- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Veritasium's 13 Misconceptions on Global Warming...
Posted on 9/23/14 at 12:19 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 9/23/14 at 12:19 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:Republicans aren't offering any solutions. They've taken themselves out of the solutions game by insisting the problem doesn't exist. It's a shame, because if they did, then nuclear would have a natural constituency to counter the green lobby. But it's also mystifying. Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to cap-and-trade for sulfates. Nor are they ideologically opposed to Pigovian taxes (unless Milt Friedman and Art Laffer are now socialists).
Really? When all of the "solutions" align PERFECTLY and without exception to a political party's agenda...
Just because I criticize both sides of the issue doesn't obligate me to criticize both sides equally, or include some disclaimer of "and AlGore/Tuba are dumb too" in every single post I make (particularly when I entered this thread shitting on a pro-AGW video). Democrats propose dumb solutions and oversimplify the problem, but they acknowledge a problem exists. Republicans are MIA on the entire issue. Conservatives will speak up on a rare occasion (see Art Laffer, Bob Inglis, Greg Mankiw, etc). But they are exceptions and no one listens; AGW denial appears to be a quid pro quo for political influence. Which is why it's difficult for me to find less cynical explanation than the Occam's Razor of capture by fossil fuel interests.
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 12:28 pm
3
Posted on 9/23/14 at 12:48 pm to Iosh
quote:
Republicans aren't offering any solutions. They've taken themselves out of the solutions game by insisting the problem doesn't exist. It's a shame, because if they did, then nuclear would have a natural constituency to counter the green lobby. But it's also mystifying. Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to cap-and-trade for sulfates. Nor are they ideologically opposed to Pigovian taxes (unless Milt Friedman and Art Laffer are now socialists).
I don't think everyone is ideologically opposed to these types of programs (though some are) I just think most conservatives rightfully don't trust our governing bodies to do more than enrich their cronies and use it as a fulcrum to institute much more control over the market than necessary.
My current thinking, given the sensationalized and ultimately inaccurate impact analysis, is that we have enough time for disruptive technologies to replace fossil fuels (at least partially). Honestly, that's what everyone wants regardless of political affiliation.
Obviously I agree with you that our lack of nuclear power is disgusting. How about instead of cap and trade we spend 100 billion on new nuke plants across the country.
Posted on 9/23/14 at 2:05 pm to Iosh
quote:Why spend effort solving seemingly insignificant problems? Even in terms of envrionment... AGW is only a small concern. We should be FAR more concerned with groundwater pollution, airborne particulates, solid waste disposal (keeping that isht out of our oceans and waterways) and ground level ozone just to name a few right off my head. Your argument seems to be "roll over" and accept it more than one of merit. Just sayin'.
Republicans aren't offering any solutions. They've taken themselves out of the solutions game by insisting the problem doesn't exist.
quote:There are MANY and NUMEROUS arguments in favor of nuclear. But garnering a political constituency ain't one of them. I'm glad they aren't doing that.
It's a shame, because if they did, then nuclear would have a natural constituency to counter the green lobby.
quote:
Republicans weren't ideologically opposed to cap-and-trade for sulfates
different issue, different time. Many supporters of GWB, no longer support GWB. quote:As does belief for democarts... The higher-taxes and bigger government quid pro quo exists just as much on the democrat side. Oddly you only seem to be ascribing malice to one side.
AGW denial appears to be a quid pro quo for political influence
quote:Sounds like your failure... combined with prejudice about what others believe. You're capable of better. I honestly believe that.
Which is why it's difficult for me to find less cynical explanation than the Occam's Razor of capture by fossil fuel interests.
This post was edited on 9/23/14 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 9/23/14 at 7:31 pm to Iosh
quote:
Republicans aren't offering any solutions. They've taken themselves out of the solutions game by insisting the problem doesn't exist. It's a shame, because if they did, then nuclear would have a natural constituency to counter the green lobby.
I'm a little confused by this passage. Why does a lobby matter? If the threat is as real and great as claimed by some, the solution that solves it best would be the obvious path to take, regardless of political persuasion.
But that's not the case. All "solutions" tend to be in alignment with the left. Sometimes far left.
Why?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News