How is climate going to change where you live?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

What's the debate though?

It's either real, and we should take care of the environment, or it's not, so..... **** the environment?

And even if the impact down the road is overblown... how could taking care of pollution be a bad thing?

How about we start with encouraging people to do the right thing instead of taxing them into compliance?

I'm NOT a "denier" as I was IMMEDIATELY branded, simply because I had the nerve to disagree.

I do my part. I use a fuel-efficient vehicle (I live in the country, an electric car for me is simply not feasible) and burn bio-fuels as much as possible. I grow and raise animals organically. I recycle not only plastics, metal and glass but I recycle offal and plant material for mulch and fertilizer and I recycle rainwater as well.

I personally don't exploit the environment for personal gain because it's MORALLY WRONG. How about that answer?

My problem is that the guy that lives down the road from me isn't ME. He has a different living situation and some of my choices won't work for him. Furthermore, the young couple that lives the other direction simply CANNOT AFFORD to make the changes I've made, they're working 2 jobs each already.

And therein lies my problem - the "climate change" movement chooses the earth over people. Most of the legislation that's been proposed or put in place puts an unequal burden on the people in the US that can afford it least. The party that is supposedly for the "poor" is championing climate policy that is HURTING THE POOR.

Meanwhile, countries like India and China are pouring pollutants into the atmosphere at an alarming rate and we're doing nothing about it. We'd rather punish our own citizens than, you know, actually stop climate change.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

How about we start with encouraging people to do the right thing instead of taxing them into compliance?

I'm NOT a "denier" as I was IMMEDIATELY branded, simply because I had the nerve to disagree.

I do my part. I use a fuel-efficient vehicle (I live in the country, an electric car for me is simply not feasible) and burn bio-fuels as much as possible. I grow and raise animals organically. I recycle not only plastics, metal and glass but I recycle offal and plant material for mulch and fertilizer and I recycle rainwater as well.

I personally don't exploit the environment for personal gain because it's MORALLY WRONG. How about that answer?

My problem is that the guy that lives down the road from me isn't ME. He has a different living situation and some of my choices won't work for him. Furthermore, the young couple that lives the other direction simply CANNOT AFFORD to make the changes I've made, they're working 2 jobs each already.

And therein lies my problem - the "climate change" movement chooses the earth over people. Most of the legislation that's been proposed or put in place puts an unequal burden on the people in the US that can afford it least. The party that is supposedly for the "poor" is championing climate policy that is HURTING THE POOR.

Meanwhile, countries like India and China are pouring pollutants into the atmosphere at an alarming rate and we're doing nothing about it. We'd rather punish our own citizens than, you know, actually stop climate change.

DING DING DING

I'm in the heart of the third largest city in America right now. The air is clean. I'm thinking you couldn't say the same thing in the third largest city in China.

The progs trying to shove all this green energy crap down our throats while ignoring the worst offenders is about as smart as disarming law abiding citizens in an attempt to alleviate gun crimes. In fact, I kind of sense a pattern here.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

How about we start with encouraging people to do the right thing instead of taxing them into compliance?

I'm NOT a "denier" as I was IMMEDIATELY branded, simply because I had the nerve to disagree.

I do my part. I use a fuel-efficient vehicle (I live in the country, an electric car for me is simply not feasible) and burn bio-fuels as much as possible. I grow and raise animals organically. I recycle not only plastics, metal and glass but I recycle offal and plant material for mulch and fertilizer and I recycle rainwater as well.

I personally don't exploit the environment for personal gain because it's MORALLY WRONG. How about that answer?

My problem is that the guy that lives down the road from me isn't ME. He has a different living situation and some of my choices won't work for him. Furthermore, the young couple that lives the other direction simply CANNOT AFFORD to make the changes I've made, they're working 2 jobs each already.

And therein lies my problem - the "climate change" movement chooses the earth over people. Most of the legislation that's been proposed or put in place puts an unequal burden on the people in the US that can afford it least. The party that is supposedly for the "poor" is championing climate policy that is HURTING THE POOR.

Meanwhile, countries like India and China are pouring pollutants into the atmosphere at an alarming rate and we're doing nothing about it. We'd rather punish our own citizens than, you know, actually stop climate change.

There is no current federal climate change taxation involving taxing individuals like yourself or the guy that lives down the road from you. The idea that climate change mitigation means individuals give up their vehicles for bikes, etc. is simply not true and will never be true. Any potential solution cannot undermine the country's economic prosperity. There will never be any draconian climate policy that lowers the quality of life for citizens. That's just hyperbolic silliness which would never get passed(Green Deal stupidity). The things you list above are positive personal choices. But it can't be mandated that every citizen live that way. That's clearly not feasible. There are other more effective ways to achieve mitigation anyway. The climate change denial effort would have you believe that mitigation means reaching directly into citizens' wallets, but that's simply fear mongering.

Also, India and China are actually making better progress than you realize. India is currently on track to reach it's Paris Climate Agreement goals ahead of schedule. China has done the same, and soon could be the world leader in climate change mitigation. Both of those countries are making real accountable progress. Meanwhile, the US just saw its biggest CO2 emissions increase in many years.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Fish

There is no current federal climate change taxation involving taxing individuals like yourself or the guy that lives down the road from you. The idea that climate change mitigation means individuals give up their vehicles for bikes, etc. is simply not true and will never be true. Any potential solution cannot undermine the country's economic prosperity. There will never be any draconian climate policy that lowers the quality of life for citizens. That's just hyperbolic silliness which would never get passed(Green Deal stupidity). The things you list above are positive personal choices. But it can't be mandated that every citizen live that way. That's clearly not feasible. There are other more effective ways to achieve mitigation anyway. The climate change denial effort would have you believe that mitigation means reaching directly into citizens' wallets, but that's simply fear mongering.

Also, India and China are actually making better progress than you realize. India is currently on track to reach it's Paris Climate Agreement goals ahead of schedule. China has done the same, and soon could be the world leader in climate change mitigation. Both of those countries are making real accountable progress. Meanwhile, the US just saw its biggest CO2 emissions increase in many years.

I disagree. The emissions we have are because those options are cheap. In an attempt to stay out of the weeds there is no way to move away from the most economical options without fiscal strain.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

I disagree. The emissions we have are because those options are cheap. In an attempt to stay out of the weeds there is no way to move away from the most economical options without fiscal strain.

People made the same claims when the US started regulating leaded gasoline. The industry used leaded gas then for the same reason, because it was cheaper. Industry giants denied the science showing lead was harmful, and tried to convince people that it would ruin the economy if we regulated this cheap energy source. Yet we found a way and we're safer for it now. We'll do that with climate change too.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by Fish

People made the same claims when the US started regulating leaded gasoline. The industry used leaded gas then for the same reason, because it was cheaper. Industry giants denied the science showing lead was harmful, and tried to convince people that it would ruin the economy if we regulated this cheap energy source. Yet we found a way and we're safer for it now. We'll do that with climate change too.

Well I’m all about that then. But color me skeptical. I’ve already went backwards on emissions standards. Tier 4 engines haven’t been kind to the farm economically, And it’s not me being a whiney bitch. There is definitely an economic toll being extracted with that set of regulations.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Fish

People made the same claims when the US started regulating leaded gasoline. The industry used leaded gas then for the same reason, because it was cheaper. Industry giants denied the science showing lead was harmful, and tried to convince people that it would ruin the economy if we regulated this cheap energy source. Yet we found a way and we're safer for it now. We'll do that with climate change too.

So full of shit.

Lead was ADDED to gasoline to increase octane and thereby increase performance in the less sophisticated engines of the day.
The gas crunch took performance out of the calculus for desirable vehicles for a while, then engineering produced performances gains without the necessity of lead-induced octane levels.

Lead was never about price or economy.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

So full of shit.

Lead was ADDED to gasoline to increase octane and thereby increase performance in the less sophisticated engines of the day.
The gas crunch took performance out of the calculus for desirable vehicles for a while, then engineering produced performances gains without the necessity of lead-induced octane levels.

Lead was never about price or economy.

Here's a quote directly from one of the EPA officials who was responsible for the leaded gasoline regulation.

In the early 1970s, we experienced considerable resistance to removal of lead from gasoline, not only by industry but also by government and public health scientists. Many scientists asserted that lead in gasoline caused no health effects and referred to a large number of studies supporting that position. Concerns were also raised about the adverse impact the regulation would have on companies that manufactured lead additives and on the oil company refineries. It was further postulated that removing lead would cause gas prices to skyrocket.

These concerns were being voiced against the backdrop of the 1973 gasoline shortage caused by the Arab oil embargo. Cars lined up for blocks waiting to gas up, and in some parts of the country one could only go to the gas station on an even- or an odd-numbered day. The argument was made that the lead regulations would exacerbate the oil shortage by requiring more oil to replace the octane lost by removing lead. With the gas shortage dominating the news, we were informed by certain senior executives that removal of lead from gasoline was politically impossible.

[...]

Public hearings on the initial February 1972 proposed regulations were organized, by Hanson. The hearings resulted in many comments on the impact of the proposed regulations on the oil and gas industry and lead industry. These two industries accounted for most of the testimony at the hearings. They testified to the substantial damage they believed the regulation would do to their industries, including lost profits, the inability to fund exploration and development, and difficulties in providing affordable gasoline to the public. Another concern was that removal of lead would endanger the survival of as many as 50 refineries across the country. In fact, only one small older refinery was closed purportedly because of the regulations on lead in gasoline.


https://www.thefreelibrary.com/A%20p.....-a0215204333

Straight from the EPA at the time. So next time you tell someone they're full of shit, maybe you should know what the **** you're talking about.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Fish

Here's a quote directly from one of the EPA officials who was responsible for the leaded gasoline regulation.



Straight from the EPA at the time. So next time you tell someone they're full of shit, maybe you should know what the **** you're talking about.

You're gonna support your bullshit argument with someone 'postulating' a bullshit argument. Strong stuff.

The premise of the need for lead was a continuing need for the performance provided by octane boost in large powerplants.
People instead sacrificed horsepower until newer engines with fuel injection and computer monitoring made up the difference with less potent fuels.

Gas prices never rose with the removal of lead because people adapted by either living with underpowered vehicles or buying smaller lighter vehicles. And the auto industry flat out sucked balls for their lack of timely adaption for decades, leading to the rise of imports from which the US industry never fully recovered.

But even then, with the fallout that DID happen, removing lead from gas just made for shitty cars. There's a difference between sacrificing pep in your 0-60 time on the highway and sacrificing all your energy consumption. It's one thing if your car accelerates like a dog. It's another if your house is 50 degrees, or 40 in winter, or 100 in summer. It's another if it costs you twice as much to keep your refrigerator cold as it did last year. You can't 'adapt' to a shitty refrigerator that doesn't keep your food frozen or your milk cold like you can an underpowered car.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by FishPoop

Fixed.