• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

10 Reasons to Feel Hopeful About Climate Change in 2019 - The Sierra Club

Bergslagstroll said:
The transition away from fossil fuel will of course have challenges. While it will be a lot harder to deal with the devasting effects of manmade global warming. There even federal agencies under Donald Trump warns about the devastating effects of climate change.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

The Paris Agreement could also save a millions lives per year just by reducing air pollutions.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...igh-the-costs-of-meeting-climate-change-goals

Also that your second link is from 2013 and since then you have seen an rapid increase in renewable energy all across the world that countinues in a rapid pace. For example in Australia there Teslas giant battery have been proven to be very effective in regulating supply and demand of electricity.

http://theconversation.com/at-its-c...k-for-50-renewable-electricity-in-2025-102903

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-track-to-make-back-a-third-of-cost-in-a-year
Click to expand...

Three of those four groups were up before Trump took office and I can only find where the Nasa organization gets it's funding from.

Though that is only small bones when it comes to my prime issue with them. I would like that any information they have be made readily available and I would like to see what claims, according to the GCC (Nasa), are actually coming true. Because I've grown up through the years of people making off the wall claims and predictions that just were false from the start. I would like it if these groups could supply actual evidence for such troubles to be happening and not just saying it's man-made climate change that's at fault.

The Paris agreement on the other hand, was in fact a joke. It was unfair to us as a country and even though the agreement was non-binding. It was somehow sold that we would have to blindly abide by it's ruling. While other countries just got to squeeze on by, without so much as a sniff from the higher ups. The worst part was that non of it was enforceable, no matter what and it would have no real impact on us. If we chose not to follow with whatever it said to do in the first place.
The Paris agreement eventually became just another moral pedestal, that others could wag their finger at us from.

Australia is doing fine now, yes. Though I've seen that they are trying to cut emissions by around 25% at some point in the near future by going to hydrogen power. The article is slipping me at this point.

Though I did find this to be a good read. Melbourne is one of my more interesting sources when it comes to clean energy.
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/australia-s-energy-trilemma-explained

They've also still had power supply issues coming up from time to time. But such a thing is normally when you chase such a goal so quickly. https://antinuclear.net/2019/01/22/despite-grid-problems-australias-solar-wind-energy-boom-to-power-ahead-in-2019/

I will also admit that it's not their power grid, nor the supply of power that causes issues for them. As it can just as well be their weather doing just as much, if not more damage in the end.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/why-south-australias-blackouts-are-a-problem-for-us-all/news-story/bc3bbc8be17d80844bc05ab7f5760d56
 
Oborosen said:
Three of those four groups were up before Trump took office and I can only find where the Nasa organization gets it's funding from.

Though that is only small bones when it comes to my prime issue with them. I would like that any information they have be made readily available and I would like to see what claims, according to the GCC (Nasa), are actually coming true. Because I've grown up through the years of people making off the wall claims and predictions that just were false from the start. I would like it if these groups could supply actual evidence for such troubles to be happening and not just saying it's man-made climate change that's at fault.

The Paris agreement on the other hand, was in fact a joke. It was unfair to us as a country and even though the agreement was non-binding. It was somehow sold that we would have to blindly abide by it's ruling. While other countries just got to squeeze on by, without so much as a sniff from the higher ups. The worst part was that non of it was enforceable, no matter what and it would have no real impact on us. If we chose not to follow with whatever it said to do in the first place.
The Paris agreement eventually became just another moral pedestal, that others could wag their finger at us from.

Australia is doing fine now, yes. Though I've seen that they are trying to cut emissions by around 25% at some point in the near future by going to hydrogen power. The article is slipping me at this point.

Though I did find this to be a good read. Melbourne is one of my more interesting sources when it comes to clean energy.
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/australia-s-energy-trilemma-explained

They've also still had power supply issues coming up from time to time. But such a thing is normally when you chase such a goal so quickly. https://antinuclear.net/2019/01/22/...olar-wind-energy-boom-to-power-ahead-in-2019/

I will also admit that it's not their power grid, nor the supply of power that causes issues for them. As it can just as well be their weather doing just as much, if not more damage in the end.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/...l/news-story/bc3bbc8be17d80844bc05ab7f5760d56
Click to expand...

Bush was president for eight years, Donald Trump have been president for two years and you also have had Republican congresses. So all of those Republicans could have been able to start inquiries and also direct federal funds to look at the evidence of manmade global warming. There the result is that federal agencies still acknowledge manmade global warming and its devastating effects.

Even if Trump for example appointed a former climate denier as head of NASA. That the result was instead that Jim Bridenstine, a Republican from Oklahoma, now ackowledge the scientifc consensus on climate change.

https://www.space.com/40857-trumps-...n-climate-change-he-is-a-scientific-hero.html

Also major American companies wanted US to stay in the Paris Accord.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/...agreement-google-apple-exxon-2017-6?r=US&IR=T

Whle 150 of the world’s most influential companies, many of them Americans have committed to source 100 percent renewable electricity.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/12/10/exxon-knows-renewables-cheaper-even-trump-doesnt/

You also for example have UK that have drastically reduced it's coal consumption and will close its last coal plant in 2025.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fired-power-plants-close-2025

Also Sweden that implemented a carbon tax as early as 1995 and is one of the world's most sustainable countries,.

https://info.esg.adec-innovations.c...worlds-most-sustainable-country-top-5-reasons

And Denmark got 43 percent of their electricity from wind power in 2017 and also plan to get 80 percent of electricity from renewables in 2020.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/06/44-wind-denmark-smashed-already-huge-wind-energy-records-2017/

There those countries also have less than half the C02 pollution per capita of US.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

While at the same time rank higher than US on the best country for business list.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
Bush was president for eight years, Donald Trump have been president for two years and you also have had Republican congresses. So all of those Republicans could have been able to start inquiries and also direct federal funds to look at the evidence of manmade global warming. There the result is that federal agencies still acknowledge manmade global warming and its devastating effects.

Even if Trump for example appointed a former climate denier as head of NASA. That the result was instead that Jim Bridenstine, a Republican from Oklahoma, now ackowledge the scientifc consensus on climate change.

https://www.space.com/40857-trumps-...n-climate-change-he-is-a-scientific-hero.html

Also major American companies wanted US to stay in the Paris Accord.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/...agreement-google-apple-exxon-2017-6?r=US&IR=T

Whle 150 of the world’s most influential companies, many of them Americans have committed to source 100 percent renewable electricity.

Exxon knows renewables are cheaper, even if Trump doesn't

You also for example have UK that have drastically reduced it's coal consumption and will close its last coal plant in 2025.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fired-power-plants-close-2025

Also Sweden that implemented a carbon tax as early as 1995 and is one of the world's most sustainable countries,.

https://info.esg.adec-innovations.c...worlds-most-sustainable-country-top-5-reasons

And Denmark got 43 percent of their electricity from wind power in 2017 and also plan to get 80 percent of electricity from renewables in 2020.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/06/44-wind-denmark-smashed-already-huge-wind-energy-records-2017/

There those countries also have less than half the C02 pollution per capita of US.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

While at the same time rank higher than US on the best country for business list.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall
Click to expand...

Appealing to authority isn't helping. What I want is the information, not to be told that I should care because some guy sitting in an office told me to, or that some committee half way across the world says so.

I've seen Al Gore nearly shout down a man on national television, who was telling him almost to his face that what he was saying is wrong. With his only rebuttal being that the science is settled.

Just because companies wanted us to stay in the Paris accord, doesn't make it any less of the joke that it was. Though, just guessing here. But I'm guessing that their reason for wanting to stay was more for the reason of a financial write off than for any kind of warm, kind hearted thoughts.
 
Oborosen said:
Appealing to authority isn't helping. What I want is the information, not to be told that I should care because some guy sitting in an office told me to, or that some committee half way across the world says so.

I've seen Al Gore nearly shout down a man on national television, who was telling him almost to his face that what he was saying is wrong. With his only rebuttal being that the science is settled.

Just because companies wanted us to stay in the Paris accord, doesn't make it any less of the joke that it was. Though, just guessing here. But I'm guessing that their reason for wanting to stay was more for the reason of a financial write off than for any kind of warm, kind hearted thoughts.
Click to expand...

Global subsidies to fossil fuel are hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Much more than the subsidies to renewable energy.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...nsumption-subsidies-are-down-but-not-out.html

Also that two thirds of American give priority to developing alternative energy sources, like solar and wind power. Two thirds of Americans also wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

Most in US say alternative energy takes priority over fossil fuels

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

While the Trump administration instead is listen to and hiring the fossil fuel lobbyists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/climate/coal-murray-trump-memo.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html

There Donald Trump even wants to spend billions of dollars propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants
 
Moderate Right said:
No link needed. It is common knowledge that several things on the list are what Trump has always said, such as things would be fine even if the US was not in the Paris accord.
Click to expand...

So if things are fine, and the US is following the accord anyway, what was the point of ticking everyone off and alienating ourselves from the world to come out of it?
 
marke said:
It may be just as hard to prove global warming alarmism is unscientific as it is impossible to prove global warming hype is solidly backed by irrefutable scientific speculations, assumptions and interpretations of the very limited data available.
Click to expand...

Not really. Global warming science is about as solid as it gets. Where did you hear it was unscientific?
 
Oborosen said:
Appealing to authority isn't helping. What I want is the information, not to be told that I should care because some guy sitting in an office told me to, or that some committee half way across the world says so.

I've seen Al Gore nearly shout down a man on national television, who was telling him almost to his face that what he was saying is wrong. With his only rebuttal being that the science is settled.

Just because companies wanted us to stay in the Paris accord, doesn't make it any less of the joke that it was. Though, just guessing here. But I'm guessing that their reason for wanting to stay was more for the reason of a financial write off than for any kind of warm, kind hearted thoughts.
Click to expand...

The science is settled. A good book for laypeople:
Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know®: 9780190866105: Medicine & Health Science Books @ Amazon.com

For those wanting a little more technical treatment (undergrad level):
Understanding Weather and Climate (7th Edition) (MasteringMeteorology Series): Edward Aguado, James E. Burt: 9780321987303: Amazon.com: Books
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
If science was not so corrupt as it is that might have been the end of it.
Click to expand...

It’s not corrupt. Don’t buy the hype and conspiracy theories. It’s the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet, from Japan, China, and Australia, to Europe and America, from academic centers and the universities to private corporations including the fossil fuel companies themselves, to government organizations like NASA, and even the scientists working for the executive branch of the US government under Donald Trump. At some point you can let go of the conspiracy theories and realize this is settled science.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
So if things are fine, and the US is following the accord anyway, what was the point of ticking everyone off and alienating ourselves from the world to come out of it?
Click to expand...

Because it means the US government isn't unfairly taken advantage of. As with everything else, such as Nato, the world expects us to foot the costs for everything at an unfair rate. That's the point of the whole thing. The world expects us to put our workers out of work while they get off scott free. Paris is actually a great example of this. Look what happened in the streets when the French government tried to stick it to the poor by going green. Commoners revolted and the government backed off.
 
Moderate Right said:
Because it means the US government isn't unfairly taken advantage of. As with everything else, such as Nato, the world expects us to foot the costs for everything at an unfair rate. That's the point of the whole thing. The world expects us to put our workers out of work while they get off scott free. Paris is actually a great example of this. Look what happened in the streets when the French government tried to stick it to the poor by going green. Commoners revolted and the government backed off.
Click to expand...

The commoners DO have very legitimate concerns. No question. But that doesn’t mean climate change science is wrong. This is a situation where there are very legitimate concerns on both sides, and very difficult negotiation and compromise must be made between these conflicting, but equally legitimate considerations . You cannot deny or just dismiss the overwhelming facts and concerns on one side of the argument because the other side has concerns, no matter how legitimate .
 
ataraxia said:
The commoners DO have very legitimate concerns. No question. But that doesn’t mean climate change science is wrong. This is a situation where there are very legitimate concerns on both sides, and very difficult negotiation and compromise must be made between these conflicting, but equally legitimate considerations . You cannot deny or just dismiss the overwhelming facts and concerns on one side of the argument because the other side has concerns, no matter how legitimate .
Click to expand...

Most don't say climate change science is wrong. That's a left wing propaganda talking point. Trump has even acknowledged it every once in a while but of course the left wants to dwell on when he called it a hoax, not mentioning the other things he has said about it. The thing is, climate change can't be stopped. You can't fight mother nature. Even if you culled every human being on the planet, the Earth would still be getting warmer. It's what it does. It's what it has always done. If we spent trillions and trillions of dollars and put a bunch of people out of work all over the world, all we could do is put a dent in the temperature increases. And, the whole Paris accord is very similar to NATO in that the world wanted the US to pay too much of the cost. That's why Trump took us out.
 
Moderate Right said:
Most don't say climate change science is wrong. That's a left wing propaganda talking point. Trump has even acknowledged it every once in a while but of course the left wants to dwell on when he called it a hoax, not mentioning the other things he has said about it. The thing is, climate change can't be stopped. You can't fight mother nature. Even if you culled every human being on the planet, the Earth would still be getting warmer. It's what it does. It's what it has always done. If we spent trillions and trillions of dollars and put a bunch of people out of work all over the world, all we could do is put a dent in the temperature increases. And, the whole Paris accord is very similar to NATO in that the world wanted the US to pay too much of the cost. That's why Trump took us out.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you are getting this idea that we are powerless to fight climate change. That is not the scientific consensus.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Not sure where you are getting this idea that we are powerless to fight climate change. That is not the scientific consensus.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says
Click to expand...

Of course we can fight climate change, just as we can try using a garden hose to put out a California wild fire. The scientific consensus is that no matter what we do, temperatures will still rise. The best we can hope to do is limit the amount of the temperature increases. That's the scientific fact and the left refuse to even talk about that fact. In the meantime, the left wants the world to spend quadrillions of dollars and put millions out of work in order to fight a losing battle. The Earth is doomed and we can't stop it. Now Cortez is trying to say that the world will end in 12 years.
 
Moderate Right said:
Of course we can fight climate change, just as we can try using a garden hose to put out a California wild fire. The scientific consensus is that no matter what we do, temperatures will still rise. The best we can hope to do is limit the amount of the temperature increases. That's the scientific fact and the left refuse to even talk about that fact. In the meantime, the left wants the world to spend quadrillions of dollars and put millions out of work in order to fight a losing battle. The Earth is doomed and we can't stop it. Now Cortez is trying to say that the world will end in 12 years.
Click to expand...

Do you have any links to any credible sources saying we are completely powerless to stop climate change and so we shouldn’t even bother trying?
 
ataraxia said:
Do you have any links to any credible sources saying we are completely powerless to stop climate change and so we shouldn’t even bother trying?
Click to expand...

Do you have any credible links which prove that we can actually cool the planet down? And I don't mean just cut down on the rate of temperature increases. That's cheating. Show me links that show the actual temperatures will decrease. Everything the left wants to do only decreases the rate of temperature increases.
 
Moderate Right said:
Do you have any credible links which prove that we can actually cool the planet down? And I don't mean just cut down on the rate of temperature increases. That's cheating. Show me links that show the actual temperatures will decrease. Everything the left wants to do only decreases the rate of temperature increases.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure. But remember, you made a claim, and have refused to provide any links for it.

But that’s OK. I will go first.

First of all, no one has said that you must completely cut all emissions. It actually does not take much to mitigate the worst effects of global warming. It’s like the obese patient being told that even a 10% weight loss can dramatically cut their risks of heart disease and stroke. Just because they can’t be all svelte in the next week does not mean they should stop trying to do anything altogether.

”To avoid the worst effects of global warming, there is broad scientific agreement that we must limit additional warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.[1]. ...we have a reasonable chance of meeting this objective if developed countries as a whole cut their emissions by 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80-95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; within this time frame, major developing countries also must act.”
https://www.ucsusa.org/national-call-action-global-warming#.XEntlKROmEc
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
Global subsidies to fossil fuel are hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Much more than the subsidies to renewable energy.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...nsumption-subsidies-are-down-but-not-out.html

Also that two thirds of American give priority to developing alternative energy sources, like solar and wind power. Two thirds of Americans also wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

Most in US say alternative energy takes priority over fossil fuels

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

While the Trump administration instead is listen to and hiring the fossil fuel lobbyists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/climate/coal-murray-trump-memo.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html

There Donald Trump even wants to spend billions of dollars propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants
Click to expand...

So ignoring that fossil fuel energy is more proficient than "clean" energy at this point, is a thing now?
Even though clean energy isn't exactly clean in more than a few respects.

You'd do better arguing this on your own basis, than rabidly citing articles that seem to ignore common information.
 
Oborosen said:
Yeah, I could find better uses of my time. Then to read anything written by Joseph Romm.
Click to expand...

OK. Pick any other textbook. There are a number of them. There are also many online classes if you would like.
 
Oborosen said:
So ignoring that fossil fuel energy is more proficient than "clean" energy at this point, is a thing now?
Even though clean energy isn't exactly clean in more than a few respects.

You'd do better arguing this on your own basis, than rabidly citing articles that seem to ignore common information.
Click to expand...

Local Republican politicians are also starting to see the economical benefits of renewable energy.

“Republicans from Texas to Iowa regularly extoll the virtues of renewables like wind and solar power, and for good reason. Rural Republican districts are often the locations with the best solar and wind resources, and when those resources are harnessed they bring good jobs to places where new sources of employment are often otherwise scarce. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ #1 and #2 fastest growing jobs in the U.S. are solar panel installers and wind turbine technicians. These jobs are good, solid middle class jobs with annual salaries pushing close to six-figures. Beyond construction, the plants (particularly wind farms, with their many moving parts) offer good jobs in the long term.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#631e530f3da7

That for example NIPSCO, a energy company in Republican Indiana, plan to replace coal with renewables and reduce carbon emissions by more than 90 percent by 2028 by investing in renewable.

https://www.nipsco.com/your-energy
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Yes take for example that even Republicans are on a local level starting to see the benefits of renewable energy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#631e530f3da7

While at the same time as your link says we are starting to run out of time for limiting the devastating effects of manmade global warming.

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...fossil-fuels-greenhouse-gas-co2-a8574731.html

There one big reason for that we are running out of time is the fossil fuels companies massive campaigns during many decades to deceive the public about the reality of climate change and block actions to curb carbon emissions.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.XD2Y81xKjIV
Click to expand...

Republicans were never against the idea. Just against the rush to using immature technologies.
 
Media_Truth said:
The Sierra Club is citing 10 reasons why there is hope, despite climate change.

“Yes, it’s going to get worse,” Roberts writes, “but nobody gets to give up hope or stop fighting.” Exactly right. Here, then, are 10 glimmers of hope that humanity will opt for less screwed over more screwed in 2019.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/10-reasons-feel-hopeful-about-climate-change-2019

1. The Divestment Movement Keeps Growing
2. The Paris Agreement Holds Steady
3. The Rule of Law Still Rules
4. Renewable Energy Is on the Rise
5. Coal Is Going, Going...
6. Technology Is Advancing
7. Transportation Is Headed in the Right Direction
8. The Scales of Justice Are Tipping
9. The Political Winds Are Shifting
10. Youths Are on the March
Click to expand...

Just to state the obvious, an electrical grid powered by 100 % renewables isn't possible now or in the next 10 years. It's a myth pushed by hard Left politicans and repeated by people who are clueless when it comes to power generation

The 100% renewable myth is only pushed by hard Left politicans like Occasio Cortez for a reason.
It's not about clean air or saving the planet, it's part of a Socialist agenda that wants to do as much damage to the US as possible while our global adversaries take advantage of our weakness and continue to rely on fossil fuels to grow their economies and military

Occasio's Cortez's Green New Deal, which was copied from a 2015 radical Left wing Canadian initiative called the " Leap Manifesto " calls for 100% renewables by 2030.

Not remotely possible. Solar and wind are inherently unreliable energy sources, which is why existing renewable energy sources are tied into a grid that receives over 80 % of it's electricity from nuclear, fossil fuel and hydroelectric energy sources

There's always reliable sources to offset that instability. A 100% renewable grid would be extremely expensive and unstable and just isn't feasible.
 
ataraxia said:
OK. Pick any other textbook. There are a number of them. There are also many online classes if you would like.
Click to expand...

I finished all of my schooling, thanks. So I don't need someone who imagines how bad things are on a daily basis, telling them that I should imagine that same crap as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom