• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

sailordeac said:
but these conferences and treaties are pretty irrelevant when nobody, especially Russia and China, gives a shit, or bothers to follow the terms of the agreement
Click to expand...

Personally, I would like America to be a leader and an example in the fight against global warming, even if it costs us a few bucks economically in the short term. Not only do I think it would help us in the long run, but it also would allow the most powerful country in the world to continue to set the right example and gain allies in order to later put pressure on the larger, more influential countries you mentioned.
 
Personally, I would like for the US to take the lead in trying to solve an increasing problem that human beings certainly have caused, continue to cause, and will cause increasingly in the future, namely, plastic and other waste. This is a problem that we definitely created, and we can solve. Practical problem solving beats declarations of good will and good intentions at lavishly wasteful events.
 
because right now the global warming agreements are going nowhere and distracting from the waste problem that is increasing rapidly

let's try and be successful with the waste problem, which is certainly solvable, and then build on that success
 
Didn't China just announce it was ahead of schedule in meeting the carbon intensity targets in the Paris agreement?
 
sailordeac said:
because right now the global warming agreements are going nowhere and distracting from the waste problem that is increasing rapidly

let's try and be successful with the waste problem, which is certainly solvable, and then build on that success
Click to expand...

This is a new angle for ignoring climate science and punting the problem to future generations. It's like Dept of Interior Secretary saying that windmills are bad for birds so let's drill for oil on wildlife refuges. Good work conservatives.
 
sailordeac said:
if you are not interested in practical things, then you are not interested
Click to expand...

I'm interested in both, reducing and eliminating plastic waste and in developing a practical risk assessment based approach to dealing with Climate Change. I think we can do both, in fact, I think they are related issues and could be addressed simultaneously.
 
sailordeac said:
Personally, I would like for the US to take the lead in trying to solve an increasing problem that human beings certainly have caused, continue to cause, and will cause increasingly in the future, namely, plastic and other waste. This is a problem that we definitely created, and we can solve. Practical problem solving beats declarations of good will and good intentions at lavishly wasteful events.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate switching focus, I just don't understand why it has to come at the expense of tearing down the groundwork we've already laid for something else. Placing O2 emissions on the back-burner is one thing, but deregulating an already sparsely regulated issue because a few stubborn factories can't adjust is taking a major step backwards. Implementing regulations is ALWAYS going to hurt bottom lines during the transition, so there are ALWAYS going to be people who complain about it while others accept the reality and see it as an opportunity. You can either support those who brace for the future, or listen to the cries of those stuck in the past. The deregulation that is happening is far worse than simply re-prioritizing and perhaps placing it on the back-burner while we solve a new, potentially more pressing problem, such as the waste issue you're talking about.

I highly doubt you would hear a public outcry if Trump decided to do something about "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch."
 
Last edited:
The issue is not switching focus but concentrating energies and placing resources into something that not only needs to be done but can be done. The issue is practicality. Too much of the global warming stuff is declarations of good intentions with little practical result, and I don't see that changing any time soon, Trump, or no Trump.
 
I'm not sure it's a matter of practical vs impractical, they're just on different scales of complexity and scope. One sounds like a shorter term goal that affects a small region of the Pacific while the other is more of a long term goal that affects the entire world. I don't expect Trump to do anything what-so-ever to impose regulations regarding a global warming crisis he denies, I just want him to stop destroying all Obama did to set the ground work for the transition. If he wants cleaning up the south pacific to be his contribution to environmental health, that's fine with me and may even gain him a modicum of positive, bi-partisan praise. It sounds like a problem that is more on his scale anyway, and would even allow him to claim he's putting America first since it's right off our coast.
 
Last edited:
sailordeac said:
The issue is not switching focus but concentrating energies and placing resources into something that not only needs to be done but can be done. The issue is practicality. Too much of the global warming stuff is declarations of good intentions with little practical result, and I don't see that changing any time soon, Trump, or no Trump.
Click to expand...

The plastic issue is not one that is easily solved. It fits right in with climate change as one that will require international cooperation to tackle effectively. International cooperation that is born at your hated conferences.

But of course, if you want to believe something is worthless and impracticable before its even begun, there's no changing your mind.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
The plastic issue is not one that is easily solved. It fits right in with climate change as one that will require international cooperation to tackle effectively. International cooperation that is born at your hated conferences.

But of course, if you want to believe something is worthless and impracticable before its even begun, there's no changing your mind.
Click to expand...

Seriously...The clean up of our oceans will be a gargantuan task and preventing future pollution will be a significant international challenge. Who is responsible and who pays for the clean up and prevention? Thinking that will be easy and more tractable is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top