A Modest Green New Deal - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14992296
If carbon is the problem, we know that things like the rain forest and the oceans consume a ton of carbon. We also know that completely overhauling (practically destroying) western economies is not only politically untenable, it would also not reduce emissions from the two largest producers of carbon (India and China), countries which hold said status in part because they are also the world's two most populous countries. What good is destroying our economies when it won't even effect theirs and if anything, it would probably send tons of business towards those largest polluters, thereby making their polluting even worse? Insofar as the Green New Deal is possible, it would mostly be an act of moving pollution to other places, that's how a global economy works.

With those things in mind, here's a more modest and (I mean this literally) Green New Deal: how about we plant and maintain a new rain forest or two in the largely unused swaths of land available in flyover country America. Indeed, why stop there? There are probably places in Europe that would be suitable for this as well, costing us a significant effort but one that would pale in comparison to AOC's Green New Deal. Artificial forests of other kinds (perhaps far from a rain forest but still forests in a sense) might also be maintainable in large parts of Greenland (at which point it would live up to its name?) and the maple-rich forests of Canada could be significantly expanded through artificial effort and maintenance. Australia and America's deserts might also be capable of sustaining "forests" made up of plants like cactus. When a large-scale effort is involved, even if these are only forests of cactus, those are still plants and they also absorb and process carbon. And we haven't even touched upon trying to genetically engineer or breed plants that absorb carbon from the atmosphere more quickly than a normal plant does; imagine how much carbon a "forest" of gigantic, genetically modified sansevieria (a plant which the internet tells me absorbs a ton of pollutants) could process.

In this way, instead of futilely trying to eliminate one lesser portion of the world's carbon-producing industries, we could use those industries and the associated economies to absorb carbon naturally, thereby reducing not only our own "carbon footprints" but also those of other countries whom have, thus far, turned up their noses at the issue of climate change. Instead of playing a zero-sum game where we try to get people to reduce their own economies, we can try to get people to grow their economies while reducing carbon emissions at the same time. Imagine the tourism, the products and services produced and the jobs created by such a wealth of new and diverse artificial forests.

Unfortunately, although I was an environmentalist at one point in my life, I have come to suspect that this issue is not really about "saving the earth" but that it is really about targeting certain industries, namely the fossil fuel industries, not because they pollute but because those industries are associated with western working class people. If I am wrong about that, why would maintaining an artificial rain forest be a worse choice economically than the apparently crazy things in the Green New Deal? The cost of maintaining some artificial forests would not only be less, it would also create many sustainable new jobs that are in touch with nature, exactly what environmentalists say that they want. It would solve both our own issues and those of other people. Instead of destroying our economies just so that the biggest polluters can pollute more, we could create new jobs while also reducing the harm that they are doing. I think this is way better than AOC's proposal.
#14992355
To maintain large forests would require a lot of water. Shortage of clean safe drinking water for the population of the earth is a more pressing problem than this crazy green new deal gimmick. I believe this global warming - climate change scare is nothing but a hoax to begin with.

The Paris Climate Fraud

President Trump is right to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement! The deal isn’t worth the paper it is written on.



Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities...but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.



Scientist Judith Curry and Author Mark Steyn question, school Sen Markey on climate



Sen. Cruz 2nd Round of Questions at Climate Science Hearing
Published on Dec 8, 2015
#14992537
Reforestation can be (and should) part of the effort for curtailing climate change. Certainly a huge tool for carbon sequestration. A shift to use more wood products might be part of the solution, yes using wood kill a tree but that carbon in the cellulose of wood is not going anywhere as long as you don't burn it and you can always replace the tree by planting another.

Sources of energy are the key factors and I don't think there will be any significant advance without a major restructuring of our power consumption. The shiny armor knight that could save us from ourselves to me seems to be nuclear energy, in particular, nuclear fusion. The potential for energy production is much greater than fission and it is clean. Also, if we were to master it, we could have so much cheap energy that we could use it to literally terraform our planet. We could use all this cheap energy to desalinate ocean water and pump it into deserts. We could grow large portion of our crops into large vertical artificial-light powered hydroponics and this could be done in suburban/metropolitan areas thus not only saving on transportation/time while having fresh crops but also having environmental control to such degrees that pesticides would become unnecessary, not to mention we would not have to kill forrest to make space for farmlands, something that is a big deal in developing countries.

While I am a fan of solar and to a lesser degree wind, I think their role is unrealistically blown out of proportion. I do see a role for these in more remote areas but unless there is some kind of unexpected incredible breakthrough on the efficiency of many orders of magnitude for both creation and storage, I do not think they will be a big part of the solution as "green hippie" wants you to think.
#14992564
In my opinion, any attempt by man to curtail climate change commanded by God is a futile effort. However, I do agree with efforts to maintain and produce various sources of energy to support and improve our standards of living.
#14992568
I also have a modest proposal for dealing with climate change.

1. Get rid of capitalism.
2. Take away the assets of those people and companies that are currently stopping progress.
3. Use these assets to completely revolutionize technology, making pollution obsolete.

Side effects include, but are not limited to, an end to economic hierarchies, health care for all, education for all, clean air and water, reduced migration, and paid parental leave.
#14992577
Pants-of-dog wrote:I also have a modest proposal for dealing with climate change.

1. Get rid of capitalism.
2. Take away the assets of those people and companies that are currently stopping progress.
3. Use these assets to completely revolutionize technology, making pollution obsolete.

Side effects include, but are not limited to, an end to economic hierarchies, health care for all, education for all, clean air and water, reduced migration, and paid parental leave.

That is a stupid proposal that would destroy the world's economy and any chance that any of your listed side effects would ever be realized except for the end of economic hierarchies because there would be no economy and reduced migration because of death by starvation.
#14992603
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. That would be the current use of sweatshops under capitalism.

There are people that commit evil deeds in all systems. It has been clearly demonstrated that Socialism or Communism will not eliminate evil.
#14992604
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. That would be the current use of sweatshops under capitalism.


Break it down:

"from each according to their ability" clearly means the producer has no say at all in what they contribute which is identical with the condition of slavery. Otherwise it should read:
"From each what is fairly negotiated".

"for each according to their need", need not want. Strictly speaking all a human needs is food, water and air and even then some might like to interpret the needs of enemies to be nothing more than a bullet in the back of the head.

The thing is we already have seen what that slogan translates to in real life in the regimes of the USSR, DPRK etc. and it is exactly slavery and miserly rations. You are simply not going to fool anyone with that anymore.
#14992613
Hindsite wrote:In my opinion, any attempt by man to curtail climate change commanded by God is a futile effort. However, I do agree with efforts to maintain and produce various sources of energy to support and improve our standards of living.

:lol:
Do you use medicine? Any attempt by man to curtail the diseases commanded by God is a futile effort. Oh wait, it is not! clearly, your god is a weak ass god make diseases that can be cured by man.
#14992627
Hindsite wrote:There are people that commit evil deeds in all systems. It has been clearly demonstrated that Socialism or Communism will not eliminate evil.


Yet another way that Christianity and Marxism are similar.

——————————

SolarCross wrote:Break it down:

"from each according to their ability" clearly means the producer has no say at all in what they contribute which is identical with the condition of slavery. Otherwise it should read:
"From each what is fairly negotiated".


No.

This seems to be based on your incorrect belief that all Marxists are evil totalitarians. Since this assertion is incorrect, your argumnet is nonsensical.

"for each according to their need", need not want. Strictly speaking all a human needs is food, water and air and even then some might like to interpret the needs of enemies to be nothing more than a bullet in the back of the head.

The thing is we already have seen what that slogan translates to in real life in the regimes of the USSR, DPRK etc. and it is exactly slavery and miserly rations. You are simply not going to fool anyone with that anymore.


No.

This seems to be based on your incorrect belief that all Marxists are evil totalitarians. Since this assertion is incorrect, your argumnet is nonsensical.
#14992630
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

This seems to be based on your incorrect belief that all Marxists are evil totalitarians. Since this assertion is incorrect, your argumnet is nonsensical.

No, that is literally what your slogan means.

Where is the consent there? Who decides what one must give and what one needs? Unless you can answer that the correct interpretation of your slogan is slavery and miserly rations.
#14992636
SolarCross wrote:No, that is literally what your slogan means.

Where is the consent there? Who decides what one must give and what one needs? Unless you can answer that the correct interpretation of your slogan is slavery and miserly rations.


No.

This seems to be based on your incorrect belief that all Marxists are evil totalitarians. Since this assertion is incorrect, your argumnet is nonsensical.
#14992646
Sure. Anyways...

These types of measures are going tombecome increasingly frequent as peoole and lwamakers realise that capitalism is inherently unequipped to deal with climate change.

Since there is no profit to be had from mitigating climate change, using less resources, and shrinking economies, capitalism cannot provide an incentive or mechanism for solving these problems.

Since that is the case, governments will be the next obvious choice for implementing solutions since they are the only other group capable of effecting change on the international scale that is needed.
User avatar
By Sivad
#14992651
green new deal is fine except for the regressive carbon taxes and the bit about flushing hundreds of billions down the drain on alternative energy. :knife:

Just alternative energy alone would drive up the cost on every commodity that requires energy to produce and transport but when coupled with carbon taxes the working class is guaranteed to get hammered with a steep hike in the cost of living. How is that for "progressive"? :knife:
Trump's Dumb Economics

China is the biggest patent thief of the World. Am[…]

America's Opioid Epidemic

A Taliban leader said 1kg of opium kills more enem[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

So you don't think Epstein was guilty? I don't k[…]

Which one(s)? Still no evidence to support yo[…]