The Chicago Garage

The Chicago Garage (https://www.thechicagogarage.com/forum/)
-   On Topic (https://www.thechicagogarage.com/forum/topic/)
-   -   Whose answer makes the most sense? (https://www.thechicagogarage.com/forum/topic/124152-whose-answer-makes-most-sense.html)

Chester Copperpot 09-11-2012 08:55 AM

Whose answer makes the most sense?
 
Question
Climate change: The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change — and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?

1:
Quote:

"I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.

"Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response. President Obama has taken the view that if global warming is occurring, the American response must be to slash carbon dioxide emissions by imposing enormous costs on the U.S. economy. First he tried a massive cap-and-trade bill that would have devastated U.S. industry. When that approach was rejected by Congress, he declared his intention to pursue the same course on his own and proceeded through his EPA to impose rules that will bankrupt the coal industry.

"Nowhere along the way has the president indicated what actual results his approach would achieve — and with good reason. The reality is that the problem is called Global Warming, not America Warming. China long ago passed America as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. Developed world emissions have leveled off while developing world emissions continue to grow rapidly, and developing nations have no interest in accepting economic constraints to change that dynamic. In this context, the primary effect of unilateral action by the U.S. to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas to nations whose industrial processes are more emissions-intensive and less environmentally friendly. That result may make environmentalists feel better, but it will not better the environment.

"So I oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would handicap the American economy and drive manufacturing jobs away, all without actually addressing the underlying problem. Economic growth and technological innovation, not economy-suppressing regulation, is the key to environmental protection in the long run. So I believe we should pursue what I call a 'No Regrets' policy — steps that will lead to lower emissions, but that will benefit America regardless of whether the risks of global warming materialize and regardless of whether other nations take effective action.

"For instance, I support robust government funding for research on efficient, low-emissions technologies that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries. And I believe the federal government must significantly streamline the regulatory framework for the deployment of new energy technologies, including a new wave of investment in nuclear power. These steps will strengthen American industry, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and produce the economically-attractive technologies that developing nations must have access to if they are to achieve the reductions in their own emissions that will be necessary to address what is a global issue."
2:
Quote:

"Climate change is the one of the biggest issues of this generation, and we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits. Since taking office I have established historic standards limiting greenhouse gas emissions from our vehicles for the first time in history. My administration has made unprecedented investments in clean energy, proposed the first-ever carbon pollution limits for new fossil-fuel-fired power plants and reduced carbon emissions within the federal government. Since I took office, the U.S. is importing an average of 3 million fewer barrels of oil every day, and our dependence on foreign oil is at a 20-year low. We are also showing international leadership on climate change, reaching historic agreements to set emission limits in unison with all major developed and developing nations. There is still more to be done to address this global problem. I will continue efforts to reduce our dependence on oil and lower our greenhouse gas emissions while creating an economy built to last."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...science-debate

guspech750 09-11-2012 09:30 AM

Climate change has been happening for billions of years. Its not going to stop. Could we have accelerated it. I think so. But not nearly as much as the doom sayers claim.

Yaj Yak 09-11-2012 09:31 AM

1 duh.

ilikemtb999 09-11-2012 09:32 AM

Potato

Chester Copperpot 09-11-2012 10:10 AM

Whether for political gain(that's all politicians do anyway) or not, if you can't comprehend this comment:

Quote:

The reality is that the problem is called Global Warming, not America Warming.
Please, just kill yourself now.

Gav'sPurpleZ 09-11-2012 10:32 AM

if we are importing less barrels of oil and if our consumption is so low, then why are we paying 4.29 at the pump ?

california and illinois are the highest on average across the continental 48 states for 87 octane costs.

i voted #1

tinfoilhat 09-11-2012 10:37 AM

I love "Global Warming"

Caused by us? no.

Proof? Look at other planets.... they are warming up too, but that was probably humans also

Angus 09-11-2012 10:39 AM

Land on Mars, F it up.

Chester Copperpot 09-11-2012 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinfoilhat (Post 2494959)
I love "Global Warming"

Caused by us? no.

Proof? Look at other planets.... they are warming up too, but that was probably humans also

http://tcguploads.com/files/10/c2f27...c07_Medium.jpg

tinfoilhat 09-11-2012 10:43 AM

Exactly. id blame them too. little fuckers are warming up the planet to pre-cook us for consumption

tinfoilhat 09-11-2012 10:44 AM

we are being DEFROSTED!!!!!!

Theautoguy 09-11-2012 10:50 AM

Humans have little affect on climate. However, I believe we have an affect on the environment and would support legislation that helps prevent excessive pollution.

tinfoilhat 09-11-2012 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theautoguy (Post 2494992)
Humans have little affect on climate. However, I believe we have an affect on the environment and would support legislation that helps prevent excessive pollution.

:werd:

this is what we should be focusing on ..... theres a pollution island the size of texas in the pacific, and more around the world.

its SICKENING that we let it happen

tinfoilhat 09-11-2012 10:56 AM

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch and this was 2009

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/i...crop-smart.jpg

Quote:

The swirling mass of plastic soup in the Pacific Ocean, known by a handful of names -- the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, North Pacific Gyre, Trash Vortex, and Plastic Graveyard among them -- has been gaining notoriety lately, for all the wrong reasons. It's ballooned to twice the size of the continental U.S., causing a variety of problems, but what does it really look like out there? This satellite photo is just the beginning; get up close and personal with the patch in the rest of the slideshow.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch : TreeHugger

Yaj Yak 09-11-2012 10:59 AM

thats the bigger problem to me tho- no matter the large steps we take- the asian countries and others don't give a flying fuck and will pollute more than we could ever stop.

tinfoilhat 09-11-2012 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K J (Post 2495021)
thats the bigger problem to me tho- no matter the large steps we take- the asian countries and others don't give a flying fuck and will pollute more than we could ever stop.

yep agreed

it would have to be a GLOBAL initiative to make a difference in our waste

zenriddles 09-11-2012 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinfoilhat (Post 2494971)
we are being DEFROSTED!!!!!!

