The Popular Vote... - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By BigSteve
#15035005
Pants-of-dog wrote:Regardless of what the people want, the USA has done nothing meaningful and will do nothing meaningful about climate change. Because the people who do what it takes to get elected will invariably sell out to fossil fuel interests.


Climate change is not an American problem, and it's stupid and ignorant to approach it as if it is...
User avatar
By Rancid
#15035006
Overall emissions levels are lower today than they were just a few years ago. To say the US has done nothing to curb emissions isn't exactly true. If that were true, we should be at all time high emission levels.

The most you could say is that the the US is not doing enough. You cannot say, the US is doing nothing.
#15035060
@BigSteve

Let me know if you have an argument or intelligent criticism. Thanks.

Also, I never claimed climate change was solely a US problem.

------------

Back to my point: the reason I think the franchise should be extended is because that would be consistent with basic tenets of democracy such as government accountability.

The USA used to allow non-citizens to vote, so it would not even be unprecedented or require a major change in law.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15035087
Pants-of-dog wrote:@BigSteve
I never claimed climate change was solely a US problem.


Not in so many words, but the fact that you criticize no one else speaks volumes...
#15035103
So you are mad at me about something that you made up about me. Okay.

——————————

Back to my actual point:

The entire world, especially industrialised countries like the USA and Canada have about 11 years to cut emissions substantially. The public, in general, support this.

But the politicians are doing nothing about this popular sentiment. And according to the main thrust of this thread, ignoring the majority is just fine.
By Presvias
#15035107
Rancid wrote:Overall emissions levels are lower today than they were just a few years ago. To say the US has done nothing to curb emissions isn't exactly true. If that were true, we should be at all time high emission levels.

The most you could say is that the the US is not doing enough. You cannot say, the US is doing nothing.


They're doing less than nothing, they're actively working to make things even worse...they have fully supported Bolsonaro and want to exploit more and more resources around the world.

I'm surprised that you as an anarchist are saying they've done anything
By Hindsite
#15035121
Presvias wrote:They're doing less than nothing, they're actively working to make things even worse...they have fully supported Bolsonaro and want to exploit more and more resources around the world.

I'm surprised that you as an anarchist are saying they've done anything

Bolsonaro 'doesn't accept the global warming hoax'
Aug 31, 2019

Brazil president Jair Bolsonaro has earned the ire of the European Union because he does not accept the 'global warming hoax'.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15035172
Presvias wrote:I'm surprised that you as an anarchist are saying they've done anything


Because it's not true to claim that the US has done nothing. It simply isn't true.

Are you suggesting the US as ZERO environmental protection laws? Are you really claiming that? All it takes is the existence of one environmental law to prove this wrong.

Here's one (actually 3):
The mandate on catalytic converters in cars, and the CAFE standards. Also, the various states and cities have their own laws as well. For example, Evanston Illinois has a ban on gasoline powered lawn mowers.

On this alone, it's false to say the US has done nothing.

Here's another law. I'm not allowed to dump the oil from my oil changes into my local creek.

Again, the most you could say, is that the US isn't doing enough.

What I'm asking from all of you is a little fucking honesty.

Here's another. 43% of my electricity is renewable. I don't have solar power either.
By Presvias
#15035179
Just rechecked the graphs and tbh they don't back the spirit of your point. CO2 from 'all fossil fuels' actually went up last year.

It looks like 'overall' (your word) the US is, in real terms, doing less than nothing.

Is that dishonest? Or is it misleading to say that the US is realistically doing something when the figures say otherwise??

It's actually worse to be pretending to reduce emissions than to not even try. When BP run adverts about how they're the greenest folks in the world, I feel like I'm gonna punch through the wall.

The point being, correct people by all means, but don't start saying people are dishonest for saying the US is actively trying to sabotage the climate movement. It's your president's MO for goodness sakes(!).
User avatar
By Crantag
#15035180
People in this thread seem to be confounding a few things.

When it comes to gerrymandering, this is about House of Representative seats, as well as the state legislator.

When it comes to "Wyoming voters having equal power to Californians," this relates to Senate seats, with the system whereby each state has 2 Senators, regardless of population.

The Electoral college is still fucked, but I seem to see a lot of confusion in here.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15035233
Presvias wrote:Just rechecked the graphs and tbh they don't back the spirit of your point. CO2 from 'all fossil fuels' actually went up last year.


The spirit of my point is that something is being done to try and curb emissions. THe very fact that there is at least ONE law (I pointed out 3-4) somewhere in America aimed at reducing emissions is evidence enough to back the spirit of my point.

The rest of your point attempts to obfuscate and/or change the goalpost with respect to my point.

Last, from the data I recall, we are under peak emissions still today. We're like at 1990s levels if I recall right. That's besides the point, which is that the claim the US is doing nothing is a lie. The most you could say, is that the US isn't doing enough (which I agree).
By Presvias
#15035311
(shrugs) If you say so, I disagree and have laid out good reasons as to why.

You appear to be taking it rather personally when you conflate what you're doing with your govt's position (?).
User avatar
By Rancid
#15035316
Presvias wrote:(shrugs) If you say so, I disagree and have laid out good reasons as to why.


I think you laid out good reasons to say that the US has not done enough. Not good reasons to say they have done nothing. You should see pictures and read about how horrible pollution was in the US before the 60s-70s. If you have that historical context, you would realize the US has actually done a lot (but arguable, not enough) to clean up the environment.

Presvias wrote:You appear to be taking it rather personally when you conflate what you're doing with your govt's position (?).


