But I don't think would do it for this kind of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Like, "Okay, populace! Time to force you all to live simply!"
That is a one ingredient recipe for revolt.
Printable View
But I don't think would do it for this kind of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Like, "Okay, populace! Time to force you all to live simply!"
That is a one ingredient recipe for revolt.
Or markets. Or technology. Or some combination thereof.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler
I don't yet see the need for panic and despair. I certainly don't see a totalitarian solution as viable.
True. The panic and despair will kick in after the inauguration of President Trump...Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Quote:
And actually, we’ve had times where the weather wasn’t working out, so they changed it to extreme weather, and they have all different names, you know, so that it fits the bill. But the problem we have, and if you look at our energy costs, and all of the things that we’re doing to solve a problem that I don’t think in any major fashion exists. I mean, Obama thinks it’s the number one problem of the world today. And I think it’s very low on the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems.
I may vote Trump just to get to hear him speak for four years. He's kinda like the Yogi Berra of politics. "You can observe a lot by just watching". The ice in the Antarctic is growing, I have observed that. Must be global warming.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
It seems somewhat obvious that if we can start to get away from an economic model based on constant growth a lot of ancillary problems would be self-solving. Any system that requires that kind of growth to survive is, by nature, unsustainable and will reach a tipping point because it will run out of resources. Healthy systems find an equilibrium. Maybe we should, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
Side note: there are very efficient and sustainable ways to heat with wood. Just not in deserts and not with open fires.
A controversial topic that has conflicting conclusions. I think both sides are fairly discussed here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...41446754571422
Maybe what Ultralite meant was that our government won't force our citizens to mitigate the effects of runway climate change. After all, the party that has a majority of both houses doesn't think climate change is a concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
What Congress may or may not believe is not relevant in issues such as this. Our government is now predominately regulatory, the EPA need only proclaim a standard based entirely on whatever goal they wish to enforce and then use the power of the government to police their desires. This ultimately leads to governmental force against anyone who cannot or will not voluntarily comply.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
they probably won't do it because they are owned by the money that buys them. It's really pretty simple. Now I could be wrong and they could decide climate change is such an existential threat that none of that short term corruption matters, but I won't hold my breath. Being bought by the highest bidder is what our government does.Quote:
But I don't think would do it for this kind of thing.
Like, "Okay, populace! Time to force you all to live simply!"
That is a one ingredient recipe for revolt.
Then how do you explain the dismal lack of enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan