Lord help us
-
Cal, the EPA didn't say that CO2 causes cancer. It just didn't. It didn't even say that CO2 is a pollutant. It listed CO2, along with five other gases, as gases that contribute to the warming of the planet, which has consequences, some positive, mostly negative.
One of these days you'll get something right.
-
See you can't really answer it if you don't think it's likely to hit us OR that there's nothing you can really do.
But politicians aren't honest because voters are stupid.
I hadn't realized that this quote really meant that he has a total grasp of the situation and is simply trying to lay us down easy. Thanks for clearing that up.
I hadn't realized that this quote really meant that he has a total grasp of the situation and is simply trying to lay us down easy. Thanks for clearing that up.
But we do realize that you don't care enough about the pending end of the world to do anything meaningful.
We discussed that.
I gave solutions and you dodged 'em.
You don't care beyond a desire to validate Obama's unworkable plans, whatever they are.
I get that.
WSS
-
Yes, apparently if we don't agree with your stupid "solutions" - everyone makes personal sacrifices, like forgiving leisure travel - then we're not serious. And if we're in favor of a workable, market-based plan that relies on profit motive and economic self-interest to work - one that's been used successfully before - that's also not serious.
Steve, your ideas about this are dumber than dumb, and simply an excuse to try and lecture people about their shortcomings, according to you. Nor have I dodged these "solutions". I've tried to explain why they're senseless and unworkable, unenforceable and silly, and ineffective at solving the problem anyway.
You would get laughed out of any serious discussion. You should understand this.
Nor are we talking about the end of the world.
And I do believe I was talking about this long before you even knew who Barack Obama was. This isn't Obama's plan. It's one of the two main policy options for combatting global warming, and has been for years.
None of your points make sense, or hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Once again, you're just focused on people who don't like.
It's beyond tiresome.
-
Yes, apparently if we don't agree with your stupid "solutions" - everyone makes personal sacrifices, like forgiving leisure travel - then we're not serious. And if we're in favor of a workable, market-based plan that relies on profit motive and economic self-interest to work - one that's been used successfully before - that's also not serious.
Steve, your ideas about this are dumber than dumb, and simply an excuse to try and lecture people about their shortcomings, according to you. Nor have I dodged these "solutions". I've tried to explain why they're senseless and unworkable, unenforceable and silly, and ineffective at solving the problem anyway.
You would get laughed out of any serious discussion. You should understand this.
Nor are we talking about the end of the world.
And I do believe I was talking about this long before you even knew who Barack Obama was. This isn't Obama's plan. It's one of the two main policy options for combatting global warming, and has been for years.
None of your points make sense, or hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Once again, you're just focused on people who don't like.
It's beyond tiresome.
Yes, apparently if we don't agree with your stupid "solutions" - everyone makes personal sacrifices, like forgiving leisure travel - then we're not serious. And if we're in favor of a workable, market-based plan that relies on profit motive and economic self-interest to work - one that's been used successfully before - that's also not serious.
Steve, your ideas about this are dumber than dumb, and simply an excuse to try and lecture people about their shortcomings, according to you. Nor have I dodged these "solutions". I've tried to explain why they're senseless and unworkable, unenforceable and silly, and ineffective at solving the problem anyway.
You would get laughed out of any serious discussion. You should understand this.
I understand that.
But that is precisely because none of you Chiken Littles think it's a big deal.
Every option I gave would lessen the US output of those gases you fear.
To a much grewater extent than any tax you can pass. And that, Heck, is a fact whether you like it or not.
I also dare you to say it's not.
Nor are we talking about the end of the world.
That's exactly what we're talking about.
Did you even see Gore's film? Come on Heck.
You lefties gave the guy a Nobel and even YOU thiunk he's full of shit??
And I do believe I was talking about this long before you even knew who Barack Obama was. This isn't Obama's plan. It's one of the two main policy options for combatting global warming, and has been for years.
Yes Heck.
You now only follow Obama because he's the democrat in power.
Had it been Hillary or Dean I expect you'd adhere to their version of the party line. I'm not kidding.
I'll admit you may have broken with Leiberman but had he run against a Republican......? Who knows.
None of your points make sense, or hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.
Of course not.
They would accomplish what you want better than any plan you have.
But no, nobody's gonna do it.
Because the problem is exagerated for political points.
Once again, you're just focused on people who don't like.
It's beyond tiresome.
I'm focused on stupid unworkable and unpleasant plans no matter if it's an R or a D.
One big reason I didn't freak when McCain lost.
Do I like McCain? Yes. but if he supports stupid shit a say so.
WSS
-
I'll be sure to tell Steven Chu of your plan. I'm sure he'll find it far superior to cap and trade. Because there's no better way to spur the development of, and transition to, cleaner energy sources than having the government dictate that you can't take a leisure trip.
I'm really in awe of how far you'll go before you'll admit that this isn't your area of expertise, and that you don't know what you're talking about.
We're talking about policy solutions. You're talking about theoretical magic wand "solutions" that only exist in your head. And then you're comparing the two and declaring yours superior!
Holy shit.
But you did get to call me a chicken little, say some shit about Al Gore, accuse me of blindly following whatever Democrat they provide me, and then declared yourself to be above this type of ugly partisanship.
Cheers.
-
Ahh yes, and then on the other side of the aisle we have the mentality that climate change is no longer an environmental problem, but a revenue problem.
I think your premise is false, Leg. This is just a bad way to address one part of the problem. In Oregon.
I think your premise is false, Leg. This is just a bad way to address one part of the problem. In Oregon.
No, it's absolutely correct. It was to counter your original premise that the Republican party is the only one suffering from an affliction of stupid. More evidence that the GOP isn't "getting it" and so forth. And I agree, they aren't. Well, most aren't. But they aren't alone either.
-
Fair enough. But watch that clip of Boehner some time. It's clear they have no plan. Stephanopolous is asking what the Republican alternative is, and he just recites nonsense. So Stephanopolous asks him again what the Republican plan on climate change is, and gets more nonsense.
Their plan is ...nothing. They don't have one. After two decades of this, they haven't yet started to take it seriously.
Say what you want about taxing gasoline consumption, at least it's an idea pointed in the right direction. It's just not comprehensive enough.
-
Fair enough. But watch that clip of Boehner some time. It's clear they have no plan. Stephanopolous is asking what the Republican alternative is, and he just recites nonsense. So Stephanopolous asks him again what the Republican plan on climate change is, and gets more nonsense.
Their plan is ...nothing. They don't have one. After two decades of this, they haven't yet started to take it seriously.
Say what you want about taxing gasoline consumption, at least it's an idea pointed in the right direction. It's just not comprehensive enough.
Fair enough. But watch that clip of Boehner some time. It's clear they have no plan. Stephanopolous is asking what the Republican alternative is, and he just recites nonsense. So Stephanopolous asks him again what the Republican plan on climate change is, and gets more nonsense.
Their plan is ...nothing. They don't have one. After two decades of this, they haven't yet started to take it seriously.
Say what you want about taxing gasoline consumption, at least it's an idea pointed in the right direction. It's just not comprehensive enough.
I'd rather not. Reading about it is embarrassing enough. Not because I'm a Republican, but because I'm aware that there is no (smart, reasonable, effective) solution until both sides realize the existence of a problem.
-
I'll be sure to tell Steven Chu of your plan. I'm sure he'll find it far superior to cap and trade. Because there's no better way to spur the development of, and transition to, cleaner energy sources than having the government dictate that you can't take a leisure trip.
I'm really in awe of how far you'll go before you'll admit that this isn't your area of expertise, and that you don't know what you're talking about.
We're talking about policy solutions. You're talking about theoretical magic wand "solutions" that only exist in your head. And then you're comparing the two and declaring yours superior!
Holy shit.
But you did get to call me a chicken little, say some shit about Al Gore, accuse me of blindly following whatever Democrat they provide me, and then declared yourself to be above this type of ugly partisanship.
Cheers.
I'll be sure to tell Steven Chu of your plan. I'm sure he'll find it far superior to cap and trade. Because there's no better way to spur the development of, and transition to, cleaner energy sources than having the government dictate that you can't take a leisure trip.
God forbid the government running your life by punishing you with taxes...
And the point of Cap and Trade?
Force you to stop taking leisure trips.
That's a lot different Heck.
I'm really in awe of how far you'll go before you'll admit that this isn't your area of expertise, and that you don't know what you're talking about.
We're talking about policy solutions. You're talking about theoretical magic wand "solutions" that only exist in your head. And then you're comparing the two and declaring yours superior!
Holy shit.
But you did get to call me a chicken little, say some shit about Al Gore, accuse me of blindly following whatever Democrat they provide me, and then declared yourself to be above this type of ugly partisanship.
Cheers.
How's this then?
Just one part of Steve's save the world plan.
We don't outlaw leisure travel.
But everyone gets a requisition for mileage needed for work and basics.
Then on top of that you get an allotment of discretionary miles.
You could have chekpoints for monitoring.
Build 'em next to E Checks.
(Hey look!! Green jobs!!)
That way you cut down on whatever gases scare you and it's fair to all.
Not just guys like you who won't sweat an extra couple bucks a gallon.
Why not?
Because the only solution to a problem is tax tax tax I know.......
(and BTW Gore did get a prize right? So it's unfair to call him out because??)
WSS
-
I am ashamed that idiot represents our state. carbon dioxide is a carcinogen?...... how that relates toward greenhouse gases is odd.... Clearly he does not understand nor cares about climate issues. I understand that the cap and trade policy is flawed and that other current proposals are not nowhere near comprehensive but this guy is clearly a puppet.
You can be a fiscal conservative and pro business/pro lower taxes and be smart enough to come up with something better than humans exhale co2 so therefor blah blah blah...
-
Cap and trade surely has flaws. I wouldn't argue with that. And after it goes through the sausage factory of Congress I expect it to have even more flaws and loopholes. Minimizing these will be the great task.
-
Steve, just stop. I figured you were at least smart enough to know when you're embarrassing yourself.
And you still don't seem to know what cap and trade is, or does, or attempts to do. I'll give you one hint for what it isn't - a way to tax people so much that they can't take vacations. Or drive to work.
It's also a way to let the private market take over with limited government regulation and monitoring, and letting the market decide which new technologies to invest in, rather than having government guess which ones are the future. (Check out corn-based ethanol if you think government makes these types of decisions well.)
You're arguing for some byzantine and ineffective government monitoring system, still living under the delusion that this is about limiting how much people travel.
Why?
We've been discussing this for at least two years. In all of that time have you let any new information get under that mane of yours?
-
Steve, just stop. I figured you were at least smart enough to know when you're embarrassing yourself.
And you still don't seem to know what cap and trade is, or does, or attempts to do. I'll give you one hint for what it isn't - a way to tax people so much that they can't take vacations. Or drive to work.
It's also a way to let the private market take over with limited government regulation and monitoring, and letting the market decide which new technologies to invest in, rather than having government guess which ones are the future. (Check out corn-based ethanol if you think government makes these types of decisions well.)
You're arguing for some byzantine and ineffective government monitoring system, still living under the delusion that this is about limiting how much people travel.
Why?
We've been discussing this for at least two years. In all of that time have you let any new information get under that mane of yours?
Steve, just stop. I figured you were at least smart enough to know when you're embarrassing yourself.
And you still don't seem to know what cap and trade is, or does, or attempts to do. I'll give you one hint for what it isn't - a way to tax people so much that they can't take vacations. Or drive to work.
It's also a way to let the private market take over with limited government regulation and monitoring, and letting the market decide which new technologies to invest in, rather than having government guess which ones are the future. (Check out corn-based ethanol if you think government makes these types of decisions well.)
You're arguing for some byzantine and ineffective government monitoring system, still living under the delusion that this is about limiting how much people travel.
Why?
We've been discussing this for at least two years. In all of that time have you let any new information get under that mane of yours?
Oh man! This is giving me dejavu of the old days! Pretty soon you will be calling him "larrry the lounge lizzard".
-
Steve, just stop. I figured you were at least smart enough to know when you're embarrassing yourself.
And you still don't seem to know what cap and trade is, or does, or attempts to do. I'll give you one hint for what it isn't - a way to tax people so much that they can't take vacations. Or drive to work.
It's also a way to let the private market take over with limited government regulation and monitoring, and letting the market decide which new technologies to invest in, rather than having government guess which ones are the future. (Check out corn-based ethanol if you think government makes these types of decisions well.)
You're arguing for some byzantine and ineffective government monitoring system, still living under the delusion that this is about limiting how much people travel.
Why?
We've been discussing this for at least two years. In all of that time have you let any new information get under that mane of yours?
Actally Heck just to force you to keep pretending you give a shit about it.
That's about it.
And the funny thing is I know you know.
But you're too arrogant to admit it.
(Personally I don't care much and we're probably not gonna saddle the taxpayers with your plan so we're all dead in 4 years anyway)
Cap and Trade is your little shit eating mantra.
But one more chance.
Would my draconjan measures work better or worse?
Just say "no" and we'll all chuckle and move on.
Hey you can even be honest and say "yes but it ain't serious enough to do it."
WSS
-
And you would think that's a victory? If I admitted that using Draconian measures to keep people from using energy would be more effective than cap and trade? Really?
What's wrong with you?
This isn't about how you can eliminate the most CO2 emissions in a theoretical world, or by any means necessary. (How about we ban cars and hot water and make people read by firelight - even better!) This is about what real-world solutions are politically and economically viable.
If you care to live in the former world, that's your right. And your wish, as it would seem. It's also really, really pointless, not to mention submental.
I suppose we could raise more revenue by having the government seize all of Microsoft's profits, too. And I could bore you with another 99 similarly irrelevant examples.
But why would you bother?
As for this being about me not really giving a shit about environmental issues, and that this is just a ploy to get me to put aside my arrogance and admit that revelation to myself ...um, sure.
I think it's about how much time I can waste in a day discussing serious issues with someone who isn't serious.
-
I've got an idea to deal with childhood obesity: have the government restrict children to one meal a day.
That would be more effective than altering the school lunch program, wouldn't it? Admit it.
-
I've got an idea to deal with childhood obesity: have the government restrict children to one meal a day.
That would be more effective than altering the school lunch program, wouldn't it? Admit it.
I've got an idea to deal with childhood obesity: have the government restrict children to one meal a day.
That would be more effective than altering the school lunch program, wouldn't it? Admit it.
Oh no Heck.
I wanna tax food.
One burger=$400.00.
That oughta do it.
Only the rich can get fat!!
WSS
-
And you would think that's a victory? If I admitted that using Draconian measures to keep people from using energy would be more effective than cap and trade? Really?
What's wrong with you?
This isn't about how you can eliminate the most CO2 emissions in a theoretical world, or by any means necessary. (How about we ban cars and hot water and make people read by firelight - even better!) This is about what real-world solutions are politically and economically viable.
If you care to live in the former world, that's your right. And your wish, as it would seem. It's also really, really pointless, not to mention submental.
I suppose we could raise more revenue by having the government seize all of Microsoft's profits, too. And I could bore you with another 99 similarly irrelevant examples.
But why would you bother?
As for this being about me not really giving a shit about environmental issues, and that this is just a ploy to get me to put aside my arrogance and admit that revelation to myself ...um, sure.
I think it's about how much time I can waste in a day discussing serious issues with someone who isn't serious.
What's wrong with you?
This isn't about how you can eliminate the most CO2 emissions in a theoretical world,
It sure isn't.
It's about a dangerous and disingenuous tax plan that will hobble the US much much more than it will help the environment.
WSS
-
How do you know? You don't even know what it is.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login