The World Health Organization has released the latest global report on air pollution and it is highly disturbing. Nine out of 10 people worldwide now live in places where air pollution exceeds health standards and face higher risk of heart disease, strokes and cancer.
Even more chilling is the estimate that three million deaths a year are linked to exposure to outdoor air pollution. Roughly 90 percent of these deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries.
As we have discussed before, pollution costs are often treated as abstractions and few people see the many studies showing that millions die from pollution each year. Most people do not associate their health problems, including common problems like asthma and heat disease with pollution. However, the costs are real . . . and personal.
If renewable energy is affordable, why do my energy costs go up with every state mandated increase in the percentage of renewables in my utility’s portfolio? Why are they subsidized?
From this UK article:
“Politicians everywhere are guilty of not simply setting targets but also mandating how they must be achieved, rather than allowing others to meet them in the most efficient and economic way. Support for renewable energy has become the default position, whatever its weaknesses. The assumption is made that this is the only way forward, and that continuing large subsidies will pay dividends at some unspecified time in the future. But wishful thinking is no substitute for objectivity, and voters will not thank governments which push up bills unnecessarily.”
“If these figures are realistic, wind energy becomes the highest cost option and certainly cannot be justified as a way of reducing future energy bills.
With looming gaps in generating capacity in some of the EU’s major economies, governments have to act now to provide a secure future. Currently, simply installing more wind turbines and solar panels would seem to be the worst of all worlds; costly, inefficient and with a decreasing marginal rate of emissions reduction. The time is ripe for a major political party to realise this and make it an electoral issue.”
http://www.scientific-alliance.org/scientific-alliance-newsletter/renewable-energy-affordable
The claim that renewables are currently affordable is entirely incorrect. I do believe that they will be one day, but there is a lot of work still to be done. We have to be able to afford to heat and cool our homes. Affordability is the most important aspect of renewables, and ignoring this aspect puts the entire portfolio in jeopardy. Because people can read their bills. They notice them going up, especially when the increase in renewables is specifically cited as the cause.
Do not make such a mistake as to deflate support for clean renewables by ignoring this vital aspect of their development or claim the goal has been met already.
First of all Karen, you are cherry picking. The UK as well as the rest of Europe-except of course Norway-pays three to four times+ for gasoline and natural gas than what Americans pay. All energy costs are extremely high except for electricity which is subsidized by the government or-as in the case of France-cheaply produced through nuclear power(75%). The taxes on fossil fuels are used to develop alternative energy sources. These won’t be developed in the private sector without government assistance.
The success of this partnership can be seen in Denmark and Germany. Denmark exports 40% of the world’s heavy wind turbines. Countries from all around the world are importing and using them successfully. The history of the inefficiency of wind turbines and solar panels is primarily one from the early editions of these products. Twenty-five years ago the power obtained from a wind turbine barely passed one megawatt. Now similar towers support turbines that produce five to ten times that. Like the electric car there comes a point where technology makes it worthwhile. Toyota spent over $7k more to build a Prius than it costs to buy in the early years. Now they are a highly profitable product. The technology acquired in the early stages of the development of a new idea only improves if the product is developed.
Alternative energy is also highly cost effective in certain areas of the world where transporting in fossil fuel or laying power lines would be prohibitively expensive. China is developing wind farms in northern regions which save on the infrastructure costs of expanding their grid to those regions. A combination of fossil fuels and alternative energy reduces green house gasses. Fossil fuels alone increases green house gasses. That’s not that difficult to understand.
