For those of us worried about climate change and the Administration’s environmental policies, there is a disheartening poll this month about the disconnect between environmental aspirations and the willingness to sacrifice to achieve the needed progress. An AP-NORC survey found that 68% of Americans wouldn’t be willing to pay even $10 more a month in higher electric bills to combat climate change. It reflects the calculus of President Donald Trump that voters still prioritize jobs and financial concerns over countervailing environmental values.
There are a host of polls showing both Democratic and Republican voters alike want action on climate change. Indeed, many climate change skeptics in Congress now support action. A recent poll showed the number of people alarmed over climate change has doubled in the last five years.
However, the political profile changes when these abstract goals are placed against even a small concrete sacrifice.
The result may be the framing of the question as a direct payment. The same voters are likely to support a large revenue commitment by the government or changes in policies on fossil fuels. That should not be the case of course but the framing of such questions is critical to the results. The fact is that proposals like the Green New Deal would necessarily cause rising costs since about 80% of all the energy in the United States comes from fossil fuels. However, the request for $120 more a year in utility bills is obviously a conversation stopper for many voters. There is also the added element of asking people to give more money to the utilities, which are generally viewed with some suspicion, if not open hostility.
The “Yellow Vest” protests in France are indicative of this problem. The effort to add a fuel tax to combat climate change sent Paris into a virtual shutdown. Green taxes are an obvious way to impact consumption while raising revenue. However, Western European countries are seeing a backlash even though their populations are viewed as the most educated and motivated on the issue.
When I speak on college campuses, I see this phenomenon first hand and use it to illustrate the problem with advocating for civil liberties. I ask students how many would sell me their free speech rights for $200,000. I used to say $2 million but that tended itself to be a bit too abstract. A sum of $200,000 is easy for students to put into real perspective. It is their student loans plus a downpayment on a house or car. Often the majority will raise their hands because free speech is largely an abstraction while $200,000 is not. They simply cannot remember when they really used their free speech rights. It is not that they do not value free speech. Yet, it remains an abstraction placed against a real value.
The same may be true in this poll, or at least I hope so.
We can’t get them to fix the illegal immigration issue that is here and now but give them an extra $10 a month on something most question. Oh and let’s make sure the Demsocialist party handles the money.
I would be reluctant to pay an extra $10/month to fight ‘climate change’.
I’d rather keep that $120/household/year to make the most environmentally-friendly choices I can. Pasture-raised eggs aren’t cheap, and neither is anything else that might be good for the soil, water, and air–and my own health.
I also do not have confidence that it would be well spent. What would it be spent on? Research? What kind of research, and, what strings would be attached? Would it be spent on protecting wetlands or rebuilding wetlands? Subsidizing organic and/or grass-fed/pasture-raised food production? Would it go to helping communities be more bicyclist or pedestrian-friendly? Would it be sent to Africa to help stop the desertification of the savannah? (Yikes, I certainly do NOT trust the governments there to spend money wisely. Too much corruption.)
How would this money affect overseas pollution–could it even? Much of our pollution has been shipped to China, which, as far as I can tell, has lousy environmental protections and we cannot change any of it besides voting with our wallets by not buying from there (which is really, really difficult).
I also do not think the problem is understood much at all. I do not think anyone really sufficiently understands the systems involved in the weather/climate. All I hear is ‘carbon emissions’. Yet, soil bacteria is heavily involved in carbon sequestration–but what else is part of the systems involved? The interconnecting elements are not discussed in any cogent manner that I have heard. And, the proposed solutions as far as I have heard do not address much beyond ‘carbon emissions’ and industry/automobiles (including the document from the Energy Policy Institute linked in the above article).
Pollutants (chemicals, leaching from plastics) are definitely causing problems in the oceans and waterways, what about their effect on the soil? Will large agrichemical companies have to amend their ways? What about CAFOs and the grain-fed beef production? What about the effects of fertilizer-runoff into waterways and eventually the Gulf of Mexico? What will encourage farmers to use cover crops to decrease the runoff (etc)? Will we shut down importing beef from Australia or strawberries in the middle of winter from Chile? Would we stop manufacturing plastic bags of various kinds? Plastic in general? Should milk only come in paper cartons or glass?
The whole carbon emissions issue strikes me as telling a sick, obese smoker to stop smoking when there are a host of other underlying issues at play in their health–stress, poor diet, poor absorption, disrupted gut microbiome, etc.
When you hear “carbon emissions” your skepticism alarm should go off. No one emits carbon. “Carbon emissions” is a marketing term to make it sound worse. Ask yourself, why do they push the word carbon and not the words carbon dioxide?
You’re free to pretend that on one has already answered your question. However, anyone who bothers to reads this blog will clearly and distinctly see that your question has already been answered at least twice, already.
I’ve re-read my posts and I’m not really sure what question you think I asked or got answered. I posed a somewhat rhetorical question, “Ask yourself, why do they push the word carbon and not the words carbon dioxide?” That’s about it though.
Jim22,
I am skeptical of much of this particular branch of science. I’m not convinced carbon dioxide is the major culprit. It could be, but most of the media/articles about it are too hysterical. Too much carbon dioxide in the body cause acidification and can make a person very sick. The same could be the case for the wider world. Maybe cars are one element, but there are so many other variables that have changed in the past 100 years. What are all the variables? How are they interconnected?
Rushing in to ‘fix’ something that is so fraught politically and is poorly understood due to its complexity is unwise. There is little to no real, thoughtful conversation on this matter.
True enough and glad to hear that you have a grounded approach to your thoughts. What I have always found disturbing about the environmental movement is how they blew it tactically. To me the missed opportunity is to show the free market how there is a value to some of the emissions that say a plant produces. CO2 is pure has process value and if can be captured in an efficient way, can be an asset. Both sides would win from this type of thinking. But usually the environmental movement only seems to work on threats and or fear which causes people/companies to recoil.
Interesting that you bring up the variables too. I worked with CFD models for combustion systems and I can tell you that although the models help aid the design, a good engineer would never rely on the results of that model. There are too many variables even in a closed design let alone something like the Earth
Jim22,
“CO2 is pure has process value and if can be captured in an efficient way, can be an asset.”
I just read an interesting paper about a process in the soil in which the microbiome transforms CO2 into oxygen and the carbon is reformulated, so to speak, into the carbon aspect of the soil. It needs more study to figure out what exactly is happening, but it was a fascinating observation.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140121092907.htm
Since many soils are lacking good humus, or is losing it due to erosion (like in the Midwest), perhaps that would be a way to rebuild poor or damaged soil. Maybe landscape companies or town dumps could partner with industry to turn their bags of leaves, old Christmas trees, etc into soil.
Interesting article. One thought that drives me nuts at the cement plant is that we produce tons of CO2 and let it go without using it. To run the plant we have a lot of runoff water that becomes high in ph. We are required to treat this water and currently buy sulfuric acid which as one can imagine is a pain in the butt to deal with. If we captured our CO2 and treated to water to make carbonic acid it would save us this trouble. It would be a win for us and it would make the enviro weenies happy too.
Prairie, of course things like this can be accomplished. Look at Israel that is mostly desert and without water. It produces farm products in the desert and enough water to export it to Jordon.
Prairie, if Democrats think that reduction of CO2 can prevent a catastrophe then they should all stop breathing.
Any article or reply that uses the word “carbon” in their argument is written by someone who has drank the cool aid and is just part of the marketing machine of climate change. I don’t know any industry that likes to emit carbon.
In the first place, you can’t hide from me, Jim. In the second place, nobody can hide from me, Jim. And, in the third place, the reply used the term carbon-dioxide emissions.
Do you know any industries that emit carbon-dioxide, Jim? If so, then do any of those industries “like” to emit carbon-dioxide? I’m pretty sure that the sheep, the goats, the pigs and the cows don’t really have much choice in the matter. Keep breathing, Jim. Don’t hold your breath. Breathe deeply.
First, I’m not sure who “you” are or why you would be hiding from me or why I would try to find you anyway. Second,I’m glad that you used carbon dioxide emissions. That is the correct wording thus my message would not apply to you.
Third, yes I do know a CO2 emitter. I work for one, a cement plant. We make lots and lots of CO2. In fact, about 1/3 (by weight) of the quarried limestone (CaCO3) gets turned into CO2. SO yes, I think we like to emit CO2 since it makes cement that people use. We do not like to emit carbon or CO since those are fuel and would be stupid to emit.
I would think that the global alarmists are the ones who need to take a deep breath and chill.
Jim, any animal that breathes oxygen emits carbon dioxide. Some animals emit carbon dioxide by means of eruction (belching) or flatulence (you know). Have you ever brewed beer at home, Jim? Those little yeasty beasties put out quite a bit of CO2. Your house plants will love it. Actually the entire Kingdom of Plants breathe carbon-dioxide and emit oxygen usually as O2. That’s how the carbon gets stored in the sugars and the tissues of the plants. And that’s why the combustion of fossil fuels such as wood “release” the stored carbon to form CO2 that goes to the atmosphere.
I’m glad you understand the O2, CO2 cycle. So now let’s stop using the words carbon emitting.
Jim, have you ever stepped in a cow pie? What’s in that stuff, anyhow? They say that there’s carbon in the grass, the clover and the alfalfa. And nitrogen, too. Can we have your permission to use the words “carbon emitting” to refer to the stuff that pasture animals defecate? And the stuff that the rest of us animals defecate, too?
“Can we have your permission to use the words “carbon emitting” to refer to the stuff that pasture animals defecate?”
Sure can, since I’m sure there is some carbon in that. But this is quite different than a cement plant emitting CO2 and not carbon, which I have pointed out would be stupid since it is fuel.
The problem is that those cycles don’t work. It’s that we’ve overwhelmed them as we’ve burned coal and hydrocarbons for centuries.
“The problem is that those cycles don’t work. It’s that we’ve overwhelmed them as we’ve burned coal and hydrocarbons for centuries.”
I’m not interested in discussing science and the CO2 cycle rather I would like people to look at the solar farms that produce large amounts of energy (even though they are inefficient, intermittant, high cost, cost a lot of energy to produce and eventually break and are added to our dumps as waste some of which will just lie there for hundreds of years or more..
Look at those large farms. What is missing from the landscape? Trees that take CO2 and create oxygen.
Allan,
I saw a news article awhile back about a kid’s science fair project that modified the standard angle and tilt of solar panels to mirror the ways tree leaves absorb sunlight (based on the Fibonacci sequence).
https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-08/13-year-old-designs-breakthrough-solar-array-based-fibonacci-sequence
Since the solar panels would be mounted cylindrically, there might be room for “undergrowth” so to speak. Still might not be enough for trees and sufficient photosynthesis.
Prairie, I am not against the use of any energy sources. The marketplace is better at figuring out how to allocate resources. However…
Yes there might be some room for undergrowth not the best, but some room. As the undergrowth starts to tower over the solar panals preventing the sun from reaching them we can send in oil powered machinery to cut it all down and with time when the panels no longer are providing sufficient energy we can throw them into a landfill and produce new panels using a lot of carbon based products.
I’ve used solar. One use saved a lot of money and therefore was quite worthwhile. The other use didn’t and it went into the landfill though I am sure if I could handle the plumbing and climbing on a tall roof I could have made it worth my while, but my time has value as well.
You Know Who said, “Look at those large farms. What is missing from the landscape? Trees that take CO2 and create oxygen.”
You Know Who wants more acorns for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Replace all of those large farms with trees, just like it was back in the day when most of the Northwest Ordnance was The Central Hardwood Forest.
Wait a second. You Know Who also said, “. . . [L]ook at the solar farms . . .”
The solar farms? Do you mean the one’s in the desert? Where the trees never were? Where the food growers never plant their crops, neither? Those solar farms?
“The solar farms? Do you mean the one’s in the desert? Where the trees never were? Where the food growers never plant their crops, neither? Those solar farms?”
Diane, if you wish to invest in solar farms and place them in the desert that is fine with me. Remember, the amount of space solar farms take up to provide energy for a very small portion of the country. Perhaps you would like to make Delaware into those solar farms so part of the east coast can be as “productive” as the deserts in the west. I hope in your calculations you figure out the “carbon emissions” costs of producing and maintaining those solar panels along with distributing the energy produced to other areas of the country. While you are at it figure out the lifespan and how you will get rid of all the broken down solar panels or will you create a giant dump out of Rhode Island. In the meantime figure out the costs and then invest your own money. You could make a fortune.
Carbon. When combined with oxygen to form carbon dioxide it causes changes in the atmosphere. Excessive carbon dioxide in the air is acidifying the oceans. Oceans absorb more carbon dioxide than any other form of life such as trees. Excessive acidification of the oceans, effectively changing the oceans’ environment has caused the coral reefs to die.
Carbon, it’s a fact of life.
Jim 22, I like the question.
““Carbon emissions” is a marketing term to make it sound worse. Ask yourself, why do they push the word carbon and not the words carbon dioxide?”
It’s a question that Late4Dinner is yet to answer. They know it is propaganda.
Show me someone using the term “carbon emissions” and I might be able to figure out what they’re talking about. Otherwise, I think you’re just imagining a bunch of nameless, faceless “marketers” out there somewhere using the term “carbon emissions.”
Here’s a wild guess: When you combust fossil fuels you “release” the carbon that was stored in the fossil fuel in just such a way that that carbon can combine with two oxygen atoms to create carbon dioxide that expands into the atmosphere. If so, then maybe what your “imaginary marketers” are getting at is “carbon release” from “fossil fuel combustion.” Only for some reason they call it “carbon emissions” instead of carbon release.
Would the term “carbon release” make it sound better than the term “carbon emissions”???
“Would the term “carbon release” make it sound better than the term “carbon emissions”???”
No, call it what it is CO2. Why is this so hard for you?
“Show me someone using the term “carbon emissions” and I might be able to figure out what they’re talking about.”
A two second google search found this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/carbon-emission
Also, I suppose you’ve never heard of these marketing terms too:
Carbon Credits
Carbon Offsets
Carbon Pricing
Carbon Footprint
You know the reason they use carbon instead of CO2, but you just won’t admit it. If I could create a way to burn carbon and not produce any CO2 emissions, your pseudoscience would not care (well, actually, you would whine about something else I’m sure).
Sorry, just paying attention to this. Why do “they” use carbon instead of co2?
Jim22 is committed to verbal disagreement rather than genuine disagreement. Think of Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on first?” What Jim is doing is not all that different. Carbon’s on second. Carbon-dioxide’s on third. So what carbon compound is on first? That’s what Jim wants to know. Except that he does know. Hydrocarbons.
And here’s the tell: The only way that carbon dioxide can be “emitted” is if carbon is “released” from a carbon compound that had been storing that carbon. And that’s why “they” use the term “carbon emissions” instead of “carbon-dioxide emissions”. Because the carbon-dioxide was NOT already in the fossil fuel that released the carbon from the carbon compounds that had been storing the carbon before that fossil fuel was combusted, metabolized or otherwise allowed to combine with oxygen to form carbon-dioxide that expanded into the atmosphere.
Jim22 said, “If I could create a way to burn carbon and not produce any CO2 emissions . . . ”
Jim, Jim, Jim . . . No oxygen equals no combustion of anything. Consequently no oxygen equals no combustion of carbon, either. You might as well wonder why NASA has to send oxygen into outer space along with the space-craft they launch.
P. S. The linked articles you posted are using the term “carbon emissions” in the same way that I guessed that they might. Releasing carbon from a material that stores carbon. All animals do this by metabolizing sugar (“burning carbon” by combining it with oxygen) while emitting carbon-dioxide.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/combst1.html
Combustion is a chemical process in which a substance reacts rapidly with oxygen and gives off heat. The original substance is called the fuel, and the source of …
Once Americans get the bill, they get cold feet.
Oh, you mean I have to pay for this!
There have been four ice ages that scientists know about. the last one ended around 11000 years ago/ It began 115000 years ago. The average temperature during that period was 12 degrees. All of our ancient ancestors lived through that.
The hockey stick graph that is still being taught to young heads full of mush gets its shape from the fact that its creator left out the period known as the Roman Warming.
Weather and climate are not the same thing. The climate has always changed. And the notion that our current climate is the optimal climate is the height of arrogance.
There’s an outside chance that sea-faring commerce in The Artic Ocean all year round might be a good thing for . . . somebody, somewhere. Canada? Russia? The Scandinavian Countries?
They say that The Polar Bears in Canada are eating as many geese as they can catch in The Summer to make up for all the seals that they’re not eating in The Winter because there are not enough ice floes to serve as dining room tables for The Polar Bears anymore. Apparently it takes more energy to carry the seal all the way back to shore than The Polar Bear can get from eating the seal. And if they swim too far out, then The Polar Bear, itself, doesn’t have enough energy to swim back to shore even if it drops the seal.
Did somebody say something about the height of arrogance? What’s it mean? Well, the last time I checked it meant “taking without asking nor proposing that that which was taken should have been given or granted.” What’s it mean, now?
The polar bear population is rising. What does that mean?
The Poser Of False Questions probably will not read the link below. But you could. And then you’ll know who the poser of false questions is.
https://polarbearsinternational.org/research/research-qa/are-polar-bear-populations-increasing-in-fact-booming/
Q: Why all the fuss about polar bears? Aren’t their populations increasing: in fact, booming? A: One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that …
Diane, I remember when the claim was the polar bear population was decreasing. We could see pictures of polar bears on cups and other trinkets and people cried for the polar bears. Now that they are increasing suddenly new arguments are created. Take note that your paper doesn’t dispute the fact that the polar bear population is on the rise. You have to live with your arguments and can’t take both sides. I know you would like to but that just makes you look crazy.
