Far-Right Climate Denial Is Scary. Far-Right Climate Acceptance Might Be Scarier. - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15017348
Truth To Power wrote:No, I am stating the facts.

Not Political.
False. I have identified the most salient characteristics.

You have not provided any characteristics of your ideal economy.
No.

Not Political.
I'm not partisan, if that's what you mean.

Being partisan does not have to do with being political or not in this discussion.
By not violating their rights without just compensation.

Allowing private owners to do whatever they want to their workers is slavery.
Secure rights and no privileges.

What are your "rights" and "privileges?" That statement is not political.
That's a description of the current economy. That's not what I advocate.

What do you advocate?
It can be.

But yours is not.
You have a strange idea of why people hold their political beliefs.

Most ignorant people think that they are "right," and that everyone else is "wrong." Anarchists, liberals, conservatives, fascists, and Islamic extremists I have encountered usually have this ignorant mindset.
I didn't say any type of economy is ignorant.

You said that socialism is "ignorant."
You have ignored my example and simply made $#!+ up. That is normal, routine, and expected. And it should tell you something.

If I "ignored" it, I would not of replied to it.
Silliness.

Not Political.
Because socialists cannot see fact or logic.

You cannot see fact Nor logic.
I don't see any evidence that anarchists see it.

Because the both of us are not anarchists.
Your gibberish screams it.

Not Political.
Socialism cannot be scientific because it assumes conditions contrary to fact.

You cannot be scientific because you assume conditions contrary to scientific facts.
I'm the one trying to liberate people from economic oppression.

By defending slavery and the family institution?
Self-refuting gibberish.

You are avoiding politics on a political forum.
You have shown repeatedly that to the extent you understand me, you refuse to engage with my analysis.

I am engaging in your ridiculous analysis. You are not providing enough details by refusing to answer some of my above questions, and your politics are out of context since you are not a socialist.
No, you have merely realized that you can't answer them without destroying your belief system.

Where did I claim that?
Self-refuting gibberish.

Not Political.
Facts are facts.

Your statements are not facts. And some of your facts are out of context since they are not in a socialist economy.
Everyone reading this knows that is false, including you.

I know it is not "false" so right there you are lying. Thus making you a liar.
#15017510
Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficial than we think

    In a cartoon that went viral before the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, a conference presentation lists some of the side benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, from cleaner air to green jobs, as a man in the audience asks: "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

    Image

    Ten years after U.S. cartoonist Joel Pett penned that cartoon, there is stronger scientific consensus than ever that climate change is real, and more and more evidence that fighting climate change has positive side effects or "co-benefits."

    Environmental researchers and policy advisers now say it's crucial to take those into account when making decisions about climate change mitigation and adaptation.

    Co-benefits such as reducing deaths from air pollution and boosting technological innovation may lower the net costs of climate action to zero or even lead to a net economic benefit rather than a cost, studies show.

    And failing to take those into account — effectively miscalculating the costs of climate change action — may lead to bad decisions and inaction that are more costly in the long run, says Canadian environmental economist Kirk Hamilton.

    "Essentially, we're just leaving dollars on the table by ignoring co-benefits," said Hamilton, an economic consultant and visiting professor at the London School of Economics who has studied the co-benefits of climate change mitigation in depth. "In some ways, we've been doing the modelling wrong."

    Positive side effects from cutting emissions will occur even if they're not accounted for, he noted. "You're just not feeding [them] into your decision making process, which means you're making bad decisions."

    The UN acknowledged in a 2016 brief on sustainable development that the co-benefits of initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions aren't always well documented, "which underestimates their positive impact."

    Very valuable benefits

    The value of that positive impact can be quite a lot — to the point that in some cases, climate mitigation measures can have a net economic benefit per tonne.

    Air pollution may reduce the GDP by more than 10 per cent in some countries like China, and a 2016 UN report found that halving greenhouse gas emissions between 2005 and 2050 would reduce premature deaths related to air pollution by 20 to 40 per cent.

    Hamilton's research has found that the health co-benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions could be worth $100 US per tonne of CO2 in high-income countries like the U.S. and Canada and $50 US per tonne in middle-income countries like China.

    That's quite a lot, given that the cost of abating a tonne of carbon pollution in 2015 was estimated to be less than $36 US per tonne on average — meaning that any country that cut its emissions would get a significant net benefit from health impacts alone.

    The UN report also found:

    In some forest projects to mitigate climate change, co-benefits represent between 53 to 92 per cent of total benefits.
    Co-benefits typically represent more than 50 per cent of direct benefits from investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.
    Reducing fossil fuel dependence in the U.S. decreases the danger of disruptions in the energy supply and economic losses due to price volatility, worth about $5 US per tonne of CO2.
    Some co-benefits, the UN notes, are indirect, such as freeing public resources for other uses. It added there are also effects of climate-related investments on growth and employment.

    Hamilton said environmental regulations targeting emissions can give companies an incentive to invest in knowledge and technology.

    "That's a big plus," he said, adding that such technologies can often then be applied in new ways to other sectors and activities, amplifying the positive impact.

    Local and immediate impacts

    Hamilton said getting governments worldwide to act on climate change has been hard because reducing greenhouse gas emissions is costly in the short-term, but the impact is uncertain, won't be felt for years, and is spread around the world: "It looks like a bad deal."

    The deal looks a lot better when co-benefits are taken into account, because their impact tends to be certain, immediate and local, he adds.

    It's something that policy makers are starting to recognize.

    In collaboration with the B.C. government's Climate Action Secretariat, Ann Dale, a professor in the School of Environment and Sustainability at Royal Roads University, has mapped some of the co-benefits of climate change action.

    That way, policy makers will know how to look for and track them — the map shows, for example, that greener buildings lead to higher energy efficiency, better water quality, and new job opportunities: "So that you can show to political decision makers it's not jobs versus on the environment — there's money to be saved by doing the right thing, and there's benefits to be achieved."

    That said, there can also be tradeoffs between reducing emissions and other environmental goals. For example, the UN report notes that inappropriate use of biofuels or diesel can lead to increased air pollution.

    Dale said it all points to the importance of more integrated planning by governments. "What we need them to do is track the costs and benefits when they implement a climate action."

    Adaptation co-benefits

    Meanwhile, taking action to adapt to the impacts of climate change can have co-benefits that reduce emissions and also improve quality of life, notes Deborah Harford, executive director of the Adaptation to Climate Change team at Simon Fraser.

    For example:

    Green roofs to control flooding and reduce building temperatures can suck up carbon dioxide and also reduce emissions by reducing the demand for air conditioning.

    Restoring wetlands to reduce flooding can sequester carbon and cut emissions by reducing the energy needed to filter and pump stormwater.

    She said so far, the cost and benefits of things like removing or restoring natural infrastructure like wetlands isn't being considered often enough.

    But it's an idea that's gaining traction, she added.

    "This new narrative about low-carbon resilience and all the co-benefits is literally emerging now and is actually starting to be taken up very quickly."

    On the flip side, not investing in climate change action could hurt countries economically in the longer term, Harford warned.

    She thinks given all the benefits, the world would be moving toward greener technologies such as renewable power, albeit more slowly, even if climate change weren't a pressing problem.

    "Countries that fail to get on this new shift are going to be the ones that are left behind in the new economy," she said. "Because it's coming."
#15017649
^ retarded bullshit. Carbon taxes will drive up the cost of living by increasing the cost of all commodities that require carbon energy to manufacture and transport. Renewable energy is an unreliable inefficient money sink that'll drive hundreds of millions of people into energy poverty. The green jobs will get the economy going but why waste time, energy, and resources on stupid bullshit when you could invest them productively and get far greater economic, social, and technological benefits? Everything in that idiotic piece of propaganda is either a gross distortion or an outright lie.
#15017651
Prominent environmentalist Shellenberger: ‘I am calling Bullsh*t’ on Ocasio-Cortez! Declares AOC is ‘a climate fraud’ – Rips ‘Green New Deal’ as ‘climate fakery’

Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger, President of "Environmental Progress" & an activist Time Magazine called a “Hero of the Environment":

"I am calling bullshit not just on AOC but on her progressive enablers in the news media who are giving her a pass on the most crucial test of moral and political leadership of our time when it comes to climate change: a person's stance on nuclear power."

"I am calling bullshit on climate fakery. Anyone who is calling for phasing out nuclear is a climate fraud perpetuating precisely the gigantic 'hoax' that [Oklahoma] Sen. James Inhofe (R) famously accused environmentalists of perpetuating."

"If you want to be a self-respecting progressive or journalist who is fairly considering or covering the climate issue, please stop giving Ocasio-Cortex and other supposedly climate-concerned greens a pass. THEY ARE INCREASING EMISSIONS."
#15017694
Sivad wrote:^ retarded bullshit. Carbon taxes will drive up the cost of living by increasing the cost of all commodities that require carbon energy to manufacture and transport. Renewable energy is an unreliable inefficient money sink that'll drive hundreds of millions of people into energy poverty. The green jobs will get the economy going but why waste time, energy, and resources on stupid bullshit when you could invest them productively and get far greater economic, social, and technological benefits? Everything in that idiotic piece of propaganda is either a gross distortion or an outright lie.


I doubt any if this is true.

When we do look at renewables versus fossil fuels, we see that fossil fuels are less efficient.

And not doing anything will put more people into even more dire economic circumstances.
#15018012
Pants-of-dog wrote:In a cartoon that went viral before the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, a conference presentation lists some of the side benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, from cleaner air to green jobs, as a man in the audience asks: "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

The following article pretty much explains the purpose of the hoax:

AOC’s Chief of Staff Admits the Green New Deal Is Not about Climate Change
July 12, 2019

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted recently that the true motivation behind introducing the Green New Deal is to overhaul the “entire economy.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aoc ... te-change/

It is really all about economic socialism for the whole world.
#15018134
Pants-of-dog wrote:So AOC planned a hoax that started before she was born?

Those crafty Democrats with their time machines! They are going to trick us into cleaning up after ourselves!


:knife: AOC didn't plan anything, eco nitwits have been trying to poison pill social democracy with "green" energy policy since the 1970s.

The most important question is not who came up with this idea, though the answer is simple: Social movements grappling with capitalism came up with this idea.

The people who developed it from the 1970s to the 1990s were generally involved in some way with the Greens. They were activists rooted in both the labor and the environmental movements, and saw a program of economic conversion as a way to deal with what Richard Grossman and Frank Kazis called “Fear at Work,” in which working people and vulnerable communities are blackmailed by major corporations into accepting the poisoning of ourselves and our environment so that we can afford to eat and pay for shelter and other necessities.

These basic red/green politics never went away. They kept developing. The 1990s gave rise to the environmental justice movement, as well as a series of programs for economic transition and community sovereignty; for instance, the work of Winona LaDuke and the White Earth Land Recovery Project.

Another leading person from the 1990s was Judi Bari, the Earth First! and IWW organizer, who inspired a wave of labor union-environmental organization alliances. And there were other inspirational activists and projects. By the 2000s those efforts were becoming mainstream through big, well-funded projects like the Apollo Alliance and eventually, the brief Green Jobs for All program of the early Obama Administration.

By the mid 2000s, the European Greens had developed a program they called the Green New Deal. The Greens in the U.S. got with that program in 2009-2010 thanks to the leadership of Howie Hawkins and Marnie Glickman and others.

https://progressive.org/dispatches/wher ... bb-190323/
#15018159
Hindsite wrote:
It is really all about economic socialism for the whole world.


It's not really socialism, it's planned energy austerity and technocratic control of all resources and development(sustainability). It's the "aristocratic socialism" of the Fabians, it has nothing in common with populist libertarian market socialism.
#15018311
Hindsite wrote:Climate change is something humans have to learn to live with. That is why we invented heaters and fans.
So, you're going to set your AC unit outside and hope for the best? :lol:

That's one of the stupider comments I've ever seen about climate change.

Fans will prevent droughts? Get a fucking clue!
#15025722
Palmyrene wrote:And what do you think is powering those air conditioners and heat pumps?

That electricity isn't coming from nowhere.

Georgia Power

Georgia Power owns a network of 18 generating plants, 19 hydroelectric dams and multiple solar energy facilities spread across the state, providing low-cost, reliable electricity to 2.5 million customers.

Georgia Power owns two nuclear facilities, Hatch and Vogtle, which provide about 20 percent of the electricity used in Georgia.

Coal, the most abundant fuel source in the United States, accounts for most of Georgia Power's generating capacity. We also use oil and gas to generate power.

Natural gas generation uses one of America's most abundant resources to produce safe, reliable and clean energy. Natural gas-fueled combined cycle power plants offer one of the cleanest and most efficient methods of producing electricity.

Hydroelectric power was once the principal source of power in the United States. These facilities played a significant role in spurring Georgia's industrial development and continue to produce power today.

Solar power generation has emerged as one of the most rapidly growing renewable sources of electricity. We’re proud to work with the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force to develop innovative solar energy projects, both on and off base. Our collaborations support military bases across Georgia, as well as federal emergency projects and local communities. We’re honored to be the only electric utility in the country to partner with all four branches of our military.

https://www.georgiapower.com/company/en ... lants.html
#15025724
Hindsite wrote:Georgia Power

Georgia Power owns a network of 18 generating plants, 19 hydroelectric dams and multiple solar energy facilities spread across the state, providing low-cost, reliable electricity to 2.5 million customers.

Georgia Power owns two nuclear facilities, Hatch and Vogtle, which provide about 20 percent of the electricity used in Georgia.

Coal, the most abundant fuel source in the United States, accounts for most of Georgia Power's generating capacity. We also use oil and gas to generate power.

Natural gas generation uses one of America's most abundant resources to produce safe, reliable and clean energy. Natural gas-fueled combined cycle power plants offer one of the cleanest and most efficient methods of producing electricity.

Hydroelectric power was once the principal source of power in the United States. These facilities played a significant role in spurring Georgia's industrial development and continue to produce power today.

Solar power generation has emerged as one of the most rapidly growing renewable sources of electricity. We’re proud to work with the US Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force to develop innovative solar energy projects, both on and off base. Our collaborations support military bases across Georgia, as well as federal emergency projects and local communities. We’re honored to be the only electric utility in the country to partner with all four branches of our military.

https://www.georgiapower.com/company/en ... lants.html


The bottom two don't cause global warming and the first one is negligible.

Coal and gas are the most used and biggest parts of global warming.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
Schizophrenia

AS probably has continued side effects from some s[…]

Election 2020

I predict that capitalists with a neo-imperialist[…]

That'll Just About Do It For Beto...

I doubt that this will have any impact. All the p[…]

There's ''productive'' in the sense of; ''got to […]