China is now exporting heavy wind turbine to the US and other countries. Wind farms with hundreds of $10mil turbines are being built in Texas by Chinese developers, using Chinese banks, and US government incentives. When the good ole Texan pays his electric bill, after the costs are paid, the profits go to China. What is ironic is the good ole Texan is a Republican that doesn’t believe in global warming or the need to switch from fossil fuels to alternative energy. The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank, their bank. The joke is on us; alternative energy is the next big thing, a revolution many times greater than the tech revolution, and the US is missing out on it due to fossil fuel oligarch puppet masters and ignorance. The US economy was going down the tubes, as shown with Reaganomics and that mumbo jumbo. The tech industry revitalized the US economy. So, we have already lived through an example of what can happen and yet are blindly arguing about subsidies, incentives, and other nonsense. The fossil fuel industry is more subsidized than the alternative energy industry. The only money to be made from fossil fuels is at the top. A vibrant wind, solar, geothermal, and ? alternative energy industry would provide-and does in other countries-higher paying jobs for millions of Americans. But, the Republican talks about more jobs of minimum wage and fights to keep minimum wage low. Sometimes you simply can only laugh. I had a good laugh Monday night. Then I read how Trump is just about equal with Clinton and stopped laughing-scary that so many Americans are that responsive to that buffoon.
Clinton has a post debate bump of about four points. We cannot afford to have a climate change denier like Trump as president and neither can the earth.
Isaac – there is some really interesting advances in wind turbines which completely abandon the rotating blade design entirely. Since wind energy is unpredictable, there is indeed additional cost and logistical problems in bleeding in other energy sources.
I am more interested in these blameless designs, as it would solve my problem with air chop and the destruction of bird and bat populations.
Chinese made solar panels often contain toxic chemicals, and are poorly made, as everything else seems to be that is made in China. Sadly, the days of beautifully made high quality Chinese goods seems to be gone. I do not know anything about the quality of their wind turbines. But you are correct that China is buying up quite a bit of our real estate, and setting up more business here. Such is the tragedy of the global marketplace. I do have a problem with it.
Alternative energy may be more cost effective in areas where gasoline is $15/gallon, but it would still be more expensive here for people on limited incomes trying to keep the lights on. Please understand the human element behind higher energy prices. Plus, I have been gravely concerned about the increase in the use of wood burning stoves and pellet stoves as clean energy increases our heating costs.
My point is that I emphasis the importance of making clean renewables self supporting without subsidies and affordable. It’s really key to its success, and I do want clean energy to succeed. After all, we all need cleaner air, and fossil fuels are by definition finite. I have always been cautious about jumping the gun when tech is in the beta phase. We must ensure it’s ready to scale up so we don’t waste money and effort on something that needs to be replaced in a few short years.
Karen
Making clean renewables self supporting is being achieved when done in countries without the cheap fossil fuels available in the US, Canada, and other countries. The issue of climate and the advancement of technology together are enough reason to continue. You support this with your comments of more advanced wind turbine technology. One thing is for sure; if the advanced countries can put men on the moon, develop private space agencies, and all the rest, then they can develop affordable and viable clean energy. It doesn’t come without public investment and it is dragged back by the status quo and ignorance.
What Turley does not mention is that they’re at ‘higher risk of strokes and cancer’ because the salience of death from infectious disease has declined so.
In the end it is not so much about what is affordable. Renewable energy has already proven itself to be affordable. It is more about the status quo and the status quo controls the grids, energy distribution, and the politicians. It is a question of our oligarchy and our oligarchs or puppet masters.
Fossil fuels are finite. Regardless of their economy or environmental impact, they will run out one day. And we must be ready and able to replace them before a crisis.
peltonrandy – it is a misconception that conservatives are uninterested in renewables. We just want to be able to afford them. Right now it is a money pit, and a great many companies have gone bust dragging taxpayer investment along with them. We also commonly get notices that our energy costs are increasing because of the requirement to include more renewables. On the one side, there is the opinion that conservatives are only interested in fossil fuels. On the other, there is the opinion that Liberals don’t care how much they cost or who could afford to heat their homes. Both may be misunderstandings.
If clean renewables were affordable without subsidies, then obviously fiscal conservatives would support it. Don’t confuse conservatives with oil PACs. We want jobs, energy we can afford, self reliance without supporting terrorist nations, and clean air. And we need to ensure that the technology is past the beta phase, with all the kinks ironed out, before we scale up. There is too much emotion in energy policy. We need to focus on results. Cleaning up our environment AND ensuring it is affordable are both key.
Clean renewables got a bad reputation for government playing capital investors in companies that go broke, as well as one of the drivers for spiraling energy costs. Plus subsidies for solar panels had the unfortunate effect of actually driving prices up. Once companies knew that customers were guaranteed to pay the minimum price (the amount of the subsidy), they increased the price accordingly to make the customer pay extra. Subsidies can have that effect, unfortunately. Plus a lot of panels are made overseas and create a lot of toxic waste in the country of manufacture.
People care very much about their jobs. It’s how they feed their families and survive. So obviously the energy industry employs a great many people. So far, federal programs that train people in renewable energy have been a big time and money waster. BUT, if a great new, self supporting, financially secure, non-subsidized clean renewable energy industry rises, fiscal conservatives would support it.
The only think I can think of to speed the process up is through grants in research. Merely requiring more renewables leads to higher energy costs. We also need to drive research into efficiency. I was surprised to learn about new advances in nuclear technology, an avenue I’ve had zero interest in pursuing before. There are new advances where the plants can essentially consume their own waste. If that’s true, and containment/contamination is solid, it could prove fruitful.
As long as we continue to have moral wrestling matches over who cares more about the environment or who is able to perform basic algebra and cares about poor and middle class families keeping the lights on, we’ll never get anywhere. I’d rather wrestle with the meat of the problem – affordability, reduction in pollution, renewability, AND domestic jobs. Really, what’s not to like if you solve those issues? Find out what the other side needs to support it and solve that problem, rather than ignore them and shove it down their throats over their objections.
peltonrandy:
Yes, I know, it’s lovely to say clean renewable or bust. But it’s a net negative if energy becomes so expensive that people cut down trees and burn dried dung to heat their homes again.
And it’s already happening. I get lots of advertisements for pellet stoves to combat the rising cost of energy.
Energy has to be clean, renewable, AND cheap without subsidies or we’ll end up a net environmental negative. The actual improvement to the environment is more important than feeling good about an issue. We’re making great strides in cleaning up our energy portfolio. Give us some credit. But jumping into technology while it’s in the beta stage would be disastrous.
Case in point – we’ve carpeted vast amounts of land with wind turbines that decimate birds and bats, and are so noisy they drive wildlife away. Now they are coming up with technology that solves those problems. Oops. Too bad they didn’t wait just a little bit until the technology was ready to go large scale.
Karen, I never said “clean energy or bust.” But I also don’t agree with the view that seems to be common among conservatives that continued reliance on fossil fuels is what is best for us. We need to invest in energy sources and technology that will gradually transition us from fossil fuels. This is happening already. I simply think we need to speed this process up somewhat. The sooner we ween ourselves from fossil fuels the better for us all. That said, I am not advocating for a sudden switch. Just that we should have an energy plan that moves us in the direction of clean energy as the goal, and do so at a pace somewhat faster than at present.
Wind and solar are not at this time cost-effective substitutes for oil and coal. Techological developments might make them so, as might enhanced production costs for oil and coal as you dig deeper. It hasn’t happened yet. BO though Steven Chu would make a boffo venture capitalist and at one time the Department of Energy had a loan portfolio worth $50 bn. That’s not what civil government is for.
I do not agree with your statement that civil government has no financial role to play in developing a technology and/or industry. I have no problem with government investment in such efforts provided there is a clearly stated objective aimed at promoting the general welfare and there is strong oversight to ensure efficient and effective achievement of the stated objectives. I think that government investment in clean renewable energy sources is one such area.
I like the grant approach and similar avenues. On the other hand, I do not think it is fair when government plays venture capitalist, and picks and chooses among business which ones to support, often in exchange for political donations.
Level the playing field and don’t play favorites among, for example, solar power companies. Make the research money equally available to promote competition and collaboration.
What frustrates me is that all the money and glory go to Anthropogenic Global Warming.
How much money and interest are left over to combat that massive island of plastic in the Pacific? The contamination of our fresh and saltwater? The toxic sludge spewed out by countries meeting the intense demands for goods for the First World? The destruction and contamination of our vegetation, which is our oxygen factory and pollutant filter? If we ever manage to kill off the marine algae we are over.
Not much.
It’s like everyone has Tourette’s about carbon. Who cares about the acidic contaminants that peel the paint from cars and cause asthma? What’s our carbon footprint?
Sure, we want to keep our gaseous profile compatible with mammalian life. But we have to make our world livable for us, today. Combat air and water pollution and the de-vegetation of our planet today.
We agree on something I think.
Let’s fix it all. Let’s clean up the oceans, clean up the air, clean up the land. Let’s rebuild our water and sewerage treatment plants. Let’s stop poisoning each other.
Maybe if we could stop investing 59% of our spending on weapons and blowing sh*t up, we would have something left to spend on cleaning up after ourselves so our kids and grand-kids have a livable world.
Yeah! And maybe we could stop paying people to have illegitimate kids, and encourage them to be responsible and get married first! Then, we could stop making excuses for black kids who take up time and resources in school, and not paying attention! Because we waste about $6,000 per year on black kids, for maybe 12 years, which is $72,000 each, and all they want to do is smoke dope and act like gangstas! Then, we have to pay again to store them in a Historically Black Correctional Institute, like at least $25,000 per year because they have killed somebody, or robbed them, or beat them up. Then, we could start executing the really bad ones, and we could save a bunch of money! And then on drugs! We could stop wasting money on treating addicts, and just stick them in a concentration camp, (without ovens), where they could be kept from drugs, but would have to grow their own food, and make their own clothes, for 5 or 10 years until they were clean. Plus we could stop importing millions of unemployed unskilled workers from other countries like Mexico!
Oh boy! You are sooo right! Saving money is fun! I think I am going to buy a new pair of boots for winter with a small part of my share of the money I just saved! Or maybe just the 6 Chord Paul Simon song book???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Good god girl. You are a broken record. Give it a rest. The amount of money we spend on food stamps and public assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend on the military and what we give away in corporate welfare.
One of these days I know you’re going to share your wonderful plan to fix it all. I’m sure it’s beautiful and kind and compassionate and that it will really really really work.
Uh, if a social plan is beautiful, kind, and compassionate, it usually can not work. That is just the facts of life on Planet Earth. “Not Feeding” the bears is hardly beautiful, kind, and compassionate, in one sense.
Be good, and maybe one day I will tell you about my strange, but brilliant, Uncle, who had an epiphany that America was doomed in like 1965ish, when he was kid, and he watched the TV Show, “Lost in Space.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Oh, and plus: Conceptually, how do you personally calculate the cost of welfare and public assistance? I am sure you include Food Stamps, TANF, Medicaid, and HUD Vouchers. Do you also add in “crazy checks”? Do you add in an amount for police costs, unemployment benefits for under-skilled workers who screwed around in school, prison and jail costs for the results of the welfare policies? How do you measure the movement of a factory to Mexico, because the workers here eschew the wages in favor of benefits? Do you add in for the medical costs of Trauma Centers to take care of the GSW victims? Or the public defenders to defend the overwhelming number of criminals?
I could go on and on, but that is how I would figure the costs. How do you figure them?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Do you also add in “crazy checks”? Do you add in an amount for police costs, unemployment benefits for under-skilled workers who screwed around in school, prison and jail costs for the results of the welfare policies?
That’s a particular obsession of yours, but it’s not contextually of much consequence. ‘Police costs’ are not a welfare benefit’ Unemployment benefits are temporary and require the beneficiary meet certain criteria. A worker’s skill level does not make him more or less deserving of unemployment compensation (which is, in any case, earnings-related). Prisons are not a welfare benefit either, except to the extent that convicts are fed, housed, &c. Welfare benefits consist of cash, subsidies, and sundry private goods one might purchase on the market. Police and prisons are not a purchasable service (though security services operating in the context of police and prisons may be) and they’re not concerned with the real income of any segment of the population. Their business is order maintenance.
he amount of money we spend on food stamps and public assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend on the military and what we give away in corporate welfare.
No it isn’t. Currently, military expenditure is around 4% of domestic product. SNAP cards amount to an expenditure of about 20% of that, not ‘a tiny fraction’. The major welfare programs are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which collectively exceed the military budget at this time.
As for ‘corporate welfare’, there is no such thing, really. The closest you get to it would be tax preferences, but what they do is benefit one industry’s stakeholders contra another industry’s stakeholders. (Usually real estate and extractive industries get the benefits). There are regulatory perversities which allow rent-extraction by certain parties. As for direct expenditure, the main beneficiaries would be agriculture and rental housing, but these are not sectors dominated by publicly traded corporations. Proprietorships, partnerships, and limited corporations are the order of the day.
Again, TANF rolls are 1/3 the size of AFDC rolls and only encompass 1.3% of the population. That’s not a driver of family structure. It implicates too few people.
A misbehaving black kid does not have some magic property which renders misbehavior by anyone else inconsequential.
Maybe if we could stop investing 59% of our spending on weapons and blowing sh*t up,
I cannot figure whether you’re being mendacious, ignorant, innumerate, or you’re quoting people who are one of these things. No clue where you got the idea that 59% of capital investment is in munitions and aerospace.
Karen
There’s tons of money to clean this mess up. A small tax on the plastic that ends up in the ocean will fund the clean up. That way the people who make the mess pay to clean it up. It’s called a crap tax and it could be the single most effective way to clean up this mess. The only thing standing in its way are the billions of humans that won’t support paying twenty percent more for their garbage. A twenty percent tax on beer, soda pop, and ding dongs would clean up the mess, reduce obesity to some degree, and subsidize vegetables. But that’s not freedom as it is seen by those with their heads up their…..
Why don’t we send cleanup barges to go scoop it up? Put nations on some kind of rotation? Would the tax go toward a dedicated vessel? Have we made advances yet in recycling and destruction of plastics to address the toxic fumes? How can we reduce the amount of plastic that gets into our oceans? Is it getting dumped directly, falling off of garbage trucks, or washing down storm drains?
As a fiscal conservative, before I add yet another tax that will most likely impact the poor the most, I would first want to see if we could finance cleanup operations through pulling money away from waste, such as that infamous study where we actually paid a significant amount of money to teach prostitutes in China about safe sex. We can always raise taxes is, and will always be, my last line of attack for a problem. All other avenues must be exhausted before I will put my hand out for every man, woman, and child to pay more.
I actually disagree with you on sin taxes actually modifying behavior. So far, that has not been found to be true. Currently, the poor eat the least healthy diet, smoke more, drink more, and basically shoulder the brunt of sin taxes.
Rather than the stick approach, I prefer the carrot. Community gardens, free gardening classes, food stamps accepted at farmers market, reducing corn subsidies which is what makes processed food so cheap. I personally financially struggled many years ago when I first got out of college. I ate Mac N Cheese and Top Ramen so often, I refuse to eat it again…ever. If I had it to do over again now, I would have known how to eat more whole organic foods on a budget, but I had no idea how at the time. Plus, culturally, our American diet and lack of physical exercise is detrimental to our health. We emphasize grain, salt, sugar, processed convenience foods, and we don’t get out much.
Regardless, we have GOT to do something about all of our plastic waste. It is an environmental nightmare, an eyesore, and it’s decimating wildlife. For some reason, many species of birds preferentially eat shiny plastic over their natural diet. It’s like a scene out of the Lorax.
What do I think of the WHO (not the band! a secret group of worldwide gangsters accountable to no one)?
Watch “The Cassandra Crossing”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cassandra_Crossing / http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074292/IMDb)
You’ll think twice about giving globalists control of your life.
(and, pulelze … I know it’s a fictional drama. Or, is it … ?)
I read this somewhere today, I forget where. Humanity is going to split into Tall Republican-Types and Short-Democratic Types:
You are already seeing this split. Democrats will just have sex with anybody, of any of the 57 genders. They have lost the ability to reason, and just sort of grunt out name-calling as their chief form of argument. They love to charge people with “body-shaming.” Black Democrats, of course, are already reproducing willy-nilly, have devolved in mindless violence, have little impulse control, and can barely speak intelligible English.