I'm not taking anything personal. Could you explained the logic in that statement? I don't even see how you could say this. :?:

Anyway, I just have to call out flawed logic. Just because I'm defending the US government in this one point, doesn't mean I'm taking a criticism on the US government personally, nor does it mean I would support and defend anything they do (Hell, I'm the guy that plans to leave the US). What I'm doing is calling out flawed/bad logic when I see it. This is one of those cases. I do that a lot on pofo. I tend to do this regardless of the issue, and regardless of what my personal position is on an issue.
By Presvias
#15035320
1. Wrt cleaning up pollution; espec re prohibiting burning of non-smokeless coal; the same is true in most western nations since the 60s, it's not unique to America. The mortality and lung disease rates would be absolutely unacceptable without those reforms - it was done out of necessity. It doesn't really help prove your point about stopping global warming.

2. You wrote "Here's another. 43% of my electricity is renewable. I don't have solar power either" which sounded as if you were taking it personally or something wrt 'the us not doing anything'. (shrug)
User avatar
By Rancid
#15035322
Presvias wrote:1. Wrt cleaning up pollution; espec re prohibiting burning of non-smokeless coal; the same is true in most western nations since the 60s, it's not unique to America. The mortality and lung disease rates would be absolutely unacceptable without those reforms - it was done out of necessity. It doesn't really help prove your point about stopping global warming.


Again, you are making a point that is orthogonal to the point at hand. How does this prove that the US has done nothing with respect to emissions controls?

Presvias wrote:2. You wrote "Here's another. 43% of my electricity is renewable. I don't have solar power either" which sounded as if you were taking it personally or something wrt 'the us not doing anything'. (shrug)


The point there is that 43% of my energy usage does not create any emissions. My electricity comes from a government regulated (federal and state regulated) entity. IF the general point is that the US has done nothing to curb emissions, why is nearly half of my energy use emissions free?
By Presvias
#15035323
1. How is it 'orthogonal', the reasons why your govt do things matter. It is simply incorrect to say they did what you said, to reduce global warming.

The whole global warming consensus only started to form in the 70s in america didn't it?

It was known about in the 40s though.

But you're conflating improving public air quality with reducing global warming...it wasn't in US politician's minds when they passed measures to improve air quality in the 60s was it?

I primarily agree with initiatives that simultaneously improve pollution/the environment and reduce contributions to global warming. But they are ultimately two intersecting but different concerns.

2. Ah, I see. I thought you were saying you generate your own electricity.

Fair enough, that does back your point a bit.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15035324
Presvias wrote:1. How is it 'orthogonal', the reasons why your govt do things matter. It is simply incorrect to say they did what you said, to reduce global warming.

The whole global warming consensus only started to form in the 70s in america didn't it?

It was known about in the 40s though.

But you're conflating improving public air quality with reducing global warming...it wasn't in US politician's minds when they passed measures to improve air quality in the 60s was it?

I primarily agree with initiatives that simultaneously improve pollution/the environment and reduce contributions to global warming. But they are ultimately two intersecting but different concerns.


That's a fair point. What you are saying is that the US government has passed nothing with the EXPLICIT intent to curb climate change. Perhaps that is true (I don't care to go looking for that). That said, I think the US at one point backed the Paris accord (not sure what the state of that is, given the current admin).

When you say "the US" does that include state, county, and city governments? Because as a quick example, California has passed regulations specifically aimed at combatting climate change.
By Presvias
#15035428
Yeah, the 'US' refers to the white house govt mainly.

But you're probably right about US states/localities passing laws to stop stuff.

The main problem is that we have large corporations and govts causing the majority of climate change and forcing us to contribute to it. So the small stuff ends up being pointless.
#15035433
Presvias wrote:Yeah, the 'US' refers to the white house govt mainly.

But you're probably right about US states/localities passing laws to stop stuff.

The main problem is that we have large corporations and govts causing the majority of climate change and forcing us to contribute to it. So the small stuff ends up being pointless.


The worst part of that is that the system only respects corporate stuff and corporate power. Nothing else. Total sellouts. So? What relief do average citizens have from all that sellout nightmare?

If something is not done about it soon? It is just a dictatorship of the rich and bought off and corporate. The political position is just window dressing at that point.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15035444
@Pants-of-dog Regardless of what the people want, the USA has done nothing meaningful and will do nothing meaningful about climate change.


Of course Rancid is correct. Attempts to rationalize your hyperbole is not worthy of your level of debate. The fact is that the US not only does a great deal about pollution, but it was one of the first nations to do so by creating a major government agency to do it.

Because the people who do what it takes to get elected will invariably sell out to fossil fuel interests.


And we can see this is untrue too. The proof lies in the robust laws we already have.

Is the US doing enough? Is it doing its "fair share"? That is another question entirely. We have very high ( and I believe among the highest) vehicle emission standards in the world.

Should Trump have taken us out of Paris? Maybe. Clearly it does not do enough and it has this absurd notion that developing countries should be allowed to continue to pollute profligately. India and China are prime examples. The very notion that China is a "developing country" is absurd.

The American people want fairness. Fairness does not mean that the US should finance or alibi the bad behavior of others. As usual the EU (the world's largest economy) got off the hook in the finance department.

So much more should be done. The US should tap into the market and sell technology to others to help reduce carbon emissions. Painting the US as the great culprit in global warming will not help at all.

For all too long the world has looked at the US to lead the world in just about everything. It is surprised and dismayed when we do not step in and fix stuff. How about this? China just made their pollution standards a tad higher for cars. How about when they stop burning dirty coal to generate almost all of their electricity we start pointing fingers at the US and its strong controls on coal emissions. China is one of the largest contributors to air pollution.....in the US.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 12

And this is why we need to look at causes. Any so[…]

Canadian Federal Election

The two countries have similar histories, and thus[…]

Election 2020

Yes, I am certain that one of the reasons why Obam[…]

I mean I suppose I can go pretty low, but at leas[…]