• 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!

"Americans don't have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life"

AlphaOmega said:
A form of democracy and democracy are not the same thing. In the same way that ice is a form of water.
Click to expand...


False comparison.

Democracies are a category. Water is not. H20 is water, nothing else is.

So, the on point comparison would be to assert, of what category does water belong? it belongs under "liquids".

The umbrella category for the above republic and democracy should be 'democracies/types of'.

Ice and water are not both liquids. The umbrella category should be "liquids/types of".

A republic is not as direct of a democracy as a straight democracy.

You cannot say ice is not as direct of a liquid as water is a liquid. It is a solid, period. It doesn't belong in the liquid category


Therefore, your comparison doesn't work.
 
Obscurity said:
It's inherent to the right to life, and making the argument itself is brinksmanship in order to force agendas.
Click to expand...

As I explained above, many things inherent to the right to life are not guaranteed to you by right.

What agendas do you have in mind? Trying to define environmental standards as fundamental rights seems like an agenda to me, as it introduces obligations that shouldn't exist and can't always realistically be fulfilled.

All the rolling around in the floor about rights is wasted time. A clean environment is the right thing to do, let's elect people who keep their promises to make it happen, and contribute as individuals when we can.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
View attachment 67258079

unborn as in future generations, sure, if you're wanting to start some beef on abortion take that **** elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out that Republicans don't care if we live or die once we've successfully traversed the birth canal. Thus a life sustaining climate is of no interest to them.
 
ataraxia said:
Who says? We have eliminated smallpox. Our population growth has eliminated many species. We almost completely wiped out the bison here in N. America. We only saved them because we wanted to. Many species caught in deforestation in Africa and S. America have not been as lucky. Our use of antibiotics has created strains of superbugs. We fight nature every time we use agricultural techniques and strategies that fight droughts and infestations. You fight her even when you put a bandaid on a cut.

You underestimate the power of humans to mess with nature.
Click to expand...

The left want to spend 93 trillion dollars on the Green New Deal and they say that is only the beginning. Where's the money coming from? We're already in debt 22 trillion dollars! It's not up to us to pay for the entire world going green. China and India have the highest populations by far and we shouldn't have to pay for their misdeeds and we shouldn't have to pay for third world countries either. The left wants us to put out a forest fire with a garden hose.
 
Moderate Right said:
The left want to spend 93 trillion dollars on the Green New Deal and they say that is only the beginning. Where's the money coming from? We're already in debt 22 trillion dollars! It's not up to us to pay for the entire world going green. China and India have the highest populations by far and we shouldn't have to pay for their misdeeds and we shouldn't have to pay for third world countries either. The left wants us to put out a forest fire with a garden hose.
Click to expand...

China and India have far lower pollution per capita than the United States. They may have higher populations overall but individually they are far less wasteful than Americans.
 
bearpoker said:
Just pointing out that Republicans don't care if we live or die once we've successfully traversed the birth canal. Thus a life sustaining climate is of no interest to them.
Click to expand...

ok sorry missed the sarcasm.

give a /s at the end next time.
 
vanceen said:
As I explained above, many things inherent to the right to life are not guaranteed to you by right.

What agendas do you have in mind? Trying to define environmental standards as fundamental rights seems like an agenda to me, as it introduces obligations that shouldn't exist and can't always realistically be fulfilled.

All the rolling around in the floor about rights is wasted time. A clean environment is the right thing to do, let's elect people who keep their promises to make it happen, and contribute as individuals when we can.
Click to expand...

If the government is not obligated to take steps to ensure a clean and healthy environment for it's citizens, then how is there any way of ensuring that any elected politician will keep their promises? Short term profits should not outweigh long term survival.
 
Irredentist said:
If the government is not obligated to take steps to ensure a clean and healthy environment for it's citizens, then how is there any way of ensuring that any elected politician will keep their promises? Short term profits should not outweigh long term survival.
Click to expand...

The government is obligated to follow the law. Elect politicians who will enact laws protecting the environment (there are many existing, but there could be more...) and government will be obliged to follow and enforce them.

No need for debates about rights.
 
Moderate Right said:
The left want to spend 93 trillion dollars on the Green New Deal and they say that is only the beginning. Where's the money coming from? We're already in debt 22 trillion dollars! It's not up to us to pay for the entire world going green. China and India have the highest populations by far and we shouldn't have to pay for their misdeeds and we shouldn't have to pay for third world countries either. The left wants us to put out a forest fire with a garden hose.
Click to expand...

$93 trillion dollars? That was a figure from a rightwing think tank, and even they told everyone to take it with a grain of salt. Here is the fact check on that:
How Much Will the 'Green New Deal' Cost? - FactCheck.org

So while you keep looking to India and China and third world countries to clean up before you do anything, Germany is producing so much surplus clean energy that utilities customers end up getting paid to use electricity.

Germany paid people to use electricity over the holidays because its grid is so clean | The Independent

Now that's what leadership and leading through example is all about.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Because right now, Republicans are a minority in the country and are gerrymandering, voter suppression, and anything else they can think of to retain control.

Telling themselves, it's a republic, let's them believe it's ok for the very unpopular minority to dictate to the majority.
Click to expand...

wait, didn't you just say in the Trump evil concentration camp kids evil thread that you yourself were a Republican? LOL Did you honestly believe that people might suspect you were republican by your posting habits? ;)


Tim-
 
Ikari said:
Clean air and water don't make money.
Click to expand...

Not in the short term.

Which is all the GOP, Koch Brothers, big energy and all the useful idiots who follow them like sheep whist proudly declaring themselves 'capitalists' are concerned with. It doesn't make a quick buck at the expense of others which they foolishly equate to smart economics, because they grew up on re-runs of Wall Street and think it's all 'winners' and 'losers' and they'll be winners like Gordon f***ing Gecko.

But in the long term smart economists have realised that a shift is underway: sustainability reduces externalities and it is quite possible to have a free market AND environmental protections and that green businesses will create new jobs and markets with less damage than the old way of doing things.

The proud 'capitalists' should take note of that and grab a seat on the train while there are some left.
 
Irredentist said:
China and India have far lower pollution per capita than the United States. They may have higher populations overall but individually they are far less wasteful than Americans.
Click to expand...

China and India both provide more pollution than the US does.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Teen activists face US government in crucial hearing over climate trial | Environment | The Guardian

this is not about the validity of the trial, or whether climate change is real.


this is not about the validity of the trial, or whether climate change is real.


this is not about the validity of the trial, or whether climate change is real.



this is not about the validity of the trial, or whether climate change is real.

It's about whether you, the person reading this, think American's have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life.

I say yes, because I want to live and I want my grandkids and their grandkids to live.
Click to expand...

But but but...the Trump knows more about science and climatology than all the experts who have dedicated their lives to studying the subject. Just ask almost any member of the Trump base.
 
Obscurity said:
Republicans ... . I literally do not believe a single "republican" thinks... The GOP is... The GOP has been infected with... Their policies have infected the GOP to the point ... The GOP has acted ... I don't, again, care, if the GOP thinks ... Republicans, ... Thing is, if republicans cared ...
Click to expand...
To summarize: Republicans have quite literally gone insane. They wantonly seek to destroy not only their homeland but Earth in its entirety for sake of the brief spell of profits this will afford a handful of corporate overlords. They're mad, suicidal, more capitalistic than ever before despite all evidence to the contrary, and just plain evil.

It's an interesting thesis. Very well thought out. I'll uh... take it under advisement.

Obscurity said:
I'm not interested in carbon taxes/credits. I find them distasteful.
Click to expand...
I regret to inform you, sir, that one vote for "a climate capable of sustaining human life" = one vote for carbon taxes/credits.

Perhaps you think one vote for the environment circa 2019 means one vote for wetland protection, or one vote for heavy metal scrubbers in smokestacks, maybe one vote for wildlife refuges, one vote for species conservation, or one vote for removal of carcinogens from US waterways.

You're absolutely righ... Ha! Nope! You get carbon taxes, and cap and trade. Don't like it? Sucks to be you. Thanks for your vote, sucker.

Thanks also to all the climate warrior tots pulling at people's heartstrings and beseeching the courts to circumvent democracy. Who knows what they expected their activism would net them, but if it wasn't carbon taxes and cap 'n trade: sucks to be them too. Thanks for playin', tots! J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, et al. waiting decades for those sweet cap 'n trade exchanges, and a legion of oligarchs and "green" industry barons hungry to feast on those sweet subsidies and grants only tax money can buy owe you a solid.

Obscurity said:
What I also am not interested in is another appeal to morality while you lot continue to vote in and support people who remove stream protections, ignore science, and allow pollution at every turn. Denying cancer causing agents. The list goes on and on and on and on and on.
Click to expand...
If you want to talk about stream protections, curbing air pollution, improving air quality, regulating carcinogens, garbage pile-up in the ocean, honeybee die-off, and the litany of serious environmental issues that aren't AGW, then i) good for you, and I sincerely support you in your concern for these issues, even if I may disagree on proposed solutions, and ii) discuss these things in their own thread, not in a thread with "climate" in its title.

The painful yet inexorable reality of environmentalism in politics circa 2019:

"Climate" = "AGW" = "policy (singular; not 'policies') to combat AGW" = "carbon taxes, cap 'n trade"

When we take away the issues of circumventing democracy and courtroom theatrics, this what this thread is about, and it's the only thing this thread is about.
 
Moderate Right said:
China and India both provide more pollution than the US does.
Click to expand...

Yep, the USA taking a stand would imply they're a world leader. Under Trump, aka "Putin's Bitch". :lamo
 
ataraxia said:
So now it’s OK for the minority to lynch and enslave the majority? Just because they live in places where there is one person for every 100 square miles and their idea of culture is yogurt?
Click to expand...

I’ve never implied it’s ok for anyone to enslave or lynch. [emoji2369]
 
COTO said:
To summarize: Republicans have quite literally gone insane. They wantonly seek to destroy not only their homeland but Earth in its entirety for sake of the brief spell of profits this will afford a handful of corporate overlords. They're mad, suicidal, more capitalistic than ever before despite all evidence to the contrary, and just plain evil.

It's an interesting thesis. Very well thought out. I'll uh... take it under advisement.


I regret to inform you, sir, that one vote for "a climate capable of sustaining human life" = one vote for carbon taxes/credits.

Perhaps you think one vote for the environment circa 2019 means one vote for wetland protection, or one vote for heavy metal scrubbers in smokestacks, maybe one vote for wildlife refuges, one vote for species conservation, or one vote for removal of carcinogens from US waterways.

You're absolutely righ... Ha! Nope! You get carbon taxes, and cap and trade. Don't like it? Sucks to be you. Thanks for your vote, sucker.

Thanks also to all the climate warrior tots pulling at people's heartstrings and beseeching the courts to circumvent democracy. Who knows what they expected their activism would net them, but if it wasn't carbon taxes and cap 'n trade: sucks to be them too. Thanks for playin', tots! J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, et al. waiting decades for those sweet cap 'n trade exchanges, and a legion of oligarchs and "green" industry barons hungry to feast on those sweet subsidies and grants only tax money can buy owe you a solid.


If you want to talk about stream protections, curbing air pollution, improving air quality, regulating carcinogens, garbage pile-up in the ocean, honeybee die-off, and the litany of serious environmental issues that aren't AGW, then i) good for you, and I sincerely support you in your concern for these issues, even if I may disagree on proposed solutions, and ii) discuss these things in their own thread, not in a thread with "climate" in its title.

The painful yet inexorable reality of environmentalism in politics circa 2019:

"Climate" = "AGW" = "policy (singular; not 'policies') to combat AGW" = "carbon taxes, cap 'n trade"

When we take away the issues of circumventing democracy and courtroom theatrics, this what this thread is about, and it's the only thing this thread is about.
Click to expand...

The only thing this thread is apparently about is you obfuscating and denying reality.

Agw is real according to basically everyone in the scientific community. It's not hip or cool to deny it. It's not rad. Its stupidity. And only in today's world would a bunch of people think it's fake because some pundits with bad hair and big oil paychecks tell them agw is fake.
 
Obscurity said:
Agw is real according to basically everyone in the scientific community. It's not hip or cool to deny it. It's not rad. Its stupidity. And only in today's world would a bunch of people think it's fake because some pundits with bad hair and big oil paychecks tell them agw is fake.
Click to expand...
Debate for another thread. ...or 10,000.

In this thread it suffices to understand: "Climate" = "AGW" = "policy to combat AGW" = "carbon taxes, cap 'n trade"

Whether they knew it or not (and I suspect not), the climate warrior tots were demanding the courts circumvent the legislature and pave the way for carbon taxes and cap 'n trade. The courts told them 'no' in simple and unambiguous terms.

Outside of these narrow parameters, the ruling has nothing to do with the Republican Party, Republicans themselves, environmental issues, or morality in general.
 
COTO said:
Debate for another thread. ...or 10,000.

