Global warming

Options
1…2829313334…43

Comments

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,661
    Earlier this year, Germany broke it's own record for production of energy through renewable resources, hitting the 87% mark in one day. They are well on their way to the goal of 100%. We are lagging way behind on this and could learn a lot from the German example!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05/11/germany-renewable-energy_n_9905622.html
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • JWPearl
    JWPearl Posts: 19,893
    the weather is crazy and we are suffering over here and no its not an act of God his enemy has those powers too
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,661
    JWPearl said:

    the weather is crazy and we are suffering over here and no its not an act of God his enemy has those powers too

    I'm not religious in the sense of following any particular dogma but as a metaphor I would say you are implying humans are God's enemy since it is we who have cause global warming. What to you suppose God will do about that one!
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • JWPearl
    JWPearl Posts: 19,893
    brianlux said:

    JWPearl said:

    the weather is crazy and we are suffering over here and no its not an act of God his enemy has those powers too

    I'm not religious in the sense of following any particular dogma but as a metaphor I would say you are implying humans are God's enemy since it is we who have cause global warming. What to you suppose God will do about that one!
    Isaiah 45:18, revelation 11:17,18,psalms 37:29 your answers are in those scriptures and not by my own sayings...
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,661
    Isaiah 45:18:

    For this is what the Lord says—
    he who created the heavens,
    he is God;
    he who fashioned and made the earth,
    he founded it;
    he did not create it to be empty,
    but formed it to be inhabited—
    he says:
    “I am the Lord,
    and there is no other.

    Revelation 11:17,18:
    17 saying:

    “We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty,
    the One who is and who was,
    because you have taken your great power
    and have begun to reign.
    18
    The nations were angry,
    and your wrath has come.
    The time has come for judging the dead,
    and for rewarding your servants the prophets
    and your people who revere your name,
    both great and small—
    and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”


    Psalms 37:29:

    The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.

    _________________________________

    I'm not sure how these relate to anthropocentric global warming but that last one reminds me of a Replacements song:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BQ_AiAIyzw


    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    Next ‘Renewable Energy’: Burning Forests, if Senators Get Their Way

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/business/economy/next-renewable-energy-burning-forests-if-senators-get-their-way.html
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,661
    Free said:

    Next ‘Renewable Energy’: Burning Forests, if Senators Get Their Way

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/business/economy/next-renewable-energy-burning-forests-if-senators-get-their-way.html

    When I see ideas like the one presented in this article, I am absolutely convinced that there are people in positions of power in this world who hate nature, who hate the planet, who love only the short term greedy gain off the almighty dollar and don't care one freaking bit if the whole planet gets trashed after they're dead and gone. This idea of burning forests as "renewable energy is..."

    ... excuse me, I have to go break things for therapy. Back in a while.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    brianlux said:

    Free said:

    Next ‘Renewable Energy’: Burning Forests, if Senators Get Their Way

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/business/economy/next-renewable-energy-burning-forests-if-senators-get-their-way.html

    When I see ideas like the one presented in this article, I am absolutely convinced that there are people in positions of power in this world who hate nature, who hate the planet, who love only the short term greedy gain off the almighty dollar and don't care one freaking bit if the whole planet gets trashed after they're dead and gone. This idea of burning forests as "renewable energy is..."

    ... excuse me, I have to go break things for therapy. Back in a while.
    What kills me is that the two reps who proposed it is from Maine! A state known for its natural beauty. It sickens me, too.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,661
    Free said:

    brianlux said:

    Free said:

    Next ‘Renewable Energy’: Burning Forests, if Senators Get Their Way

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/business/economy/next-renewable-energy-burning-forests-if-senators-get-their-way.html

    When I see ideas like the one presented in this article, I am absolutely convinced that there are people in positions of power in this world who hate nature, who hate the planet, who love only the short term greedy gain off the almighty dollar and don't care one freaking bit if the whole planet gets trashed after they're dead and gone. This idea of burning forests as "renewable energy is..."

    ... excuse me, I have to go break things for therapy. Back in a while.
    What kills me is that the two reps who proposed it is from Maine! A state known for its natural beauty. It sickens me, too.
    Crazy. Absolutely crazy.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    And if Trump is elected they will have a very real chance of actually doing this.
    Maybe now you might understand why some progressives like myself feel it is our duty to hold our noses and vote for Clinton to stop this kind of nonsense from happening...
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    rgambs said:

    And if Trump is elected they will have a very real chance of actually doing this.
    Maybe now you might understand why some progressives like myself feel it is our duty to hold our noses and vote for Clinton to stop this kind of nonsense from happening...

    No. You're not going sway or even entertain us with bringing your candidate into this. We know who the real candidate is for the environment and it's not her. Wrong woman.
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,661
    The candidate most likely to be environmentally proactive is Jill Stein. Trump is anti environment and Clinton only gives it lip service. Her loyalty is to corporations that for the most part are environmentally harmful. The environment is changing and at current trajectory will become unsuitable in many or most places for human habitation. With global warming acceleration, we really don't have time to settle for mediocrity. If we're serious about environment , we will vote for candidates who are serious about environment. The problem can't be ignored anymore.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Y'all can vote for Smokey the Bear if you want, but there's only 1 candidate that can stop the anti-science goofballs from ruling the day.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,661
    edited October 2016
    rgambs said:

    Y'all can vote for Smokey the Bear if you want, but there's only 1 candidate that can stop the anti-science goofballs from ruling the day.

    Would that be the one who supports fracking rather than saying no to fracking? The one who is more in favor of "clean coal" or the one who is more in favor of solar energy? Obviously I'm comparing Clinton with Stein. Clinton's focus is economy, not people or regulations that support environment. Her environmental stance is status quo and does little if anything to move us forward in the way we need to in order to have an environment suitable to large mammal habitation in the not too distant future.

    For an excellent comparison of the two on environment, please take some time to check out this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQHb-Jaf6cs

    Edit: The other thing I would like to address here is the notion of "denial". We've all talked about climate change/global warming denial and most of us agree that anyone in denial about global warming is just simply not well informed and educated on the subject. The kind of denial is basically pathetic at this point and most of us would agree to that. But I believe there is a more dangerous form of denial which is the belief many have that by simply recycling a few more cans and bottles and voting for someone like Clinton rather than Trump is going to solve our climate and environmental crises. This is simply not true. We can no longer afford to take baby steps. Clinton vs Trump, for example, is like saying I'd rather be hit on the head 100 times with a ball peen hammer rather than 100 times by a sledge hammer. Sure, one is going to do you in faster and more make more of a mess but the end result is the same. Now this may seem hyperbolic to use such a graphic metaphor but I believe it is appropriate to do so. We are facing extinction. Some of you may believe I am fear mongering or exaggerating but I don't believe it. If you study the ecological sciences and gain a basic understand of climate and life cycles, it's simple logic, not hyperbole.

    Sorry- end of lecture. I can't help it. It makes me nuts to see how foolishly we are ignoring our peril.
    Post edited by brianlux on
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Smokey the Bear has an equal chance of winning the Oval Office as Stein does.

    The real comparison that matters is Clinton vs Trump.

    Overall, we don't stand a snowballs chance in hell against climate change, humanity is
    On the loose, it's a truck
    All the rolling hills, it'll flatten 'em out, yeah
    It's herd behavior, uh huh
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,661
    edited October 2016
    rgambs said:

    Smokey the Bear has an equal chance of winning the Oval Office as Stein does.

    The real comparison that matters is Clinton vs Trump.

    Overall, we don't stand a snowballs chance in hell against climate change, humanity is
    On the loose, it's a truck
    All the rolling hills, it'll flatten 'em out, yeah
    It's herd behavior, uh huh

    Smokey the Bear, haha! Another false entity brought to you by the USFS.

    The thing is RG, I know you of all people don't have that cynical attitude of "we're all screwed anyway so eff it". No, we will not stop climate change at this point but we can slow it down and why not try! The thing is, we already know Clinton is going to win. Trump is making sure of that. So why not send a message to HRC saying, "Yeah, OK, you win but a lot of us know what your up to and we know you don't really care jack about the environment". That's the message I'm sending by voting for Stein.

    Gambs, you may be in a swing state so I can kind of see why you might be pushing for HRC but if you really care about the environment (and I think you do), please don't fool yourself or try to fool anyone else that Clinton is going to make any positive difference on environment. She's not. She is status quo and status quo ain't gonna cut it.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Free
    Free Posts: 3,562
    brianlux said:

    rgambs said:

    Smokey the Bear has an equal chance of winning the Oval Office as Stein does.

    The real comparison that matters is Clinton vs Trump.

    Overall, we don't stand a snowballs chance in hell against climate change, humanity is
    On the loose, it's a truck
    All the rolling hills, it'll flatten 'em out, yeah
    It's herd behavior, uh huh

    Smokey the Bear, haha! Another false entity brought to you by the USFS.

    The thing is RG, I know you of all people don't have that cynical attitude of "we're all screwed anyway so eff it". No, we will not stop climate change at this point but we can slow it down and why not try! The thing is, we already know Clinton is going to win. Trump is making sure of that. So why not send a message to HRC saying, "Yeah, OK, you win but a lot of us know what your up to and we know you don't really care jack about the environment". That's the message I'm sending by voting for Stein.

    Gambs, you may be in a swing state so I can kind of see why you might be pushing for HRC but if you really care about the environment (and I think you do), please don't fool yourself or try to fool anyone else that Clinton is going to make any positive difference on environment. She's not. She is status quo and status quo ain't gonna cut it.
    You're right Brian. And those like rgambs who think that HRC is going to save the day will eventually just prove that she flip flops so much on environmental issues, because she has the fossil fuel industries lining her back pocket while claiming to the public that she's all for environmental progress, that her true interests at with those who line her pockets. She has said she has a public and private identity in the emails. She only really votes for those throwing big money at her. Anyone thinking otherwise is the fool.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    brianlux said:

    rgambs said:

    Smokey the Bear has an equal chance of winning the Oval Office as Stein does.

    The real comparison that matters is Clinton vs Trump.

    Overall, we don't stand a snowballs chance in hell against climate change, humanity is
    On the loose, it's a truck
    All the rolling hills, it'll flatten 'em out, yeah
    It's herd behavior, uh huh

    Smokey the Bear, haha! Another false entity brought to you by the USFS.

    The thing is RG, I know you of all people don't have that cynical attitude of "we're all screwed anyway so eff it". No, we will not stop climate change at this point but we can slow it down and why not try! The thing is, we already know Clinton is going to win. Trump is making sure of that. So why not send a message to HRC saying, "Yeah, OK, you win but a lot of us know what your up to and we know you don't really care jack about the environment". That's the message I'm sending by voting for Stein.

    Gambs, you may be in a swing state so I can kind of see why you might be pushing for HRC but if you really care about the environment (and I think you do), please don't fool yourself or try to fool anyone else that Clinton is going to make any positive difference on environment. She's not. She is status quo and status quo ain't gonna cut it.
    Living in rural Ohio, I will never be able to take an election lightly.
    2 miles from my house is a full sheet of plywood in someone's yard painted to say:

    Trump
    I'm A
    Deplorable

    Trump signs are more numerous than teeth around here and as Ohio goes, so goes the election.

    As far as the environment, I am mostly without hope. We need a polar shift in human ambition and I just don't see it happening. We can only mitigate unless there is some massive catastrophy that changes things.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,661
    Free said:

    brianlux said:

    rgambs said:

    Smokey the Bear has an equal chance of winning the Oval Office as Stein does.

    The real comparison that matters is Clinton vs Trump.

    Overall, we don't stand a snowballs chance in hell against climate change, humanity is
    On the loose, it's a truck
    All the rolling hills, it'll flatten 'em out, yeah
    It's herd behavior, uh huh

    Smokey the Bear, haha! Another false entity brought to you by the USFS.

    The thing is RG, I know you of all people don't have that cynical attitude of "we're all screwed anyway so eff it". No, we will not stop climate change at this point but we can slow it down and why not try! The thing is, we already know Clinton is going to win. Trump is making sure of that. So why not send a message to HRC saying, "Yeah, OK, you win but a lot of us know what your up to and we know you don't really care jack about the environment". That's the message I'm sending by voting for Stein.

    Gambs, you may be in a swing state so I can kind of see why you might be pushing for HRC but if you really care about the environment (and I think you do), please don't fool yourself or try to fool anyone else that Clinton is going to make any positive difference on environment. She's not. She is status quo and status quo ain't gonna cut it.
    You're right Brian. And those like rgambs who think that HRC is going to save the day will eventually just prove that she flip flops so much on environmental issues, because she has the fossil fuel industries lining her back pocket while claiming to the public that she's all for environmental progress, that her true interests at with those who line her pockets. She has said she has a public and private identity in the emails. She only really votes for those throwing big money at her. Anyone thinking otherwise is the fool.
    Exactly, Free! Hillary will do her best to convince the public she is pro-environment as long as it puts something in her own pocket or cap. We certainly don't need phony environmentalism this late in the game.
    rgambs said:

    brianlux said:

    rgambs said:

    Smokey the Bear has an equal chance of winning the Oval Office as Stein does.

    The real comparison that matters is Clinton vs Trump.

    Overall, we don't stand a snowballs chance in hell against climate change, humanity is
    On the loose, it's a truck
    All the rolling hills, it'll flatten 'em out, yeah
    It's herd behavior, uh huh

    Smokey the Bear, haha! Another false entity brought to you by the USFS.

    The thing is RG, I know you of all people don't have that cynical attitude of "we're all screwed anyway so eff it". No, we will not stop climate change at this point but we can slow it down and why not try! The thing is, we already know Clinton is going to win. Trump is making sure of that. So why not send a message to HRC saying, "Yeah, OK, you win but a lot of us know what your up to and we know you don't really care jack about the environment". That's the message I'm sending by voting for Stein.

    Gambs, you may be in a swing state so I can kind of see why you might be pushing for HRC but if you really care about the environment (and I think you do), please don't fool yourself or try to fool anyone else that Clinton is going to make any positive difference on environment. She's not. She is status quo and status quo ain't gonna cut it.
    Living in rural Ohio, I will never be able to take an election lightly.
    2 miles from my house is a full sheet of plywood in someone's yard painted to say:

    Trump
    I'm A
    Deplorable

    Trump signs are more numerous than teeth around here and as Ohio goes, so goes the election.

    As far as the environment, I am mostly without hope. We need a polar shift in human ambition and I just don't see it happening. We can only mitigate unless there is some massive catastrophy that changes things.
    I'm not going to accept "there is no hope" from anyone because by my definition hope is doing what makes sense no matter what the outcome. If someone is not willing to keep doing their best to make a difference, then why would they even bother talking about it? That just gets in the way. If someone wants a better world, they would do well to keep trying to make it better and not bring everyone else down by saying "we're screwed". And believe me, if I were to be bluntly honest, I would say that may well be but I have several grand kids, nieces and nephews that are going to get stuck with the shit we are causing and I'm not going to leave them hanging out to die if I can at all help it. I can't do much but what I can do, I will. I hope you do too. We are the human ambition you speak of, Gambs. You and me. Is that all there is? Then we best get busy!
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    brianlux said:

    Free said:

    brianlux said:

    rgambs said:

    Smokey the Bear has an equal chance of winning the Oval Office as Stein does.

    The real comparison that matters is Clinton vs Trump.

    Overall, we don't stand a snowballs chance in hell against climate change, humanity is
    On the loose, it's a truck
    All the rolling hills, it'll flatten 'em out, yeah
    It's herd behavior, uh huh

    Smokey the Bear, haha! Another false entity brought to you by the USFS.

    The thing is RG, I know you of all people don't have that cynical attitude of "we're all screwed anyway so eff it". No, we will not stop climate change at this point but we can slow it down and why not try! The thing is, we already know Clinton is going to win. Trump is making sure of that. So why not send a message to HRC saying, "Yeah, OK, you win but a lot of us know what your up to and we know you don't really care jack about the environment". That's the message I'm sending by voting for Stein.

    Gambs, you may be in a swing state so I can kind of see why you might be pushing for HRC but if you really care about the environment (and I think you do), please don't fool yourself or try to fool anyone else that Clinton is going to make any positive difference on environment. She's not. She is status quo and status quo ain't gonna cut it.
    You're right Brian. And those like rgambs who think that HRC is going to save the day will eventually just prove that she flip flops so much on environmental issues, because she has the fossil fuel industries lining her back pocket while claiming to the public that she's all for environmental progress, that her true interests at with those who line her pockets. She has said she has a public and private identity in the emails. She only really votes for those throwing big money at her. Anyone thinking otherwise is the fool.
    Exactly, Free! Hillary will do her best to convince the public she is pro-environment as long as it puts something in her own pocket or cap. We certainly don't need phony environmentalism this late in the game.
    rgambs said:

    brianlux said:

    rgambs said:

    Smokey the Bear has an equal chance of winning the Oval Office as Stein does.

    The real comparison that matters is Clinton vs Trump.

    Overall, we don't stand a snowballs chance in hell against climate change, humanity is
    On the loose, it's a truck
    All the rolling hills, it'll flatten 'em out, yeah
    It's herd behavior, uh huh

    Smokey the Bear, haha! Another false entity brought to you by the USFS.

    The thing is RG, I know you of all people don't have that cynical attitude of "we're all screwed anyway so eff it". No, we will not stop climate change at this point but we can slow it down and why not try! The thing is, we already know Clinton is going to win. Trump is making sure of that. So why not send a message to HRC saying, "Yeah, OK, you win but a lot of us know what your up to and we know you don't really care jack about the environment". That's the message I'm sending by voting for Stein.

    Gambs, you may be in a swing state so I can kind of see why you might be pushing for HRC but if you really care about the environment (and I think you do), please don't fool yourself or try to fool anyone else that Clinton is going to make any positive difference on environment. She's not. She is status quo and status quo ain't gonna cut it.
    Living in rural Ohio, I will never be able to take an election lightly.
    2 miles from my house is a full sheet of plywood in someone's yard painted to say:

    Trump
    I'm A
    Deplorable

    Trump signs are more numerous than teeth around here and as Ohio goes, so goes the election.

    As far as the environment, I am mostly without hope. We need a polar shift in human ambition and I just don't see it happening. We can only mitigate unless there is some massive catastrophy that changes things.
    I'm not going to accept "there is no hope" from anyone because by my definition hope is doing what makes sense no matter what the outcome. If someone is not willing to keep doing their best to make a difference, then why would they even bother talking about it? That just gets in the way. If someone wants a better world, they would do well to keep trying to make it better and not bring everyone else down by saying "we're screwed". And believe me, if I were to be bluntly honest, I would say that may well be but I have several grand kids, nieces and nephews that are going to get stuck with the shit we are causing and I'm not going to leave them hanging out to die if I can at all help it. I can't do much but what I can do, I will. I hope you do too. We are the human ambition you speak of, Gambs. You and me. Is that all there is? Then we best get busy!
    Under that definition of hope, I would agree that hope abounds.
    I have hope, and it grows every year!
    :peace:
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?

Categories