• 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!

Solutions to climate change

What solution do you have for climate change?

  • the green new deal

    Votes: 14 23.0%

  • I don't support the green new deal but I think there needs to be a solution

    Votes: 5 8.2%

  • nuclear power

    Votes: 8 13.1%

  • I don't see this as an issue

    Votes: 31 50.8%

  • not sure

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • Total voters
    61
M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The issue of climate change has become a major political issue. Most scientists agree that global warming is real and manmade. Despite this several Americans believe that global warming is a myth.

As a solution to global warming, Alexandria Cortez proposed the green new deal. This bill was introduced into the house under HR 109. It failed terribly in the senate with the republicans voting against it and the democrats simply voting present.

Some feel that the push for green energy leaves out one potential candidate: nuclear power. Unlike wind and solar which take up lots of land and can sometimes be unreliable (wind and sun come and go), nuclear energy is every bit as reliable as fossil fuels.

Several environmentalists are against nuclear energy of fear of nuclear meltdowns and storing waste. When nuclear power first made its debut, the public welcomed it. However, in response to the disasters of three mile island, Cherynobyl, and Fukushima, the push for nuclear power ended.

It is worth noting though that the Three Mile Island disaster happened before the risks of nuclear energy were known and it was due to a few errors. Also, nobody died from the disaster. The Cherynobyl nuclear disaster was the deadliest in history with 64 deaths attributed to it and was the disaster which really turned the public against nuclear energy. The Fukushima disaster happened due to an earthquake. Onl one death was attributed to it and it didn't happen till many years later. Each of these disasters were from generation II reactors. Generation III and IV reactors use less uranium to produce the same output. In doing so, it reduces the ramifications of a nuclear meltdown.
 
Your list of options is woefully inadequate and fails to allow for more than one selection.
 
Before you can have a solution you need a problem.

Can you cite a single place, a single local council, in the world, and a single bad aspect of a slightly warmer world, using the IPCC's figures for climate change and show that that bad thing is likely to cause the local council to have to spend more on sorting it out than the traffic light budget for that place?

The place has to have some traffic lights.
 
What solution do you have for climate change?
Click to expand...

i support a twenty or thirty year moonshot to replace fossil fuels using public / private partnerships. seems pretty doable. i don't support regressive carbon taxes.
 
There is no man made solution to climate change. That will occur with or without us.

However, we certainly have contributed to screwing up our environments, including exascerbating negative climatic trends.

I by no means buy into the climate change doomsayers rhetoric. No, but I do think having rational discuusions on the pros and cons and maybe middle grounds of the so called "Green New Deal" is wholly justified.
 
Threegoofs said:
What about a non regressive carbon tax?

How to make a carbon tax popular? Give the proceeds to the people | World news | The Guardian
Click to expand...

nope. i support taxing all income as income above a cap. my guess is that will pay for pretty much everything, and will reverse trickle down nonsense. the only regressive taxes the i support are punitive wartime tax rates when the US is involved in any military action abroad, and possibly a low percentage national sales tax to shore up our social programs. if we go to single payer, i support transitioning a portion of the premiums that are currently going to for profit entities to instead fund single payer.

carbon taxes are a big losing issue. they give the Trumpist zombies something tangible to run on. the Democrats need to stop giving them gifts like that.
 
Stop having kids and stop letting people in the country who will drive cars. You know it’s funny how the democrats want to do everything they want. But, what would happen if we switch everything over and then what? Ban technology? Ban republicans? Oh wait they are trying to do that anyway!
 
Masterhawk said:
The issue of climate change has become a major political issue. Most scientists agree that global warming is real and manmade. Despite this several Americans believe that global warming is a myth.

As a solution to global warming, Alexandria Cortez proposed the green new deal. This bill was introduced into the house under HR 109. It failed terribly in the senate with the republicans voting against it and the democrats simply voting present.

Some feel that the push for green energy leaves out one potential candidate: nuclear power. Unlike wind and solar which take up lots of land and can sometimes be unreliable (wind and sun come and go), nuclear energy is every bit as reliable as fossil fuels.

Several environmentalists are against nuclear energy of fear of nuclear meltdowns and storing waste. When nuclear power first made its debut, the public welcomed it. However, in response to the disasters of three mile island, Cherynobyl, and Fukushima, the push for nuclear power ended.

It is worth noting though that the Three Mile Island disaster happened before the risks of nuclear energy were known and it was due to a few errors. Also, nobody died from the disaster. The Cherynobyl nuclear disaster was the deadliest in history with 64 deaths attributed to it and was the disaster which really turned the public against nuclear energy. The Fukushima disaster happened due to an earthquake. Onl one death was attributed to it and it didn't happen till many years later. Each of these disasters were from generation II reactors. Generation III and IV reactors use less uranium to produce the same output. In doing so, it reduces the ramifications of a nuclear meltdown.
Click to expand...

Your poll options didn't include what I would want to check which would be:

1) Continue to watch, observe, record climate change and note trends as well as the availability of energy resources.
2) Put as much time, money, and energy into finding ways to help people adjust to inevitable climate change so that they will be ready.
 
Threegoofs said:
Simple.

The solution is to price carbon appropriately, making people today pay for its future environmental costs.
Click to expand...
How does a carbon tax stop global warming from occurring?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
I don't see this as an issue?

