Transitioning from a corn fed animal meat diet...maybe..doubtful. A meat diet in general has been great for the environment. Just look at peoples who live and depend on meat based diets (Laps, Eskimos, various nomadic tribes in East Africa, etc); they take care of the environment. Before we colonized NA there were roughly as many tons of ruminants in NA as there are today. Animal farts is just such a ridiculous idea. Now industrial corn farming has negative impacts, that is undeniable but mostly due to the transportation and fertilizers. A grass fed beef /sheep/goat/chicken/pig industry with no corn finish is very benign and just mimics the forces of nature in NA from the ice age.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
Transitioning from a corn fed animal meat diet...maybe..doubtful. A meat diet in general has been great for the environment. Just look at peoples who live and depend on meat based diets (Laps, Eskimos, various nomadic tribes in East Africa, etc); they take care of the environment. Before we colonized NA there were roughly as many tons of ruminants in NA as there are today. Animal farts is just such a ridiculous idea. Now industrial corn farming has negative impacts, that is undeniable but mostly due to the transportation and fertilizers. A grass fed beef /sheep/goat/chicken/pig industry with no corn finish is very benign and just mimics the forces of nature in NA from the ice age.
juliusa
Active Member
Yes, we can measure what has happened.
Yes!! We can project the outcomes of climate warming!! What we can't predict is global warming.
In just a few years, the "scientists" were off by 50 years on Greenland. Greenland's Massive Ice Melt Wasn't Supposed To Happen Until 2070
Oops!! "Science" was wrong.
juliusa
Active Member
What is sustainable for 10 million people is not sustainable for 10 billion people - or 100 billion people.
Why is there no discussion about population control as a way of combatting global warming? Just kicking the can down the road - there is a finite number of people the earth will support.
Attacking the messenger when you don't like the message is the most despicable thing you can do.
Technology and the free market got us into this mess and can't get us out. Capitalism is the problem. The rich industrial economies are destroy life on Earth.
Growing corn and soy to feed animals takes up 60% of farmland with corresponding destruction of forests and wildland. You can't graze a cow in the forest or jungle. That's why they are burning the Amazon. Cheaper hamburgers.
For most of the last million years or so humans have lived a pretty miserable existence. Up until about 200 years ago 99% of the human race lived in what would be termed abject poverty today. The industrial revolution, and capitalism has dramatically changed that. The poverty rate and misery in the world has dropped dramatically since then, and is still dropping. Capitalism is a wealth generator for society. We are currently living in the most prosperous times humans have experienced in their existence. Sure, problems exist, social programs are needed, and problems created by industry are needing to be addressed, but governments don’t create wealthy societies, however they can by policy, encourage and aid innovation and technology. Social programs can take a part of the wealth generated by capitalism and help those left behind. It all works together, it’s messy, but we live in a very different world than folks did 200, 1000, 10,000 years ago, and I would argue it’s a far better world.
Is it perfect? No, but it’s better now than it ever has been for the human race.
Capitalism and industry has given us lives far better than our ancestors. It has also given us some problems we do need to deal with. Driving around little mini pollution factories is one for sure. I believe in humans pouring waste and atmosphere altering compounds into the environment on a huge scale is a bad thing.
I believe we have serious problems we need to address. But I don’t believe in Climate Disaster. If I did believe we were on the edge of extinction, I would have to give up my lifestyle in order not to feel like a hypocrite. I would have to take personal responsibility for my additions to the problem. I would have to shut off my power, live by candlelight. I would have to basically live like the Amish, because nearly everything one buys today, food, clothing, housing, transportation, is manufactured, grown, and transported using mostly fossil fuels.
We are moving away from that, maybe too slowly for some, but we are moving towards sustainable energy, and it’s mostly because of the freedom of innovation, and capitalist investment, and yes, government policy encouraging investment. They all have to work together to be successful.
The fact we live more with corporatism than capitalism is another problem, but that’s enough for a whole other thread.
Cheers
Norbert
TSLA will win
Estimating the time it will take for specific events to happen was always a much more difficult question than understanding the main principles. There are so many other processes than CO2 effects.
Being wrong about specific times doesn't mean that general understanding regarding the principle effects of CO2 is lacking.
Some insight into AOC, GND, poverty and how they are linked.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Next Big Effort: Tackling Poverty
With the Green New Deal, we weren’t just talking about climate change; we’re talking about the systems that got us to climate change,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said. “We’re addressing root causes.”
“And similarly,” she added, “with our Just Society package, we’re not simply addressing poverty or wages. We’re addressing some of the basic structural reasons that are resulting in those outcomes.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Next Big Effort: Tackling Poverty
With the Green New Deal, we weren’t just talking about climate change; we’re talking about the systems that got us to climate change,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said. “We’re addressing root causes.”
“And similarly,” she added, “with our Just Society package, we’re not simply addressing poverty or wages. We’re addressing some of the basic structural reasons that are resulting in those outcomes.”
Norbert
TSLA will win
Such measures as carbon-tax try to be more integrated with market force based economy, but they would require more bi-partisan cooperation in congress to pass, so that doesn't seem to be about to happen.
For those who want more "social" policies in general, it makes sense to integrate the "green" part with other parts of their concepts.
Bi-partisan appeal just isn't a big appeal if one party calls the whole thing a hoax.
Latest IPPC report. We do have a disaster and it will get worse.
Extreme sea level events ‘will hit once a year by 2050’
Extreme sea level events ‘will hit once a year by 2050’
Extreme sea level events that used to occur once a century will strike every year on many coasts by 2050, no matter whether climate heating emissions are curbed or not, according to a landmark report by the world’s scientists.
But far worse impacts will hit without urgent action to cut fossil fuel emissions, including eventual sea level rise of more than 4 metres in the worst case, an outcome that would redraw the map of the world and harm billions of people.
Extreme El Niño events, which see heatwaves in some regions and floods in others, are projected to occur twice as often this century whether emissions are cut or not, the report said. Coral reefs, vital nurseries for marine life, will suffer major losses and local extinctions. Across the ocean, heat, acidification and lower oxygen is set to cut fisheries by a quarter and all marine life by 15% if emissions are not slashed.
Even if huge cuts in emissions begin immediately, between 29cm and 59cm of sea level rise is already inevitable because the ice caps and glaciers melt slowly. Sea level will rise for centuries without action, Sebesvari warned. “The dramatic thing about sea level rise is if we accept 1 metre happening by 2100, we accept we will get about 4 metres by 2300. That is simply not an option we can risk.”
Extreme sea level events ‘will hit once a year by 2050’
Extreme sea level events ‘will hit once a year by 2050’
Extreme sea level events that used to occur once a century will strike every year on many coasts by 2050, no matter whether climate heating emissions are curbed or not, according to a landmark report by the world’s scientists.
But far worse impacts will hit without urgent action to cut fossil fuel emissions, including eventual sea level rise of more than 4 metres in the worst case, an outcome that would redraw the map of the world and harm billions of people.
Extreme El Niño events, which see heatwaves in some regions and floods in others, are projected to occur twice as often this century whether emissions are cut or not, the report said. Coral reefs, vital nurseries for marine life, will suffer major losses and local extinctions. Across the ocean, heat, acidification and lower oxygen is set to cut fisheries by a quarter and all marine life by 15% if emissions are not slashed.
Even if huge cuts in emissions begin immediately, between 29cm and 59cm of sea level rise is already inevitable because the ice caps and glaciers melt slowly. Sea level will rise for centuries without action, Sebesvari warned. “The dramatic thing about sea level rise is if we accept 1 metre happening by 2100, we accept we will get about 4 metres by 2300. That is simply not an option we can risk.”
I think you need to reassess. (See latest IPPC report above)
BTW, I don't think candles are a solution. Try a solar panel.
Also, I just spent a week in Amish country (Lancaster, PA). The Amish are getting along just fine.
Last edited:
Sure solar panels are great, I have them. Won’t run my AC though, not yet in Florida, but I’m hoping that day will come.
In no way was I disparaging the Amish way of life. I admire them.
I was just pointing out I feel it’s hypocritical for people to talk the talk of ridding the world of fossil fuel use because they feel disaster is imminent, but refuse take personal responsibility for their own lifestyles, when most of us are completely dependent on industries that provide and transport all we consume using mostly fossil fuels.
I see you enjoy skiing. It’s nice to have that much free time in your life to do that, isn’t it? Even 100 years ago there were very few people who didn’t have to work dawn to dusk just to survive. Thank god for technology, capitalism, and the industrial revolution, I say.
Now, let’s tackle the problems caused by our prosperity, instead of advocating against the very things that made most humankind’s lives better.
Unless of course, you think we should all go back to the old ways.
You go first.
Cheers
juliusa
Active Member
It is not the timing I am worried about. It is their "scientific" model that I question.
How can a model say something will happen in 50 years, and it happens in 5??
One explanation is what they thought was causing the change (man-made emissions) was not as much a driver as other things they had not considered. Therefore, their "assumption" about the affect of changing man-made emissions on global warming may be overstated.
She has it backwards. Cheap fossil fuel energy has raised millions out of poverty. Spending more money for energy exacerbates poverty.
Getting that passed would be child's play compared to AOC's GND.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yeah... I understand that it really rankles some people to see people with a complextion that doesn't match theirs getting benefits they didn't work for (Like a quality public education).... Maybe we should work on fixing that...
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??? How would that help? The problem is CO2 emissions from burning fools fuel. You can easily get all of your energy from solar. Why do you think it's not enough to run AC? It certainly is.
AGW absolutely is a crisis and solving most of the problem is rather simple. If you use 15MWh/yr... produce ~16MWh/yr from solar. If you want a cherry on top because you use amazon prime... produce ~25MWh/yr to make up for it.
Which fact do you think is not true?
1) CO2 levels have risen >40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted more than twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise
3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in global average temperature of >3C.
The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?
Only Morons and Monsters use fools fuel where alternatives exist.
It's the feedbacks that can't be predicted accurately. There is no other proposed explanation to the warming other than CO2. But there are dozens of feedbacks and inflection points triggered by the warming. The scariest one is methane clathrate. If that goes we're done.
Early Hunter gathering communities had lots of free time and social time. A far cry from the wage slave capitalist industrial society we have inherited.
d21mike
Active Member
This FAR LEFT talking point comes up when your argument starts to completely far apart and the only thing you can come up with is to call others you disagree with a bigot.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I'm not the one that claimed 'socialism' only works in 'homogenous' communities... just responding to it...
I don't think that's true.... but if it were... why do YOU suppose that would be?
- Status
Similar threads
