U.S. Can Do NOTHING For Climate Change - John Kerry

Liberals claim that GM crops have adverse environmental impacts. However some GM crops need 37% less pesticides sprayed on them which benefits the environment[18] . Reduced pesticide spraying has made a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by over 10 billion kg, equivalent to removing five million cars from the roadways[19]

[18] Graham Brookes and Peter Barfoot, “GM Crops: The Global Economic and Environmental Impact – The First Nine Years 1996-2004” The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management & Economics, Volume 8 // Number 2 & 3 // Article 15

[19] [205] Abud S. et al., “Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States” The National Academies Press, 2010

 

Environmentalists are ignorant.

If you believe GM crops are bad for the environment, you might as well also believe a camera steals your soul when someone takes your picture because it's the same kind of baseless superstition.

 

He is saying he does not like science on a computer that is a product of science.

There are millions of transistors in your computer that are a direct application of quantum mechanics not to mention the diodes in the screen and on and on and on....

 

Is every cubic meter of ocean water that is desalinated and added to a nation with lots of desert
good news for New Orleans, Miami or any city or town vulnerable to rising ocean levels?

Obviously YES!!!!

The sand on the deserts is made hot by what source of heat...... The sun obviously!!!!

Americans tend to take Isaiah chapter thirty five seriously so the Carl Cantrell theory could well gain momentum among Conservatives!

Isa 35:1 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.

Isa 35:6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.



So what would Canada having a Carbon Tax do about the possible rise in ocean levels due to what is happening in Greenland?


Greenland’s Rapid Melting Is a Hugely Underplayed Story

The Carl Cantrell fits with Isaiah and therefore can be sold to people who tend to take Isaiah seriously!

 

Also, all the climate info he has came from science.

Then, he wants to reject science.

 

The US is definitely going to do something! REACT!

Humans HAD a choice to be good or bad stewards of Earth...we have chosen BAD stewards.

For those too ignorant to rationalize climate change theories, too arrogant and selfish to have constructive public dialogue, and too political to know right from wrong, truth from lies, sensationalism from fact, all of this can be boiled down to a very simple outcome; painful REACTION! Humans, especially Americans since we have so much to lose, and will cry like babies, are going to face some daunting challenges in the years ahead. All of these potential challenges have been predicted so it's just a matter of how they unfold and how much we cry...

 

It would be helpfull if people like Al Gore would practice what they preach. He owns multiple mansions, and flies on private jets.
" Do what I say, not what I do," I don't think so!

 

Helpful...NOT! What do you expect him to do...walk everywhere and live in a tent?

 

This makes as much sense as suggesting President Bush should have gone to Iraq to fight in his war there.

 

Climate taxes are just another way to put money into the hands of the government.

 

This isn't necessarily true.

If you can write off your "climate tax" (whatever that might be) against other tax, then it can become revenue neutral for the majority, possibly with some work left over to take care of those who pay no other tax.

 

They can't do all the work they want with no more money than they have now. Someone has to pay. It cannot be literally revenue neutral. It may look like it when they play with the numbers on paper. And, that's what they would report.

 

Again, that's not necessarily true.

For example, increasing tax on fuel doesn't cost the government anything. Yet, it would cause greater conservation - which is the cheapest power we have.

Every other industrialist country has long taxed fuel significantly, while we pay very little in fuel tax. Let's not just get scared.

 

It would also cause small businesses to lose money. Tax revenue will drop.

Edit: We can't walk to the store. We have to drive. Online business will increase, but local business will decrease further. Tax revenues will drop at the local level. In turn, they will report less income.

Huge businesses like those online have ways to avoid paying taxes.

 

Why would they lose money if they can write their fuel tax off against their revenue?

Yes, 150 or so of the Forbes 500 don't pay tax. Is that something you are trying to protect??

I don't understand your "can't walk to the store" thing.

 

Your plan would continue to protect those 150.

You have to drive to the store. If gasoline prices go up, and those stores are too far to walk, which most are, then it will take time to build neighborhood stores you can walk to. There will have to be some services like rail transit for many who cannot afford a car due to the prices of gasoline. You are asking for the economy to collapse.

Edit: You are thinking like a person who believes everyone has discretionary spending money, when it's really only the college grads who do and those are like 35% of the population.

 

Well, a certain amount of walking would be healthy, of course. But, that isn't possible for all who then need to carry groceries or who live far from a good store.

But dollars wise, driving and writing off the cost of gas on your tax bill isn't that different than today, depending on how it's set up.

Also, there are more and more options for high mileage cars, and they are reaching the used market.

I do agree that we're working toward an economy that is ever more interested in those with a college education. For those with the option today, skipping college is a bad idea if you have the ability. Plus given this reality, we need to ensure that Americans have that option. Today, college gets reserved for those with money. That is NOT good enough if we want America to be competitive, if we want Americans to enjoy the same standard of living.

 

In truth, we need folks to go to college because the business world is not set up to keep employees for life.

Again, you can't write off taxes and still have more revenue coming in for new programs. You have to eliminate write offs. You have to pay a reasonable tax. Spending must be limited to what is absolutely needed.

 

It's even more than that. The skills that are well compensated today are requiring more and more education. Today, we're losing the need for those who assemble cars while gaining the need for those who design, build, install and maintain automated factories. You can't move into that field due to experience building cars the old way.

I certainly agree with your last two sentences.

But with the first the plan I outlined is revenue neutral - the government gets the same revenue.

If someone pays tax for fuel, then they can pay less tax for income. At least until diving into details of specific plans, the government gets the same revenue either way.

 

What sort of power are you going to use to desalinate all this water to cool the deserts?

 

exactly, and to remember, the reason we have the oxygen we do today was because of tiny organisms - something climate deniers would say was impossible, but if enough do the same thing repeatedly for long enough, it adds up, and can cause big change

 

Tell that to all the illegal immigrants.

 

It shouldn't come as a surprise that there are worse countries than the USA.

Those who are coming will find work. However, they're major aim is to give their kids a chance.

 

Personally I think most people won't change, unless it's a cheaper and better option to them, I think it will be up to the scientist to come up with a way to reduce co2, I just hope what they do doesn't make things worse, go to far in the other direction

but as climate deniers don't think humans can effect the climate, they won't care if they try

 

I'm slightly more optimistic. We're getting tons of leadership towards ignoring the problem, in fact toward making it worse. That does have to end. Today there are many even in the US who are ready to work on this problem - as seen by the CA emissions direction, those who voted for the gov. of WA, and many more across the nation. Serious leadership could make a difference. And, I think there is room for meaningful individual participation.

I'm not so confident in implementing ideas that science has come up with for having government level attempts to change earth's climate - emissions of various chemicals into the upper atmosphere, etc.

Those are highly difficult to test and could well have unexpected results. Also, I don't see that as something that one country can do on its own. Such solutions have plenty of opportunity for helping some while hurting others. It's still going to require international participation in decision making.

So, we need the Paris climate effort to continue - even if someone were to find what looks like a silver bullet.