Amazon Fires - Manufactured Crisis by the Left

[evensaul]

Once again, Leftists and their supporters in the media claim a crisis exists, when it really doesn't, all to push their global warming agenda.

The current number of fires in the Amazon are only a few percentage points higher than the ten-year average. Many of the fires are set by farmers to clear their own fields, not areas of virgin timber, and the there is absolutely no threat to the earth's oxygen supply due to the supposed "lungs of the earth" being on fire. It is just one more propaganda hoax from the American LEFT:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#6254620c5bde

https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news...553d25776.html

[Belthazor]

Once again, Leftists and their supporters in the media claim a crisis exists, when it really doesn't, all to push their global warming agenda.

The current number of fires in the Amazon are only a few percentage points higher than the ten-year average. Many of the fires are set by farmers to clear their own fields, not areas of virgin timber, and the there is absolutely no threat to the earth's oxygen supply due to the supposed "lungs of the earth" being on fire. It is just one more propaganda hoax from the American LEFT:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#6254620c5bde

https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news...553d25776.html

Though I am not a fan of lobal warming/climate change and believe the most common argument for it is defeated as soon as they say something like:
"climate needs to go back to what it was in the 1800's" specifically.

The destruction of rain forests including the amazon is happening at an alarming rate:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...y-destruction/
"Pinning down exact numbers is nearly impossible, but most experts agree that we are losing upwards of 80,000 acres of tropical rainforest daily, and significantly degrading another 80,000 acres every day on top of that. Along with this loss and degradation, we are losing some 135 plant, animal and insect species every day—or some 50,000 species a year—as the forests fall."

So I agree that ever since the Clinton's there is always a "crisis" that needs money (and probably a new gov't agency), but I also agree the Earth is not being managed very well for the long term.
Problem is, gov't can't confiscate money from it's citizens/business' fast enough to solve all the problems.

Maybe we should enlist Google or Facebook to take over where govt's can't/won't

[CowboyX]

"climate needs to go back to what it was in the 1800's" specifically.

Who says that?

[evensaul]

Belthazor, I don't deny that significant cutting of rain forest is happening, particularly in the Amazon. But I believe that the numbers you've quoted are grossly inflated, just as the severity of fires this year are greatly exaggerated. Activists on the left have absolutely no problem fabricating statistics when they think it is for a good cause. The information at this wiki page suggests that annual forest loss is about one-tenth of the figures you quoted. And compare the past decade to what came before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defore...zon_rainforest You're not hearing that from the Left or their tools in the media, are you? There is no crisis.

You're also probably not hearing about the very significant reforestation efforts that are being undertaken, because those stories don't fit the Left's agenda of keeping the supposed crisis alive and on people's minds. Reforestation occurs in countries when the countries become more stable politically and economically, and the people become more affluent. The peoples of South America are cutting some forests for timber production and export, and also to create farmland. That development and other economic growth will allow the people to become more prosperous. At some point not too far in the future, the rain forests will probably experience stability, and possibly a small net growth. That is what happens when countries become more affluent. The Southeastern United States, Ireland, and much of Europe are examples. Even China has begun reforestation projects because of increasing affluence. Again, there really is no huge deforestation crisis, in South America or world wide.

[Belthazor]

Belthazor, I don't deny that significant cutting of rain forest is happening, particularly in the Amazon. But I believe that the numbers you've quoted are grossly inflated, just as the severity of fires this year are greatly exaggerated. Activists on the left have absolutely no problem fabricating statistics when they think it is for a good cause. The information at this wiki page suggests that annual forest loss is about one-tenth of the figures you quoted. And compare the past decade to what came before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defore...zon_rainforest You're not hearing that from the Left or their tools in the media, are you? There is no crisis.

You're also probably not hearing about the very significant reforestation efforts that are being undertaken, because those stories don't fit the Left's agenda of keeping the supposed crisis alive and on people's minds. Reforestation occurs in countries when the countries become more stable politically and economically, and the people become more affluent. The peoples of South America are cutting some forests for timber production and export, and also to create farmland. That development and other economic growth will allow the people to become more prosperous. At some point not too far in the future, the rain forests will probably experience stability, and possibly a small net growth. That is what happens when countries become more affluent. The Southeastern United States, Ireland, and much of Europe are examples. Even China has begun reforestation projects because of increasing affluence. Again, there really is no huge deforestation crisis, in South America or world wide.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but its a lot like talking about pollution. We can show areas that are cleaning up and getting better and the opposite as well. Obviously it is difficult to get defendable numbers of lost forests.
In China's case it seems even the Communist party is starting to understand their current course is just not sustainable.

I will say, I totally agree that the more affluent, educated, with a stable representative govt a given population enjoys, the more likely that this issue will be addressed.

[Sigfried]

Belthazor, I don't deny that significant cutting of rain forest is happening, particularly in the Amazon. But I believe that the numbers you've quoted are grossly inflated, just as the severity of fires this year are greatly exaggerated. Activists on the left have absolutely no problem fabricating statistics when they think it is for a good cause. The information at this wiki page suggests that annual forest loss is about one-tenth of the figures you quoted. And compare the past decade to what came before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defore...zon_rainforest You're not hearing that from the Left or their tools in the media, are you? There is no crisis.

The article Balthazor shared was rainforests worldwide as where you are looking at the Amazon forest only.

You're also probably not hearing about the very significant reforestation efforts that are being undertaken, because those stories don't fit the Left's agenda of keeping the supposed crisis alive and on people's minds. Reforestation occurs in countries when the countries become more stable politically and economically, and the people become more affluent. The peoples of South America are cutting some forests for timber production and export, and also to create farmland. That development and other economic growth will allow the people to become more prosperous. At some point not too far in the future, the rain forests will probably experience stability, and possibly a small net growth. That is what happens when countries become more affluent. The Southeastern United States, Ireland, and much of Europe are examples. Even China has begun reforestation projects because of increasing affluence. Again, there really is no huge deforestation crisis, in South America or world wide.

There is some truth to that, but it's also a lot of speculation. Sometimes big economies just destroy natural habitat on a larger scale. We wiped out a good number of species in the US well before the modern era, and were still in process on that. Though we had some real revolutions in stewardship in the turn of the century and in the 1970s-1990s.

I think the level of alarmism is overblown among many on the left. That's true. But, I also think the level of apathy is too high among many on the right.

The alarmists are rarely correct but neither are deniers of science.

As to de-forestation and re-forestation, the biodiversity loss in deforestation is not easily replaceable. Yes, you can grow new trees from seed. But the Amazon is home to a huge range of life and a lot of it can't simply be re-planted like a tree can. So simply re-planting, while nice, is not really addressing the concern for loss of habitat. (it does address the loss of carbon sinks etc.. for greenhouse gasses)

I'd challenge you to try to blind yourself to left/right thinking on this issue and just look at it from a social and scientific standpoint.

[evensaul]

The article Balthazor shared was rainforests worldwide as where you are looking at the Amazon forest only.

Good catch. it's also ten years out of date.

I think the level of alarmism is overblown among many on the left. That's true. But, I also think the level of apathy is too high among many on the right.

People can't be passionate or even attentive to every issue worldwide. How may on the Left in the United States care about human rights in China and Cuba? None, from what I see. I support conservation efforts in the US, but what right do I have to tell people in South America what they can do with the land in their country?

The alarmists are rarely correct but neither are deniers of science.

In this case, the alarmists are the deniers of science.

As to de-forestation and re-forestation, the biodiversity loss in deforestation is not easily replaceable. Yes, you can grow new trees from seed. But the Amazon is home to a huge range of life and a lot of it can't simply be re-planted like a tree can. So simply re-planting, while nice, is not really addressing the concern for loss of habitat. (it does address the loss of carbon sinks etc.. for greenhouse gasses)

All true, but I have great skepticism at the numbers thrown about on the number of species threatened. Most of that just seems guesswork, including assumptions about possible extinction of many species that aren't even known to exist. And even if true, and some species are lost, exactly how does that diminish our lives or the world? Science tells us that species come and go continuously over time. So some depart a little faster. Why is that a great tragedy?

I'd challenge you to try to blind yourself to left/right thinking on this issue and just look at it from a social and scientific standpoint.

I'm capable of looking at the social, scientific and political aspects of the issue, all together, and see no reason to ignore the political aspects. I'd challenge you to blind yourself to the propaganda efforts, and ask yourself if your life is really all that diminished be not seeing Passenger Pigeons and Dodo Birds, or by having an Amazon rain forest one-third its original size.

[Belthazor]

Good catch. it's also ten years out of date.

"Good catch"????
WTH?...


I guess you two may not have noticed I said:
"The destruction of rain forests including the amazon is happening at an alarming rate:"
(emphasis mine!)


That the article was ten yrs ago means little since I acknowledged:
" Obviously it is difficult to get defendable numbers of lost forests"

[Sigfried]

People can't be passionate or even attentive to every issue worldwide. How may on the Left in the United States care about human rights in China and Cuba? None, from what I see. I support conservation efforts in the US, but what right do I have to tell people in South America what they can do with the land in their country?

1. There is a difference between not caring and actively denying and ridiculing. The right is mostly dead set in denying the basic observations much less the best way to react. There are exceptions.

2. Many on the left are not fond of human rights in China and Cuba. Now Cuba does get off easy sometimes. China, on the other hand, is everyone's boogie man. Labor unions hate China for being a competitor that ignores many labor rights principles. International leftists hate China for its human rights abuses specifically. Human Rights Watch reports on them often for instance. Really, no one likes China politically in the US. They are seen almost universally as oppressive and as a competitor.

In this case, the alarmists are the deniers of science.

Alarmists extrapolate and sensationalize science, but they don't deny it. Climate change deniers deny science. That is why the are called deniers. There is a very well established scientific consensus that the atmosphere is warming due in part to human activity in the modern era, due mostly to the use of fossil fuels which release large quantities of CO2. CO2 is a well-known agent that retains heat in the atmosphere.

Try to deny any of these hard facts.
1. Humans produce a large quantity of C02
2. C02 is an agent that retains heat in the atmosphere
3. The levels of c02 in the atmosphere have risen over the past century
4. Average atmospheric temperatures have risen in the past century

All true, but I have great skepticism at the numbers thrown about on the number of species threatened.

Is your skepticism based on having read the scientific literature on the subject or are you just being skeptical because you don't like the conclusion?

Most of that just seems guesswork, including assumptions about possible extinction of many species that aren't even known to exist.

We know for a hard fact many species have gone extinct. We know this because we have programs to count how many such animals exist in the wild each year. I'm not sure how you can attribute that to guesswork. As to unknown species, that is not what most counts are based on. There is some extrapolation to say that if we see many extinctions happening due to verifiable fact, and there are places on earth where we don't track them carefully, there may be extinction in those places too. You can be skeptical of those, but I see no reason you should be skeptical of the actual counting of animals to track their populations.

And even if true, and some species are lost, exactly how does that diminish our lives or the world? Science tells us that species come and go continuously over time. So some depart a little faster. Why is that a great tragedy?

1. Many of us inherently value animals and wildlife and think they are worth preserving for their intrinsic value.
2. Every species lost is a lost opportunity to study and understand nature and the unique abilities and biology of those animals to better understand how life works.
3. Every species lost is a lost opportunity for medicine. Many of our most important medical discoveries come from studying other animals and how they fight disease.
4. We depend on many animals for our survival and if we endanger the interdependent natural world, we endanger ourselves in various ways.
5. While there have been extinctions in the past, we cause them much faster than the natural environment does. We don't really know what impact that will have but we have many reasons to suspect it won't benefit us.

I'm capable of looking at the social, scientific and political aspects of the issue, all together, and see no reason to ignore the political aspects. I'd challenge you to blind yourself to the propaganda efforts, and ask yourself if your life is really all that diminished be not seeing Passenger Pigeons and Dodo Birds, or by having an Amazon rain forest one-third its original size.

Yes, it is. I would love to see Dodo Birds and Passenger Pigeons in the wild. I am a full-time world traveler and I travel to both see the people of the planet and its wild plants and animals. We can't rebuild these lost animals (at least not yet). We can always rebuild a parking lot or a convenience store. To lose something unique and irreplaceable for something easily replaced and mass-produced is a very sad thing in my view.

[Ibelsd]

1. There is a difference between not caring and actively denying and ridiculing. The right is mostly dead set in denying the basic observations much less the best way to react. There are exceptions.

2. Many on the left are not fond of human rights in China and Cuba. Now Cuba does get off easy sometimes. China, on the other hand, is everyone's boogie man. Labor unions hate China for being a competitor that ignores many labor rights principles. International leftists hate China for its human rights abuses specifically. Human Rights Watch reports on them often for instance. Really, no one likes China politically in the US. They are seen almost universally as oppressive and as a competitor.



Alarmists extrapolate and sensationalize science, but they don't deny it. Climate change deniers deny science. That is why the are called deniers. There is a very well established scientific consensus that the atmosphere is warming due in part to human activity in the modern era, due mostly to the use of fossil fuels which release large quantities of CO2. CO2 is a well-known agent that retains heat in the atmosphere.

Try to deny any of these hard facts.
1. Humans produce a large quantity of C02
2. C02 is an agent that retains heat in the atmosphere
3. The levels of c02 in the atmosphere have risen over the past century
4. Average atmospheric temperatures have risen in the past century



Is your skepticism based on having read the scientific literature on the subject or are you just being skeptical because you don't like the conclusion?



