With all the attention over the Green New Deal I wanted to make sure we had a place where all of our more right leaning colleagues could discuss the substantive proposals emanating from the political right about how to combat climate change.
Actually letting less migrants in from low carbon footprint countries actually helps. Putting them in the USA immedietly raises our Carbon Footprint and hurts the environment. So really the wall is an environmental measure that should help curb carbon emmissions.
Eliminate more oil-producing countries in the name of democracy. Venezuela is the perfect next target .
You mean from countries that are transitioning from underdeveloped to developed and don't have the infrastructure for such things such as natural gas pipelines thus you want them to stay in a country that will most likely overly depend on resources such as coal? You are pretty much ignoring the developing trends in most third world countries. These migrants if they stayed will eventually be part of the electrical grid and consuming modern products that require energy(transportation, computing etc) in their country of origin because most of these third world countries are developing at a rapid rate but instead be using electricity from less efficient systems. These countries will rely on coal more and won't have the initial money to invest in such things like dual cycle(Brayton/Rankine) power plants. A visual representation of why your "solution" would be devastating: Current developed nations just have the infrastructure for more efficient systems.
The Earth's climate has been changing since the Earth was first formed, and will continue to change until it is ultimately destroyed. The only people who even come close to denying that the Earth's climate is naturally in a state of constant change are the AGW alarmists, who appear to believe that a static climate is somehow normal, achievable and sustainable. It isn’t. So trying stop the Earth's climate from changing is truly a fools errand that only fools will commit to undertake. Don't play the fool, people. If you do, it is your choice.
Very misleading. Carbin Footprint is a better way to frame it because it isn't just about internal use. We buy and use things that are made outside of our country in low regulation business environments. Not to mention the shipping pollution. Our CF is huge and would only grow. That chart is looking at one thing versus net impact.
Earth will be just fine. Overall life on Earth will evolve, be just fine. Going to be extra costs for human societies though, no doubt.
Yea, I largely agree. Climate change is coming. The genie is out of the bottle. We will adapt. The Earths population and carbon footprint has exploded in the last one hundred years. The Earths population in 1900 was 1.6 billion. The Earths population today is 7.7 billion. In 2100 the Earths population will be 11.2 billion. The production of fuel, heat/AC, food and consumer goods is going to burn ever increasing amounts of carbon. Add continued and accelerated deforestation to that. It's f&&ked.
It’s amazing how your ilk believes these things.... Either way you are going to end up paying.... do nothing and build dikes and move your civilization inland. I’m sure that’s cheap and won’t cause destabilization...
There are many ways to skin a cat. We need population/immigrants to fund our entitlements/ keep our capitalist economy going... All you’re doing is creating another problem.
I would say putting a price on pollution would be a conservative thing.... but I have no idea what conservative is anymore.
