12-05-2014 05:51 AM
179 ... 45678
tools
  1. hydrogen3's Avatar
    You can't control what other countries are doing for the environment, the U.N. is trying to set guidelines and China recognizes they pollute the air like no ones business, but as it goes we have to fix whaynus happening domestically (where you have the most control and say) before you go into other countries telling them how to do things.
    Obama Handed Over American Sovereignty At U.N. Climate Change Meeting..

    the Copenhagen treaty, “be a new, vast, interlocking, bureaucratic entity created at huge expense to you and me, and that bureaucratic entity will have three purposes, the first of which is twice stated to be government.”

    The second purpose of the treaty involves the vast transfer of American wealth to Third World nations for what is called “climate debt.” America will be forced to pay up to 2% of our Gross National Product to Third World nations for allegedly having ruined the climate.

    A third purpose of the treaty is “enforcement” of the confiscation of American tax dollars and of domestic policies impacting the environment.
    11-18-2014 08:12 AM
  2. NoYankees44's Avatar
    That's not the EPA. That's the manufacturer.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    Our infinitely wise government has issued huge amounts of new regulation for the auto and trucking industries in the last decade or so. We now require auto makers to have gas mileage targets that would be unheard of a few years ago while also demanding that they meet higher emissions standards, higher crash test standards, and remain cost competitive in a market with already extremely low margins on bread-and-butter models. All of which fights efficiency every step of the way.

    What that has created is extremely high tolerance vehicles with difficult manufacturing processes, potentially low profit margins, and poor longevity. Basically, the engines in modern cars are high strung racing from 20 years ago that were designed to run for 1 race. Modern car engine's output is similar or better than the racing engines, but their efficiency is tuned to be better. This means something has to give. Manufacturers(with all this new regulation) are force to choose between price and longevity with much harder conditions than they ever have before.

    300k mile cars are dead. No modern car should be expected to reach that goal without heavy servicing. Soon, unless something changes, 200k will be an anomaly. And "lemon" cars will become more and more common with all the new technology that manufactures are forced to experiment with. The cream will rise to the top, but many beloved brands will sink to the bottom(see US auto manufacturers).

    Sent from my XT1096
    11-18-2014 09:04 AM
  3. anon(92475)'s Avatar
    Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Congress have to agree before any U.N. treaty binds the US? Such as the Kyoto Protocol? Obama can sign whatever he wants, but if Congress doesn't agree, he's SOL.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    11-18-2014 09:08 AM
  4. Mooncatt's Avatar
    ...but as it goes we have to fix whaynus happening domestically (where you have the most control and say) before you go into other countries telling them how to do things.
    Just out of curiosity, at what point do you think it'll be enough on the home front?
    11-18-2014 09:26 AM
  5. A895's Avatar
    Just out of curiosity, at what point do you think it'll be enough on the home front?
    When we actually see some significant change in output of pollutants from the U.S. People can mope and complain about things now, but imagine how the world will be like 40-50 years from now.
    11-18-2014 09:30 AM
  6. Mooncatt's Avatar
    When we actually see some significant change in output of pollutants from the U.S. People can mope and complain about things now, but imagine how the world will be like 40-50 years from now.
    We've already made significant changes, so what's the "enough is enough" line in the sand? Is there an end game?

    And btw, I just took a new job that partners with a paper recycler, so you can't say I'm not doing my part.
    11-18-2014 09:41 AM
  7. A895's Avatar
    We've already made significant changes, so what's the "enough is enough" line in the sand? Is there an end game?

    And btw, I just took a new job that partners with a paper recycler, so you can't say I'm not doing my part.
    Significant changes in level of output of pollutants. The united States is still one of the biggest polluters, we have to change that.
    11-18-2014 09:44 AM
  8. NoYankees44's Avatar
    When we actually see some significant change in output of pollutants from the U.S. People can mope and complain about things now, but imagine how the world will be like 40-50 years from now.
    Sense 1980 the US pollution levels have decreased across the board.

    Here is a study by the good old EPA about air pollution. All tested pollutants decreased 20%+. Most by 70, 80, or 90%: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/

    Sent from my XT1096
    hydrogen3 likes this.
    11-18-2014 09:47 AM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    We're also one of the largest civilizations in the world. Of course we're going to pollute more than others as a country as a whole. Per capita, I suspect not.
    hydrogen3 likes this.
    11-18-2014 09:48 AM
  10. hydrogen3's Avatar
    Just out of curiosity, at what point do you think it'll be enough on the home front?
    Obviously to these few.. Not until we paid an exorbitant amount of “climate debt.” to Third World nations.

    Former Weather Channel CEO Goes off on CNN: ‘Hello, Everybody! There’s No Global Warming!’
    11-18-2014 11:35 AM
  11. hydrogen3's Avatar
    American Free Press:

    October 13.

    The recently released report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is comprised of an international group of scientists sponsored by the United Nations (UN), is extremely alarmist in nature, despite the fact that numerous top climate scientists have admitted that many of their “global warming” predictions were wrong or seriously exaggerated.
    11-18-2014 11:40 AM
  12. hydrogen3's Avatar
    Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Congress have to agree before any U.N. treaty binds the US? Such as the Kyoto Protocol? Obama can sign whatever he wants, but if Congress doesn't agree, he's SOL.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    No, this King has a pen and a phone!
    11-18-2014 11:43 AM
  13. hydrogen3's Avatar
    Don't you know? The eight years of Bush was just a dream. It never happened. Just like that one season of Dallas. We went directly from Clinton to Obama. Except unlike Dallas, there were no showers involved. But conservative memories are just as blank and wiped clean now. Which is why they always try to change the subject.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Ah, yes.. the The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard,
    11-18-2014 01:24 PM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    Fear was probably one of the biggest motivators of that election, which is one of the GOP's biggest tools, emotion.
    However, we must also remember that fear is useful in triggering people's survival instinct, which benefits them in the long run.

    For example, if someone said that criminals were roaming the streets beating up gay people, it would be understandable for the gay community to be in fear.

    This fear may encourage people to go to their local chapter of the Pink Pistols (a gun rights group) to learn how acquire and use concealed firearms for defensive purposes. (Pink Pistols' slogan is "Armed gays don't get bashed.") If this training helps even one gay person from becoming a victim, we could say that fear served a useful purpose.

    The same would hold true for elections. If fear can trigger people's survival instinct to vote for the candidate that best serves their interest, then they will benefit in the long run.
    11-18-2014 04:15 PM
  15. grover5's Avatar
    However, we must also remember that fear is useful in triggering people's survival instinct, which benefits them in the long run.

    For example, if someone said that criminals were roaming the streets beating up gay people, it would be understandable for the gay community to be in fear.

    This fear may encourage people to go to their local chapter of the Pink Pistols (a gun rights group) to learn how acquire and use concealed firearms for defensive purposes. (Pink Pistols' slogan is "Armed gays don't get bashed.") If this training helps even one gay person from becoming a victim, we could say that fear served a useful purpose.

    The same would hold true for elections. If fear can trigger people's survival instinct to vote for the candidate that best serves their interest, then they will benefit in the long run.
    The ends justify the means. I disagree. Especially since it is a leap of faith to assume the fear naturally drives them to vote in their own self interest. But it does reinforce a growing trend in right wing politics...ideology trumps reality regardless of the outcomes.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    11-18-2014 04:23 PM
  16. anon8126715's Avatar
    And thus the hypocrisy. All pollution affects the atmosphere the same, regardless of who made it. If you are that serious about it, you wouldn't be saying countries like the U.S. have to save the planet at all costs, but give developing countries a free pass. They should be using the same cleaner processes everyone else is being told to use too.
    How is that hypocrisy on my part? I'm saying that I don't think China nor India is going to want to set their economy back. It would be nice if they did, but I don't see it happening. How do you think the U.S. would react if another country told us that we needed to scale back our pollution when we were just starting to see great growth as an economy?

    However, we must also remember that fear is useful in triggering people's survival instinct, which benefits them in the long run.

    For example, if someone said that criminals were roaming the streets beating up gay people, it would be understandable for the gay community to be in fear.

    This fear may encourage people to go to their local chapter of the Pink Pistols (a gun rights group) to learn how acquire and use concealed firearms for defensive purposes. (Pink Pistols' slogan is "Armed gays don't get bashed.") If this training helps even one gay person from becoming a victim, we could say that fear served a useful purpose.

    The same would hold true for elections. If fear can trigger people's survival instinct to vote for the candidate that best serves their interest, then they will benefit in the long run.
    It would be nice if politicians could engage a voter's rationale, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Granted, I don't see a politician being able to engage the majority of voters because politicians want to push the agenda of the special interests. If politicians were completely honest and transparent, their financial backers would not get the laws passed that benefit them. That's why you have laws that are written so obscure, because the powers that be do not want to implement what's best for the most people, they would rather implement what's best for their people.
    11-18-2014 07:56 PM
  17. Mooncatt's Avatar
    How is that hypocrisy on my part? I'm saying that I don't think China nor India is going to want to set their economy back. It would be nice if they did, but I don't see it happening. How do you think the U.S. would react if another country told us that we needed to scale back our pollution when we were just starting to see great growth as an economy?
    I also meant the proverbial "you," so perhaps "they" (meaning the movement as a whole) would have fit better. In either case, the advantage those developing countries have is being able to learn from the research of developed countries. They could build using less polluting processes for less than we did over all because much of the research, mistakes, and intermediate technologies that lead to the current technologies have already been made. In effect, short cutting the process from massively polluting industrial complex to energy efficient and conserving factories and infrastructure.

    By not strongly promoting environmental development and not putting pressure on them (I.e. from sanctions on the governmental level to boycotts on the business level) to be more responsible in their expansion shows that this is less about concern over the environment and more about politics.
    11-18-2014 08:48 PM
  18. A895's Avatar
    I just thought about it, how did we get so deep into the topic of pollution and the environment?
    11-18-2014 09:11 PM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    I just thought about it, how did we get so deep into the topic of pollution and the environment?
    Are you saying this thread has been polluted by a by-product of the original discussion?!?!
    Mooncatt likes this.
    11-18-2014 09:26 PM
  20. A895's Avatar
    Are you saying this thread has been polluted by a by-product of the original discussion?!?!
    Was the environment even talked about in the midterms? All I saw was people blaming Obama for stuff from both sides of the aisle.
    11-18-2014 09:27 PM
  21. GadgetGator's Avatar
    As I've said before NASA is a propaganda machine.

    I'm beginning to think YOU are a propaganda machine.

    Posted via Android Central App
    anon(92475), A895 and grover5 like this.
    11-19-2014 11:20 PM
  22. A895's Avatar
    Since we were talking about Climate Change, here is an AMA about Naomi Klein an author on climate change:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comment...es_everything/
    11-20-2014 12:42 PM
  23. hydrogen3's Avatar
    Since we were talking about Climate Change, here is an AMA about Naomi Klein an author on climate change:

    I’m Naomi Klein, author of THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING: Capitalism vs the Climate. Ask me anything! : IAmA
    Chuckles!
    11-20-2014 12:49 PM
  24. A895's Avatar
    Chuckles!
    She has some interesting things to say, it is a good read no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.
    11-20-2014 12:50 PM
  25. hydrogen3's Avatar
    She has some interesting things to say, it is a good read no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.
    I'll give you that..
    11-20-2014 12:56 PM
179 ... 45678

Similar Threads

  1. Moto X 2014 Bumper?
    By dsneedmd in forum Moto X (2014)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-04-2015, 08:23 AM
  2. Will my 4G EE sim card work ok in a MotoG 2014?
    By DannyHeard in forum Moto G (2014)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-08-2014, 06:48 AM
  3. Is the S Galaxy Note tab 10.1 2014 a good tablet?
    By ViniciusBr in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-05-2014, 07:07 PM
  4. Battery issues with 2014 X?
    By douglasbnorton in forum Moto X (2014)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-05-2014, 12:10 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-04-2014, 12:06 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD