What You Can Do About Climate Change
Not too much new here, but it's good to see a national paper trying to do something. The car vs plane, and old car vs new car bits are interesting, and I think it's great that they addressed food waste.
Of course, "Buy less stuff, waste less stuff" is what we're all about
I'm waiting for them to advocate an actual energy descent plan.
Last edited by Gardenarian; 12-5-15 at 11:12pm.
Who is the New York Times to be advocating anything. Their recent opinion editorial on the front page regarding guns is pathetic. So all these heads of state fly their big jets to France for a big powwow and all they have to do is skype and save the carbon their jets burnt. But then how could they eat at a restaurant that serves one thousand dollar a plate dinners of goose liver that was made diseased by torturing the goose before it was slaughtered. Hypocrites all.
There is not doubt that the NYT has a left lean,about as much as I figure the WSJ has a right lean. Fact remains that they have won multiple Pulitzer prizes, more than any other newspaper, and have Nobel prize winners on their staff. I don't agree with everything they say, but consider discounting everything they say as untrue or extreme bias may be misdirected.Originally Posted by Williamsmith
I would not discount everything they say.....but they stepped into a big pile of it with the front page editorial. It is polarizing and inflammatory.....two things we already have plenty of thanks to our current POTUS. Maybe that's their way of showing solidarity to the current administration. I like my news without propaganda.
I prefer The Economist for more middle of the road reporting. They recently did a good job on climate change.
Well, the NYT is our national newspaper of record. They're clearly stating that climate change is real and caused by humans. That's something.
None of those suggestions in that article are going to do a thing to avert climate change. All they are is symbolic sacrifices that assuage the guilty conscience of a few misguided environmentalists.
What we could do to test their theory seems to be ban all local dairy farms and beef factories, make mass transportation the only legal way to get from point A to point B, hire food waste inspectors to monitor your refrigerator in your house and fine you for each ounce of waste, ground all aircraft except for emergency or government use, force any private owners of a car to turn it in for scrap, walk everywhere and take your adopted pet with you, and limit your personal possessions to 100 items.
If we did all this, we would probably halt climate change in its tracks.......we might start drawing stick figures on cave walls again but the planet would be saved.
I trust the Pulitzer Prize board won't be offering honors to the authors of this horse hockey article.
There is no doubt a lot of "feel good" to the suggestions. If you do indeed think that climate change is because of people (google "climate change science consensus wiki"), what do you think is the answer or solution? I see it as a combination of research and development on alternate energy, the willingess of the public to accept some lifestyle changes, and wise political leadership. The latter is a little hard to achieve when one of our major political groups is denying the scientific process and any vague reality related to a remedy. Of course, we could all be toast.
So, like Pravda?
Unlike the last president?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote