losing your religion

• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793531 wrote:So what's your plan to deal with the acidification of oceans and the depleting Ozone layer? Let it ride and let millions of people suffer?

  Step 1 of any plan would be to convince India and China to give a damn....else you're just spitting in the wind.
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1793531 wrote:So what's your plan to deal with the acidification of oceans and the depleting Ozone layer? Let it ride and let millions of people suffer?

  
  Tax the rich.
  
  
  
  What's your plan to deal with solar irradiance?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1793537 wrote:Step 1 of any plan would be to convince India and China to give a damn....else you're just spitting in the wind.

  So because your neighbor is dumping trash in the street, you should be allowed to dump trash in the street?
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1793537 wrote:Step 1 of any plan would be to convince India and China to give a damn....else you're just spitting in the wind.

  This is a point worth more discussion than it's getting.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793541 wrote:So because your neighbor is dumping trash in the street, you should be allowed to dump trash in the street?

  ??? WHo said that? Are you making assumptions?
  
  I responded to your question of what the plan would be. Step one is to get India and China to agree that a plan needs to be put in place.
• sleeper

  

  QuakerOats;1793540 wrote:Tax the rich.
  
  
  
  What's your plan to deal with solar irradiance?

  Lowering emissions as much as possible to help mitigate the projected increased radiation from the sun.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1793545 wrote:??? WHo said that? Are you making assumptions?
  
  I responded to your question of what the plan would be. Step one is to get India and China to agree that a plan needs to be put in place.

  What does China and India have to do with the United States?
  
  The United States doesn't need to wait for China and India to do their part to help address climate change.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1793541 wrote:So because your neighbor is dumping trash in the street, you should be allowed to dump trash in the street?

  I don't think that's the point he's making. I think the point he's making is that even if we do what we can to reduce our environmental footprint, it wouldn't be enough to compensate for the damage those two countries are doing. As such, we'd be delaying the same inevitable outcome.
  
  Not saying a delay wouldn't have value. It just wouldn't be a "fix."
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793547 wrote:What does China and India have to do with the United States?
  
  The United States doesn't need to wait for China and India to do their part to help address climate change.

  China and India have everything to do with impacting the acidification of oceans and the depleting Ozone layer. If they don't function in concert with the U.S. at some level on the issue, actions by the U.S. would be minimally impacting in comparison.
  
  I didn't say the U.S. should wait on anything. I responded to your question regarding what I believe should be considered step 1.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1793548 wrote:I don't think that's the point he's making. I think the point he's making is that even if we do what we can to reduce our environmental footprint, it wouldn't be enough to compensate for the damage those two countries are doing. As such, we'd be delaying the same inevitable outcome.
  
  Not saying a delay wouldn't have value. It just wouldn't be a "fix."

  So we shouldn't do our part because some assholes don't care about running the planet into the ground? Might as well crank up the pollution, no fucks given!
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793551 wrote:So we shouldn't do our part because some assholes don't care about running the planet into the ground? ...

  That hasn't been stated at all ....not by me or O-trap at least.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1793550 wrote:China and India have everything to do with impacting the acidification of oceans and the depleting Ozone layer. If they don't function in concert with the U.S. at some level on the issue, actions by the U.S. would be minimally impacting in comparison.
  
  I didn't say the U.S. should wait on anything. I responded to your question regarding what I believe should be considered step 1.

  Step 1) US does their part and leads the way
  Step 2) US works with the the international community to reduce emissions and lower the impact on the Earth's climate
  
  Why is your plan better?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1793552 wrote:That hasn't been stated at all ....not by me or O-trap at least.

  That is what you are effectively saying hence my analogy about the neighbor. Continue to be dense though!
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793556 wrote:That is what you are effectively saying hence my analogy about the neighbor. Continue to be dense though!

  There was nothing unclear about my statements. There's no hidden agenda or innuendo what so ever. Sorry t doesn't fit your assumptions about my position on climate change.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793554 wrote:Step 1) US does their part and leads the way
  Step 2) US works with the the international community to reduce emissions and lower the impact on the Earth's climate
  
  Why is your plan better?

  I believe step one in my plan will take longer than step 2 and I haven't seen measurable efforts along these lines as of yet. While I have seen activities surrounding Step 2already....at least a start.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1793558 wrote:I believe step one in my plan will take longer than step 2 and I haven't seen measurable efforts along these lines as of yet. While I have seen activities surrounding Step 2already....at least a start.

  I'll keep step 1 and 2 but move them to step 2 and 3 respectively. Step 1 is actually educating the ignorant masses about the human contribution to climate change. That's much harder because ignorant people are closed minded, don't care about data, and get their information from Fox News. How do you fix stupid?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1793557 wrote:There was nothing unclear about my statements. There's no hidden agenda or innuendo what so ever. Sorry t doesn't fit your assumptions about my position on climate change.

  Step 1 of any plan would be to convince India and China to give a damn....else you're just spitting in the wind.

  Nothing unclear about this statement? Like using a phrase "spitting in the wind" to describe the emission output of the United States, the country that accounts for 16%(#2 country) in greenhouse gas emissions? No hidden agenda there!
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793561... Step 1 is actually educating the ignorant masses about the human contribution to climate change. ...[/QUOTE wrote:
  Such masses exist in China and India far more than in the U.S. Combine that with those that may be aware and not ignorant....just don't care. The impact is far greater than anything the U.S. does negatively.

• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1793566 wrote:Such masses exist in China and India far more than in the U.S. Combine that with those that may be aware and not ignorant....just don't care. The impact is far greater than anything the U.S. does negatively.

  The US contributes about 16% of global green house gases. That's significant and does matter. Tell me more about China and India though!
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793563 wrote:Nothing unclear about this statement? Like using a phrase "spitting in the wind" to describe the emission output of the United States, the country that accounts for 16%(#2 country) in greenhouse gas emissions? No hidden agenda there!

  Keep searching. You're just not going to find what you're looking for in my opinion. Thus far you're just wrong.
  
  The U.S. could completely eliminate it's emission output and there would still be a global problem. That's the point. Global climate change must have a global effort to be truly effective.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793568 wrote:The US contributes about 16% of global green house gases. That's significant and does matter. Tell me more about China and India though!

  I didn't say it didn't matter. I am saying it won't solve the problem. There has to be more.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1793569 wrote:Keep searching. You're just not going to find what you're looking for in my opinion. Thus far you're just wrong.
  
  The U.S. could completely eliminate it's emission output and there would still be a global problem. That's the point. Global climate change must have a global effort to be truly effective.

  That is true. The problem doesn't go away only if the US acts. However, we also shouldn't just sit on our hands while the world burns. A 16% reduction is still significant.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1793571 wrote:I didn't say it didn't matter. I am saying it won't solve the problem. There has to be more.

  It's a good start.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793573 wrote:That is true. The problem doesn't go away only if the US acts. However, we also shouldn't just sit on our hands while the world burns. A 16% reduction is still significant.

  Sitting on our hands isn't a step in any solution I've presented.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1793574 wrote:It's a good start.

  You need not defend that to me. I haven't suggested it's a bad thing...only that it's not nearly enough.