Why is the climate change issue divided along party lines?

[TryToFindmid]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

It's to do with regulations, less regulations, no regulations even better.

I feel you nailed it with this one.

After recently being mortified by learning about the on going dumping of deadly chemicals by Dupont and Monsanto, I have little to no faith in these regulatory entities. Which often have ties, some directly others not so much, with government entities.

I can understand when I first recall this issue being raised in my early 20s around the early 2000s, it wasnt as clear cut. I was hearing stories about the global cooling being talked about in the 70s (before my time). And how so much of this movement was old hat that was dis proven already.

The fact that it became so politicized once it got legs I feel was a disservice to its efforts. No fault of the movement itself. Just as nailer says, there are two parties. It further reflects how damaging this polarized political discourse is to any greater good.

I think it also reflects how, to this day, there seems to be no trusted scientific body the government or public has to look upon. There are many who get praised as being accredited and trusted. But there are also many others, with varying levels of validation and knowledge. The recent handling of the Covid pandemic and the WHO certainly shines a light on the issues of trust and how believable all these institutions might be. I simply see a need to somehow form a gov / public scientific body that is unified and fact checked. I know we kinda have a form of that now, just not well organized IMO. And clearly not well known or publicized IMO.

IMO these days there seems little reason to think carbon emissions arent harmful on varying levels. And reducing their output would be a good idea. I dont know why that cant be agreed upon universally.

Which brings us back to regulations and to expand on that, cost. This is where the tire hits the road, no pun. I feel allot of the push back politically has to do with our screwed up ties to companies / powers that be. And both parties are VERY much guilty of this. Some just have stereotypical ties. And you know what they say about stereotypes.

Another aspect of cost of carbon reduction has to do with consumers. Up till recently electric cars simply were not widely available nor affordable. Both of those hurdles are changing for the better. And they show no signs of slowing.

But this brings us back to carbon emissions with coal electric plants. Alternative energy is gaining strides, but short of hydro electric plants I cant think of something with the output of coal plants. Let alone cost. Which is why Im pro Nuclear. When done properly and safely nothing compares. I feel its a real disservice to the environment they are not better used.

So in the end I feel we are going in the greener direction. The speed at which doing so is debatable and the issues that play into that are another topic to itself. Cost to the consumer being a big one. Again massive topic to itself.

But I think its silly to not at least be on board with the pursuit of cleaner energy, recycling, waste reduction, more efficient anything. To those that want to argue this notion, yes I get it, theres many dimensions to this. But in general....

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by TryToFindmid

I feel you nailed it with this one.

After recently being mortified by learning about the on going dumping of deadly chemicals by Dupont and Monsanto, I have little to no faith in these regulatory entities. Which often have ties, some directly others not so much, with government entities.

I can understand when I first recall this issue being raised in my early 20s around the early 2000s, it wasnt as clear cut. I was hearing stories about the global cooling being talked about in the 70s (before my time). And how so much of this movement was old hat that was dis proven already.

The fact that it became so politicized once it got legs I feel was a disservice to its efforts. No fault of the movement itself. Just as nailer says, there are two parties. It further reflects how damaging this polarized political discourse is to any greater good.

I think it also reflects how, to this day, there seems to be no trusted scientific body the government or public has to look upon. There are many who get praised as being accredited and trusted. But there are also many others, with varying levels of validation and knowledge. The recent handling of the Covid pandemic and the WHO certainly shines a light on the issues of trust and how believable all these institutions might be. I simply see a need to somehow form a gov / public scientific body that is unified and fact checked. I know we kinda have a form of that now, just not well organized IMO. And clearly not well known or publicized IMO.

IMO these days there seems little reason to think carbon emissions arent harmful on varying levels. And reducing their output would be a good idea. I dont know why that cant be agreed upon universally.

Which brings us back to regulations and to expand on that, cost. This is where the tire hits the road, no pun. I feel allot of the push back politically has to do with our screwed up ties to companies / powers that be. And both parties are VERY much guilty of this. Some just have stereotypical ties. And you know what they say about stereotypes.

Another aspect of cost of carbon reduction has to do with consumers. Up till recently electric cars simply were not widely available nor affordable. Both of those hurdles are changing for the better. And they show no signs of slowing.

But this brings us back to carbon emissions with coal electric plants. Alternative energy is gaining strides, but short of hydro electric plants I cant think of something with the output of coal plants. Let alone cost. Which is why Im pro Nuclear. When done properly and safely nothing compares. I feel its a real disservice to the environment they are not better used.

So in the end I feel we are going in the greener direction. The speed at which doing so is debatable and the issues that play into that are another topic to itself. Cost to the consumer being a big one. Again massive topic to itself.

But I think its silly to not at least be on board with the pursuit of cleaner energy, recycling, waste reduction, more efficient anything. To those that want to argue this notion, yes I get it, theres many dimensions to this. But in general....

I was waiting for you to mention nuclear. And I agree with you. I'm in the power industry and I can tell you that solar and wind are nothing more than political tools. They are like the little solar cell on a battery pack. I live in Kentucky and tell people that all the teslas here should have a bumper sticker that says, "Powered by coal". Anyone serious about reducing CO2 is a proponent of Nuclear. Either that or they are swimming in a sea of ignorance.

But I'm going to disagree on CO2. We've been duped on that whole issue. Everyting that human beings do produces CO2. Same with animals. Convincing the population that it is a polutant is key to giving a government authority the power to completely control every aspect of our lives. And the whole thing is baloney. It is not a pollutant, it is not a dangerous gas, and we are not producing too much. We could use about four times more CO2 in our atmosphere than we currently have.

Some point to Venus as an example of 'runaway CO2" and its affects. Yet Venus and Mars have almost exactly the same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere. What makes one cold and one hot is the DENSITY of the atmosphere itself. It's why It's so bloody hot on the surface of Jupiter.

It's why it is so cold at the top of Mt. Everest and so hot at the bottom of the grand canyon. And if you dug a hole a few thousand feet deep here on earth it would have the same temperature at the bottom as venus' atmosphere, even if it hat NO CO2 in it.

iow, using venus as an example of the pitfalls of too much CO2 in the atmosphere is like using the bottom of the ocean as an example of the pitfalls of too much water in the atmosphere. i.e. bad science.

This can help:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/

https://realclimatescience.com/

We've been sold a bill of goods and the information easily debunking it is all over the place on the internet if one is willing to dig.

On Youtube this is useful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcAH...VcLOwKh-FB7Rxp

[Chicks]

Renewables produce 17.5% more electricity than coal in Q1 2020

https://www.solarpowerworldonline.co...al-in-q1-2020/

Coal is a loser's game in this country, thankfully, despite Donny's bad intentions. It's a dying source of energy. The sooner it's gone, the better off we'll all be. Just the health benefits of cleaner air alone are worth killing off coal. Sadly, it's still widely used in other countries.

Here in progressive CA, I notice more and more of the parking lot solar panel covers. Dual purpose, generate electricity while providing shade for cars. The Kaiser outpost I go to just put up eight long rows of these. Not sure if they're providing energy for Kaiser, or for the grid. Thankfully, my metro area has its own, community-owned, not-for-profit electric service, so we don't have to deal with PG&E, which lost its way via Wall Street a long time ago.

The electric service also has hundreds of acres of solar panels on underused former farmland throughout the area. We have some 300 days/year of sunlight, so solar is absolutely viable, especially now that it's become more cost effective than many other sources of power.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

I was waiting for you to mention nuclear. And I agree with you. I'm in the power industry and I can tell you that solar and wind are nothing more than political tools. They are like the little solar cell on a battery pack. I live in Kentucky and tell people that all the teslas here should have a bumper sticker that says, "Powered by coal". Anyone serious about reducing CO2 is a proponent of Nuclear. Either that or they are swimming in a sea of ignorance.

But I'm going to disagree on CO2. We've been duped on that whole issue. Everyting that human beings do produces CO2. Same with animals. Convincing the population that it is a polutant is key to giving a government authority the power to completely control every aspect of our lives. And the whole thing is baloney. It is not a pollutant, it is not a dangerous gas, and we are not producing too much. We could use about four times more CO2 in our atmosphere than we currently have.

Some point to Venus as an example of 'runaway CO2" and its affects. Yet Venus and Mars have almost exactly the same percentage of CO2 in their atmosphere. What makes one cold and one hot is the DENSITY of the atmosphere itself. It's why It's so bloody hot on the surface of Jupiter.

It's why it is so cold at the top of Mt. Everest and so hot at the bottom of the grand canyon. And if you dug a hole a few thousand feet deep here on earth it would have the same temperature at the bottom as venus' atmosphere, even if it hat NO CO2 in it.

iow, using venus as an example of the pitfalls of too much CO2 in the atmosphere is like using the bottom of the ocean as an example of the pitfalls of too much water in the atmosphere. i.e. bad science.

This can help:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/

https://realclimatescience.com/

We've been sold a bill of goods and the information easily debunking it is all over the place on the internet if one is willing to dig.

On Youtube this is useful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcAH...VcLOwKh-FB7Rxp

The Twain quote describes rabid Trump supporters perfectly.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

The Twain quote describes rabid Trump supporters perfectly.

Actually, I was banned twice during the election from a political site for badmouthing Trump. I said on election day that the good news was that Hillary lost and the bad news is that Trump won.

But then he started doing his job. I became a big fan. Best president in my 66 years.

But the truth in the Twain quote is that fooling someone doesn't impact their ego. Admitting you've been fooled forces you to get past a wounded ego. The older you get, the easier it is because you've grown acustomed to being wrong and, hopefully, admitting it. As your ego strengthens, it's easier. And there is a bid difference between a big ego and a strong ego.

