Bernie sanders: Climate change is directly related to terrorism

Sure we do

 

As everyone else has mentioned, there are Christians and Jews in poverty and they're not joining some jihad. Also, many of the terrorists come from wealthy families so the poor boy excuse won't work. However without the West they really would be poor. Like all liberals, Bernie sees a dirty robe and assumes poverty. And it's not about politics either. They're attacking everyone. They make no demands and there is no appeasement. It's just about religion. Remember the hikers who were taken hostage in Iran? They were liberals who thought that since they agreed Ideologically, they'd have a free pass. Convert to Islam or die. That's it.

 

795 million is nothing. That is barely 1/10th of the population of 7 Billion.

1 Third of the food produced in the world every year gets wasted or lost !

http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/

We can easily feed all the worlds population. The problem is the byproducts of our consumption.

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make in general but your perspective is myopic.

Giving anecdotal cherry picked examples does not change the historical fact that scarcity leads to war and civil strife.

 

Tell that to the 795 million. The population will continue to grow and we will need more food. If we can easily feed the world we should be doing that before worrying about climate change.

 

Are they demanding food and water in order to stop the terrorism? NO.
There are other people of other religions living in those same areas and they're not going apeshot. There are other people in the same area that are in poverty and they're not going apeshot either. Can't explain that can you? What by the way are you gifted with, 'cause it sure isn't brains?

 

For sure we should be feeding the world. The fact that we can not get a bowl of rice a day to every hungry mouth is not only a testament to our uselessness as a species but, it is a serious environmental threat.

People that are "fed" - live in first world societies- do not replace themselves. First world countries would be decreasing in population if not for immigration.

It is the poor that are increasing in population.

The number one environmental issue is not CO2, although you would never know it due to all the political games.

The undisputed #1 environmental issue is pollution of the oceans. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals like mercury.

Number 2 and 3 are population growth and industrialization of those populations. Then after that comes CO2- which of course is massively affected by 2 and 3.

As a population industializes its consumption goes through the roof. I read a study where someone eating a bowl of rice a day was (1).
Someone in China at the time was (11) and industrialized folk in NA and Europe were (36).

The study said that if China was to reach our level of consumption ... world resource production would have to double.

That is just China (1.3 Billion). Only about 1.5 Billion on the planet are industrialized. 5.5 Billion are not.

All these other folks want to have cell phones, drive cars or other vehicles, watch TV and so on. The byproducts of such consumption (should they industrialize and they are doing so) are massive = pollution of the oceans.

In China and India the rivers are massive pollution conduits. Conduits that lead to the Ocean. Same with Indonesia and Africa.

This is what makes Obama's "Lets not build the Keystone" political pandering such idiocy. US refineries import 46% of all crude refined.

This crude comes from 70 different countries. We can either get it from "Canada" ... or "Nigeria".

A barrel of Canadian crude is way more environmentally friendly than one from Nigeria. Nigerian production is a toxic cesspool of contamination of the Ocean. Obama's own study concluded that the CO2 differential was insignificant (not that one needed to do such a study as anyone who is schooled on the issue knows this - most emissions come out the tailpipe)

Regardless .. Canada does not dump stuff directly into the oceans.

Transport "Pipeline" vs "Tanker" another no brainer .. pipeline not even a comparable enviro risk. Cleaning up a Pipeline spill on land is a joke by comparison (I know because I did this for a living for a decade).

Economic benefit - The money can either go to Nigeria or Canada. Last time I checked Canadians had bought most of Arizona and parts of Florida (escaping cold winter). Tourist dollars are the best dollars. US oil companies such as Exxon operate in Canada and even refine oil in to gasoline there.
A good Canadian economy benefits the US directly and indirectly.

What does Nigeria do other than provide a homeland for Islamic extremists such as Boko Haram.

Stupidity x 2. Dumb and Dumbest.

 

Yet Obama claims and most alarmist claim that CO2 is the big worry

Also why then are we not building the keystone pipeline ? Is it better to send it to China? Same thing with our new coal regulations. All it does is send the coal to nations that dont burn it as cleanly as we do. Its counter productive

 

Yea Gads, is Sanders or Hillary for the Dems? Seriously? Does it matter which one of them gets the nomination?

Ill winds blow for the Democrats

"Anyway, the disconnect between what the liberals are selling and the reality of where we are as a country is a big part of what is fueling anxiety among voters and generating the interest in the 2016 race, especially among the Republican base. But ultimately, these poll numbers represent more of a problem for the Democrats than for the Republicans. 2016 is clearly shaping up to be a change election."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...he-insiders-ill-winds-blow-for-the-democrats/

 

Crazy Bernie is trying to sell us on socialism, even while we see what happens when socialism collapses:

Teenage prostitutes selling sex for the price of a sandwich as Greece’s crippling recession pushes prices to an all-time low.

Horrible

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-time-low.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

 

CO2 is an issue and we should be reducing where possible/realistic. What is messed up is that they are focusing on things that are non issues (Keystone for example) and doing nothing about issues that are worse environmental actors and/or CO2 contributors.

It just makes no sense.

I am not an expert on the coal mass balance so I will leave that one. In terms of the Keystone it is abject mindlessness.

It is either pure political pandering or some other factor that has zero to do with enviro issues.

One of more unsettling issues I didn't mention in my last post was the effect on capital flows. Any economist worth their salt pays serious attention to capital flows. When it is flowing in things are good (think China over the last decade). When it is not things are not so good ... think Cuba, Russia, Iran.

Uncertainty is the enemy of Capital. TransCanada invested Billions of dollars up front on the basis that the US is a relatively fair place to do business. A place where Government will not interfere on the basis of made up nonsense. (like in the case of Russia or Cuba )

If Obama did not want the Keystone XL he should have said so up front and not let a company spend billions prior to stabbing them in the back. It is not like TransCanada just woke up one morning and decided to invest billions without having assurances in place from folks in high places.

We can go into further details but the bottom line is that the Obama Admin personally bent these guys over and sodomized them ... big time.

This is not some funny joke. The whole world was watching us fck these guys.

Global capital is a fickle friend to begin with. Our current regulatory nightmare is enough to drive away a good portion of that capital.

Its not like there are not other up and coming economies that are courting this capital big time. We are no longer the only game in town ... far from it.

Ramping up the fear/uncertainty/risk factor ? This has serious consequences that affect us all. This is no joke... Global Capital took notice and they is not laughing.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if he only said that because the topic of the debate was altered due to the terrorist attack in France. He had been prepared for different debate topics. At least I hope so. I strongly disagree with Sanders' political views, but I can't believe anyone would be crazy enough to try to make that point. It seemed to me after thinking about it that he just tried to change the subject to fit into what he had previously prepared for.

 

He means it.

Sanders doubles down: Climate change causes terrorism

 

Sanders - Climate change is "directly related" to the growth of terrorism.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-bernie-sanders-comments-climate-chan/

 

His argument would be much more convincing (or maybe even convincing at all) if he had actual facts to back up his assertion. I wish I could get my hands on what he has