Ridingtosunsets ride into the sunset Meta thread of genius

[Celery Man 20886]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Assuming you or your loved one's did not get seriously ill during the pandemic, pandemic bullshit is going to pale compared to the first year of parenting bullshit.

very lucky that we were spared on that front. I'm really glad my dyed in the wool GOP dad and his 80 something year old wife took it seriously. But I lost my job in aviation (I always feel the need to point out that it was in aviation and therefore because covid and therefore i'm protecting my fragile ego), went through a job search, sold a house, moved across the country, bought a new house, did some remodeling, learned the ropes in a new industry... whatever whatever blah. It's been a tough year and an exciting year and I'm sure the next year will be exhausting, I just hope it's different. But probably I need sit and purposefully reset my perspective for a bit in the next couple of days as we get ready for the change.

[Satchel 6908]

16 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Vox? No sir. Come with your own thoughts. 

What? And have you ask for something other than my opinion?

[Ridingtosunset 129]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If you haven’t seen “realistic ways to stop it” you apparently pay lots of attention to partisan bullshit and don’t zero attention to energy generation technology discourse remediation technology discourse, or any actual climate  policy discourse.

and therein lies the answer to your question: you’re the problem. You’re focused on this narrow, isolating drama; the bipartisan conspiracy to keep you poor and stupid. And while one side is most assuredly worse than the other, because it opposes not just the other side but objective truth itself, you’re playing into it by trying to find some kind of “consensus” between suckers and fools. 

I work in this field. I'm very educated in this field. I've read hours of literature and attended many seminars and lectures. I'm paid to know about this. There isn't one realistic path to solving this that doesn't require reducing the world's population by almost half. I spend too much time reading climate policy literature from partisan authors that are writing what they think wants to be read. Invest your money in renewables, I'll be shorting them. 

[UTGrad98 2259]

The internet and how it creates echo chambers. If it's not the main reason it certainly is on the short list. 

[Ridingtosunset 129]

1 minute ago, UTGrad98 said:

The internet and how it creates echo chambers. If it's not the main reason it certainly is on the short list. 

Best post so far. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Let's hear your version of what is most important for the health of the country.

Here is the text for reference of H.Res 109, copy and pasted for reference. I left off the sponsors, etc

Spoiler

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.

Whereas the October 2018 report entitled “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report found that—

(1) human activity is the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century;

(2) a changing climate is causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure;

(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—

(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;

(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;

(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;

(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;

(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and

(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and

(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—

(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and

(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;

Whereas, because the United States has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014, and has a high technological capacity, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation;

Whereas the United States is currently experiencing several related crises, with—

(1) life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population;

(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—

(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;

(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;

(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and

(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and

(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—

(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;

(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and

(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;

Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States—

1) by impacting the economic, environmental, and social stability of countries and communities around the world; and

(2) by acting as a threat multiplier;

Whereas the Federal Government-led mobilizations during World War II and the New Deal created the greatest middle class that the United States has ever seen, but many members of frontline and vulnerable communities were excluded from many of the economic and societal benefits of those mobilizations; and

Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes that a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era is a historic opportunity—

(1) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;

(2) to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and

(3) to counteract systemic injustices: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

(D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—

(i) clean air and water;

(ii) climate and community resiliency;

(iii) healthy food;

(iv) access to nature; and

(v) a sustainable environment; and

(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal goals”) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal mobilization”) that will require the following goals and projects—

(A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;

(B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—

(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;

(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;

(iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and

(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;

(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—

(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and

(ii) by deploying new capacity;

(D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and “smart” power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity;

(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

(F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;

(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—

(i) by supporting family farming;

(ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and

(iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and

(iii) high-speed rail;

(I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;

(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;

(K) restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;

(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites;

(M) identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them; and

(N) promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal;

(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and

(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—

(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;

(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—

(i) existing laws;

(ii) new policies and programs; and

(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;

(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;

(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;

(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;

(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;

(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;

(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;

(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;

(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;

K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—

(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and

(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;

(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;

(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;

(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and

(O) providing all people of the United States with—

(i) high-quality health care;

(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;

(iii) economic security; and

(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.

 

[Satchel 6908]

The Republican Party Is Radicalizing Against Democracy

The GOP is moderating on policy questions, even as it grows more dangerous on core questions of democracy and the rule of law.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/republican-party-radicalizing-against-democracy/617959/

[Neonmoon 38127]

1 hour ago, Ridingtosunset said:

This is a thread to discuss the obvious lack of tolerance we have now for opinions with which we don't agree. I have no delusions this will remain civil, thus the need for the discussion. 

I'm looking for discussion on how we got here, social media? politics? wealth inequality? mental health? How do we fix it and can it be fixed? 

My thoughts are we've been manipulated to this point by a) politicians who benefit from dividing and securing voting blocs b) media that feeds on division and hate c) social media that has desensitized and isolated us from real relationships with others d) our own vanity 

 

19 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Come on man. Really coming with that? Not what the thread is about. Start one on how conservatives fucked everything up and I'll comment in it. 

You literally asked for discussions on how we got here and specifically mentioned social media and politics. How is mentioning the revocation of the fairness doctrine and consequences of said revocation not permitted in said thread? 

[David Dennison 18659]

3 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

I work in this field. I'm very educated in this field. I've read hours of literature and attended many seminars and lectures. I'm paid to know about this. There isn't one realistic path to solving this that doesn't require reducing the world's population by almost half. I spend too much time reading climate policy literature from partisan authors that are writing what they think wants to be read. Invest your money in renewables, I'll be shorting them. 

What do you suggest?

[TwiceHorn 31283]

4 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

This is good one to discuss. Trump was a clown and a disgrace. But how is someone to vote that couldn't disagree more with the Dem platform? We were told not to worry about the crazies like AOC...now she has a little juice. We are heading full speed into the GND, which will be a disaster, but make Dem donors money. How are we supposed to vote? For a degenerate? Or for someone that is promising to do the opposite of what we believe is most important for the health of the country? Shit sandwich and Giant Douche. 

The Green New Deal as envisioned by AOC will not pass both houses of congress anytime in the near future.  The idea that AOC is propelling US policy on climate change is absurd.

I have been somewhat skeptical of responses to climate change, particularly efforts at global response that put us at a disadvantage relative to China, while not curbing the environmental disasters that basically are China, India, and a number of other developing countries.

All that said, I've always been pro-environment and pro-conservation, and am down for most domestic environmental efforts and reasonable and well-thought out global/international efforts.  I was originally mildly opposed to the Paris Climate Accord, but I've come to understand that it is probably more symbolic than something that will actually disadvantage us.

Many or most climate technologies (green energy, green manufacturing, green building), seem to be a potential employment bonanza.

[Ridingtosunset 129]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

 

You literally asked for discussions on how we got here and specifically mentioned social media and politics. How is mentioning the revocation of the fairness doctrine and consequences of said revocation not permitted in said thread? 

So laying out all the things you think one party did is healthy discussion to you? 

[hookemATL 11611]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

What do you suggest?

Abortions for some, small American flags for others. Boom. unity. 

[Ridingtosunset 129]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Green New Deal as envisioned by AOC will not pass both houses of congress anytime in the near future.  The idea that AOC is propelling US policy on climate change is absurd.

I have been somewhat skeptical of responses to climate change, particularly efforts at global response that put us at a disadvantage relative to China, while not curbing the environmental disasters that basically are China, India, and a number of other developing countries.

All that said, I've always been pro-environment and pro-conservation, and am down for most domestic environmental efforts and reasonable and well-thought out global/international efforts.  I was originally mildly opposed to the Paris Climate Accord, but I've come to understand that it is probably more symbolic than something that will actually disadvantage us.

Many or most climate technologies (green energy, green manufacturing, green building), seem to be a potential employment bonanza.

I agree with everything but the last sentence. 

[David Dennison 18659]

1 minute ago, Ridingtosunset said:

So laying out all the things you think one party did is healthy discussion to you? 

#BothSides

/thread

[Ridingtosunset 129]

Just now, David Dennison said:

#BothSides

/thread

Not supposed to be a both sides thread, Dave. We all think of ourselves as smarter than the general population, no? And probably the average politician. If we don't figure it out, who's going to? 

[Neonmoon 38127]

As for realistic ways to stop the partisan divide. Easy 

1. Education. Especially on social media manipulations and 24 hour “news” 

2. Reenact the fairness doctrine. 

3. Ban foreign owned media 

4. Reallocate the funds for the next 20 bullshit jets that don’t work and fund cyber-security part of the defense department. Russia and China laugh at our dial up security. 

 

[Celery Man 20886]

1 minute ago, UTGrad98 said:

The internet and how it creates echo chambers. If it's not the main reason it certainly is on the short list. 

I realize the... I'm not expecting that Fox News viewers would find the creators of Q: Into The Storm to be balanced or whatever, but the thing that was interesting to me about that was the way that 4chan and incel gamergate shit evolved and bled out of its weird internet hive and infected the real world. The original 8chan dude (the guy with the developmental disability) freaking out about his connection to the shootings, and talking about (SO late in the game) how he's realizing that there is no divide between the internet and the real world. There are... key differences, but I could kinda put myself in a world where old school shaggy hijinx got twisted and unwieldy or outright coopted and having catastrophic real world implications.

Anyways, not saying that internet echo chambers = qanon/8chan/gqp shit and that the problem is entirely on one "side" while the other is blameless. I don't think as.... sentient animals we're capable of just taking all the changes in how we receive information in stride without things getting a little fucked. It'd be nice if things weren't so fucked.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 minute ago, Ridingtosunset said:

I agree with everything but the last sentence. 

Why?  We're fucking good at technology and innovation when companies aren't so short-sighted as to deplete R/D for short-term advantage.

We have at least temporarily ceded some enviro technologies (wind) to other nations and regions, but we're extremely competitive on EV, and  if we direct our energy into it it should put a ton of people to work.  Granted, a lot of those jobs are going to for the educated and skilled, but there should be some manufacturing jobs involved that aren't easily offshore-able unless the environmental advantage is sacrificed for cost.

[Neonmoon 38127]

6 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

So laying out all the things you think one party did is healthy discussion to you? 

Identifying the problem. Search for causes of said problem. Search for solutions to said problem. By all means I’m willing to listen to anything that eroded the public trust in a shared truth 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Green New Deal as envisioned by AOC will not pass both houses of congress anytime in the near future.  The idea that AOC is propelling US policy on climate change is absurd.

I have been somewhat skeptical of responses to climate change, particularly efforts at global response that put us at a disadvantage relative to China, while not curbing the environmental disasters that basically are China, India, and a number of other developing countries.

All that said, I've always been pro-environment and pro-conservation, and am down for most domestic environmental efforts and reasonable and well-thought out global/international efforts.  I was originally mildly opposed to the Paris Climate Accord, but I've come to understand that it is probably more symbolic than something that will actually disadvantage us.

Many or most climate technologies (green energy, green manufacturing, green building), seem to be a potential employment bonanza.

Lord, thank you, a voice of reason. One of the things I get to thinking about is the space race that happened before I was born. I am not the boomer generation so I have little idea what it was like. However, people had to learn how to do things even if some of the technology was not that different, some of it probably was and certainly learning how to be very exact so bad things didn't happen was important from the least worker to the greatest. All this training in new fields of different types of energy, or how to better deploy current energy, how to build and construct dams and other watersheds affected by climate change--those things challenge us, all of us and those challenges are good for our brains, from the people running the heavy equipment to the engineers, and so on. People don't always like learning new things, but on some level, I think our country needs that, it's actually good for us and our democratic institutions. I don't see the GND as something that will wholecloth be enacted and whoops, there goes all our refineries, etc. But we have people living in cancer hellholes and communities with poisoned drinking water, and JFC, we all were wondering where the hell Gregg Abbott's head was back in February with respect to weatherization and the grid. So, let's sit down and hammer out something reasonable. Cause, cancer sucks. So does starving to death.

Sorry, went off the rails.

[Ridingtosunset 129]

@TwiceHorn I know GND isn't getting anywhere. But it gets legitimacy when its not aggressively opposed. Hashtags mean everything these days. 

If AOC actually understood what the GND would do to the poor in this country, she'd backtrack. If she knew what it would do to places like Puerto Rico, the Caribbean, and Latin America, she would be ashamed. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

We should be exploring and mining Lithium in the US. And let me preempt the we don’t have any retorts with people said the same shit about new oil 30 years ago. Humanity finds a way. Technology finds a way. It’s out there. Someone needs to spend the time and money to find it. 

[tantric superman 4667]

18 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

very lucky that we were spared on that front. I'm really glad my dyed in the wool GOP dad and his 80 something year old wife took it seriously. But I lost my job in aviation (I always feel the need to point out that it was in aviation and therefore because covid and therefore i'm protecting my fragile ego), went through a job search, sold a house, moved across the country, bought a new house, did some remodeling, learned the ropes in a new industry... whatever whatever blah. It's been a tough year and an exciting year and I'm sure the next year will be exhausting, I just hope it's different. But probably I need sit and purposefully reset my perspective for a bit in the next couple of days as we get ready for the change.

That's a fucking hell of an accomplished year...I didn't even learn any new songs on guitar. 

[Ridingtosunset 129]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why?  We're fucking good at technology and innovation when companies aren't so short-sighted as to deplete R/D for short-term advantage.

We have at least temporarily ceded some enviro technologies (wind) to other nations and regions, but we're extremely competitive on EV, and  if we direct our energy into it it should put a ton of people to work.  Granted, a lot of those jobs are going to for the educated and skilled, but there should be some manufacturing jobs involved that aren't easily offshore-able unless the environmental advantage is sacrificed for cost.

This is another conversation and don't want to take away from this thread. I'll try to remember to start one on DT soon. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

1 minute ago, Ridingtosunset said:

@TwiceHorn I know GND isn't getting anywhere. But it gets legitimacy when its not aggressively opposed. Hashtags mean everything these days. 

If AOC actually understood what the GND would do to the poor in this country, she'd backtrack. If she knew what it would do to places like Puerto Rico, the Caribbean, and Latin America, she would be ashamed. 

Ok. I'm not AOC, but what will it do to the poor in this country?

[Celery Man 20886]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

That's a fucking hell of an accomplished year...I didn't even learn any new songs on guitar. 

i picked up fingerstyle enough to passably get through "If We Were Vampires" as well

[David Dennison 18659]

3 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Not supposed to be a both sides thread, Dave. We all think of ourselves as smarter than the general population, no? And probably the average politician. If we don't figure it out, who's going to? 

It sounds like you want to divorce politics from policy.

 

 

 

[Captainant 27464]

4 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

If AOC actually understood what the GND would do to the poor in this country, she'd backtrack. If she knew what it would do to places like Puerto Rico, the Caribbean, and Latin America, she would be ashamed

Genuinely asking - what do you think GND would do to the poor in this country? 

[David Dennison 18659]

5 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

@TwiceHorn I know GND isn't getting anywhere. But it gets legitimacy when its not aggressively opposed. Hashtags mean everything these days. 

If AOC actually understood what the GND would do to the poor in this country, she'd backtrack. If she knew what it would do to places like Puerto Rico, the Caribbean, and Latin America, she would be ashamed. 

Says you.

[tantric superman 4667]

20 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

I've read hours of literature and attended many seminars and lectures.

My professor and mentor, Dr. Leaky at MIT, said you could go blind from reading hours of literature. 

The opening scene in Ulysses took me many hours of literature, and I didn't realize there were three characters in the scene until the third time I read it.

[Neonmoon 38127]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Genuinely asking - what do you think GND would do to the poor in this country? 

I’m guessing the source  

https://www.texaspolicy.com/expensive-climate-change-programs-hurt-the-poor-most/
 

[Captainant 27464]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

I’m guessing the source  

https://www.texaspolicy.com/expensive-climate-change-programs-hurt-the-poor-most/
 

I was more hoping to hear his own words explaining his opinion rather than just throwing a link out

[David Dennison 18659]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

I’m guessing the source  

https://www.texaspolicy.com/expensive-climate-change-programs-hurt-the-poor-most/
 

Because we all know the right cares about the poor.

[Ridingtosunset 129]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Ok. I'm not AOC, but what will it do to the poor in this country?

The cheapest form of energy is burning wood / dung. Followed by coal. Followed by nat gas. Followed by oil. Not including nuclear because for some reason we hate it. 

You think China, India, Pakistan, Malyasia, Central America, South America will be helped by green energy? 

What kind of burden would we put on the middle class in this country to mandate electric vehicles, much less the poor. 

That's not even getting into the fact that harnessing all this "green" energy actually requires more imput of carbon than actually using carbon as your energy source. Its lies. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

My professor and mentor, Dr. Leaky at MIT, said you could go blind from reading hours of literature. 

 

So what you're saying is if anyone can solve the problem of climate change they would never have to open another math book the rest of their lives? Cause I'm in.

[David Dennison 18659]

Just now, Ridingtosunset said:

The cheapest form of energy is burning wood / dung. Followed by coal. Followed by nat gas. Followed by oil. Not including nuclear because for some reason we hate it. 

You think China, India, Pakistan, Malyasia, Central America, South America will be helped by green energy? 

What kind of burden would we put on the middle class in this country to mandate electric vehicles, much less the poor. 

That's not even getting into the fact that harnessing all this "green" energy actually requires more imput of carbon than actually using carbon as your energy source. Its lies. 

Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

[Ridingtosunset 129]

We add more power demand annually than we do our capacity to generate. What do you guys think is going to happen? 

[David Dennison 18659]

Just now, Ridingtosunset said:

We add more power demand annually than we do our capacity to generate. What do you guys think is going to happen? 

World war.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

15 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

@TwiceHorn I know GND isn't getting anywhere. But it gets legitimacy when its not aggressively opposed. Hashtags mean everything these days. 

If AOC actually understood what the GND would do to the poor in this country, she'd backtrack. If she knew what it would do to places like Puerto Rico, the Caribbean, and Latin America, she would be ashamed. 

The way I see it, people are legitimately concerned about climate change, because of the discussion.  And it seems to me that segments of corporate America are paying attention, if for no other reason that consumer demand.  I see that as a positive.

Green technologies are more expensive in the short term, yes.  And there are serious questions about whether we're trading carbon emissions for other environmental disasters, some of which (mining rare earth metals for batteries) are just externalized to China or Africa or other places.

That doesn't mean to me that we should just quit trying.

I'm not going to accuse you of applying current GOP tactics, but their dominant one these days is naysaying and obstruction rather than acknowledging actual problems and trying to create constructive solutions.  If you want to say AOC's ideas are shit, that's fine, I might well agree, but what's your alternative?  Doing nothing is not an answer.

Edited April 22, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Ridingtosunset 129]

Just now, David Dennison said:

World war.

Quite possibly 

[JimmyJames 12271]

59 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That is just a flat out, stupid ass, lie, but is about all to be expected from you.

Let me know when a non Republican Party attempts an insurrection on the Capitol to stop the legal counting of electoral votes. Because that’s what happened on January 6 and is the most nazi undemoctratic thing to ever happen in America. It was disgusting, it killed people, including police officers, and scum like you supported it. 

[David Dennison 18659]

Just now, Ridingtosunset said:

Quite possibly 

Climate migration is going to be fun.

[Neonmoon 38127]

We’ve already started the transition to green energy. We won’t need a deal to get there. 

[Bojack 2073]

11 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

My professor and mentor, Dr. Leaky at MIT, said you could go blind from reading hours of literature. 

The opening scene in Ulysses took me many hours of literature, and I didn't realize there were three characters in the scene until the third time I read it.

That's a keen insight by Dr. Leakey but he still couldn't solve that geometry equation from Max Fischer's dream.

[Ridingtosunset 129]

3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

We’ve already started the transition to green energy. We won’t need a deal to get there. 

We've started it by artificial means. It will be a disaster. And that's just us. The rest of the world isn't going to follow suit. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Ridingtosunset

[Ridingtosunset 129]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Climate migration is going to be fun.

Wait until we get to water shortages. That will be a hoot. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

4 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

The cheapest form of energy is burning wood / dung. Followed by coal. Followed by nat gas. Followed by oil. Not including nuclear because for some reason we hate it. 

You think China, India, Pakistan, Malyasia, Central America, South America will be helped by green energy? 

What kind of burden would we put on the middle class in this country to mandate electric vehicles, much less the poor. 

That's not even getting into the fact that harnessing all this "green" energy actually requires more imput of carbon than actually using carbon as your energy source. Its lies. 

Okay. You're focusing on the energy aspect, understandable if that is your area and yes, it is going to cost more, but why throw out the whole resolution? That is not the only thing that affects quality of life for the poor. Drinking water such as in Flint is not potable at this time. Can we help them?

Quote

(I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;

Some of the communities near Houston are polluted, can we help them? Those living near PNG, after the explosion two years ago, people were worried about air quality. Tough shit, they shouldn't live there?

 

Quote

 

(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites;

(M) identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them;

 

Trade offs. Working together. Compromising. These are not dirty words.

[David Dennison 18659]

1 minute ago, Ridingtosunset said:

We've started it by artificial means. It will be a disaster. And that's just us. The rest of the world isn't going to follow suit. 

What do you suggest?

[JimmyJames 12271]

59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You don't have to confine it to insurrection.

I'm nowhere near as far left as you, and it's plain to me that the GOP fully intends to subvert democracy at every level, because unfettered voting as contemplated by the Constitution, as amended, and representatives and Senators voting according to the will of their constituents means Republicans lose vast amounts of power.  They also plainly intend to use the Supreme Court to undo democratically enacted legislation under the rubric of Constitutionality, but is nothing more than a thinly disguised exercise of raw political power.

I will second this opinion. Most republicans hide behind the constitution not knowing what it means. It’s just a word. Basically they equate the “constitution” to white privilege and “patriots” to white power. After all, that is what the country was originally founded on, at least in their mind. 
 

Democracy was all fine and good as long as the black people couldnt vote. Now that they might effect elections, these simpletons want to restrict voting. It’s as plain as day. 

[YChang 3431]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Okay. You're focusing on the energy aspect, understandable if that is your area and yes, it is going to cost more, but why throw Trade offs. Working together. Compromising. These are not dirty words.

 

I dunno despite assuming positive... the OP is likely just trolling right now. Everything is a zero sum game.