marc9000 writes:
Right in the very preamble of the Constitution it says that the purpose is to "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare." If you're against that then you're not a constitutionalist.
So I'm an originalist,...
Checking out the interpretation of the general welfare clause at
General welfare clause - Wikipedia, the founders views varied widely. Jefferson argued as you said, but in the Federalist Papers James Madison took a very narrow view while Alexander Hamilton took a very broad view. I don't think claiming originalist status helps you in this discussion. You're going to have to make your own arguments for why the government should be
laissez faire with regard to the domestic economy, healthcare, the environment, and so forth.
...and you're a living constitutionalist.
I'm more a "let's work toward doing what's moral and right" type of person.
Do you agree with, or think it's good for the U.S. for Bloomberg to dedicate $100 million in 2020 ad campaigns against Trump?
This is more free association. We were talking about nations committing to voluntary pollution/emissions targets.
marc9000 writes:
Did you believe all of these similar types of predictions when they came out decades ago?
This bears no relevance to climate science.
How were those false predictions different from today's climate science predictions?
You called them "similar types of predictions" when they weren't similar at all. They weren't about climate science, most were expressions of opinion by individuals, and none represented a scientific consensus. By contrast, there exists a very broadly accepted current scientific consensus that global warming will cause climate change on a sufficiently massive scale to flood coastal cities, hinder agriculture, change climates, and cause increasingly erratic and destructive weather. We're already seeing the effects. Depending upon where you live you've already seen some, too. Where we live in New England spring arrives two week earlier and fall two weeks later than 30 years ago.
The political motivations were identical (increase the size and scope of government) the "science" was identical (show a lot of charts and graphs that can be made to say whatever their creators want them to say) What can you show that is different between yesterdays predictions of doom versus today's predictions of doom?
You can't make a problem go away by arguing that if we deal with it then government will grow.
Read your own words again. You said, "Climate change can and has happened from other sources completely unrelated to human activity," and I said not this time. Spelling it out, the climate change we're experiencing now is definitely not "completely unrelated to human activity."
But it is still
partly unrelated to human activity,...
Possibly, but that's not something we know in any scientific way.
...and those other non-human causes / sources can't possibly be pinpointed and predicted to an accuracy that separates them from artificial changes (government mandates) to human behavior. Which solidifies my earlier claim, that the harm, or uselessness, of government mandates to reduce climate change have no accountability.
None of that is true. What we do know based upon studying historical climate change is that the rapidity of the current increase in carbon dioxide levels is unprecedented, and that the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was at the level it's at now sea levels were much higher.
We know we have the ability to change things not just for the worse but also for the better, because dramatically cutting back our use of CFC's has caused the hole in the ozone layer that formed over Antarctica every winter to gradually diminish in size. As we approach the next century the ozone layer should be back to pre-1980 levels.
But don't forget that all the climate models say that even if we reduced greenhouse gas production to zero right now that it would take decades and more before the climate change momentum that has already built up would peak and begin reversing.
That means that no matter what we do, citiies like Miami Beach and Alexandria and Venice are already doomed.
Thank you, so no matter what we do, politicians who decide how much of our money and freedoms they are going to take to combat climate change don't have to worry about being accountable for what they do our freedoms, our economy. Very convenient for the politicians that the climate models work that way.
Again, that dealing with climate change might force sacrifices upon us that you don't like will not make the problem magically go away.
No, not Al Gore. Quoting from your article, "The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient." They don't have anything to do with carbon credits, and you said that carbon credit trading has already made some millionaires. Who?
Looking this up myself, I see that one of the most successful carbon credit trading companies in the world, Ecosur Afrique, has a portfolio turnover of only around $10 million a year. Maybe the founder has made a million, maybe not, I could find out very little about him.
Most people who try to make money in carbon trading probably have an experience similar to Neil Eckert's, who supposedly was going places with carbon trading over a decade ago, but things didn't go well and he has since gotten out of the business.
This seems like a good thing. Publicly owned corporations have a responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, so undoubtedly there would be profits. Things that make money are more likely to happen, so if there are profits to be had in fighting climate change then that is a good thing.
I don't think profits are a good thing when those who are paying for the profits (the general public) aren't getting a defined product or service that they're willing to pay for.
I think a future for their children is something everyone is willing to pay for. We don't want to be known as the generation that fiddled while the world pushed over the edge of irreversible climate change, leaving a legacy of diminished expectations to our descendants.
I've always wondered just what environmentalists expect coal and power companies to do with their waste,...
Xongsmith had the right answer - stop producing and using fossil fuels. It eats hell out of the planet.
Why are you suddenly badmouthing the profit motive? Aren't you a capitalist? Is it just that you don't like to see companies making money on something you don't believe is real?
There is a world of difference between profits that are made in free exchange of goods and services, versus profits that are made through forcing the general public to pay money for things that they can't see, or experience.
Returning to the example of CFC's, can you see the ozone layer? No. Can you see ultraviolet radiation? No. But you understand that the ozone layer is all that protects the Earth from the sun's ultraviolet rays and the devastating effects they would have on all life.
I'm skipping your off-topic riff on corruption, the car industry, and the rest.
You sound very anti-business, very untypical for a conservative. There's no need to get older cars banned - the national car fleet turns over too fast for that to be necessary.
I can't quickly find it, but you made some reference earlier to increase the efficiency of the auto fleet, how can it be done without government mandates against the free will of the people?
This response fails to address the issue, plus the grammatical problems and what looks like a reference to something I never said leaves me very uncertain of what you're talking about. So no comment.
That's what's amazing to me, there are so many climate protests going on today, and yet no one there attempts to define what they want done.
Why do you keep saying things that are patently untrue? I expect most who accept the reality of climate change could rattle off at least several things we could do, like reduce use of fossil fuels, increase use of renewable energy, maintain ecosystems, reduce pollution, etc.
Less coal,...
Yes, absolutely. Even better: no coal. Both the production and the burning are horrible for the environment.
...more everything that needs improved technology,...
Improved technology is a good thing, but only nuclear power
requires improved technology before it can be deemed safe. Solar and wind power are already at acceptable technological levels, and they continue to improve.
...which means more expense for already strapped rural America.
I'm sure how you're making this connection is a mystery to everyone.
You seem to be saying that solving climate change will be a difficult problem, and that the costs might not be borne equally. Agreed.
But we disagree on just how serious of a problem that could turn out to be. The costs could very well enrich a few, and destroy the majority. Venezuela style.
Climate change is real, and I'm sure that why you think Venezuela relevant is a mystery to everyone.
Of course they were grandfathered. All states hold automobiles to the emission standards in effect at the time of manufacture.
You said earlier that older cars are driven less, and are therefore less of a pollution problem. How much less they were driven was not a consideration in my area at that time.
Either you're making this up or are misremembering or mistaken. No state ever required old cars to be retrofitted to bring them into compliance with emissions standards not in effect at the time of manufacture.
How any future tests will be conducted will be strictly political. They can make tailpipe sniffer specifications anything they want.
Emission standards are set years in advance so that car manufacturers have time to develop compliant designs.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)