I just hope us smart Eloi can hang on to our guns! And maybe protect the less intelligent Eloi Tribes, who tend to live in Blue States.
🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Except it is the dull and dimwitted Americans that are supporting Trump and they are predominantly Republican. With their heads up their a**e* and a single focus on the past, there will be a race of short and rounded sorts; but it won’t be the Democrats. Anyone watching the debate Monday evening can see that.
You’re writing from a country which put lapsed drama teacher / serial grad-school drop out Justin Trudeau in the prime minister’s chair. No Canadian is in a position to call any sentient being “dull” or ‘dimwitted’
I am writing from a country that put W in the White House, twice. You have nothing to say. You should be ashamed, if not embarrassed. Trudeau has been applauded thus far throughout the world. He hasn’t had the time to really make any big good moves or any big bad moves. You are also writing from a country where half the population thinks Trump is the better choice. Really now!!!
I wonder why people are living longer. I have spent in excess of 80 years on this polluted planet.
You seriously don’t know why? Seems to me you’ve not been paying much attention during those 80 years. Your longer life is due to medical advances that have eliminated or substantially reduced most of the diseases that use to shorten life. But don’t think that this will continue if we continue to pollute the environment at the rate at which we have been doing so. At some point, if unchecked, pollution will counter some of those advances that have led to longer lifespans. For those people in parts of the world that live in much more polluted environments than we do in the United States and other industrialized nations, just think how much longer their lifespans would be if their environment were not polluted. Imagine how much your lifespan would have been shortened if we had no environmental regulations. Pollution here would likely be as bad as it is in countries where a larger share of the population dies because of the impact of pollution, where there are much more lax environmental regulations, or such regulations are essentially non-existent. You’ve lived 80 years in the cushier industrialized country in which you live in part because of environmental regulations.
Medical advances might account for reduced old-age mortality. That’s a phenomenon of the last 40 years. The important driver of improvements in life expectancy prior to 1970 was improved nutrition and public health.
The man’s point is valid. While we’re at it, urban air is a good deal cleaner than it was when my mother was a child.
And why is it that urban air is cleaner than it was when your mother was a child?
I’m not sure that you and I interpreted the man’s remark the same. What do you think was his point? It seemed to me that he was implying that we don’t need environmental regulations to address pollution, since he has lived 80 years. But as I said, without environmental laws and regulations there likely would be a greater incidence of people experiencing the health problems discussed in the WHO report, and there likely would be many more deaths due to pollution in the U.S. and other industrialized nations, just as in the countries reported in the WHO report.
And why is it that urban air is cleaner than it was when your mother was a child?
1. Coal is used in power plants, not residences.
2. As people grow more affluent, they consume more in the way of ‘superior goods’. Amenities like clean air grow important when other elements of subsistence are satisfied. You started to see local regulations aimed at reducing air pollution as early as the 1940s.
3. The country’s industrial mix has changed. Heavy industry is of less contextual importance and uses different processes.
It seemed to me that he was implying that we don’t need environmental regulations to address pollution, since he has lived 80 years. But as I said, without environmental laws and regulations
OK, you have reading comprehension issues.
Command-and-control regulations are one policy tool. The name of the game is to make some externalities costs internal to a producing firm. There are three or four ways of doing that.
One way of doing this is to tax the producing firm to cover the cost of those externalities. What are the other methods to which you allude?
As for the reading comprehension insult, I am always amused when someone assesses another person with reading comprehension issues from the armchair position and from a distance and most often without any actual training in diagnosing reading comprehension issues. And doing so from a single data point. From what University did you say you received your degree in evaluating reading comprehension skills?
OK. So 9 of 10 live in China and India. What does this tell us?
It always cracks me up that “Conservatives” don’t care about conserving the planet.
It always cracks me up that liberals don’t want others to have the same cheap energy that they benefited from.
It cracks me up that folks of your mindset want cheap energy and don’t give a damn about the damage done to the environment or the health of other people, just so long as you can have what you want. How very selfish of you. By the way, like most other products or resources, as the technology improves prices come down. So yes, renewable energy sources cost more now but as the technology improves and use of it increases, prices will come down. Then we can have cheap energy and a healthier lifestyle.
“Cheap energy” isn’t damaging anyone’s health.
It’s vaguely amusing that nearly all liberals are (1) highly opinionated, (2) sneer at others reflexively, but (3) seldom know much. Urban development consumes little land area – maybe 4% of the land area of the U.S. would consist of dense urban settlement. You’re referring to waste processing. The thing is, addressing any injury to people from certain sorts of waste processing has costs, and those costs have to be weighed against other costs which are to be had from alternative courses of action. “Conservatives” understand that there are trade-offs in this life. It’s the other side which does not.
Heat disease?
This illustrates one of the shortcomings of the Kyoto Treaty. It provided opportunity for developing nations to underperform on environmental protections under the auspices of much needed economic development. As a result of this and other issues the ones who suffered the most were those very people residing in those nations. Many forms of pollution are not benign, and those eventually become everyone’s problem.
Daren
Anybody can poke holes in any effort made. The sacrilege is not making and effort, using the argument that it has holes in it. Nothing, and that means nothing, has come about the first time in perfection. The Kyoto Treaty is one of many that, hopefully, will be amended, tweaked, changed, and made into another link between humanity and common sense. You are better than this lame whine.
Darren – have you read the details of the Paris Accord? A handful of developed nations, like the US, are obligated to contribute into the Green Climate Fund $100 billion annually in perpetuity. The money is supposed to help developing countries adapt to climate change, which is a euphemism for a slush fund for Third World Dictators. When you go to the Green Climate Fund site, it discloses that recipient countries are supposed to self report whether they meet the goals of conduct for human rights and environmental impact. Indigenous people are not reported. Concerned citizens are encouraged to fill out a complaint form, which would be turned in to the self reporting countries. Plus, this treaty completely circumvented Congress, illegally, because Obama felt they were not qualified to make decisions regarding the environment.
I wonder if ISIS would qualify to receive some of these funds under the guise of adapting to climate change? How many dictators in aviator glasses and berets are going to get armed with this money? Corruption is common in many of the recipient countries. Does “but we must do something” excuse doing the wrong thing and perhaps causing harm? Personally, I would prefer our having control on how we spend our own money to improve the environment or help other countries, rather than dutifully plunking down billions of dollars into a slush fund to be spend God knows how, which will go on forever.
But, again, oppose the Paris Accord and you are a stupid/racist/bigot/environment hater/blah blah blah.
Anthropogenic Climate Change has become a massive political slush fund, with very little to show for the expenditure besides higher taxes. We’ve shown impenetrable stupidity in handling the money involved or requiring actual improvement.
A handful of developed nations, like the US, are obligated to contribute into the Green Climate Fund $100 billion annually in perpetuity.
Last I checked (about a half-dozen years ago), the total US foreign aid budget was about $34 billion, of which about 1/3 consisted of ‘security assistance’, i.e. military equipment. About 40% of the West’s gdp is produced here, so I don’t think the green grifters are going to see any $100 bn checks anytime soon.
I did not word my comment well. The US is not obligated to pay $100 billion; they are obligated to be one of a handful of countries which must come up with $100 billion total in aggregate. Other less developed countries are encouraged to chip in, but it’s not obligatory.
Defeated by grammar.
Don’t worry JT, most people killed by environmental pollution are poor or nonwhite so it doesn’t matter.
I hope this was your idea of a joke.
Turn up your snark-O-meter a little bit. Of course it was snark! Not sure why Professor Turley was brought into it though.
Reblogged this on Matthews' Blog.
Sorry about not spelling voila correctly. I couldn’t see the keyboard because of the smog here in Beijing. I may be dyslexic. Dyslexics Untie!
I like Viola; it’s catchy.
Dyslexics Untie! Where can I sign up?
It would be nice to have an edit feature though. Even one that expired after say three minutes or so would give us Dreadfuls (or what ever Hillary calls people who think she’s beyond compromise) a chance to appear semi civilized.
That said, 1) we should be immensely grateful that the comment utility isn’t Discus (captures/stores forever/sells every word you say) and 2) that they recently added the nesting feature. Progress!
Now go and play the pinano.
This is not a problem, Pollution is its own solution. Pollution will kill people off, which will decrease manufacturing as there is less demand for manufactured goods. Which will reduce pollution. Viola! Problem solved!
haha. but, that’s going to take too long 😛
No it won’t. It will happen faster than the wall on our southern border is built!
Paul and Donald will tell you that this is all stuff made up by the Chinese to take over the world. Yup.
issac – WHO is part of a globalization effort.
Well, Paul, I see you’ve jettisoned critical thinking in favor of conspiracy thinking.
peltonrandy – that’s just a fact, Jack!
No, that’s just an unsupported opinion. You have not even begun to establish that it is a fact. Are you even familiar with the basics of argumentation and supporting a claim with an evidence-based argument? For how long have you been operating on the unfounded belief that something is a fact merely because you say so?
peltonrandy – if you do not think it is a fact, then prove it is not a fact. If not, a fact is a fact.
Again you reveal your lack of understanding of argumentation. The burden to prove a claim is on the person who makes the claim. You claimed that the WHO is part of a globalization effort (whatever that means). It is your burden to provide the evidence for the claim. A person who questions a claim made by another is not obligated to disprove the claim. Your demand that I disprove your claim is actually a logical fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof). If you think otherwise then you really do need to enroll in a course on logic and the rules of argumentation at a local university. At the very least you need to read up on argumentation at a credible online resource. Here is one to start you off: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof.
peltonrandy – the mere fact that you would want me to prove a fact that is common knowledge shows you are totally out of the loop.
Claiming that it is common knowledge is a very weak attempt at simply dodging your obligation to provide an argument supporting your claim. In fact, claiming that it is common knowledge is a claim that requires support. But let’s assume for the moment that I am out of the loop. What is the problem with you cluing me in. If it is in fact a common knowledge fact then it should be easy for you to demonstrate this to me with an argument containing evidence and/or sources which I can check. Your seeming unwillingness to defend your claim with an argument is almost a sure indication that you haven’t an actual argument, that your claim is just an opinion you made up because it fits nicely into whatever false conspiracy narrative you have concocted to match your prejudices or chosen dogma.
peltonrandy – all you have to do is be well-read.
Paul – You’re doing it again. Ignoring your obligation to provide an argument in defense of your claim. But we’ll put that aside for the moment. If I am not well-read as you are apparently implying, then here is your opportunity to correct this alleged deficiency. What do you suggest I read? What books or other sources do you recommend? What have you read that led you to the conclusion that the WHO is part of some organized globalization effort? If you are as well-read as you are implying then this should be a very easy task for you. But I hold out little hope that you’ll do so. I think it more likely you will just find another way to rationalize your failure to provide the argument and evidence that has been required of you from the outset of this conversation. As a former science educator – now retired – I find it humorous the lengths to which you are going here to avoid the opportunity to educate another person. Perhaps I have you confused with someone else here, but did you not in some earlier comment here or on another thread indicate that you were once a teacher? If so,why do you not take the opportunity to educate someone whom you keep claiming is uninformed but continually make no effort to actually inform. And if you are not a former or current teacher, it still makes no sense that you continue to refuse to defend your claim and possibly educate another person in the process.
Paul
There’s one living just down the street from you. They moved in while you were out of town and exchanged the insides but kept the bodies the same. You really can’t tell unless you get close and engage in an intelligent conversation. Then the tell tale signs appear: freedom with responsibility, common sense and not emotional knee jerk responses, balance between the society that protects the individual and the rights of the individual, etc. It takes some scrutiny but any fool off the street with an IQ of 100 and up should be able to recognize one of these, well we call them Globuals.
issac – your examples make me wonder just WHO is paying you?
150
not a chance
Frankly, I would not believe anything they published. They are hacks.