How Conservatives Destroyed the Environment

[chequita guevara]

Let's all just blow off, for Che's sake, that there have been democrats in the office of president, too. I'm assuming his mindless assertions are directed at republicans.
I don't know that there's anything out there for you to grab that will guarantee you getting a grip.

You make the unwarranted assumption that Democratic presidents weren't also conservative. The only Democrat to rule in the White House since the effects of global warming first became understood, in the mid-80s, was Clinton, who was further to the righn that Nixon was when he sat in the Oval Office.

The fact is, people like you have fought, tooth and nail, to avoid doing anything for the last twenty years, saying it would hurt the economy, that there was no proof, and then when there was proof, saying there was no proof that humans were causing it. Well guess what, now it's too late to stop it, it's worse then we thought it was gonna be, and economies around the world (not to mention millions and millions--or more--lives will be lost. All so the wealthy can pocket a few more bucks and so dumbasses like you could feel good about yourself. We guess what, Slowwy, you and yours ****ed your children up the ass.

[Darius871]

We[ll] guess what, Slowwy, you and yours ****ed your children up the ass.

That's not entirely accurate either; the people who will feel the painful effects of this will generally be in the poorest countries least able to adapt to the changes. The children of "Slowwy and [his]" won't experience much of a difference at all, aside from perhaps having to live a little more frugally and maybe getting drafted to kill some starving brownies that get uppity overseas, but other than that Americans will live as comfortably as ever, at least on a comparative basis.

[Ming]

Che... discuss the topic and not the posters... enough with the personal crap.

[DanS]

Conservatives the world over resisted Kyoto to the maximum of their abilities.

As far as I know, Kyoto didn't deal with China and India burning coal for electricity, the process quoted in the article as being at fault for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Darius871]

As far as I know, Kyoto didn't deal with China and India burning coal for electricity, the process quoted in the article as being at fault for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Who said the leadership of China and India aren't conservative on this issue?

[Dauphin]

The BBC's science reporter Matt McGrath says the most recent data is also worrying because it threatens to kick-start what climate scientists call negative feedback effects.

Who said they're negative?

-20c here today.

On the pithy answer column, the article should have said positive feedback, I believe.

[snoopy369]

But that wouldn't sound NEARLY as destructive

[OzzyKP]

This world was ****ed from day one. humans will adapt and survive.

I agree. But part of that adapting and surviving includes stuff from environmentalist's agenda. Lots of stuff we've done over the past 100 years has been part of that adapting, national parks, protecting endangered species', recycling, emission controls, etc.

All the doom & gloom is just scare tactics to get apathetic lazy bastards to get on with the whole adapting thing.

[Victor Galis]

Humans are more adaptable and resilient than environmentalists give us credit for. So's nature for that matter. Think of all the huge changes that have rocked the planet, and then think about how we're all still here. Life will be different, but the world won't end.

Yes, but adapting costs money. Adapting to environmental damage sometimes costs more than adapting to not cause the damage in the first place. The only difference is the first is not optional, while the second is.

As for the permafrost melting, how is this a bad thing for Canada or Russia?

That was always the sort of thing nagging me when I was in Canada. It's really not in our best interest to do anything about the "problem" unless its consequences destabilize the world enough to drown out the direct benefits. (That is a distinct possibility, mind you.) Canada further benefits from having its population concentrated well above sea level.

This is why democracy is wrong.

I recommend Jared Diamond's Collapse. In it, he looks at societies that have collapsed or avoided collapse due to environmental degradation. The rational conclusion is that two types of government types can evade collapse: direct democracies where the voters can all see the big picture (i.e. tiny societies), and those ruled by a dictator who notices the problem and solves it.

Basically the only people who wouldn't have destroyed the environment had they been in charge are the hardcore ecofanatics living in the woods, and maybe the Amish.

That's also a fair criticism.

That's not entirely accurate either; the people who will feel the painful effects of this will generally be in the poorest countries least able to adapt to the changes. The children of "Slowwy and [his]" won't experience much of a difference at all, aside from perhaps having to live a little more frugally and maybe getting drafted to kill some starving brownies that get uppity overseas, but other than that Americans will live as comfortably as ever, at least on a comparative basis.

I wouldn't want to live in Texas in 50-100 years... well ok, I wouldn't want to live there now.

[MOBIUS]

As far as I know, Kyoto didn't deal with China and India burning coal for electricity, the process quoted in the article as being at fault for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yeah, well Kyoto was already so badly hamstrung in its scope because of the efforts of the conservatives who in a number of cases STILL didn't sign up.

And whoever doesn't think the West is going to be appreciably affected has to seriously think again, because about the time we might be starting to recover from that other man-made cluster**** wrt the state of the economy - global climate change is likely to be beginning to seriously **** the global economy as we currently know it...

[chequita guevara]

As for the permafrost melting, how is this a bad thing for Canada or Russia?

You think hordes of Americans pouring across your border won't be problematic? Anyway, just cuz the permafrost melts doesn't mean you'll be able to do anything with it. If rain and snow patterns change, you'll just end up with a big desert instead.

Relax, eco-dude. The climate of the planet changes all on its own. It's not as if the activities of man will do something radical like change the orbit, hopefully.

If someone could profit off of it, they'd find a way. In any event, your argument is a foolish one. The fact that the climate changes on its own is not a reason to do nothing to stop our changing it in a direction that is bad, overall, for the environment that sustains us. It's like arguing, sheesh, people die all on their own, so why should we get excited about murder?

Also, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more acidic oceans, which means less fish for Canada to exploit.

[chequita guevara]

As far as I know, Kyoto didn't deal with China and India burning coal for electricity, the process quoted in the article as being at fault for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

And both countries are lead by conservatives, so . . .

[Whoha]

Who said the leadership of China and India aren't conservative on this issue?

Both China and India have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Based on the projected weakness of Solar Cycle 24, I imagine this thread is going to seem very quaint in five years...

[notyoueither]

And whoever doesn't think the West is going to be appreciably affected has to seriously think again, because about the time we might be starting to recover from that other man-made cluster**** wrt the state of the economy - global climate change is likely to be beginning to seriously **** the global economy as we currently know it...

You seem to assume all change will be negative.

The NW Passage opening up would be a boon to trade between Europe and Asia. I'm sure there are other possible positive effects, like longer growing seasons over large amounts of the Earth's surface in Northern Canada and Russia.

Seeing as the climate is going to change itself, gradually, anyway, I still am not buying the Chicken Little routine.

You think hordes of Americans pouring across your border won't be problematic? Anyway, just cuz the permafrost melts doesn't mean you'll be able to do anything with it. If rain and snow patterns change, you'll just end up with a big desert instead.

You too.

Why do you assume all change will be negative?

Relax, eco-dude. The climate of the planet changes all on its own. It's not as if the activities of man will do something radical like change the orbit, hopefully.

If someone could profit off of it, they'd find a way. In any event, your argument is a foolish one. The fact that the climate changes on its own is not a reason to do nothing to stop our changing it in a direction that is bad, overall, for the environment that sustains us. It's like arguing, sheesh, people die all on their own, so why should we get excited about murder?

You mean changing it back to the way it was 500 years ago, with agriculture in Greenland is a bad thing?

Also, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more acidic oceans, which means less fish for Canada to exploit.

They're already gone. Murdered by the socialist hordes of Europe.