BTW, your post was projection.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Renewables produce 17.5% more electricity than coal in Q1 2020

https://www.solarpowerworldonline.co...al-in-q1-2020/

Coal is a loser's game in this country, thankfully, despite Donny's bad intentions. It's a dying source of energy. The sooner it's gone, the better off we'll all be. Just the health benefits of cleaner air alone are worth killing off coal. Sadly, it's still widely used in other countries.

Here in progressive CA, I notice more and more of the parking lot solar panel covers. Dual purpose, generate electricity while providing shade for cars. The Kaiser outpost I go to just put up eight long rows of these. Not sure if they're providing energy for Kaiser, or for the grid. Thankfully, my metro area has its own, community-owned, not-for-profit electric service, so we don't have to deal with PG&E, which lost its way via Wall Street a long time ago.

The electric service also has hundreds of acres of solar panels on underused former farmland throughout the area. We have some 300 days/year of sunlight, so solar is absolutely viable, especially now that it's become more cost effective than many other sources of power.

I'm in the power industry. You are correct that Coal is diminishing in use in the US (though new plants are being built in other countries). We use a lot of coal and natural gas here in kentucky. Most of the infrastructure in a coal plant is not there to produce power. It is there to clean up the emissions and ash. And it is incredibly effective.

The use of Coal in the US will naturally shrink over time as other methods of producing power become more cost effective. Government need not force it. The future, based on the technology we have today, is clearly in Nuclear though. Wind and Solar are basically publicity stunts for the most part until the tech improves substantially. Rooftop solar is nice, and it does impact the grid, but not as much as people think. And that whole nighttime thing really does matter. Without an ability to store all that wasted electricity during the day the efficiency is drastically reduced.

I used to be a huge fan of solar and may become one again as cells become more efficient (a lot more) and batteries become more environmentally friendly and efficient/cheap. But until that happens, Electric power is at the same place electric cars were in the 60's: a novelty that is actually useful and functional for a tiny fraction of the population.

FWIW, if I lived in an urban area where I had a ten or less mile commute, one of my cars would be electric. They have crossed that line for me. But I would still need my gas powered car for stuff other than commuting and short trips to the grocery store.

Also, to get an idea where I'm coming from on the environment, I bicycle commuted for almost 20 years in the seattle area. I stopped when cell phone use made it too dangerous. My average round trip commute was 38 miles. I loved it.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

Actually, I was banned twice during the election from a political site for badmouthing Trump. I said on election day that the good news was that Hillary lost and the bad news is that Trump won.

But then he started doing his job. I became a big fan. Best president in my 66 years.

But the truth in the Twain quote is that fooling someone doesn't impact their ego. Admitting you've been fooled forces you to get past a wounded ego. The older you get, the easier it is because you've grown acustomed to being wrong and, hopefully, admitting it. As your ego strengthens, it's easier. And there is a bid difference between a big ego and a strong ego.

BTW, your post was projection.

If "doing his job" is grifting the office monetarily and otherwise, grasping personal power as an entitled autocrat, and prioritizing his power thru reelection over all else while diminishing the prestige of the office and the country, he has certainly done that.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

If "doing his job" is grifting the office monetarily and otherwise, grasping personal power as an entitled autocrat, and prioritizing his power thru reelection over all else while diminishing the prestige of the office and the country, he has certainly done that.

That's certainly one way of looking at him - and every previous president.

Anybody remember Obama's "apology tour"?

I undeerstand you don't like or trust him. I didn't either. But results talk. Words are just words.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

That's certainly one way of looking at him - and every previous president.

Anybody remember Obama's "apology tour"?

I undeerstand you don't like or trust him. I didn't either. But results talk. Words are just words.

What results? He is a literal international laughing stock, and intentionally pointedly decisive at home. He doesn't even try to be a unifying leader.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

What results? He is a literal international laughing stock, and intentionally pointedly decisive at home. He doesn't even try to be a unifying leader.

Step away from the CNN. Seriously. And regarding unifying, that one always cracks me up. Those that complaining about him not being unifying are like Hitler complaining about the RAF shooting down his planes during the battle of Britain.

Sometimes "unifying" is not the proper course of action. And it takes two to tango. Have you noticed that BLM disappeared when Trump became president, yet here they are in an election year. And how has trump been for blacks in the US? Look it up. I'll prime the pump:

Here is what they saw right after the 2016 election:
https://theundefeated.com/features/a...trump-victory/

And here we are now:
https://www.delgazette.com/opinion/8...unities-thrive

And prison reform:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/19/polit...doj/index.html
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...justice-reform

And so much more. But one of my favorites is his success in outing the lunacy of the left. There was not a serious statesman on that stage during any of the Democrat presidential candidate debates, especially Biden.