Well you better open your eyes. The entire world is preparing. Even the U.S. Federal Reserve realizes it as an issue. Do a little research.

Little we can do as an individual other than prepare for the inevitable. Realize just how fragile our civilized society is and what small environmental disasters do to it. Imagine what will happen in the future.
 
trouble13 said:
How does a carbon tax stop global warming from occurring?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Equalizes the actual cost of various energy sources, pushing people towards renewable energy.
 
Deuce said:
Equalizes the actual cost of various energy sources, pushing people towards renewable energy.
Click to expand...
So you want to artifically increase the cost of fossil fuels to increase the demand for "renewable" energy.

I see a few problems with that approach.

1. Unless its done on a global scale the only thing it will do is provide a competetive edge to those who dont impliment it. Like China and India for example.

2. Another big problem is that renewable energy only has the capacity to satisify a small precentage of our energy deman. So just because you increased a demand for it by artifically inflating fossil fuel costs your still stuck behind the wall or its supply capability limitations.

If global warming is all fossil fuels fault, making it more expensive to use isnt going to solve the pproblem. A tax is not going to clean up the planet.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
So you want to artifically increase the cost of fossil fuels to increase the demand for "renewable" energy.
Click to expand...
It's not artificial.

Fossil fuels cause damage that is not being paid for by the user, so fossil fuel prices are artificially LOW right now. I would end that.
 
Deuce said:
It's not artificial.

Fossil fuels cause damage that is not being paid for by the user, so fossil fuel prices are artificially LOW right now. I would end that.
Click to expand...
At the very least we should not subsidize the more traditional energy sources more than we do the greener options
 
Deuce said:
It's not artificial.

Fossil fuels cause damage that is not being paid for by the user, so fossil fuel prices are artificially LOW right now. I would end that.
Click to expand...
How does charging more grom them by implimenting an artifical cost stop the dsmage?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
World population will eventually reach 10 billion. ALL of them will want the middle class American lifestyle. Air conditioning, a car of their own, a home in the suburbs, and a better diet. Every 30 years the world economy doubles. We better develop some "green" alternatives. We're going to need ALL the energy we can find, anywhere, any type. Green, alternative, nuclear, fossil; we'll need it all. We don't have a climate problem; we have a population problem. And we better find an economic system that doesn't depend on constant growth for prosperity. Putting acre after acre of rich farmland under asphalt probably ain't the smartest way to go long term.
 
trouble13 said:
How does charging more grom them by implimenting an artifical cost stop the dsmage?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

By pushing people towards renewables. We went over this already.
 
Deuce said:
By pushing people towards renewables. We went over this already.
Click to expand...

The UK put a carbon price floor in 2013. Working pretty well.

0daf71f639b9c104ee39655d8c33097e.jpg
 
Helix said:
nope. i support taxing all income as income above a cap. my guess is that will pay for pretty much everything, and will reverse trickle down nonsense. the only regressive taxes the i support are punitive wartime tax rates when the US is involved in any military action abroad, and possibly a low percentage national sales tax to shore up our social programs. if we go to single payer, i support transitioning a portion of the premiums that are currently going to for profit entities to instead fund single payer.

carbon taxes are a big losing issue. they give the Trumpist zombies something tangible to run on. the Democrats need to stop giving them gifts like that.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the tax somebody else and give it to me approach. Not surprising, since that seems to be the left's solution to every problem.
 
jimbo said:
Sounds like the tax somebody else and give it to me approach. Not surprising, since that seems to be the left's solution to every problem.
Click to expand...

i invite you to reread my post if you need clarification.
 
Masterhawk said:
The issue of climate change has become a major political issue. Most scientists agree that global warming is real and manmade. Despite this several Americans believe that global warming is a myth.

As a solution to global warming, Alexandria Cortez proposed the green new deal. This bill was introduced into the house under HR 109. It failed terribly in the senate with the republicans voting against it and the democrats simply voting present.

Some feel that the push for green energy leaves out one potential candidate: nuclear power. Unlike wind and solar which take up lots of land and can sometimes be unreliable (wind and sun come and go), nuclear energy is every bit as reliable as fossil fuels.

Several environmentalists are against nuclear energy of fear of nuclear meltdowns and storing waste. When nuclear power first made its debut, the public welcomed it. However, in response to the disasters of three mile island, Cherynobyl, and Fukushima, the push for nuclear power ended.

It is worth noting though that the Three Mile Island disaster happened before the risks of nuclear energy were known and it was due to a few errors. Also, nobody died from the disaster. The Cherynobyl nuclear disaster was the deadliest in history with 64 deaths attributed to it and was the disaster which really turned the public against nuclear energy. The Fukushima disaster happened due to an earthquake. Onl one death was attributed to it and it didn't happen till many years later. Each of these disasters were from generation II reactors. Generation III and IV reactors use less uranium to produce the same output. In doing so, it reduces the ramifications of a nuclear meltdown.
Click to expand...

We would need to “end” India and China. But they may have something to say about that.

The middle classes are waking up to the threat of “climate tyranny” as a way to take more political control. Why should the climate billionaires fly into Davos and preach to us from the wings of their private jets, when Gordon the Welder can’t make enough to put food on his table?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom