4 ms·

> half of which group votes Republican (i.e., against reforms designed to prevent or slow climate change). That’s a very cynical statement. Goes to show why bo

> half of which group votes Republican (i.e., against reforms designed to prevent or slow climate change). That’s a very cynical statement. Goes to show why both sides will never meet in the middle of the road with thinking that way. Voting republicans doesn’t mean I am against climate change reforms. The issue at hand is how practically we deal with it and reduce demands on fossil fuel and transition to clean energy. Policies touted by a lot of left leaning politicians aren’t practical and many of them know it but they say it anyway. Look at California and its recent outages to any demand spike of utilities as an example.

dangsface 5y ago
From what I understand, cynical doesn't mean a lack of truth. So when you say it is cynical, what you are saying is that cynicism shouldn't be allowed. I loathe this world of fake humans constantly pretending to be delusionally optimistic. I don't have real conversations anymore. Saying "that's a very cynical statement" shows that we have to constantly lie to one another. I hope you realize this
input_sh 5y ago
> Policies touted by a lot of left leaning politicians aren’t practical and many of them know it but they say it anyway. Your point stands, Democrat solutions addressing climate change are definitely pretty bad. That being said, at least they have some climate change policies they're pushing for right now instead of kicking the can down the road. Can you honestly say the same about Republicans?
- ArchStanton 5y ago
  Considering that the US share of greenhouse gases is fairly small (15% of world total), has decreased quite a lot over time, and becomes harder on the margin, I'd say it's mostly just slinging words for political power at this point. My own take is that you can avoid ecological devastation only through population reduction and in the short term by not up-leveling the Third World via mass immigration and industrialization.
  - evilolive 5y ago
    The US GHG per capita remains one of the highest in the world, so things can be improved.
    - ArchStanton 5y ago
      That's an argument that stems more from a concept of 'fairness' than one that might save the world.
      - evilolive 5y ago
        Not a world saving solution, just adding necessary context around the “fairly small” comment.
  - PretzelPirate 5y ago
    > only through population reduction… Since this would necessitate birth control, it would be in direct conflict with the beliefs of the Catholic Church and couldn’t be supported by the Pope.
    - ArchStanton 5y ago
      To be fair, US Catholics appear to have roughly the same birthrate as US Evangelical Protestants, although that might change as Catholic demographics shift to Latino. What we (the world) will be awash in is Moslems and sub Saharan Africans unless those curves get bent via behavior changes, resource depletion, or war. I can't say that the Pope is much involved in that situation.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        > I can't say that the Pope is much involved in that situation Like the 15% of (mostly-sub Saharan) Africa that identifies as Catholic? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Africa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Africa
legutierr 5y ago
> That’s a very cynical statement. Goes to show why both sides will never meet in the middle of the road with thinking that way. I really meant only to reflect the reality that by voting for a Republican you are voting for someone who will use their power to prevent climate change reform. Is this actually controversial at all? I'd like to see the counterexample. Sure, some voters may have other things in mind when they vote Republican (for instance, taxes, or abortion) but the end effect of that vote is that if the person they vote for is elected, reforms to prevent or slow climate change will be less likely to be implemented. Do you disagree with this as a factual matter? > Voting republicans doesn’t mean I am against climate change reforms. The issue at hand is how practically we deal with it and reduce demands on fossil fuel and transition to clean energy. I am incredulous that you actually believe that today there is any kind of Republican plan to "reduce demands on fossil fuel and transition to clean energy" that has any chance of doing anything in any way to prevent the worst outcomes of climate change. Even if there were such a plan proposed by a small clique of Republican politicians, it would never be implemented by any Republican-controlled legislature or executive because, as a whole, the party still sees fossil fuel energy as a moral good (see: rolling coal), rejects pollution regulation (dismantling it at every opportunity), and dismisses climate change science as a fiction promulgated by their political enemies in order to further a diabolical agenda. Even if you can assuage your own guilt by telling yourself that the individual politician you are voting for supports some kind of "Republican climate change plan", your vote for that politician will make any reform less likely to be implemented than if you had voted for their opponent. As a factual matter, no Republican-controlled legislature will ever enact climate change reforms into law, and no Republican executive will ever implement any climate change plan—not even a Republican-authored plan—within the next 10 years, unless we see a sea change in sentiment broadly within the party. > Goes to show why both sides will never meet in the middle of the road with thinking that way. If there was a reasonable prospect of a "middle of the road" plan to slow climate change that the Republican party would actually support—meaning, would actually help push through Congress—then the Biden administration and the current Congress would pass it in a minute and immediately begin implementing it. The reason that this is not happening is because there is no plan whatsoever that the Republican party will put any support behind. I wish there was such a plan.

dangsface 5y ago

From what I understand, cynical doesn't mean a lack of truth. So when you say it is cynical, what you are saying is that cynicism shouldn't be allowed. I loathe this world of fake humans constantly pretending to be delusionally optimistic. I don't have real conversations anymore. Saying "that's a very cynical statement" shows that we have to constantly lie to one another. I hope you realize this

input_sh 5y ago

> Policies touted by a lot of left leaning politicians aren’t practical and many of them know it but they say it anyway. Your point stands, Democrat solutions addressing climate change are definitely pretty bad. That being said, at least they have some climate change policies they're pushing for right now instead of kicking the can down the road. Can you honestly say the same about Republicans?

ArchStanton 5y ago
Considering that the US share of greenhouse gases is fairly small (15% of world total), has decreased quite a lot over time, and becomes harder on the margin, I'd say it's mostly just slinging words for political power at this point. My own take is that you can avoid ecological devastation only through population reduction and in the short term by not up-leveling the Third World via mass immigration and industrialization.
- evilolive 5y ago
  The US GHG per capita remains one of the highest in the world, so things can be improved.
  - ArchStanton 5y ago
    That's an argument that stems more from a concept of 'fairness' than one that might save the world.
    - evilolive 5y ago
      Not a world saving solution, just adding necessary context around the “fairly small” comment.
- PretzelPirate 5y ago
  > only through population reduction… Since this would necessitate birth control, it would be in direct conflict with the beliefs of the Catholic Church and couldn’t be supported by the Pope.
  - ArchStanton 5y ago
    To be fair, US Catholics appear to have roughly the same birthrate as US Evangelical Protestants, although that might change as Catholic demographics shift to Latino. What we (the world) will be awash in is Moslems and sub Saharan Africans unless those curves get bent via behavior changes, resource depletion, or war. I can't say that the Pope is much involved in that situation.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      > I can't say that the Pope is much involved in that situation Like the 15% of (mostly-sub Saharan) Africa that identifies as Catholic? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Africa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Africa

legutierr 5y ago

> That’s a very cynical statement. Goes to show why both sides will never meet in the middle of the road with thinking that way. I really meant only to reflect the reality that by voting for a Republican you are voting for someone who will use their power to prevent climate change reform. Is this actually controversial at all? I'd like to see the counterexample. Sure, some voters may have other things in mind when they vote Republican (for instance, taxes, or abortion) but the end effect of that vote is that if the person they vote for is elected, reforms to prevent or slow climate change will be less likely to be implemented. Do you disagree with this as a factual matter? > Voting republicans doesn’t mean I am against climate change reforms. The issue at hand is how practically we deal with it and reduce demands on fossil fuel and transition to clean energy. I am incredulous that you actually believe that today there is any kind of Republican plan to "reduce demands on fossil fuel and transition to clean energy" that has any chance of doing anything in any way to prevent the worst outcomes of climate change. Even if there were such a plan proposed by a small clique of Republican politicians, it would never be implemented by any Republican-controlled legislature or executive because, as a whole, the party still sees fossil fuel energy as a moral good (see: rolling coal), rejects pollution regulation (dismantling it at every opportunity), and dismisses climate change science as a fiction promulgated by their political enemies in order to further a diabolical agenda. Even if you can assuage your own guilt by telling yourself that the individual politician you are voting for supports some kind of "Republican climate change plan", your vote for that politician will make any reform less likely to be implemented than if you had voted for their opponent. As a factual matter, no Republican-controlled legislature will ever enact climate change reforms into law, and no Republican executive will ever implement any climate change plan—not even a Republican-authored plan—within the next 10 years, unless we see a sea change in sentiment broadly within the party. > Goes to show why both sides will never meet in the middle of the road with thinking that way. If there was a reasonable prospect of a "middle of the road" plan to slow climate change that the Republican party would actually support—meaning, would actually help push through Congress—then the Biden administration and the current Congress would pass it in a minute and immediately begin implementing it. The reason that this is not happening is because there is no plan whatsoever that the Republican party will put any support behind. I wish there was such a plan.