We know for a hard fact many species have gone extinct. We know this because we have programs to count how many such animals exist in the wild each year. I'm not sure how you can attribute that to guesswork. As to unknown species, that is not what most counts are based on. There is some extrapolation to say that if we see many extinctions happening due to verifiable fact, and there are places on earth where we don't track them carefully, there may be extinction in those places too. You can be skeptical of those, but I see no reason you should be skeptical of the actual counting of animals to track their populations.



1. Many of us inherently value animals and wildlife and think they are worth preserving for their intrinsic value.
2. Every species lost is a lost opportunity to study and understand nature and the unique abilities and biology of those animals to better understand how life works.
3. Every species lost is a lost opportunity for medicine. Many of our most important medical discoveries come from studying other animals and how they fight disease.
4. We depend on many animals for our survival and if we endanger the interdependent natural world, we endanger ourselves in various ways.
5. While there have been extinctions in the past, we cause them much faster than the natural environment does. We don't really know what impact that will have but we have many reasons to suspect it won't benefit us.



Yes, it is. I would love to see Dodo Birds and Passenger Pigeons in the wild. I am a full-time world traveler and I travel to both see the people of the planet and its wild plants and animals. We can't rebuild these lost animals (at least not yet). We can always rebuild a parking lot or a convenience store. To lose something unique and irreplaceable for something easily replaced and mass-produced is a very sad thing in my view.

The problem is that the progressive left is using the theory of Climate Change to push policy and... it is quite something how the supposed solutions for climate change are always exactly what progressives have been pushing for decades. There are not really a lot of voices on the right absolutely denying climate change. They exist. I am not denying that. The thing is, if a reasonable discussion was had and the policies suggested weren't so blatantly ideological, then you'd probably have even less deniers. Just take the Green New Day which must be all about the environment, right? I mean it has the word Green right in the day. Per the GND's author, it had absolutely nothing to do with the environment or climate change.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-the-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,”

It turns out that the GND was, again per the author, Chakrabarti,
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,”

So, the weird thing to me is that if progressives really believed their own hype, then why would they keep trying to play with fire? Why wouldn't they be trying to gain consensus and look to achieve common ground with solutions likely to be agreed to by their political opponents? Just a hunch here, but it seems that progressives don't really buy into their own hysteria. For example, and this is just one example, you know most on the right would support using nuclear power. If conditions were so dire, our planet has a fever Mr. Gore says, then why wouldn't you agree to such a compromise in return for reduced fossil fuel emissions? You wouldn't agree if this whole thing wasn't about the environment. And, of course, it isn't. It is hard to have a serious discussion with someone who doesn't believe it themselves.

[CowboyX]

T Per the GND's author, it had absolutely nothing to do with the environment or climate change.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-the-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/
[LEFT][COLOR=#2D2D2D][FONT=Georgia]“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,”
[LEFT]It turns out that the GND was, again per the author, Chakrabarti,
[COLOR=#2D2D2D][FONT=Georgia]“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,”

Cherry picking and wrong.

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

“Yeah,” said Ricketts. Then he said: “No.” Then he said: “I think it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s dual. It is both rising to the challenge that is existential around climate and it is building an economy that contains more prosperity. More sustainability in that prosperity — and more broadly shared prosperity, equitability and justice throughout.”

Chakrabarti liked the answer. “The thing I think you guys are doing that’s so incredible is … you guys are actually figuring out how to do it and make it work, the comprehensive plan where it all fits together,” he said. “I’d love to get into a situation where everyone’s trying to just outdo each other.” But Chakrabarti couldn’t help adding: “I’ll be honest, my view is I still think you guys aren’t going big enough.”

Ricketts seemed unfazed by the critique. “Well, you know, we’re not done. When it comes to a nationwide economic mobilization, there’s more to come on this front, for one. And other key components we’re going to be rolling forward speak to some of the key justice elements of this … ensuring every community’s got a part of this.”

Chakrabarti is a student of America’s past economic mobilizations in the face of crisis, such as Franklin Roosevelt’s original New Deal during the Great Depression, and the industrial retooling necessary to build the material to win World War II. In my conversations with him and in the conversations I watched him have with others, he often circled back to one of his core convictions, which is that voters really will turn out for bold ideas scaled big enough to tackle today’s crises of climate and inequality. What he needed — what the movement needed — was more data to convince skeptics, especially centrist Democrats.

His argument is more nuanced than what you tried to convey.

[Sigfried]

The problem is that the progressive left is using the theory of Climate Change to push policy and... it is quite something how the supposed solutions for climate change are always exactly what progressives have been pushing for decades. There are not really a lot of voices on the right absolutely denying climate change. They exist. I am not denying that. The thing is, if a reasonable discussion was had and the policies suggested weren't so blatantly ideological, then you'd probably have even less deniers. Just take the Green New Day which must be all about the environment, right? I mean it has the word Green right in the day. Per the GND's author, it had absolutely nothing to do with the environment or climate change.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aocs-chief-of-staff-admits-the-green-new-deal-is-not-about-climate-change/

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,”

It turns out that the GND was, again per the author, Chakrabarti,
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,”

I feel like if you think about this for a minute... you might see what I see.

Isbeld: climate change solutions are just a mask for other changes.

Isbeld: The makers of the green new deal openly say it is not just about climate change.

It is not called the "climate change new deal" for a reason. And it was never sold as just about climate change. That's part of it, but it is a sort of wholistic "green" approach to things modeled after the "new deal" of old which was mostly economic policy. So there is no mask or hiden agenda nor parading unrelated things as climate change solutions. Its exactly what they say it is. Climate change propoals along with a bunch of other liberal economic agenda included.

But no where is AOC or anyone else the poster child for climate change solutions. If you want that you should look to the Parris accords or the reccomendations to the UN by sceintists who study the issue. Mostly they just say that you need to limit carbon emmisions. How you do it is up for governments to figure out. They detail the sources, society needs to come up with what actions to take to achieve the goals.

There are lots of different proposals on how to hit those goals. Some use free market forces like cap and trade schemes, others are more direct market restrictions. The goals are all the same, reduce net carbon emmissions.

It's true that liberals for a long time have been at the forefront of the environmental movement in America. And they also have other political agendas besides conservation of nature. So, they promote multiple policy possitions. Sometimes there is even some contradiction between different currents of liberal activism. That's true on the conservitive side as well. It comes from a polar political divide where we need 50% or more to enact change. You have to form alliances even if they don't always match up perfectly.

For example, and this is just one example, you know most on the right would support using nuclear power. If conditions were so dire, our planet has a fever Mr. Gore says, then why wouldn't you agree to such a compromise in return for reduced fossil fuel emissions? You wouldn't agree if this whole thing wasn't about the environment. And, of course, it isn't. It is hard to have a serious discussion with someone who doesn't believe it themselves.

[/QUOTE]

Do you really not know why nuclear power isn't supported by environmental conservationists? Four words for you: Fukashima, Chyrnoble, Hanford, Three-mile-island. The problems are admittedly very rare, but they loom large due to the scales of the disasters and the wide reaching impacts they have. Irradiated countryside and Environmental Conservation are not two ideas that meld very well.

So, instead, you get people looking to sources that seem to be more freindly like solar, wind, geothermal and the like. In truth they all have impacts. But, their impacts are a lot less scarry and dramatic than that of nuclear disasters.

You can make a lot of arguments one way or another, but the possition is not utterly irrational nor incoherant.

[Ibelsd]

I feel like if you think about this for a minute... you might see what I see.

Isbeld: climate change solutions are just a mask for other changes.

Isbeld: The makers of the green new deal openly say it is not just about climate change.

It is not called the "climate change new deal" for a reason. And it was never sold as just about climate change. That's part of it, but it is a sort of wholistic "green" approach to things modeled after the "new deal" of old which was mostly economic policy. So there is no mask or hiden agenda nor parading unrelated things as climate change solutions. Its exactly what they say it is. Climate change propoals along with a bunch of other liberal economic agenda included.

But no where is AOC or anyone else the poster child for climate change solutions. If you want that you should look to the Parris accords or the reccomendations to the UN by sceintists who study the issue. Mostly they just say that you need to limit carbon emmisions. How you do it is up for governments to figure out. They detail the sources, society needs to come up with what actions to take to achieve the goals.

There are lots of different proposals on how to hit those goals. Some use free market forces like cap and trade schemes, others are more direct market restrictions. The goals are all the same, reduce net carbon emmissions.

It's true that liberals for a long time have been at the forefront of the environmental movement in America. And they also have other political agendas besides conservation of nature. So, they promote multiple policy possitions. Sometimes there is even some contradiction between different currents of liberal activism. That's true on the conservitive side as well. It comes from a polar political divide where we need 50% or more to enact change. You have to form alliances even if they don't always match up perfectly.

[/FONT][/COLOR]For example, and this is just one example, you know most on the right would support using nuclear power. If conditions were so dire, our planet has a fever Mr. Gore says, then why wouldn't you agree to such a compromise in return for reduced fossil fuel emissions? You wouldn't agree if this whole thing wasn't about the environment. And, of course, it isn't. It is hard to have a serious discussion with someone who doesn't believe it themselves. [/LEFT]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Do you really not know why nuclear power isn't supported by environmental conservationists? Four words for you: Fukashima, Chyrnoble, Hanford, Three-mile-island. The problems are admittedly very rare, but they loom large due to the scales of the disasters and the wide reaching impacts they have. Irradiated countryside and Environmental Conservation are not two ideas that meld very well.

So, instead, you get people looking to sources that seem to be more freindly like solar, wind, geothermal and the like. In truth they all have impacts. But, their impacts are a lot less scarry and dramatic than that of nuclear disasters.

You can make a lot of arguments one way or another, but the possition is not utterly irrational nor incoherant.[/QUOTE]

I think you are kind of missing my point or side-stepping the point I am making. Of course, there are reasons against nuclear power. However, if you felt the existential threat from climate change was so urgent, isn't that a compromise worth taking? If you know the other side was for some compromise to help you achieve what you claim is an impending disaster, wouldn't you take the compromise for now and keep working for other changes along the way? If you are starving would you turn down a Twinkie because its not the most nutritious food that exists?

[Sigfried]

I think you are kind of missing my point or side-stepping the point I am making. Of course, there are reasons against nuclear power. However, if you felt the existential threat from climate change was so urgent, isn't that a compromise worth taking?

They don't think that is necessary. They feel they have better solutions with renewable energy sources and conservation.

If you know the other side was for some compromise to help you achieve what you claim is an impending disaster, wouldn't you take the compromise for now and keep working for other changes along the way? If you are starving would you turn down a Twinkie because its not the most nutritious food that exists?

A couple of things.
1. People who are not centrists tend not to be fond of compromises. So if we are saying they aren't much for compromise, ya, that's true. Pro-lifers aren't much for compromise either. I love compromise myself. Not being willing to compromise is not an indication of being ingenuine.

2. I'm not so sure this has been offered as a real compromise by anyone. No one is saying, hey if you let us build nuclear we will shut down the coal plants and stop drilling for oil. Obviously it would have an impact, but this isn't some kind of negotiation point.

[Ibelsd]

They don't think that is necessary. They feel they have better solutions with renewable energy sources and conservation.




A couple of things.
1. People who are not centrists tend not to be fond of compromises. So if we are saying they aren't much for compromise, ya, that's true. Pro-lifers aren't much for compromise either. I love compromise myself. Not being willing to compromise is not an indication of being ingenuine.

2. I'm not so sure this has been offered as a real compromise by anyone. No one is saying, hey if you let us build nuclear we will shut down the coal plants and stop drilling for oil. Obviously it would have an impact, but this isn't some kind of negotiation point.

The claim is that the Earth is dying and we have less than 12 years (or something approximating that number) to make significant change if we want to save it. That stupid girl from Sweden is going around telling everyone we are murdering the Earth. Gore, Occasional-Cortex, et al. are all waving their arms screaming that we need to do something. And I get it. They think their solutions are better. Yet, there is a compromise available. Republicans claim they are willing to build nuclear plants. Obviously, nuclear power would replace some of the coal and oil consumption. It may not be the BEST idea. But it is a solution which helps the Dems meet their agenda and would, potentially, save the planet. Unless, saving the planet from climate change isn't realllllly the item on the Dem's agenda.

Wouldn't people who truly believe the Earth is dying agree to the compromise? If they truly believed we need to reduce or eliminate fossil fuel consumption to literally save the planet (as they claim), then it seems completely unreasonable to not use nuclear power seeing as it is the one thing most Republicans will agree to do. The other option is to keep playing politics, not build nuclear power, continue current fossil fuel production since the Dems don't have the power or votes to stop it, and watch the planet die... supposedly die. Or maybe, just maybe, most Democrats don't really believe that is the cost. Maybe, just maybe, the crisis isn't as dire as they are claiming (or at least they don't believe their own hype).

[Sigfried]

The claim is that the Earth is dying and we have less than 12 years (or something approximating that number) to make significant change if we want to save it. That stupid girl from Sweden is going around telling everyone we are murdering the Earth. Gore, Occasional-Cortex, et al. are all waving their arms screaming that we need to do something. And I get it. They think their solutions are better. Yet, there is a compromise available. Republicans claim they are willing to build nuclear plants. Obviously, nuclear power would replace some of the coal and oil consumption. It may not be the BEST idea. But it is a solution which helps the Dems meet their agenda and would, potentially, save the planet. Unless saving the planet from climate change isn't realllllly the item on the Dem's agenda.

That is not a deal anyone offered Ibelsd. If it were, then it might get considered. None of the Oil companies are claiming they will happily shut down production if only we'd build some nuclear power plants. The Greens want to restrict and/or prohibit the use of fossil fuels. What you do after that is not so much their concern. If a solution doesn't involve limiting carbon emissions, they aren't really interested.

Nuclear power has strong negatives and it doesn't actually offer any promises to stop carbon emissions. Thus, it's not really a negotiating point.

Imagine this scenario.....

You have a big Hemi truck, it burns lots of gas.
I advocate banning your truck.
You say, how about you buy me a Diesel truck, it has somewhat lower emissions.
I say, will you give up your Hemi truck?
You say, no promises, I might, I might not.
I say, that is not a compromise, I want that Hemi truck gone.

In 2005 a new energy bill went into effect that gives tax credits and other incentives to build nuclear power facilities and upgrade existing ones. So, it's a subsidized industry already. What exactly do you want liberals to do on behalf of nuclear power?

[Ibelsd]

That is not a deal anyone offered Ibelsd. If it were, then it might get considered. None of the Oil companies are claiming they will happily shut down production if only we'd build some nuclear power plants. The Greens want to restrict and/or prohibit the use of fossil fuels. What you do after that is not so much their concern. If a solution doesn't involve limiting carbon emissions, they aren't really interested.

Nuclear power has strong negatives and it doesn't actually offer any promises to stop carbon emissions. Thus, it's not really a negotiating point.

Imagine this scenario.....

You have a big Hemi truck, it burns lots of gas.
I advocate banning your truck.
You say, how about you buy me a Diesel truck, it has somewhat lower emissions.
I say, will you give up your Hemi truck?
You say, no promises, I might, I might not.
I say, that is not a compromise, I want that Hemi truck gone.

In 2005 a new energy bill went into effect that gives tax credits and other incentives to build nuclear power facilities and upgrade existing ones. So, it's a subsidized industry already. What exactly do you want liberals to do on behalf of nuclear power?

Come on Sig. I feel like you are intentionally being daft here. I never claimed some quid pro quo was on the table. Obviously, if more nuclear power was used, then use of fossil fuels would decrease. The more apt scenario for your truck example would be:
Hey, diesel trucks are cheaper and cleaner than a truck that takes regular gas. I say, gee, for my next truck, I'll probably buy diesel.

What you are offering, though, is hey, for your next truck you should buy solar. It will save money in the long run, but you are gonna have to pay a lot extra up-front, it produces less power, takes a long time to recharge, and cannot be refilled at night. Gee, I say, I am not sure I can get behind having to make all those trade-offs. What happened to diesel?

So, in this scenario, just like nuclear power, diesel is a compromise. It is a compromise that those so concerned about the planet aren't willing to make. Kinda makes me question their real motives.

[Sigfried]

Come on Sig. I feel like you are intentionally being daft here. I never claimed some quid pro quo was on the table. Obviously, if more nuclear power was used, then use of fossil fuels would decrease. The more apt scenario for your truck example would be:
Hey, diesel trucks are cheaper and cleaner than a truck that takes regular gas. I say, gee, for my next truck, I'll probably buy diesel.

You said why won't they take the compromise. That implies some compromise is offered.

If instead, you are just saying, why don't they support nuclear, then the answer is, they don't think that is the best solution. They think renewables are the best solution.

What you are offering, though, is hey, for your next truck you should buy solar. It will save money in the long run, but you are gonna have to pay a lot extra up-front, it produces less power, takes a long time to recharge, and cannot be refilled at night. Gee, I say, I am not sure I can get behind having to make all those trade-offs. What happened to diesel?

Buy diesel if you want it, but you are still making greenhouse gases so the environmentalists won't see you as saving the planet etc... They have a message and a goal, if you don't like it, don't do it. But don't expect them to cheer for you because you are slightly less destructive.

It's like saying to a conservative.... Why don't you advocate for a moderate position? Um... because then I wouldn't be a conservative? ITs a whole different question when you are negotiating. Then you give and take. You're just talking about compromising your values for no reason.

[Ibelsd]

You said why won't they take the compromise. That implies some compromise is offered.

If instead, you are just saying, why don't they support nuclear, then the answer is, they don't think that is the best solution. They think renewables are the best solution.

Yes, I understand what they believe is the BEST position. However, we are discussing politics and why wouldn't politicians truly interested in improving the planet (which is their stated goal), agree to positive changes that they know the other side will agree to? It is like watching your house burning and only be willing to put it out with firefighters who belong to a union. Either you don't really value your home or you don't believe it is really on fire. Because any reasonable person would simply be happy ANY firefighter was putting out the fire (even if you believed the non-union firefighter wouldn't do as good a job).

Buy diesel if you want it, but you are still making greenhouse gases so the environmentalists won't see you as saving the planet etc... They have a message and a goal, if you don't like it, don't do it. But don't expect them to cheer for you because you are slightly less destructive.

It's like saying to a conservative.... Why don't you advocate for a moderate position? Um... because then I wouldn't be a conservative? ITs a whole different question when you are negotiating. Then you give and take. You're just talking about compromising your values for no reason.

Wouldn't a reasonable person by happier with the use of diesel than making no improvement at all? I am not expecting anyone to cheer for anyone. I am expecting serious politicians who believe there is a problem to act like reasonable people and accept improvements where they can be made. I don't see that.

Again, here is the situation. The claim is that global warming is imperiling the Earth. Democrats believe the issue is an impending disaster. Republicans believe the disaster is not impending, but are generally willing to make improvements to the environment with some stipulations. Republicans have pledged to oil and coal workers that their jobs will be saved/returned. So, the Republican stipulation is that any plan which eliminates large sectors of those markets is untenable. Democrats have pledged to the environmentalists to take drastic steps to save the planet. Republicans are willing to accept some competition to the oil and coal sectors through the use of nuclear power which is a clean burning energy source with some downside. Democrats have said no to nuclear power and refuse to budge from their position of eliminating the coal and oil sectors. You've asked where the compromise is? I am spelling it out for you. So, the Democrats have asked the Republicans to support a position they know is untenable for them. However, they are not willing to meet them in the middle and promote nuclear power. As a result, NOTHING will get passed legislatively to improve the environment. Is this indicative of a party that believes we must do something quickly? Hence, I question whether Dems believe their own hype on this issue.

[Sigfried]

Yes, I understand what they believe is the BEST position. However, we are discussing politics and why wouldn't politicians truly interested in improving the planet (which is their stated goal), agree to positive changes that they know the other side will agree to? It is like watching your house burning and only be willing to put it out with firefighters who belong to a union. Either you don't really value your home or you don't believe it is really on fire. Because any reasonable person would simply be happy ANY firefighter was putting out the fire (even if you believed the non-union firefighter wouldn't do as good a job).

Again, this makes no sense. Politics is about public policy and who is in office.

Right now, public policy is not only can you build nuclear power plants, the government will subsidize the effort. That is the politics of nuclear power right now. That said, greens don't like nuclear power, they favor other power technologies. Simple as that. It's not clear what you want them to do, go out and build nuclear power plants for you? Why would they do that if they favor other technologies? Why build nuclear when you could build solar or wind or what have you instead?

Again, here is the situation. The claim is that global warming is imperiling the Earth. Democrats believe the issue is an impending disaster. Republicans believe the disaster is not impending, but are generally willing to make improvements to the environment with some stipulations.

Eh, I think that's not really the deal.

Green environmentalists think global warming is imperiling the earth (or more specifically its living inhabitants). (Not all democrats are greens.) Some people think its a hoax, mostly these people are very ignorant. The Republicans seem to have the lions share of them, but it is not really a Republican position as such. Republicans are very pro-business no matter what sort of business it is, so they tend to favor existing fossil fuel companies in their efforts to limit regulation on those industries. Republicans also tend to like nuclear power. Greens don't like nuclear power because it has its own form of rather catastrophic pollution.

Democrats want to regulate business more, Republicans tend to want to de-regulate business. That's where the real political line is. The GOP honestly doesn't care what kind of business it is so long as it makes money. The Dems feel that the government has a responsibility to keep people from doing destructive things like polluting.

Republicans have pledged to oil and coal workers that their jobs will be saved/returned. So, the Republican stipulation is that any plan which eliminates large sectors of those markets is untenable. Democrats have pledged to the environmentalists to take drastic steps to save the planet. Republicans are willing to accept some competition to the oil and coal sectors through the use of nuclear power which is a clean burning energy source with some downside. Democrats have said no to nuclear power and refuse to budge from their position of eliminating the coal and oil sectors.

Nuclear power is not illegal, it is encouraged and subsidized by the US government. What concession are you looking for exactly?