The republicans are putting my family in danger

[_subgenius]

... the point was more specific than general. If this issue is as dramatic and dire as you would have us believe (a.k.a. your hair fire) then "physician heal thyself". Obviously your curbside recycling ain't getting it done, have you consider changing your life so as to completely omit the processes and products that result in climate change?

Your silly and hypocritical moral posturing aside, what do you believe that he should be doing as an antidote to the byproduct of the infrastructure that he lives within?

Lots of space below; let’s hear the ideas that would validate your babbling.

Good question! a bit absurd, but good.
Lets think about that poster this way...lets say he is terribly against the dangers of tobacco use...he. ant stand how the government doesn't do more to prevent tobacco use and thinks America's tobacco companies are mostly to blame and should bear the burden of all things tobacco...even the medical bills of tobacco users. He also condemns multi-pack-a-day smokers as irresponsible morons....
all this while knowing he is a casual tobacco user...sure he has cut back to only smoking on weekends while bar-hopping...but he still uses tobacco....just not as much as Republicans.

[_canpakes]

Good question! a bit absurd, but good.
Lets think about that poster this way...lets say he is terribly against the dangers of tobacco use...he. ant stand how the government doesn't do more to prevent tobacco use and thinks America's tobacco companies are mostly to blame and should bear the burden of all things tobacco...even the medical bills of tobacco users. He also condemns multi-pack-a-day smokers as irresponsible morons....
all this while knowing he is a casual tobacco user...sure he has cut back to only smoking on weekends while bar-hopping...but he still uses tobacco....just not as much as Republicans.

Hmm. So your analogy here is to compare use of and dependence upon an established infrastructure serviced by particular interests typically outside the selectability of the user to engagement in a recreational and completely optional personal habit?

You should probably try harder with both your moralizing and problem solving ‘examples’.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Last time i checked it wasn't the Republicans or the Democrats that controlled the climate. For example, not only does Anerica have a minor influence on global temperatures, but it is people like yourself.

Wait, what do you mean by "Anerica have a minor influence on global temperatures"? You don't believe humans are warming the planet?

[_Gunnar]

Subby is very much like a Flat Earther. No amount of evidence will convince him that AGW is real or relevant.

[_Gunnar]

Bhutan is one country that really takes global warming and protecting the environment seriously, much to not only its own benefit, but also that of its neighbors.

Bhutan a Country to Love.

Majestic fog enshrouded temples nestled into mountainous terrain is quite often the first image that one conjures up when thinking of Bhutan. That is if one is able to conjure up an image at all. Bhutan is a seldom traveled destination, with a visa costing 200 GBP per day, making it a bit of a mystery in the minds of many explorers and travelers.

However, despite being a bit of a social recluse (or quite possibly because of it), Bhutan has emerged as a dark horse in both political and environmental progression.

Bhutan has long based their political decisions on a Gross National Happiness (GNH) index, abandoning economic growth as their compass. The only country in the world to make such a switch and now as of 2016 the world’s first country to become carbon negative.
Coincidence? Not a chance.

What Does it Mean to be Carbon Negative?

Carbon Dioxide is the leading greenhouse gas emission produced by humans, thus contributing most dramatically to worldwide climate change. Most countries produce far more carbon dioxide than they are able to absorb, unfortunately contributing to the amount of unwanted carbon that makes its way into the atmosphere.

How Did Bhutan Become Carbon Negative?

The condition of our environment will always be a central component in humanities happiness which means that environmental protection quickly became a top priority in Bhutan’s political agenda, based on their GNH index model. It started with a promise made back in 2009, to remain carbon neutral tomorrow and for every tomorrow moving forward and picked up speed from there.

A ban was put on export logging.

The constitution was amended to include that forested areas would not drop below 60%.

Free hydroelectric power generated by Bhutan’s many rivers was utilized over environmentally devastating fossil fuels.

It’s quite simple really, Bhutan stopped destroying their environment and started protecting it, something every country and individual has the power to do.

See also this fascinating TED talk.

This country's remarkable king decided to impose democracy on his people. He wrote a new constitution that provided, among other things, that from now on Kings must be elected by popular vote, that kings must retire at age 65, and that kings who misbehaved or ruled poorly or dishonorably could be impeached. Please take a look at this video. I'm sure most of you would enjoy and be impressed by it.

Among the many interesting points made in the speech is this.

So our economy is small, but here is where it gets interesting. Education is completely free. All citizens are guaranteed free school education, and those that work hard are given free college education. Healthcare is also completely free. Medical consultation, medical treatment, medicines: they are all provided by the state. We manage this because we use our limited resources very carefully, and because we stay faithful to the core mission of GNH, which is development with values. Our economy is small, and we must strengthen it. Economic growth is important, but that economic growth must not come from undermining our unique culture or our pristine environment.

[_canpakes]

Subby is very much like a Flat Earther. No amount of evidence will convince him that AGW is real or relevant.

He knows that AGW is real. But he’s bound by a tribe that swears allegiance to short-term self interest, and to lie in pursuit of it.

[_EAllusion]

In terms of climate policy, I’d say it all fell apart in 2001, when Bush reneged on his campaign promise. But I think it would be fair to say that the seeds were sown in 1994.

I was thinking of the newly elected Republican Congress in 1995 having leadership making moves to back out of ozone deals and sharing then Fred Singer-style skepticism in ozone layer depletion theory. While the anti-environmentalists within the Republican party had been gaining power for a while, that feels like the point where they were firmly in charge.

https://www.aip.org/fyi/1995/representa ... c-phaseout

One of the bigger "what ifs" that fries my brain is Al Gore winning the presidency in 2000 leading to real, meaningful global action on carbon emissions, thus averting the more catastrophic consequences of climate change. That probably would've happened had he won given the importance of the issue to him. And his defeat was so narrow that it turns on the stupidest of butterfly flapping its wings reasons. Sitting here close to the year 2020, it seems increasingly apparent that action isn't going to happen in time to avert serious consequences and it's seeming increasingly possible that humanity might not get its act together to avert extremely serious consequences. All because of a few people who couldn't navigate a butterfly ballot.

[_EAllusion]

I've been tapped into libertarian politics and writing since around the mid 90's. One of the more embarrassing aspects of libertarian culture during the 90's and into the 2000's was being really into and on the leading edge of anti-anti-industry pseudoscience with most of that surrounding countering environmentalists. While libertarians also got it right against mainstream wisdom, for example correctly attacking the case for corn-based ethanol long before that was cool, this was more than offset by libertarian publications frequently being into garbage ideas like climate change denialism and skepticism in the ill-health effects of tobacco use. The aforementioned Fred Singer was a pop-hero in libertarian culture. Uber dishonest hack Steven Milloy was a heavily promoted figure in libertarian circles at one point.

A point of pride, however, is that libertarians do tend to fancy themselves as rational people following the evidence where it may lead and to their credit are no longer nearly as into this pseudoscience as a group. While that streak isn't gone from libertarian culture, you do see a lot of push-back coming from fellow libertarians and some of its important figures on this front - Ronald Bailey comes to mind - have renounced their earlier incorrect views. That's a wipe of the brow. It's gone from utterly embarrassing to a problematic area of dispute. Young educated libertarians replacing the old probably has something to do with this.

Seeing some reformation in my own political neck of the woods; however, makes it clear to me how utterly broken conservative culture is. Being a global warming skeptic in 1998 is bad. Doing so now is appalling. And the grip of anti-environmentalist pseudoscience has only gotten stronger in Republican party politics during a time when it should've been getting weaker. That's the influence of propagandistic right-wing media.

[_Analytics]

In terms of climate policy, I’d say it all fell apart in 2001, when Bush reneged on his campaign promise. But I think it would be fair to say that the seeds were sown in 1994.

I was thinking of the newly elected Republican Congress in 1995 having leadership making moves to back out of ozone deals and sharing then Fred Singer-style skepticism in ozone layer depletion theory. While the anti-environmentalists within the Republican party had been gaining power for a while, that feels like the point where they were firmly in charge.

https://www.aip.org/fyi/1995/representa ... c-phaseout

One of the bigger "what ifs" that fries my brain is Al Gore winning the presidency in 2000 leading to real, meaningful global action on carbon emissions, thus averting the more catastrophic consequences of climate change. That probably would've happened had he won given the importance of the issue to him. And his defeat was so narrow that it turns on the stupidest of butterfly flapping its wings reasons. Sitting here close to the year 2020, it seems increasingly apparent that action isn't going to happen in time to avert serious consequences and it's seeming increasingly possible that humanity might not get its act together to avert extremely serious consequences. All because of a few people who couldn't navigate a butterfly ballot.

+1 for content and +1 for style. Butterfly effects and ballots--nice.

[_subgenius]

Last time i checked it wasn't the Republicans or the Democrats that controlled the climate. For example, not only does Anerica have a minor influence on global temperatures, but it is people like yourself.

Wait, what do you mean by "Anerica have a minor influence on global temperatures"? You don't believe humans are warming the planet?

all humans = America ? huh?

Consider that of about 14% of CO2 emissions are "American" (which ties us with a combine Russia, Japan, and India) and then compare to, say, 30% of CO2 emissions being from "China".

Nevertheless, of course humans are influencing temperatures on the planet...so are trees...but it is to what extent that human influence is detrimental/beneficial to human existence that is under discussion....and even more to the point, if you are of the position that AGW is at a critical and dangerous point then why you be so uncommitted to solve the problem? I mean if you thought your house was on fire would you throw only one bucket of water and then complain that your neighbors did not throw any?....your use of computer is a part of the alleged problem, is it not?...or are things not bad enough to keep you from the drive-thru window?
But please, tell me how what you consider "necessary" should be what I consider "necessary".