. That's hardly small potatoes.

 

Precisely. So get on it. You should have been on it yesterday .. along with every other person who claims to care.

 

Nothing, is what they always do and always will do. They think it's someone else's job to make their profligacy guilt free.