Damn. I thought the one good thing about the corona virus is that it might give us a reprieve from Scary Monster stories of doom. No such luck. From the article:
“Failure to take immediate, tangible action to confront warming temperatures could lead to climate systems reaching irreversible tipping points,” said the sigma report titled “Natural catastrophes in times of economic accumulation and climate change.”
“Tangible action”. Love it. I can touch my solar heating system. I can touch a windmill. I could even touch an iceberg if I had to.
But again, WHAT ARE THE REAL, PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS? You know, the ones that would work both scientifically to reduce green house gases significantly (and not just symbolically like solar and wind). And what are the solutions that are politically feasible (meaning they won’t make poor and middle class people poorer around the world).
But instead, we get this mountain of euphemistic bureaucratic babble in the last paragraph:
“Our industry can play a key role by partnering with clients and governments to develop scalable solutions that support the transition to a low-carbon world by managing risks associated with renewable energy projects and making these more attractive to investors with re/insurance risk-transfer backing,” he went on to say.
Oh, never mind. Just more Doom Yelling from Insurance Journal.
There are plenty of real practical solutions out there, but the blind members of the right like yourself have decided they’re the only ones who know what would work or not, and so any solution they don’t agree to can’t be right.
This is the same right-wing that five years ago was trying to deny climate change was real at all. Now you’re telling us man-made climate change isn’t real. As soon as that’s off the table, you’ll be telling us it’s real sure but you can’t fix it so why try. Some of us are tired of your defeated, tired attitude. Some of us are fine with letting someone else, namely the ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS of which you are not one take a shot at things. Some of us know very clearly that your statement about making the poor and middle class poorer is just a fear tactic meant to try and scare anyone away from trying something new.
Some of us are just tired of you, Craig, and your sad attempts to fear-monger and troll literally any article that has to do with climate change. You’ve been wrong so many times, maybe step back and let someone else try this one sport.
Oh, please Mr. Climate Scientist, tell me the pluses and minuses of each proposed solution.
Solar? Wind? Banning fossil fuels? Nuclear? Tell us the good and bad of each. Tell us what percentage of global greenhouse gases will be avoided by each solution. Tell us the costs of each, and the downsides.
I can’t wait to hear your deep, unbiased, passion-free insights.
You’re sea-lioning here. I’ve told you answers plenty of times, the problem is you’re only willing to look at options you can immediately dismiss, which is why you keep trying to guide every single one of these conversations down the path of “solar, wind, nuclear” etc.
You have a bias, in that as stated, you are trolling these forums. You keep using the same arguments even when they’re refuted. You make false statements. It’s really quite simple.
We make the richest americans, the ones benefitting from not working on limiting our emissions or actively polluting the planet, those guys? Yeah, they’re the ones that pay for it. Since you keep pushing “POLITICALLY FEASIBLE” as a reason to avoid certain solutions, those ones you claim are going to make the poorest americans pay? Yeah, have the richest americans pay. Done.
And I didn’t even need to resort to your petty insults, Craig. Keep trying to insult my intelligence, it really shows what (lack of) intelligence you’re working with.
Oh, good one. Raise taxes. Please show me the math.
How much will you take from “the rich”. How much will that amount to in total?
And then what would you do with it to save the planet? Buy cows to get them to stop farting? Buy me a Tesla?
That would be cool (but wouldn’t do anything to stop you-know-what) but who cares! It would be cool and I could tell my Lefty friends I’m a greenie too!
April 8, 2020 at 6:04 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
We’ve been down this road. I’ve shown you links to math experts doing the math, you deny the facts presented in front of you. Which is why I (if you’d actually read the comments that aren’t you own) am suggesting whatever we choose, we listen to experts. Not you. You learn about this subject with the specific intention of refusing to admit that the experts are right. You have started with a belief in your mind and no amount of data or information will save you, and so you lie. You choose dishonesty.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I know the math is clear on one thing. Billionaires are profiting from harming the environment. These same billionaires are leading the case against man-made climate change. These are the people that should be taxed to fix the environment. Pretty simple really. No need to pull the poor and middle class americans into it, it’s strictly the people who cause the issue paying for the issue.
Sorry if this upsets your poor snowflake sensibilities, but the rest of us don’t care if you pretend it wouldn’t fix anything. Common sense and logic are against you.
Damn. I thought the one good thing about the corona virus is that it might give us a reprieve from Scary Monster stories of doom. No such luck. From the article:
“Failure to take immediate, tangible action to confront warming temperatures could lead to climate systems reaching irreversible tipping points,” said the sigma report titled “Natural catastrophes in times of economic accumulation and climate change.”
“Tangible action”. Love it. I can touch my solar heating system. I can touch a windmill. I could even touch an iceberg if I had to.
But again, WHAT ARE THE REAL, PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS? You know, the ones that would work both scientifically to reduce green house gases significantly (and not just symbolically like solar and wind). And what are the solutions that are politically feasible (meaning they won’t make poor and middle class people poorer around the world).
But instead, we get this mountain of euphemistic bureaucratic babble in the last paragraph:
“Our industry can play a key role by partnering with clients and governments to develop scalable solutions that support the transition to a low-carbon world by managing risks associated with renewable energy projects and making these more attractive to investors with re/insurance risk-transfer backing,” he went on to say.
Oh, never mind. Just more Doom Yelling from Insurance Journal.
There are plenty of real practical solutions out there, but the blind members of the right like yourself have decided they’re the only ones who know what would work or not, and so any solution they don’t agree to can’t be right.
This is the same right-wing that five years ago was trying to deny climate change was real at all. Now you’re telling us man-made climate change isn’t real. As soon as that’s off the table, you’ll be telling us it’s real sure but you can’t fix it so why try. Some of us are tired of your defeated, tired attitude. Some of us are fine with letting someone else, namely the ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS of which you are not one take a shot at things. Some of us know very clearly that your statement about making the poor and middle class poorer is just a fear tactic meant to try and scare anyone away from trying something new.
Some of us are just tired of you, Craig, and your sad attempts to fear-monger and troll literally any article that has to do with climate change. You’ve been wrong so many times, maybe step back and let someone else try this one sport.
Oh, please Mr. Climate Scientist, tell me the pluses and minuses of each proposed solution.
Solar? Wind? Banning fossil fuels? Nuclear? Tell us the good and bad of each. Tell us what percentage of global greenhouse gases will be avoided by each solution. Tell us the costs of each, and the downsides.
I can’t wait to hear your deep, unbiased, passion-free insights.
You’re sea-lioning here. I’ve told you answers plenty of times, the problem is you’re only willing to look at options you can immediately dismiss, which is why you keep trying to guide every single one of these conversations down the path of “solar, wind, nuclear” etc.
You have a bias, in that as stated, you are trolling these forums. You keep using the same arguments even when they’re refuted. You make false statements. It’s really quite simple.
We make the richest americans, the ones benefitting from not working on limiting our emissions or actively polluting the planet, those guys? Yeah, they’re the ones that pay for it. Since you keep pushing “POLITICALLY FEASIBLE” as a reason to avoid certain solutions, those ones you claim are going to make the poorest americans pay? Yeah, have the richest americans pay. Done.
And I didn’t even need to resort to your petty insults, Craig. Keep trying to insult my intelligence, it really shows what (lack of) intelligence you’re working with.
Oh, good one. Raise taxes. Please show me the math.
How much will you take from “the rich”. How much will that amount to in total?
And then what would you do with it to save the planet? Buy cows to get them to stop farting? Buy me a Tesla?
That would be cool (but wouldn’t do anything to stop you-know-what) but who cares! It would be cool and I could tell my Lefty friends I’m a greenie too!
We’ve been down this road. I’ve shown you links to math experts doing the math, you deny the facts presented in front of you. Which is why I (if you’d actually read the comments that aren’t you own) am suggesting whatever we choose, we listen to experts. Not you. You learn about this subject with the specific intention of refusing to admit that the experts are right. You have started with a belief in your mind and no amount of data or information will save you, and so you lie. You choose dishonesty.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I know the math is clear on one thing. Billionaires are profiting from harming the environment. These same billionaires are leading the case against man-made climate change. These are the people that should be taxed to fix the environment. Pretty simple really. No need to pull the poor and middle class americans into it, it’s strictly the people who cause the issue paying for the issue.
Sorry if this upsets your poor snowflake sensibilities, but the rest of us don’t care if you pretend it wouldn’t fix anything. Common sense and logic are against you.