Thank you.

How much less snow was on the ground before the recently thawing Mastodons had sufficient snow to evolve into Mastodons, and then die on the snow, only to be buried in the snow and covered over by more snow, which is finally only just now thawing back enough to expose those Mastodons?

Oh my GOD - The planet is almost getting back to where we were a long time ago ! ! ! !

The fucking planet did it before and will do it again and again with or without us.

I'm not answering the poll because it is a loaded question with two wrong answers and I guess I'm too old to understand the third selection.

Primalzer 09-11-2012 11:32 AM

Is global warming occuring? Absolutely. Was it caused by humans? Maybe? I have not seen any great evidence to justify that it is all human related.

With that being said, I think it is a good idea to stop relying on fossil fuels for transportation and energy and should be investigating and developing alternative and renewable sources of energy, because it is the long term solution. Recycling and renewable resources need to be developed to eventually drive costs down.

Flyn 09-11-2012 12:18 PM

The burning fossil fuels problem will solve itself within a hundred years.

Chester Copperpot 09-11-2012 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinfoilhat (Post 2495013)

...dafuq? Excuse me if I'm dense, but where is that located and what is it next to? If it was "twice the size of the continental US" I'm pretty sure someone could figure out what land mass it's next to it. Literally the only place I can think of, is if you rotate the picture 180* it's Japan.

Besides. A website called TreeHugger? Rofl. I literally felt retarded reading some of those comments at the bottom of the page.

sickmint79 09-11-2012 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gav'sPurpleZ (Post 2494953)
if we are importing less barrels of oil and if our consumption is so low, then why are we paying 4.29 at the pump ?

california and illinois are the highest on average across the continental 48 states for 87 octane costs.

i voted #1

supply and demand are thinly balanced. they are not the only factor in the price either - supply and demand for us dollars is another factor. the buying power of our currency is being lost as well. there's also the military risks and tension as well as the difficulty to get/crack oil (ie. sweet pool vs. sour crude or extracting it out of shale/rocks, etc.) il/ca probably have a lot to do with taxes, i'm guessing?

#1 seems pretty reasonable. a cap and trade carbon exchange is really just a gift to guys like goldman sachs to make money off running it.

the superfreakenomics chapter on global warming is pretty interesting.

SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling,Patriotic Prostitutes,and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance: Steven D. Levitt,Stephen J. Dubner: 9780060889586: Amazon.com: Books

tinfoilhat 09-11-2012 12:37 PM

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great..._Garbage_Patch

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/05/11/...o-marine-life/

Quote:

Imagine a landfill twice the size of Texas, filled with junk, castoffs and other trash. Now imagine it’s floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a swirling vortex of plastic and flotsam, stretches across a vast swath of the Ocean and has long been a concern of scientists worried about its effects on marine life. Now, researchers from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography have found that a sharp increase in debris floating in a region between Hawaii and California — dubbed the Eastern Garbage Patch — is significantly affecting the environment of one of the ocean’s smallest residents.

The finding, published Wednesday in Biology Letters, reports that a marine insect that skims the oceans surface is laying eggs on top of plastic bits rather than natural flotsam, which scientists are concerned could be replaced by debris in its habitat.

(MORE: Giant Floating Garbage Patch: Now in the Atlantic, Too! )

“This is something that shouldn’t be in the ocean and it’s changing this small aspect of the ocean ecology,” said Scripps graduate student Miriam Goldstein to the Associated Press.

Previous research has similarly looked into not only the endangered wildlife that suffers from this floating trash, but how this mass collection of debris got here in the first place.

In 2006, the Los Angeles Times detailed the decline of the Albatross in the Midway Atoll, a collection of islands about half way between North America and Japan. The birds commonly fly over the Eastern Garbage Patch, mistaking trash for food. As a result, about 200,000 of the 500,000 chicks born there each year died from dehydration and starvation. An Environmental Protection Agency study showed that the chicks that died of those causes had twice as much plastic in their stomachs. Bottle caps, combs, golf tees, toothbrushes and even toy soldiers were found inside the birds.

(MORE: Why the Albatross is Our Albatross)

These items come from all over the world, swept along by the system of currents called the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. The garbage patch is in an area of slow-moving winds and currents, where garbage from all over the Pacific comes to collect, which the L.A. Times compared to “foam piling up in the calm center of a hot tub.”

The article additionally pointed out that four-fifths of the marine trash comes from land, blown into the ocean by wind or rain; the remainder is refuse from ships. Once caught in the ocean, debris can spin for decades. The U.N. Environment Program estimates that each square mile of ocean carries 46,000 pieces of plastic litter bobbing on its surface. The Associated Press reports that most of those plastic pieces are confetti-sized flecks — a fact that might explain why 10 percent of the fish previously studied by the Scripps research team had ingested plastic.

Turk 09-11-2012 12:46 PM

Who gives a fuck. Every couple hundred million years there's a mass extinction anyways! This Earth has been through much worse and life always finds a way.

Mook 09-11-2012 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turk (Post 2495166)
Who gives a fuck. Every couple hundred million years there's a mass extinction anyways! This Earth has been through much worse and life always finds a way.

like the dinosaurs reproducing in jurassic park!

Turk 09-11-2012 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mook (Post 2495167)
like the dinosaurs reproducing in jurassic park!

LOL, exactly! My whole theory is this. We're going to change the way we live and spend more money to "save the earth" and for what? For all we know, we could be blasted by an asteroid in 100 years and none of the shit we do would even matter, now would it?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.6 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.