Climate Change(global warming) = Socialism?

[SHRED]

Man I hear that more and more from the right-wing-nuts.
I have read some articles but still don't understand what they mean.

I responded to an article once by writing, "Oh, like big oil, timber, and nuclear power tax subsidies? You mean that kind of "socialism"?"

But of course I got no response.

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Thank you for calling it Global Climatic Change! n/t

[SHRED]

2. Yeah...

...the pollution defenders like to twist it into a warming vs. ice age debate.
Climate change is happening. When we cut down the green belt forests(the Earth's lung filter) and pump smog, smoke, etc. into the air(Earth's lung) then why can't the morons see the simple action-reaction, cause and effect that is happening?

[hatrack]

3. Climate Destabilization would be a better phrase yet, IMHO

Doesn't exactly float off the tongue, unfortunately. ;-)

[pmbryant]

5. Good one

'Climate change' seems a rather benign term to describe what is happening.

I like 'Climate destabilization', even though it is a bit of a toungue-twister.

--Peter

[blindpig]

4. absurd, but....

it may well result in more socialism as we are forced to pool and ration dwindling resource!

[yellowcanine]

6. Yeah, that is why that old commie Putin opposes the Kyoto treaty

He thinks global warming will be good for Siberian agriculture. the putz

[ramapo]

7. Typical knee-jerk reaction

It is surprising that enviro-responsible products and lifestyles cannot be seen as a hugh opportunity benefiting the hungriest capitalist.

The only government intervention I see required is mandating change. Sure entrenched interests will suffer but isn't that the beauty of capitalism. Adapt or die.

Would new products be more expensive thereby harming our economy and bringing down our lifestyles? Perhaps in the short term. But what is the cost of continued environmental negligence.

Just a few opportunities...
* Large scale solar and wind implementation down to the residential level (at least for solar). Regional wind farms.

* Pollution abatement equipment. Sorely needed to reduce coal emissions. Businesses that make this equipment are suffering because of the Bush admin failure to proceed w/clean air standards.

* Cleaner cars - Look at the success of the new hybrids

* Resource recycling -- How about processing that garbage instead of building landfills after shipping the trash hundreds of miles.

* True mass transit - How many billions have been sunk into the most inefficient mode of transportation ever invented, the car. Why not implement large scale light rail tying into transportation hubs. Why not work towards carless cities. Is there anything dumber than driving into NYC? (I confess)

The stndard argument against mass transit is it's too inconvenient and would be expensive. Well my family budget for auto transportation easily 10K/year. That's a lot of train tickets.

[AbsolutMauser]

8. hm...

Quoting:

Just a few opportunities...
* Large scale solar and wind implementation down to the residential level (at least for solar). Regional wind farms.

Solar and wind power are too weak to meet our energy needs. While some solar implementation may be advantageous on a per home basis, it is still mighty expensive for a lot of people, especially those with limited means

* Pollution abatement equipment. Sorely needed to reduce coal emissions. Businesses that make this equipment are suffering because of the Bush admin failure to proceed w/clean air standards.

No administration has had a strong environmental record, IMHO. The air quality goals have been missed since they were implemented. The current system needs a huge overhaul. As for pollution abatement equipment, we need a simpler regulatory system with fewer loopholes and no trading allotments. Instead of "technology forcing" through regulation via obscure standards, there needs to be a technology mandate.

* Cleaner cars - Look at the success of the new hybrids

I'm still not sold on the hybrids for a lot of purposes. They are great for getting around the city and for small families, but large families and other people who need a vehicle with a lot of power, they are sorely lacking.

* Resource recycling -- How about processing that garbage instead of building landfills after shipping the trash hundreds of miles.

You're just trading ground waste for air and water pollution. It takes energy and chemical treatment to recycle. So long as we are using coal energy sources and recycling technology requiring massive chemical usage, we are really just spinning our wheels.

* True mass transit - How many billions have been sunk into the most inefficient mode of transportation ever invented, the car. Why not implement large scale light rail tying into transportation hubs. Why not work towards carless cities. Is there anything dumber than driving into NYC? (I confess)

The stndard argument against mass transit is it's too inconvenient and would be expensive. Well my family budget for auto transportation easily 10K/year. That's a lot of train tickets.

No disagreement there, generally. When you come up with this "true mass transit" system, let me know. hehe.

~AbM

[blindpig]

9. so..............your suggestions? n/t

[AbsolutMauser]

10. My suggestions.

* I suggest migrating to more nuclear power and MANDATING cleaner coal plants instead of allowing companies and localities to use loopholes and trading allowances to avoid upgrading their plants.

* I would like to see improved mass transit, but honestly I only know enough about it to say that I don't know enough about it.

* Recycling becomes more effective if the energy production facilities pollute less. See suggestion 1.

* Increase funding for research into fusion and more efficient and cheaper solar technology (and any other clean power sources that may prove ultimately practicable).

* Revamp environmental regulatory statutes to remove grandfathering, nonenforcement (rather, lack of a strong enforcement mandate), and arbitrary standards. Remove emission trading allowances. Shift the focus from an overall reduction across the nation to combating pollution where it is the worst and causing the most harm. Mandate technology upgrades instead of using an obtuse system of loopholes and requirement levels.

* I would also like to see some kind of incentive to use efficient personal vehicles like hybrid machines. As I said, though, the use of these less-than-powerful automobiles do not fit the needs of all consumers.

~AbM

[Buzz Clik]

11. Nukes?

"I suggest migrating to more nuclear power..."

Ok, but what about the waste? I am not afraid of nuclear power generation, but I cannot support such a move unless and until high level rad waste has a permanent home. (Yucca Mountain will fill up with the waste we have around already.)

[AbsolutMauser]

12. indeed

But we already methods of accelerating the decay of the fuel rods to make them safer for disposal, and I think finding ways of safely disposing of spent fuel rods is better than dumping toxic materials into the atmosphere and churning up significantly more of the Earth looking for coal to burn. Uranium has to be mined, but it certainly isn't required in the quantities coal is.

~AbM

[Buzz Clik]

13. Okay, we agree.

There is another advocate for this position: Dick Cheney. He gave a very long interview early in 2001 in which he was very supportive of decreasing CO2 emissions and increasing nuclear power because it is cleaner.

When you think about it, we don't know a lot about Cheney because he never speaks to anyone. Wouldn't it be interesting to read the minutes of his little enclaves with the energy big boys in late 2000/early 2001?

[blindpig]

14. fair enough

although I have doubts about the technology involved, I think we're pretty much on the same page.

[mastein]

15. Bravo

Wow, A real and rational discussion on major issues of the day ending with a resolution. But what the heck, let me jump in and add a quick bit.

1) Enforcement is not something EPA can spend a lot on. I would love to see it but working for a contractor to the EPA enforcement office, I know how limited their resources are. I wish it were different, but there are too many RW ers that don't see the connection between mandating change and filling void presented above. Also, too many entrenched interests feeding their campaign coffers. Congress people will take a known devil over an unknown any day of the week.

2) I think Hybrids are going to take off and will become available in sizes beyond the compact and sub compacts currently on the market. I have seen that at least one Japanese co. and Ford each have plans in that direction though I know Ford recently pushed their roll out date back for a Hybrid Escape. (If they shelved it, I apologize)

3) We need to do something to avoid the nastiness that is Yucca Mtn site. In addition to the technology listed above, we need to find a way to discuss risk with people in a rational way so they understand the real risks and don't go hitting the panic button.

Once again, I commend you for a rational and reasoned discussion.

[progressivejazz]

16. Information, please?

We already have methods of accelerating the decay of the fuel rods? I didn't know that. Could you fill me in? I assume it would involve irradiating them with something, somehow. Guess I've been out of touch. I'd sure like to know more.

[Kolesar]

17. I would expect that it would take more energy yet

So what is the ultimate advantage?

[Wells]

18. Fusion is more dangerous than fission....

"Climate Change" is the better term for the effects of global warming. It appeals to those currently experiencing odd and unusual weather patterns. Furthermore, the debate "Global Warming vs Ice Age" is a non-sequitor: global warming can actually trigger a catastrophic ice age. Ice Ages have been preceeded by dramatic increases in CO2 warming periods. It's not 'either/or' and much as potentially 'both'.

The nuclear power idea is smoke and mirrors. Modern industrial societies are wasting far more energy than necessary. Most of that waste is on luxuries and redundancies in the travel and transport sectors of local to global economies. More nuclear energy does nothing to cut growth of energy demand and guarantees demand growth, ad infinitem. I am more afraid of fusion than fission! And, don't try to convince me otherwise. Fusion is more dangerous than fission.

Conservation is the best course of action. Essential travel and transport will be limited. Sorry. But, YOU will stop driving your fucking car, YOU will give up exotic vacations in faraway lands, YOU will give up RV opulence. Ha ha, tough shit. One big advantage of these inevitable conservation measures is that local economies will no longer be directed by domineering global influences.