Excerpted from the article linked above:
One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.*
One Russian extrapolation presented in 1956 suggested a number of 5,000 to 8,000, but that figure was never accepted by scientists. The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses. Back then, the best we had over most of the polar bear’s range were uneducated guesses. Polar bear science has come a long way since then.
We do know (and I have published papers on this) that some polar bear populations grew after quotas were imposed in Canada, aerial hunting ceased in Alaska, and trapping and hunting were banned in Svalbard. All of these events occurred in the late 60s or early 70s, and we know some populations responded—as you would expect. Some populations were not being hunted back then (or were hunted very little) and those were probably unaffected by these three actions.
[end excerpt]
So first they put a variety of restrictions on hunting polar bears. And then the ice started retreating which made it a lot harder to hunt polar bears, anyhow. But it also made it a lot harder for polar bears to hunt seals. They never had a good idea about how many polar bears there were. They still don’t have a good idea how many polar bears there are. So they don’t really know how much the polar bear population may have increased. And, in any case, whatever the size of the polar bear population might be, the ice floes that polar bears need to eat seals are greatly reduced. And that reduction of ice floes is a clear indication of a warmer Arctic ocean with warmer polar-marine air masses above it.
“The fact is that in the 1960s we had no idea how many polar bears there were. Even now, about half of our population estimates are only educated guesses.”
Diane, In other words when your argument was the polar bear population was decreasing you had no idea if they were or were not. Then you had all sorts of proof and numbers, but today none of that knowledge ever existed. That is the height of hypocricy.
I never said that the polar bear population was decreasing you lying sack of manure, you.
What I said was that the ice floes were too few and far between, now, to provide enough dining room tables atop which polar bears could eat seals without carrying them all the way back to shore.
You lying sack of manure, you.
Diane, your arguments are almost always convoluted. You brought up polar bears and we all understand the argument about polar bears years ago. Today Diane focuses on kitchen tables where polar bears eat seals. I had enough in the past with the polar bear population decreasing I am not going to engage more of your crazyness about how the kitchen tables should be arranged.
Climate has always changed. Absolutely correct. However, it’s the rate of change that alarms scientists.
Whether our current climate is optimal or not – and given our success as a species since the last ice age, it may be – it is what our civilization, including borders and population centers, has adapted to. We don’t know exactly how a significant change brought on quickly in the current climate will affect our civilization, but do we want to find out? Consider the possible displacement of humans based on rising water levels – most of the world population is down low to it – and changes in the arable land locations.
Are you feeling lucky, sucker?
There has always been a shift where areas previously below water rose to above water and water that was low climbed higher. Holland is one of the most densely packed areas in all of Europe and most of the country is protected by dikes. A thousand years ago, long before the hysterical “climate change” persons existed they started to build dikes to protect themselves. Instead of “displacement of humans” as Anon suggests more humans crowded the area and the population density increased tremendously. “Climate change” persons don’t like discussion. They like to assume they are right and support the billionaires created by carbon taxes and the like. We need real scientists of all beliefs to figure out what the problem is and what the solutions are.
Instead of promoting real scientific advances those that disagreed with the PC arguments on climate change were pushed out of academic positions, grants, committees etc. and even the UN became a partisan not open to scientific advancement.
“In 2005, I [Judith Curry] had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others.”
People should learn and understand the words: CONFIRMATION BIAS.
Unlike this board and other places were politically motivated posters pretend to care about science, real science is based on open source data and the ability of other scientists to confirm or disprove discoveries. Confirmation bias on the other hand is the act of reading only sources you agree with to construct alternative truths, a practice the White House has admitted to.
Building dikes is an expensive proposition which one time world trade centers like Amsterdam and New Orleans could afford but which poorer cities would struggle with. Poorer refugees are not something to look forward to or pretend can be easily accommodated, keeping in mind that besides for flooded population centers, we would likely be contending with shifting arable land locations as well. Shaking the apple cart is never a good idea if we can avoid it.
Are you feeling lucky?
What are you talking about Anon? You act as if you have deep knowledge of the subject:
” Consider the possible displacement of humans based on rising water levels”
…And you didn’t even consider Holland and many other areas of the world. Take note when the dikes were originally built in Holland there wasn’t the technology we have today. Look at Florida. Vast portions on the east coast were partially under water and sold by scammers. Today a lot of that land is waterfront on canals where the prices of land is huge. Your socialistic mindset doesn’t know how to create wealth and doesn’t know how to utilize science. Everything is a crisis until someone solves it and then you state a reason why that crisis could be solved but your imaginary ones can’t be solved. ‘Poor places can’t afford it’. If the people are poor maybe they should move to more prosperous areas or did you never think of that? But property on the water is valuable so suddenly the horrible capitalists will move to make the property valuable. Then you will come up with still another excuse.
I discussed Holland and New Orleans above but you’re welcome to your fantasies all the same. I think the poor people may indeed be looking to move here or somewhere in greater numbers if climate change is not slowed.
By the way, I’ve been making payroll for 40 years. I don’t know – or care – who you are.
“I discussed Holland and New Orleans above…”
No you didn’t think about Holland until I mentioned it to you. How did Holland manage according to your prior discussions? They didn’t even have the technologies we have today. How did the wasteland of Florida become so valuable that lots go for prices in the millions? Tell us how socialism has solved these problems. Explain to us why before the dikes and canals were built why all that would have been impossible at the time it happened. That is your talking point. It’s impossible until it isn’t.
“By the way, I’ve been making payroll for 40 years.”
Congratulations. You weren’t on food stamps because your wife is a nurse and you have a trade. That is not something special. That is supposed to be normal.
If you wonder how a bartender like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out of nowhere to take over the conversation in the Democrat party (the Green New Deal), and why her twitter feed is a first rate disinformation campaign spreading intentional lies….take 20 minutes and watch this:
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/politico-power-list-2019/saikat-chakrabarti/
Two years ago, after working for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, Saikat Chakrabarti co-founded an organization called Brand New Congress with a …
Saikat Chakrabarti in his own words (rather than somebody else’s words) as excerpted from the article linked above:
“Another thing to really do over the next two years is to basically show the American people what will be possible if the Democrats win the House, the Senate and the presidency in 2020, and that means putting our best foot forward,” Chakrabarti said. “It means putting the most ambitious, the boldest, the biggest things we can, and then just build a movement around that.”
From the article in Wikipedia on The Democratic Leadership Council:
On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would do so as early as the following week. On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization’s website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation.
[end excerpt]
Of all the people to lament the demise of Clintonism and The Third Way of the so-called New Democrats . . . TBob??? Really?????
I must admit that I did not see TBob’s nostalgia for Slick Willy coming.
Three steps to the Islamification of politics
Excellent Bob. Katie Hopkins is smart and funny. She needs to be listened to.
amusing, but she says it started with allowing hijab. no, it started letting too many migrants from hither and yon in, in the first place.
the LEFT that pushed “decolonialization” on and “human rights,” on European countries in the wake of WW2, was largely responsible for this,
Many of the people who are suddenly upset about it, were not upset when their parents were pushing the agenda back during the riots in Paris in ’68, for example.
Similar phenomenon in America.
Basically, humans are social animals. We have groups. The strength of the wolf is in the pack, not the jaws of one, but the jaws of many. We either conform to that natural law, or we will be outfoxed and displaced by those who do.
If we abandon tribalism of our own, totally, rather than just moderate it, this is where it leads. The excessive nationalisms that fueled world wars I and II should have been truncated, not entirely crammed down into nonexistence.
Thus, we must allow a certain degree of ethnic and national and even religious clannishness, to reawaken, among the Western peoples, before its too late.
Your previous posts advocating white power cued me to what you’re about, and this post further confirms it.
Beyond the basic nastiness of this position, it is un-American, and ultimately short sighted, even for white people -of which I am one. Tribalism is for the past and losers who are afraid of change. Fortunately our young are the least susceptible to this line.
your words not mine
I think white people are entitled to an ethnic and collective group identity as much as anyone else is. is that empowering? of course it is
see you “anon” are the sort who demonizes white people and you want us weak and dead.
sorry, I wont play along with that.
back to the point. Sure, a wee bit of social diversity is like salt and pepper. It can spice things up and livens the broth,,,, but too much ruins it.
the same thing is true of individualism, and its economic twin capitalism. it stimulates creativity and production. but too much allows some to run wild at the expense of all.
If ethnic cohesion among the Chinese or Nigerians or Pakistanis is natural and healthy– then it’s good for the English too.
Show me where I demonized white people. I’m demonizing racism, wherever it is.
It is indeed quaint, endearing, and not blameworthy that isolated pockets of groups of Chinese or Nigerians or even Amish people live in “ethnic cohesion”, but it is not when those who live in a pluralistic society like ours try to limit the numbers and power of other groups to the benefit of their own.
Trying this is based on ignorant resistance to change and denial of the present while holding on to a disappearing past that you can’t save – and why would you want to?
anon, would you call a billion chinese in the PRC an isolated pocket? and it’s out there ethnically cleansing Uighurs. where are the Democrats to denounce this? silent~!
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/645459741/florida-sen-rubio-takes-up-the-cause-of-uighur-minority-in-china
and NIgeria. great example of a place where tribalism can go overboard into tribal violence. …but their ethnicity here is praised in the US as diversity, without regard to Yoruba or not. That’s fine by me.
but, Ok, well, can white folks have a little identity too? pretty please? will moralizing pc thought police give it an imprimatur or must white people face charges before the Inquisition for racial heresy?
If Anonymous wants white people identity he should move to Scandanavia.
The US is not a white country and places like much of the south have been largely or mostly non-white for a long time. OK with me. I like the food, music, sports, humor, etc to name some benefits.
“Show me where I demonized white people.”
Anon, in this statement I am not directly accusing anyone of racism, but if their actions include promoting Tribalism based on race then I am fairly confident that a large degree of racism exists in that person.
Anon, You mention tribalism. What about the issue of non-assimilation of immigrants? If you look at districts around the country, like Ilham Omar’s voting district in Minnesota for example, some have observed that you wouldn’t even know that you were still in the United States. More and more immigrants are living within their own tribes, practicing the cultural and religions ways of their native countries. No assimilation to American culture. In many cases, not even learning English. Would your observations about tribalism apply to non-assimilating immigrants as well?
You do know that Little Italy in NYC was not always a place with restaurants for folks from the suburbs to visit and that Yiddish was heard on the streets of the Lower East Side up into the 1950’s and beyond, right?
They will assimilate, and n the meantime we can enjoy their restaurants and markets.
PS Others mentioned tribalism.
Anon:
“Tribalism is for the past and losers who are afraid of change.”
*********************
You need a sociology/anthropology book or maybe a psych evaluation. No bigger tribalists than the tyrannical, exclusionary Left.
The Maker Of False Statements said, ” . . . the LEFT that pushed “decolonialization” on and “human rights,” on European countries in the wake of WW2, was largely responsible for this . . .”
For your information Sauerkraut, the historical process of decolonization was initiated on The Fourth of July in the year 1776. Hoorah!
You’re perfectly welcome to imagine The Founding Fathers as a bunch of radical Leftists, though. It really clarifies your . . . “position,” on pretty much everything. Doesn’t it?
Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.
The cash transfers from the PACs — overseen by Saikat Chakrabarti, the freshman socialist Democrat’s chief of staff — run counter to her pledges to increase transparency and reduce the influence of “dark money” in politics.
Chakrabarti’s companies appear to have been set up for the sole purpose of obscuring how the political donations were used.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-chief-of-staff-ran-1m-slush-fund-by-diverting-campaign-cash-to-his-own-companies
‘There Is Going to Be a War Within the Party. We Are Going to Lean Into It.’
The Justice Democrats helped get Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez elected. Who are they after next?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/04/the-insurgents-behind-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-224542
One should ask ‘who’ this guy is ‘hosting’ the video. He seems unintentionally comical. It looks like he’s speaking from an apartment in Downtown L.A.
For decades political organization have ‘cast’ politicians based on looks and marketability. This is nothing new at all. To claim it began with Cortez is ridiculous.
It’s just information, P. Hill. It reveals the manipulation of voters going on behind the scenes. And what’s wrong with asking questions and being skeptical about Climate Change and who’s behind the radical Green New Deal introduced by AOC? She was just quoted as saying “Capitalism is irredeemable.”
Tom Perez, the chair of the DNC said “AOC is the future of our party.” He said Socialism is the future of the Democrat party. So why not go ahead and change the name from Democrat Party to the New Socialist Party? That’s where they’re headed. They told us so.
TBob, Republicans like yourself should be asking ‘why’ Millennials find socialism fashionable. That would make more sense than reflexively demonizing socialism.
Millennials came of age during the Great Recession which affected almost every family in the country. Traumas like that don’t dissipate with economic recoveries. People still remember when families were losing their homes.
Therefore this idea that capitalism can do no wrong has no bearing on reality. Only 10 years ago Wall Street was crashing with no bottom in sight. Events like that remain in our collective memories.
P. Hill — Yes, and it would be good if the media and the Democrats told the truth about what caused the financial crisis. It was Bill Clinton and the Dems insisting it was a ‘right’ for everyone to have the American dream of owning their own home. Then they forced lenders to relax their standards and make loans to people who could never pay them. That’s what happened.
I’ve never been a Republican, but I am a Trump supporter and I can tell you that I’ve talked to more and more lifelong Democrats who all emphatically say that they would Never! vote Democrat today. And there are many Trump supporters like myself who are sick and tired of the constant hateful vitriolic rhetoric being hurled daily by the media, the Democrat party, Hollywood, and all of them at both President Trump and his supporters. It’s insulting, and it’s pushing people further away from the Dems than ever before. I’m far from alone in my position.
I’m actually an open-minded Independent voter who IS interested in understanding the attraction to Socialism. I’ve listened to a number of Dem candidates and find that Andrew Yang explains his ideas pretty well.
But if AOC is the “future of the party” as DNC chair Perez has said, then no thanks. You can keep your party and your AOC. Btw, she has the voice of a little girl when you listen to her speak and there is a total disconnect there. Is she a woman or a little girl? Sorry, she’s a joke the party would be wise to reign in if they want to win over more moderate Independent voters.
TBob, you’re kind of spreading thin on specific topics.
Yes, Bill Clinton allowed deregulation of financial markets which contributed in part to eventual crash in 2008. But policies that made it easier for low income families to buy homes dated to the 1970’s.
If George W and Republicans thought the housing market was on a dangerous track, they had 8 years to act. Bush had plenty of time to strengthen regulations. He didn’t see the need.
Blame for The Great Recession can be put on many leaders; both Republican and Democrat. Years of low interest rates factored as well. That was Alan Greenspan’s fault.
Peter, there is no doubt that politicians on both sides helped cause the housing market to collapse. But, you must understand that individuals permitted that to happen as well. I would never margin my largest investment the way many individuals did and if they didn’t do it there would have been no housing crisis. The politicians were enablers. Remember, as just part of the story, we the people were guaranteeing the FDIC protected deposits and the FDIC should not have permitted that money to be placed in jeopardy or not given it special protection. Without money there would have been less loans that were more secure. Think about it for awhile. Then think about who did it and why.
Bingo!
The largest issuers of what became failing sub primes were private mortgage companies like Countrywide who were not under either FDIC or CRA regulations. In fact, CRA loans, which had standards for both lenders and borrowers, performed pretty well and had much smaller failure rates. It turns out that about 1/2 of the failing subprimes were not 1st time buyers, but speculators buying a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th home.
“In fact, CRA loans, which had standards for both lenders and borrowers, performed pretty well and had much smaller failure rates.”
Anon, Wasn’t Countrywide a Bank of America subsidiary and didn’t they pay out money in a settlement for deceptive practices? Many of their clients had their interest rates reduced or had the loan principal cut. The total amount of relief was in the billions of dollars and if I remember correctly Bank of America was found liable for the fraud. I wouldn’t say they performed so well as you seem to indicate above. Perhaps your business dealings with them didn’t permit you to see the full picture.
Again, if I remember correctly, banks like Wachovia made wild loans and a lot of those loans were from deposits under the FDIC. I remember they frequently paid some of the highest interest rates on one’s FDIC deposits and one could use multiple bank accounts to increase the FDIC protection. Instead of looking at the solvency of the bank investors looked at the interest rate. That is a problem with government management from above. More money piled into Wachovia with more bad investments. Who do you think was responsible for that happening? They were taken over but the government put in a lot of money, and whose money was that? The taxpayers.
BoA bought CW in Jan 2008, after the damage was done and was saddled with the fallout. They were not part of CWs bad subprime practices.
” a large number of subprime mortgages originated in non-CRA banks, and “none of the 300+ mortgage originators that imploded were depository banks covered by the CRA.”
As noted in a study by McClatchy from 2008, “Federal Reserve Board data show that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions;” “private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year;” and “only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.”…
“The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.”
The reason Fannie and Freddie were losing market share is that loan standards on mortgages issued by private lenders were falling. Fannie and Freddie eventually adjusted some of their conditions for obtaining a loan in an attempt to prevent a further loss in market share, but it’s very clear that they were followers, not leaders, in the erosion of lending standards.
Finally, if subprime loans were the problem, noted Ritholtz, “the housing boom would have been in CRA regions…. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions. What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities.”…
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-what-really-caused-housing-crisis/
“BoA bought CW in Jan 2008, after the damage was done and was saddled with the fallout. They were not part of CWs bad subprime practices.”
BOA had a relationship with CW for decades. They bought CW without prodding by the US government and started the aquisition process before the severity of any recession was realized. In fact I believe the purchase price fell in half during the negotiations that started before 2008 and that shows they didn’t realize what was happening.
Your article is trying to change the perspective of what happened to cause such a recession. They wish to call it a prime lending failure. The piece you provide seems to be more of an ideological piece than an informative one as no real numbers were used and numbers can always be generalized to conflate reality with fantassy. If you wish provide real numbers and then deal with the banks that loaned money and what their actual lending policies were.
The facts are as I presented them and Allan has none. Here’s more reading for those who’s bedtime stories include “How Black People and Liberals Caused the Great Recession”.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24504598.html
Anon, you seem to have strayed far from your initial premise and now are providing reading lists. We all know what that means.
I wouldn’t pay $0.10 extra a month to fight climate change, aka the weather. Some observations:
– Anyone notice how we’ve become a weather-obsessed culture? We watch movies about it. We tune into TV channels devoted to it. Flashback 30 years ago and the weather was something you caught on the news, or you looked outside to see what it was doing. Nowadays, it’s nonstop.
– A friend of mine, early 20s, Ted Cruz supporter, will tell you he honestly believes weather is our biggest existential threat.
– How about those that fear the climate pay their extra $10 a month? Pretty sure Bill Nye the so-called science guy and all the rest can afford it.
Some fella everybody said was smart used to say, “A penny saved is a penny earned.” I could always be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that, “A kilowatt/hour saved is a kilowatt/hour earned.” If you simply must be prodigal and spendthrift, then you will never be able to afford an extra ten dollars a month for very much of anything at all–least of all another incandescent light bulb. Then you’d have to light a candle so that others near you could see you and step aside while you curse the darkness.
That is a goofy argument. A KW saved can mean a company closes its doors and people lose their jobs all while china takes that production capability and spews 3X more pollution into the environment and into the air we all breathe.
That is what has been happening before Trump.
China is taking climate change seriously and is especially happy we are abandoning the solar panel market to them. There have been serious advances in air quality in their cities as they try to balance environmental concerns with their huge population.
On a per capita basis we are and continue to be the greatest polluters in the world. That is a fact always left unmentioned by deniers who want to blame the problem on India and China – as if that resolved it.
Ha, renewables. Industrial pollution there is an abysmal fact of social reality.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/12/18/669757478/the-good-news-and-not-so-good-news-about-chinas-smoggy-air
They would be smarter to switch to nuclear. Oh wait, they have been! That won’t make the greenies happy
We agree that nuclear is the way to go for many situations and an option Obama pushed.
“China is taking climate change seriously”
Anon, China is producing more carbon emissions than before. They are cleaning up some of their cities by moving industry out and placing it elsewhere along with increasing it. Apparently, you have never been to China. Their production techniques to produce things produces at least 3X the carbon emissions and they continue to increase their reliance on coal. We have constantly reduced our carbon emissions I think to a greater extent than most if not all of the those that signed onto the Paris accord.
Some people like myths and others like facts and science. You seem to prefer the former.
I have not been to China but my wife has been several times and my best friend has been there many times starting about 25 years up to an including living there about 4 years ago.
We rank 2nd in the world for carbon emissions with a much smaller population than India or China and except for Saudi Arabia, we have the highest per capita emission rate.
One shouldn’t be measuring the per capita carbon emission rate. One should be measuring what that carbon emission is producing. The US has been reducing its carbon emissions tremendously and continues to produce goods used all over the world. When a manufacturing plant closes in the US and opens in China the emissions are somewhere in the vicinity of 3X greater or more. That is the number you should be interested in for pollution control which according to your science leads to global warming.
Unfortunately, you are an ideologue that has to be led to look at these numbers at which time you change the subject or find another excuse.
I don’t like pollution or waste, but I don’t like envy either and envy saturates those that support the left.
Allan says: March 11, 2019 at 10:45 AM
“A KW saved can mean a company closes its doors and people lose their jobs . . .”
Is it your thesis that every last Kilowatt/Hour of electricity saved simply must result in companies closing their doors and people losing their jobs? Or are you merely belaboring the least efficient way to save Kilowatt/Hours of electricity? Isn’t there some sort of “profit motive” that is supposed to result in the most efficient use of electricity possible? Does shipping manufacturing jobs overseas result in the most efficient use of electricity? Or merely a lower cost of wage labor? Why can’t companies keep their own doors open and their own employees employed by means of using every last Kilowatt/Hour of electricity as efficiently as possible?
Diane, you are being purposely dense. What I was saying was that placing American industry at a financial disadvantage to the Chinese or anyone else can place American jobs at risk.
You jumbled up your reply so that the individual thoughts are almost unintelligible. The actual discussion you replied to involved how to measure “carbon emissions”: “One shouldn’t be measuring the per capita carbon emission rate. One should be measuring what that carbon emission is producing.”
Would you like to rephrase your comment with the inclusion of your question about profit?
The money goes into a cloud. All too often these fees & taxes will be cherry picked
Typical cherry picking comes from lawyers, consultants & administrative fees. At the end of the day you would be lucky getting a can soup, roll of toilet paper & bar of soap.
The same thing happens with Trump’s tariffs, The American people pay for those tariffs with higher prices for imported goods. The foreign exporters just pass the cost of those tariffs along to us. If American manufacturers engaged in price competition with imported goods subject to Trump’s tariffs, then we might get some home-grown manufacturing jobs in the bargain. But American manufacturers don’t engage in price competition with imported goods subject to Trump’s tariffs. So we’re not getting manufacturing jobs in exchange for paying the higher prices for imported goods subject to Trump’s tariffs.
Unfortunately for Diane, her argument has been disproven by our job numbers and by the industries that returned to the US. Unseen is the industry that stopped flowing out of the US.
Manufacturing jobs–you shameless equivocator, you. They’re still shipping them overseas–despite Trump’s begging and pleading with them to stay.
Diane, you are a hypocrite no matter what discussion we are having and no matter if it involves polar bears or manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing jobs are outsourced and brought back to the US or created in the US. It is a two way street that helps increase productivity. Obama said we would need a magic wand to bring manufacturing back. It appears Trump is that magic wand for manufacturing jobs have increased tremendously as has our economy.
If the climate is putting us in peril we cannot do a thing about it. It’s just another way to give the government more control over our lives. There are plenty of legitimate scientists that assert we’ve nothing to do with climate change nor can we stop it. During the hottest and the coldest periods there was no fossil fuel use. In addition, these climate alarmists “scientists” leave the sun out of the equation. I believe these governments have done a fantastic job at brainwashing the masses. We can’t stop an axis reversal, a meteor hitting the earth, earth quakes, volcanos, or sun spots. Yet do your bit to keep the earth clean.
MarieKat said, “We can’t stop an axis reversal, a meteor hitting the earth, earth quakes, volcanos, or sun spots.
MarieKat also said, “If the climate is putting us in peril we cannot do a thing about it.”
There is no logical connection between the examples MariKat gives for human fecklessness in the face of the forces of nature versus the false conclusion MarieKat reaches regarding human fecklessness in the face of global warming.
Not coincidentally, MarieKat also stated that conclusion exactly backwards. If we are putting the climate in peril, then we could do something about it. If we can do something about global warming, then it is not the climate putting us in peril, but we who put ourselves in peril.
7 IN 10 AMERICANS SAY CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING
INCLUDING 52% OF REPUBLICANS
From attached article:
Seven in 10 Americans now say that climate change is happening. Party affiliation is associated with this view: 86 percent of Democrats say climate change is happening, and the comparable figure for Republicans and independents is 52 percent and 70 percent, respectively.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
This from NORC, a well-respected research institute long affiliated with the University of Chicago.
The above results are sad, of course. 7 in 10 Americans accept that Climate Change and its effects are going to matter in their lives. Yet one major political party denies the issue while pursuing policies that could ‘accelerate’ warming.
The refusal of Republicans to acknowledge Climate Change amounts to nothing less than treason. Republicans are literally handicapping America’s response to a looming crisis. It’s not unlike tampering with smoke alarms or blocking fire exits.
The danger could be ‘A Perfect Storm of Storms’. Such as too many disasters in a single year.
Imagine a winter of freak ice storms trashing power lines across several states In spring deadly tornados level an unusual number of towns. Drought persists all summer burning forests for hundreds of miles. An autumn of super hurricanes batters coastal cities.
A single year of disasters on that magnitude could crash the economy as property insurers declare insolvency. Cities, counties and states could face insolvency; forcing Congress to rush a bailout package in the trillions. Then the dollar crashes!
A Perfect Storm of Storms could leave America a chaotic failed state. That’s the doomsday scenario we want to ‘avoid’! America must plan as soon as possible. Only through smart national planning can we avoid a crash.
You need deprogrammed.
What are you going to do when they stop discovering new sources of oil, Danny Boy? Pay $20 a gallon for gas? Or learn how to ride a bicycle all over again?
I thought that L4B would tell us when “they stop discovering new sources for oil”.
The first “oil shock” we experienced from the 1973-1974 Arab embargo prompted all kinds of gloom and doom forecasts of the world “running out of oil” within a decade, or a generation.
Now, c. 45 years later, the oil pessimists were proved wrong.
Given L4B’s track record in predictions/prophesies, I doubt that anyone reading this will be forced to ride a bicycle because of “$20 gas” prices.
Tom, there were no predictions that we would ‘run out of oil in a decade’. It was known that the OPEC countries had decades of reserves. So what?!
Oil and coal are old and very dirty technologies. Even if Climate Change ‘is’ the hoax Trump claims, why should we stay dependent on old technologies?? It would have been like sticking with steam-driven trains in the age of jet airliners. Enough already, let’s move on!
PETER SHILL WANTS TO KILL BIRDS.
He says we need newer technology not the old stuff. Newer technology includes solar energy that roasts the birds and wind driven generators cut them into small pieces. Peter Shill is quite a guy.
Welcome back, Krazy Kat Rambler. I see you’ve been studying the art of equivocation, again. Goode show. However, the issue is not “oil depletion” but something called “peak production.” More about that at the link below.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/apr/21/oilandpetrol.news
Apr 21, 2005 … They called Colin Campbell, who helped to found the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre because he is an industry man through and …
Excerpted from the article linked above:
“About 944bn barrels of oil has so far been extracted, some 764bn remains extractable in known fields, or reserves, and a further 142bn of reserves are classed as ‘yet-to-find’, meaning what oil is expected to be discovered. If this is so, then the overall oil peak arrives next year,” he says.
If he is correct, then global oil production can be expected to decline steadily at about 2-3% a year, the cost of everything from travel, heating, agriculture, trade, and anything made of plastic rises. And the scramble to control oil resources intensifies. As one US analyst said this week: “Just kiss your lifestyle goodbye.”
” then global oil production can be expected to decline steadily at about 2-3% a year”
How did you come up with that number? As the oil becomes more expensive to extract, prices rise and suddenly it is worthwhile to open up sources that presently are not being used. Continued rising of prices creates newer technology and shifts to other sources that are most able to profit from the shift. Your method is a one shoe fits all which destroys some industries where changes at the time are too expensive rather than permitting market forces to work.
We have been running out of oil for a long time and we keep finding more oil or develop technology to create more oil sources. In the meantime we are developing new technologies that can replace oil but we have to remember the politics in all of this.
Nuclear energy proponents: ‘oil pollutes the planet and CO2 is raising temperatures that will destroy mankind.’
Oil proponents: ‘nuclear is dangerous and will create a nuclear holocaust if nuclear plants are permitted’
Green energy: ‘Build solar and there is no problem with a nuclear holocaust or CO2 emissions that destroy the planet.
Animal rights proponents: ‘The birds are all being killed by windmills and the solar farms are taking away the natural habitats of birds and other animals.
Money is talking, not logic or science.
Oil is abiotic.
Oil is not fossil based.
The planet makes oil and renews it continually.
Oil has been discovered at a depth greater than 40,000 ft.
The deepest dinosaur fossil was found at 7,400 ft.
George, let’s assume oil is constantly being replenished from the earth. How does that affect what I said above. It actually enhances what I say (though I am saying nothing about this theory). With time we have had to dig deeper and use better methods so the question is will our technology be able to reach that theoretical oil that could occur much deeper than 40,000 feet and will the oil in question become too expensive to dig?
George mistakes the occurrence of two processes for a supposed dilemma between two theories only one of which can supposedly be true when in fact both processes are already known to have occurred. The logicians call Geroge’s fallacy by the name of “false dichotomy.”
https://www.livescience.com/9404-mysterious-origin-supply-oil.html
Oct 10, 2005 … It runs modern society and fuels serious political tension. But where does oil really come from, and how much is left? The far-out answers might …
Excerpted from the article linked above:
Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn’t over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It’s over how much they contribute to Earth’s overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.
If abiogenic petroleum sources are indeed found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum and, since other rocky objects formed from the same raw material as Earth, that crude oil might exist on other planets or moons in the solar system, scientists say.
Both processes for making petroleum likely require thousands of years. Even if Earth does contain far more oil than currently thought, it’s inevitable that reserves will one day run out. Scientists disagree sharply, however, on when that will occur. And, some say, a global crisis could begin as soon as increasing demand is greater than supply, a possibility that might be measured in years rather than decades, some analysts argue.
P.Hill,
Treason? Really? That is not a good faith argument at all. Half of Republicans think there might be climate change, but dislike the hyperbole and manipulation thrown at them by certain sectors in the discussion. That style of argumentation makes them doubt the premise.
Half of Republicans think there is a discussion to be had and you throw treason at them. Not helpful.
This is why the argument is getting nowhere and both sides are digging in their heels.
I do see the contradictions. It is complicated. So complicated that untangling it is going to take a whole lot more work and reasonable discussion than the accusations and ad hominems are worth. Do you actually care about the environment? Then don’t demonize the very people you need to work with to effect any kind of real change.
Rose, I fault the Republican leadership; primarily Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump. Both are ignoring this issue at America’s expense. They are handicapping our response time. And it’s all because certain billionaire donors to Republican campaigns don’t want the nation planning for Climate Change.
Said donors are Libertarian fundamentalists who are more afraid of government than Climate Change. And those donors just happen to be elderly men who won’t be around when the crisis deepens. ..Funny how that goes..!
I think Climate warming is real. I do not know to what degree it is anthropogenic. Is it caused, let’s say, 20% by sunspot variation? Could be more or less. Maybe it’s mostly anthropogenic. I am not exercised by that assertion, politically.
I am exercised by two stupid ideas of the left on this issue:
a) that it can be reversed. No, not likely at all. So schemes to reverse it will divert time and attention from what really can be done: remediation. That is, responding to coastal flooding with proper engineering projects and so forth. That is worthwhile no matter what the cause!
b) that taking money from us and giving it to Washington, will accomplish anything good at all. So let’s say it takes ten dollars from John Smith. In Washington, bureaucracy will eat $9 of the ten, and send one off to some project.
Well, if we are trying to accomplish social adjustment to global warming, then probably, we will all be better off if private resources stay in private hands, where they can quickly be diverted as necessary, to remediation.
c) I am not a liberterian dogmatist. I used to be decades ago. Now I am wiser than that. At times the government must tax resources and lead from the front. However, for a complex global phenomenon like this, governments have a poor track record of accomplishing much good. The main way they can help is by continuing to address externalities like regular pollution, which harms everyone nearby, rather than far flung global schemes unlikely to produce any real results.
d) government actions that are very grand oftentimes have very grand disastrous results. Like collectivization had the results of starvation in the Ukraine in the 30s and china around 1950. Millions died in Ukraine, tens of millions in China. That would be a bad result here, if an overly dramatic political plan creates massive human misery. Yes or no?
…. but i wonder, maybe the Left really DOES want to DEPOPULATE a large part of the world. So maybe that is exactly where this is heading, intentionally?
Somehow things are often not what they seem.
What the government can do is set regulations to minimize pollution, help fund alternative energy research and production, much as they have other technologies since WW2, and form agreements with other countries to pursue similar mena sna goals. The Paris Accord was a 1st step in that direction.
You may notice that Trump has tried to kill all 3 of those limited but helpful steps.
“The Paris Accord was a 1st step in that direction.”
“Curry is skeptical about any positive results that might follow from environmental treaties—above all, the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. By the accord’s terms, the signatory nations—not including the United States, which has withdrawn from the pact—have committed themselves to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in order to stabilize the planet’s temperature at roughly its present level. Yet as Curry elaborates, even if all the states respected this commitment—an unlikely prospect—the temperature reduction in 2100 would be an insignificant two-tenths of a degree. And this assumes that climate-model predictions are correct. If there is less future warming than projected, the temperature reductions from limiting emissions would be even smaller.
Since the Paris Climate Accord was concluded, no government has followed through with any serious action. The U.S. pullout is hardly the only problem; India is effectively ignoring the agreement, and France “misses its goals of greenhouse-gas reduction every year,” admits Nicolas Hulot, the French environmental activist and former minister for President Emmanuel Macron. The accord is unenforceable and carries no sanctions—a condition insisted upon by many governments that wouldn’t have signed on otherwise. We continue to live in a contradictory reality: on the one hand, we hear that nothing threatens humanity as much as rising atmospheric carbon dioxide; on the other hand, nothing much happens practically to address this allegedly dire threat. Most economists suggest that the only effective incentive to reduce greenhouse-gas levels would be to impose a global carbon tax. No government seems willing to accept such a levy.”
https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming?utm_source=City+Journal+Update&utm_campaign=f2d6da360f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_03_08_06_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6c08930f2b-f2d6da360f-109320877
Except for our President, everyone knew that the Paris Accord was without teeth and largely dependent on the good will efforts of members. Absent the most powerful nation in the world – as well as the 2nd highest carbon producing nation as well as almost the highest on a per capita basis (puny Saudia Arabia is slightly higher) – involvement and advocacy, other nations might be forgiven for taking advantage of the time out. The Accord was never anything more than a 1st step agreement among all nations of the goal and a commitment to reaching that goal. More binding resolutions will be necessary in the future and no doubt many of those now decrying the toothlessness of the Paris Accord will object then as well.
Anon, what are you talking about. If the Paris Accords weren’t any good then why sign them except to say you did something when you did absolutely nothing. The Paris Accords were a lie something you complain about when someone states the truth.
By the way had the Paris Accords actually been strictly followed and using the best numbers from favorable models that have failed over and over again how much of a Temperature drop would we have seen?
P.Hill,
“I fault the Republican leadership; primarily Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump. Both are ignoring this issue at America’s expense.”
Please be more careful with your words. Using the term Republicans in that fashion paints too broad a brush. If you have a specific issue with specific individuals, name them. Perhaps there are registered Republicans who’d agree with you if you hadn’t put them on the defensive.
What do they say are their reasons for ‘ignoring’ this issue?
Is it because they think it’s a hoax (if so, I’d be curious about how they came to this conclusion)? Are they uncertain of the efficacy of the proposed changes?
“They are handicapping our response time. And it’s all because certain billionaire donors to Republican campaigns don’t want the nation planning for Climate Change.”
What do you mean by ‘response time’? The police and ambulance drivers have a ‘response time’.
You say ‘our’ response time, too. Who all is on board, and, a ‘response time’ for what exactly?
What do you envision by ‘planning for Climate Change’? It sounds like you have something in mind and that it must be completed urgently.
Perhaps I do not understand the goal(s). Is cutting ‘CO2 emissions’ for factories and vehicles here in the US the goal?
Treason is a word whose letters can also spell Senator. Peter likes to use hyperbole but let him think of our legislators that refuse to build a wall to protect American citizens and America TREASON(ous) SENATOR(s)
Dude, the Mexicans have got this!
If you’re looking for traitors, the GOP is full of guys who will sell the constitution out for a chance to not get primaried by the cult leader who’s taken over their party.
“GOP is full of guys who will sell the constitution out for a chance to not get primaried by the cult leader who’s taken over their party.”
You seem to believe that capitalism is associated with a cult. 100 Democrats have signed onto AOC’s plan that would destroy the economy of the US. Take note Venezuelans (AOC type of government) are looking to come to America, but Americans aren’t looking to go to Venezuela. We have something they want but many people do not understand. We have freedom, individualism and Capitalism that has made the whole world richer while those countries engaged in socialism. Are you an AOC type poorly educated in economics and the sciences?
CLIMATE CHANGE HAS EXISTED FOR 4.5 BILLION YEARS.
Some people are incapable of learning. Supposedly man was supposed to have a greater intellect than other primates, but that remains to be proven.
Rain has existed for 4.5 billion years, and yet I built a roof over my families head to keep it out. It will require upkeep and repair over the years, and some say “the hell with it” and eventually it will be gone, along with humans when the sun burns out.
What’s the use!
Anon, you miss another point.
Rain comes and goes. The planet heats up and cools off. That is the underlying nature of our planet that is more effected by uncontrollable things than controllable ones. There are ways humans might be able to dial the temperature down and use that dial in both directions but you guys are too busy being hysterically PC to permit a diversity of opinion so likely you don’t even know about some of the things suggested.
Thank you for confirming the fact that we succeed by mitigating the harsh realities of nature, not exacerbating or ignoring them.
That is right Anon, and this claim of “global warming” is more of an excuse rather than a reality and that is why they had to change the name to “climate change” since they couldn’t adequately prove the idea of global warming due to anthropomorphic causes that outweighed the “harsh realities of nature”.
Your opinion on climate change is duly noted and given all the serious consideration it warrants.
“Your opinion on climate change is duly noted and given all the serious consideration it warrants.”
Serious opinion based on knowledge might take years. Anon, you probably only took a few seconds.
I would be more than willing. I also do t mind paying more that I probably should girls my employer supplied health insurance. Paying an extra 10.00 per month to combat climate change because I have grand children and I would like their children and their children’s children and their peers to be able to live on a non toxic planet named Earth. I pat more for my insurance do that my doctors and my hospital can afford to take care of the people who have insurance through the Affordable Care Act, and the indigent.
It takes a village or a United country to make anything work.
Another way to go about it might be to use less electricity. Or to make the use of electricity more efficient. What sort of “conveniences” or “amenities,” or “creature comforts,” might we be willing to sacrifice to offset the additional ten dollars a month cost of electricity?
The problem with $10/mo. is the money is always skimmed or diverted. Always; and next year it’ll be $20/mo.
It’s not a surcharge added to your electric bill. It is a presumed increase in the cost of producing electricity that your electricity provider would pass along to you by means of rate increase per kilowatt/hour of electricity consumed. The easy way out would be to consume fewer kilowatt/hours electricity while becoming far more efficient per kilowatt/hour of electricity that you do consume.
You beat me to it. Most people seem to understand the camel and his pesky nose.
You keep your wallet in the eye of the needle? That’s a hefty wallet, Jim. Don’t spend it all in one place.
Which holds dominion in America, a poll or the Constitution?
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
________________________________________________________________________________
Congress has power to tax for “…general Welfare…,” deliberately omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare.
Congress has the power to regulate the commerce, trade or exchange “…among the several States,…” to preclude bias or favor by one state over another. No power to regulate any other aspect of American endeavor or free enterprise is enumerated.
Congress has no power to tax to pay for anything as nebulous, amorphous, hysterical in incoherent as “global warming” or “climate change.” Understanding that theoretical “warming” is “global” and that “climate” cannot possibly be contained within the borders of and above the United States, neither of these notions is within the purview of the national U.S. government.
The Constitution provides maximal freedom to individuals while it severely limits and restricts government which exists only to facilitate the freedom of individuals.
George says that The United States government has no jurisdiction over carbon-dioxide emissions because the United States is not the only source of carbon-dioxide emissions.
George also says that the emissions standards for automobiles, both foreign and domestic, that The United States Congress put in The Clean Air Act are just as unconstitutional as the federal excise taxes on gasoline and tires that pay for The Interstate Highway System.
George says a lot of things that ladles out from his constitutional crock of cockamamie.
Thank you so much for your concession as ad hominem. I apologize for engaging an unarmed opponent.
Please cite the Constitution whereby “regulation,” other that of commerce “…among the several states…,” is enumerated.
Under the U.S. Constitution the related industry and courts, as those entities respond to demands of customers and injured parties, are the means by which resolution is obtained.
Competition in the free markets of the private sector, not unconstitutional legislation from Congress or unconstitutional “legislation from the bench,” is the constitutional solution in every case.
George, clean air is a public good in exactly the same way that Interstate Highways are public goods. By your own prior admission, George, public goods can be provided for under the heading of general welfare. If Congress can create an Interstate Highway System to facilitate interstate commerce, then Congress can regulate the carbon-dioxide emissions of the vehicles travelling along those Interstate Highways from one state to another state. Congress can also take the lead out of the gasoline on which those vehicles run as well as set minimum standards for miles-per-gallon of gas that those vehicles achieve. The list goes on. George.
Your constitutional crock of cockamamie is just that: A crock full of constitutional cockamamie.
Maybe people are tired of wave after wave of doom-and-gloom conclusions thrown at them for decades yet, somehow, the world population continues to increase and the Earth continues to spin. Perhaps the people continue to ask themselves simple questions such as: if the coasts are going to flood then why are we digging traffic tunnels, building high speed rail, and being taxed while NOT evacuating coastal cities? There could also be a component where people are tired of the deceit and and downplay of scandals, such as Climategate and Solyndra. Perhaps the people wonder why the rich and connected preach sacrifice then jet off to tropical vacations.
Maybe people aren’t as stupid as you think.
There’s no indication that Thomas Johnson is eager for the world to come an end already. There was, however, an implied indication from Mr. Johnson that, if the world were going to come to an end, say, tomorrow or the next day, for instance, then we ought properly to be evacuating planet Earth–STAT. Oughtn’t we? Given that we are not fleeing planet Earth in droves, it supposedly follows that . . . “there is providence in the fall of a sparrow” . . . or some such other bromide dangling from an exposed nerve ending to keep the cat entertained.
THE NEED FOR ENEMIES
After “Climategate” killed “global warming, the new “enemy” for communists is the new and improved version of global warming,
“climate change.”
_________________________________________________________________________________
“The latest release of 5,000 emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reconfirms what the 2009’s “Climategate” files established: Global warming is more fiction than science.”
– The Washington Times
___________________
“Our results therefore support the notion that such politicians need enemies to maintain their political advantage and act so as to keep the enemy alive.”
– “The Need For Enemies” – National Bureau of Economic Research.
THE NEED FOR ENEMIES
After “Climategate” killed “global warming, the new “enemy” for communists is the new and improved version of global warming,
“climate change.”
_________________________________________________________________________________
“The latest release of 5,000 emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reconfirms what the 2009’s “Climategate” files established: Global warming is more fiction than science.”
– The Washington Times
___________________
“Our results therefore support the notion that such politicians need enemies to maintain their political advantage and act so as to keep the enemy alive.”
– “The Need For Enemies” – National Bureau of Economic Research.
I believe in climate change but I’m also well aware of the tremendous environmental impact of immigration from 3d world countries, where the carbon footprint is virtually nil, to the U.S., where these folks will get large trucks and SUVs, and start consuming at a rate unimaginable in their former villages. So long as the U.S. govt allows historically high rates of immigration, I’m not going to waste my efforts or money on recycling or any other environmental causes, because it would be about as effective as trying to hold back a flood with a tin cup. I remember taking a class in Environmental Economics and the impact of 3d to 1st world immigration in high school, almost 30 years ago, and the situation has gotten much much worse since then!
You may “believe in” God. But climate change requires The Scientific Method, and Anthropogenic Global Warming is currently in the status of hypothesis.
Does that mean that, like what’s his name(?)–[let’s call him Frenchy]–you have no need for the hypothesis that there is a god, or God?
I read a philosopher once who claimed that all knowledge is belief, but that there are different types of belief, some of which are supposedly both true and justified. Don’t ask me to explain it. Ask Frenchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace
Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace was a French scholar whose work was important to the …… He replied that he had no need of that hypothesis.”) In 1884 …
The revisionist interpretation of Herve Faye from 1884
It was not God, therefore, that Laplace treated as a hypothesis, but his intervention in a certain place.
the warming part of it is pretty widely accepted, the causal explanations less so.
consensus does matter in science. it is not dogmatic but it is persuasive
TIN said, “. . . 3d world countries, where the carbon footprint is virtually nil . . .”
You may be on to something, TIN. Imagine how bad off the planet would be if all of the globe’s human population had “rural electrification” projects under way. They used to say that, “You just can’t keep ’em down on the farm,” about our ancestors, as well. And they got here first. You know? First come, first served. It ought to be in The U. S. Constitution. But it’s not. Maybe George can tease it into or out of the original text. Something or other about “Manifest Destiny,” I would imagine.
Or we could just use less electricity. Or use electricity more efficiently. Or undo The Tennessee Valley Authority. No. Wait. Strike that. We’re going to need all of the hydroelectric generating capacity that we can get. Otherwise we might go back to being a Third World country the way we were when The Founding Fathers and The Framer’s of The Constitution neglected to inscribe in our very own sacred text the divinely-inspired natural-law principle of “First Come, First Served.”
OK late then you make like Saint Francis and give all your stuff away to the charity against global warming. Then i will think about doing the same.
It will be a small sadness that having given your computer away, we won’t be hearing from you, but we will manage.
Thank you for your selfless anticipated contribution to planet Earth!
You don’t have to go off the grid, Sauerkraut. Just use electricity more efficiently. Or use less of it than you’re currently using. And that will help offset the user’s cost for whatever rate increases might result from increases in the cost of producing electricity.
Sometimes I have to wonder if the very idea of conservation is lost on conservatives.
“Sometimes I have to wonder if the very idea of conservation is lost on conservatives.”
Diane, Back a number of years there was a comparison between the home lived in by more conservative GWB and the home lived in by more Liberal Al Gore. It’s worth seeing how hypocritical Liberals are and envious as well. The carbon footprint emitted by Gore’s home was huge and unecessary. That of GWB was kind of small.
I think our very Liberal millenials should consider buying homes with less square footage and increase the amount of vegetation on their lots. They don’t need more than one bathroom and kitchen’s need not be showplaces. They can turn off all the electronics and use smaller more efficient ones. I don’t see them doing that so I wonder how far the millenial Liberal evironmentalist mindset goes. Cold showers are invigorating and sweaters can keep one warm. A/C is not needed as one can keep the windows open and use a fan.
AOC has been using Uber rather than the subway which is quite close and she flies a lot rather than using the train. She doesn’t seem to adhere to the rules that she wishes the rest of us to adhere to and neither do the ~100 Democrats that signed onto her plans. The Liberals that meet for the Aspen Conference or other economic conferences that discuss these problems as well as the others all seem to fly in on private planes.
I think we should ban all private planes except those carrying a few of of the top government officials all over the world and medical evacuation. Senators and House members in the US can take trains with only limited use of commercial airlines and their homes should be limited to 1,500 square feet with an additional 200 square feet per dependent. Extra space when the dependents leave should be provided to illegal aliens preferrably of the M 13 type.
that’s a pretty wise statement TIN except some third world countries have huge CO2 impact like China most of all, and also India. Because they have a lot of people who need to eat and work.
Some crazy leftists like the Unabomber really do think humanity itself is the cancer. These people are nuts. Do they want to exterminate us all so that the coral reefs can live? They should sacrifice their own carbon emissions first, if so!
I would calculate that this poll implies that at least 68% of this nation consider climate change to be hooey.
Alma Carman, polls also told us HRC was a shoo in to beat Trump. Man caused climate change is another hoax to scare us into giving the govt more $$ & control. At my house the spring is taking longer ever year to warm up. Polar cold is freezing the north East, but hey, that’s all because we drive cars. SURRRE it is….
Any one wondering why China & India aren’t being pressured?
Anyone look up how the surface of the sun’s activity is slowing down? We are going to get colder for a while.
“I (Dr. Ball) published a paper relating the cloud cover theory to historical events using Little Ice Age art. The importance of this study is that we are currently approaching sunspot numbers associated with those in the Little Ice Age, which is why many of us are warning of global cooling. This contradicts the government and mainstream media-created fake news of human-caused global warming, so naturally, these discoveries are hidden from public view to the extent possible. Through the Internet, however, the real story is slowly becoming more broadly known. It is about time.”
I quote the last paragraph from an article from–
http://www.netnewsledger.com/2019/03/03/the-sun-dominates-climate-change/
SamFox
and yet not a word of any contrary info will be noted by either the dems, the media and academia. I would truly like someone to correlate the association of scientists receiving government grants and their findings on climate.
If instead of spending so much time and effort on correct sentence structure, you had spent just a little of that on gaining just a little understanding of true science, you might have a little better gasp of what is so wrong with your position.
Doesn’t matter what we want; the Pinkos are going to try to ram it down our throats.
That’s not true. It matters what you want because you want what you don’t want and you don’t want what you want. You’re all tied up in want knots. And that’s why it matters what you really, really, truly, truly want. Do the head scratching. Figure it out.
L4D
You are a loon.
From Wikipedia:
Philosophers such as Aristotle and Pliny the Elder argued that the full moon induced insane individuals with bipolar disorder by providing light during nights which would otherwise have been dark, and affecting susceptible individuals through the well-known route of sleep deprivation. Until at least 1700, it was also a common belief that the moon influenced fevers, rheumatism, episodes of epilepsy and other diseases.
[end excerpt]
Technically speaking, I haven’t seen the moon since many years ago when I stopped walking the one dog who truly was a lunatic for real. It kept her going until the age of fifteen, which is not bad, but not especially brag-worthy, either. You should see what it looks like in the Winter-time with no leaves on the trees, and snow on the ground, and little twinkling sparkles of moonlight around every last rabbit track up in the neighborhood, each of which has to be properly scented until the dog’s nose is practically nudging the rabbit’s tail. Now that’s brag-worthy. Sort of. Depending. [Howooo!] Did anybody else hear that?
Pinko’s, democrats, liberals, socialists, progressives, whatever,
THEY ARE ALL COMMUNISTS IN DISGUISE.
I would pay ten dollars a month if the climate change people would be mentally examined and stay off the media. Yeah we have rise and fall in heat and cold spells. Take care of the coal minor’s daughter.