Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[mspohr]

Trump's latest cabinet pick: another profit-over-humanity Republican
Trump's latest cabinet pick: another profit-over-humanity Republican | Ross Barkan

 

[mspohr]

Kids in climate lawsuit ask to block fossil fuel production on federal land
“The evidence shows that these systemic activities must be enjoined immediately to preserve plaintiffs’ ability to obtain a remedy in this case that redresses their injuries and protects the public interest,” attorneys for the youths told the court.

“The record shows that, for decades, defendants have knowingly and affirmatively placed plaintiffs in peril of present and worsening climate change-induced harms, with shocking, deliberate indifference to the known and obvious dangers in advancing a fossil fuel-based energy system.”

They’re seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the fossil fuel activities while the case proceeds.

 

[ggr]

Many people use that misquotation. The actual quote is "Love of money is the root of all evil." Makes more sense if you think about it.

Quoting out of context goes back a long way...

 

[mspohr]

Quoting out of context goes back a long way...

context:
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The apostle Paul, in his first letter to his young disciple, Timothy, had this to say: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:10). Now this verse is often misquoted as saying, “Money is the root of all evil.” Notice how “money” is substituted for “love of money” and “the root of all evil” is substituted for “a root of all kinds of evil.” These changes, while subtle, have an enormous impact on the meaning of the verse.

The misquoted version (“money is the root of all evil”) makes money and wealth the source (or root) of all evil in the world. This is clearly false. The Bible makes it quite clear that sin is the root of all evil in the world (Matthew 15:19; Romans 5:12; James 1:15). However, when we reflect upon the correct citation of this verse, we see that it is the love of money, not money itself, that is a source of all different kinds of trouble and evil. Wealth is morally neutral; there is nothing wrong with money, in and of itself, or the possession of money. However, when money begins to control us, that’s when trouble starts.

Compare this with Idleness is the root of all evil.

 

[SageBrush]

context:
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

The apostle Paul, in his first letter to his young disciple, Timothy, had this to say: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs” (1 Timothy 6:10). Now this verse is often misquoted as saying, “Money is the root of all evil.” Notice how “money” is substituted for “love of money” and “the root of all evil” is substituted for “a root of all kinds of evil.” These changes, while subtle, have an enormous impact on the meaning of the verse.

The misquoted version (“money is the root of all evil”) makes money and wealth the source (or root) of all evil in the world. This is clearly false. The Bible makes it quite clear that sin is the root of all evil in the world (Matthew 15:19; Romans 5:12; James 1:15). However, when we reflect upon the correct citation of this verse, we see that it is the love of money, not money itself, that is a source of all different kinds of trouble and evil. Wealth is morally neutral; there is nothing wrong with money, in and of itself, or the possession of money. However, when money begins to control us, that’s when trouble starts.

Compare this with Idleness is the root of all evil.

<<shrug>>
This sounds like a pitch to give one's wealth to the church.

 

[rays427]

I've only joined the forums yesterday but I noticed your comment, so if I could respond...

The reason we need to subsidize renewable is because our environment is in crisis. The faster we transition to a renewable energy economy, the more able will be able to mitigate the costs of climate change.

Also, such a huge tax on gas is a regressive tax. I support taxes on gas but I don't support a regressive tax system which makes the poor pay even more just to get to work. And I disagree that higher costs will reduce consumption. The average person who is living paycheck to paycheck is not going to stop driving to work.

In addition, a gas tax will further depress the economy. America needs policies that will grow the economy and get people spending. It's going to happen, I'm sure of it.

Who do you think would end up paying a carbon tax? It would just be passed on the customers. So yes it would probably depress the economy.

 

[ggies07]

Who do you think would end up paying a carbon tax? It would just be passed on the customers. So yes it would probably depress the economy.

Man, you are such a ****ing debby downer. Why dont you just sit this one out and others will push forward with the transition.

 

[S'toon]

It was another record warm year for Earth.

On Wednesday, scientists from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that 2018 was the fourth warmest year on record. It ranks behind 2016, 2017 and 2015, respectively.

Globally, temperatures were 0.83 C warmer than the 1950 to 1980 average, according to NASA.

"The key message is that the planet is warming; the long-term trends are extremely robust," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "There's no question about the trends and our understanding of why those trends are very robust: it's because of the increases of greenhouse gases that we've put in the air over the last century."
<snip>

Full article at:
2018 was the 4th-warmest year on record, NOAA and NASA reveal | CBC News

 

[ohmman]

Who do you think would end up paying a carbon tax? It would just be passed on the customers. So yes it would probably depress the economy.

That's why everyone has been talking about a carbon tax, which often is presented as revenue neutral. Everyone would get an annual dividend, and they could either spend the true cost of carbon fuels or the true cost of carbon-free fuels, thereby making the market transparent and competitive. It's inarguably a better solution than a flat gas tax.

 

[Sunshine Enjoy]

Who do you think would end up paying a carbon tax? It would just be passed on the customers. So yes it would probably depress the economy.

Offset the cost. Lower taxes on the poor and raise it for the rich. Have exemptions for the poor and increase their wages. Better welfare, free college and healthcare. That's only a start.

 

[SageBrush]

Who do you think would end up paying a carbon tax? I

Who ends up paying the externalities of carbon ?

 

[mspohr]

South Carolina Spent $9 Billion to Dig a Hole in the Ground and Then Fill It Back In

THE OBJECTION RAISED most frequently when it comes to a Green New Deal is its cost. It’s preposterous; it’s too expensive; we just can’t afford it.

But before scoffing at the prospect of the wealthiest nation in the history of the world funding such a project, it’s worth taking a look at what one of the country’s poorest states was recently able to spend.
The boondoggle, which was covered widely in the Palmetto State press but got little attention nationally, sheds light on just how much money is genuinely available for an industrial-level energy transformation, if only the political will were there.
For conservatives and corporate-friendly Democrats, the idea of spending absurd amounts of money on a comprehensive national plan to wean the economy off dirty energy and create sustainable jobs is out of the question. It’s an idea much easier to swallow when its stated purpose is corporate profit, as in South Carolina. Or at the federal level, national defense.
“The driver of inflation is not how many ones and zeros we’ve put out there,” Carlock said. “The driver of inflation is the availability of limited biophysical resources that that money is trying to go out and buy. And that’s why, when you think about this from a sustainability perspective, a Green New Deal that tries to improve the sustainability of our natural resources, is actually meant as a deflationary role.”
“Any politician whose first question about the Green New Deal is how to pay for it isn’t taking seriously the millions who will die if we fail to take action on the scale scientists say we need,” Stephen Hanlon, communications director for the Sunrise Movement, said in a statement to The Intercept.

“What we are talking about is a putting millions of people to work so they can buy food for their families, etc. This is the greatest investment in the American economy in generations, and that kind of investment pays substantial dividends,” Hanlon said.

 

[ggies07]

South Carolina Spent $9 Billion to Dig a Hole in the Ground and Then Fill It Back In

Amazing. @rays427 here's your wasted taxpayer money.

 

[nwdiver]

Amazing. @rays427 here's your wasted taxpayer money.

Meanwhile Georgia is working on their 3rd hole

 

[SageBrush]

Meanwhile Georgia is working on their 3rd hole

Even with the Feds pushing as hard as they can (with federal money and threat to the groups trying to leave) to get that albatross up and running the chance that it ever gets built is far from certain.

$28B so far, and the main shareholder wants a blank check for further cost over-runs.

 

[jerry33]

“Any politician whose first question about the Green New Deal is how to pay for it isn’t taking seriously the millions who will die if we fail to take action on the scale scientists say we need,” Stephen Hanlon, communications director for the Sunrise Movement, said in a statement to The Intercept.

I believe it's more "they just don't care". Economics 101 says that if you have X amount of resources and divide them between two people, each person will get more than if you divide it between ten people. Everything that has been done by politicians in the past thirty years has been done to increase the death rate of anyone no longer in the workforce, and reduce the real income of people who are in the workforce.

 

[rays427]

Offset the cost. Lower taxes on the poor and raise it for the rich. Have exemptions for the poor and increase their wages. Better welfare, free college and healthcare. That's only a start.

Lower the taxes on the poor? Almost 50% are already paying no federal income tax. What I proposed is taxing gasoline and diesel which would not only make EVs more attractive but would also get folks to at least purchase move to more fuel efficient ICE vehicles. You could then take that tax revenue and give it back to everyone like Alaska does with their oil revenue.

I get a kick out of the idea to lower the taxes on the poor when many actually get more back than what they pay in. Currently a family of 4 making $60,000 per year owes no federal income tax. The actual poor already get free healthcare, it's called medicaid. They also get all kinds of welfare and some even get free college through scholarships. So the idea is we should pay everyone a lot more, provide free college and healthcare and pay for it by increasing corporate taxes. So we raise their costs by paying their workers a lot more and reduce their income by taxing them. I'm sure this will make them more competitive with their competition from around the world. I guess this will also allow them to expand and add millions of new jobs while they go out of business.

 

[ohmman]

Lower the taxes on the poor? Almost 50% are already paying no federal income tax. What I proposed is taxing gasoline and diesel which would not only make EVs more attractive but would also get folks to at least purchase move to more fuel efficient ICE vehicles. You could then take that tax revenue and give it back to everyone like Alaska does with their oil revenue.

I get a kick out of the idea to lower the taxes on the poor when many actually get more back than what they pay in. Currently a family of 4 making $60,000 per year owes no federal income tax. The actual poor already get free healthcare, it's called medicaid. They also get all kinds of welfare and some even get free college through scholarships. So the idea is we should pay everyone a lot more, provide free college and healthcare and pay for it by increasing corporate taxes. So we raise their costs by paying their workers a lot more and reduce their income by taxing them. I'm sure this will make them more competitive with their competition from around the world. I guess this will also allow them to expand and add millions of new jobs while they go out of business.

We should adopt your policies. They are well thought out and great.

 

[roblab]

<<shrug>>
This sounds like a pitch to give one's wealth to the church.

The Bible does not say to give it to a church. There are many good organizations that will get money to where it is needed, such as Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, March of Dimes. Rich people usually try to spend their money on themselves and maybe hoard the rest in banks, but Paul is saying that we need to learn to give back, to help, to "love our neighbor". It just makes one a better person in my opinion.

 

[roblab]

Lower the taxes on the poor? Almost 50% are already paying no federal income tax. What I proposed is taxing gasoline and diesel which would not only make EVs more attractive but would also get folks to at least purchase move to more fuel efficient ICE vehicles. You could then take that tax revenue and give it back to everyone like Alaska does with their oil revenue.

I get a kick out of the idea to lower the taxes on the poor when many actually get more back than what they pay in. Currently a family of 4 making $60,000 per year owes no federal income tax.

The poor have taxes. They are called CASINOs. No, I'm wrong. That's a voluntary contribution, isn't it. But they support the tour bus industry and the gas/diesel industry for getting to Reno or Vegas, have hundreds of workers that take care of the laundry, housekeeping, grounds, etc., and only a few are undocumented, I hear. Some people say that Casinos make their owners very rich according to some in high places... or they might go bankrupt, but the supporters of Casinos don't like to talk about that.