In this thread it suffices to understand: "Climate" = "AGW" = "policy to combat AGW" = "carbon taxes, cap 'n trade"

Whether they knew it or not (and I suspect not), the climate warrior tots were demanding the courts circumvent the legislature and pave the way for carbon taxes and cap 'n trade. The courts told them 'no' in simple and unambiguous terms.

Outside of these narrow parameters, the ruling has nothing to do with the Republican Party, Republicans themselves, environmental issues, or morality in general.
Click to expand...

You guys really dislike being lumped in a group, don't you?

Well, I declare. Again. Republicans do not give one ounce of **** about the environment, nor do their voters. If they did they would -stop- voting for the party that has continuously acted to enable corporate profits over public interest in public lands, resources, water and air.

Shame. Shame. Shame.
 
JustHanging said:
Yep, the USA taking a stand would imply they're a world leader. Under Trump, aka "Putin's Bitch". :lamo
Click to expand...

The US taking a stand wouldn't do a damn thing to cut down on either China's or India's pollution and it's not our responsibility to pay for third world countries to go green. The left want us to spend 93 trillion dollars and go on to say that that is only the beginning.
 
Obscurity said:
You guys really dislike being lumped in a group, don't you?

Well, I declare. Again. Republicans do not give one ounce of **** about the environment, nor do their voters. If they did they would -stop- voting for the party that has continuously acted to enable corporate profits over public interest in public lands, resources, water and air.

Shame. Shame. Shame.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by "you guys". I'm not a Republican. I'm not even an American.

As far as I know, the judges who are rightly throwing the climate cases out of court aren't wall-to-wall Republicans, or majority Republican, or people with any loyalty whatsoever to the Republican Party. Have they been infected by the execrable right-wing libertarian madness too?

I'm a realist. I know one day soon these climate tots and useless fools like them are going to get their way, "fighting climate change" is going to be enshrined in Western politics--a golden calf issuing its edicts from on high--and they're going to learn what pain and austerity look like.

They think taxes are high now? Wait until they're paying additional 10, 15, 20% premiums on everything they buy.

They think housing and transportation are out of reach now? Wait until only a multi-millionaire can afford a two-bedroom house and an SUV.

They think products are expensive now? Wait until the oil that goes into everything they consume, from toasters to tampons, triples in price because of acute supply restrictions.

They think the poor are depressed now? Wait until meat, dairy, bus fare, home maintenance, and synthetic product costs have doubled and redoubled. Wait until they're standing in their washrooms wondering if they can afford to wipe their arses with toilet paper, and then wondering if they can afford to flush the toilet.

They think the republic is dysfunctional now? Wait until it's beholden to the every edict of the golden climate calf. Thou shalt not fly on airplanes for less than $1,200.00 a trip. Thou shalt not own a car with seating exceeding 4 passengers for less than $850/mo. Thou shalt have no latex in thy bathroom fixtures. Thou shalt not use car tires thicker than permitted by UN regulation 346.45 Sec 4, p. 2. Thou shall not own a gas mower, nor an ATV, nor an outboard motor exceeding 250 cc, nor anything that shall produce CO2. Thou shalt not own more than six Tupperware containers without a permit.

The truly sad and frustrating thing being that when the cost of living skyrockets and all these plagues come to bear, the climate tots will blame it on capitalism... or rich people... or right-wing libertarians. Anybody but themselves. They'll be suffering along with the rest of us, and they won't even know why. That's the real tragedy here.
 
Obscurity said:
There is a right to life.

An atmosphere that supports life is required to live.

Ergo you cannot say we can have an atmosphere that doesn't support life.

Conservatives are absolutely insane at this point.
Click to expand...

The right to live refers to not having another human harm you. It has nothing to do with atmosphere. For example, humanity is not required to protect my 'right' to live underwater, on the moon, in Antartica. Those are all atmopsheres harmful to me.
 
Last edited:
bearpoker said:
Just pointing out that Republicans don't care if we live or die once we've successfully traversed the birth canal. Thus a life sustaining climate is of no interest to them.
Click to expand...

Dont you ever get tired of hyperbole?
 
cabse5 said:
Cut out the straw man arguments. The bolded in your above post are socialism 'morals'. You realize cutting out fossil fuels will turn our economy into an oligarchy, no?
Click to expand...

"Oligarchy"? Don't be silly. Face it, fossil fuels will soon enough become a distant memory, your precious gas-guzzling V-8 will become a curiosity in a museum and the world will be a cleaner, healthier and quieter place. What are your moral principles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom