Alexandria Occasional-Cortex and the "Green New Deal".

[Calandale]

We're still waiting for your solution. Or that you demonstrate that a solution is not needed.

Oh, no solution is needed. It's time to wipe the slate of most megafauna.

[Jack]

So basically doing fuck all, just because nobody else gives enough of a fuck to support any initiative that might prevent us from making the planet uninhabitable within the foreseeable future, is the mature approach?

To answer the question, no. Anymore words you want to put in my mouth?

[Jack]

What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?

Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable. Their purpose is to legislate and regulate, and that's about all they're not entirely terrible at doing. Though to be specific, the timelines are impossible and so absurdly idealized, they are harmful to the entire idea by making it mockable. Guaranteeing everyone a job alongside a plan which require all income to be invested in the plan reads like slavery. Guaranteeing everyone access to healthy and affordable food in a country where food is probably the most attainable commodity, even for the poorest of the poor. If americans cared about healthy food we wouldn't be so fat, so that one is genuinely funny. Providing everyone with free higher education. Am thinking once read the only country with free higher education, and also ranks significantly higher than the US in graduates, is Canada. It might seem higher education could be more about aptitude and want, than money. As long as the US ranks in the top ten highest educated countries, it could be the least of national concerns.

[Jack]

Again, the general public are duped to believe they are the problem and/or the solution. How about the federal government should clean up its own house first. The department of defense as an entity has been labeled both the nation's and the world's largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than the top five largest US chemical companies combined. The single largest consumer of fuel in the world, and thus the largest greenhouse gas emitter. The third largest polluter of US waterways. So on and so on. In the meantime, I'll eat meat and drive my car, and wont criticize AOC because she doesn't use the subway.

The fact is that we are all part of the problem, like it or not.

When I clean up a mess, I go for the biggest pieces first. In ten minutes, a B52 jet consumes more fuel than the average driver per year. Any climate change initiative which doesn't directly address the military is probably just lip service. The Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements; they don't have to report anything to anyone, so it's almost impossible to know the exact numbers. Barry Sanders researched US military fuel consumption for his book, and if his calculations can be believed, he concluded the DoD contributes 5% of the world's climate pollution. Since the entire country has been calculated at about 15% globally, that means tackling a third of the country's problem by addressing one single entity. If what's her name has said, or ever says, she intends to clean up the DoD, then will take her a little more seriously.

[Calandale]

What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?

Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable.

Anything like a free market, without some penalty for the causes of climate change (imposed by whom OTHER than a
regulatory body?) is truly laughable.

Unless there is a significant change in human behavior, there is no way that the private sector has a chance at this -
any more than they did of winning WWII or putting a man on the moon by '70.

That said, I suspect that we can't manage it publically either. In short, we fucked.

[odeon]

Again, the general public are duped to believe they are the problem and/or the solution. How about the federal government should clean up its own house first. The department of defense as an entity has been labeled both the nation's and the world's largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than the top five largest US chemical companies combined. The single largest consumer of fuel in the world, and thus the largest greenhouse gas emitter. The third largest polluter of US waterways. So on and so on. In the meantime, I'll eat meat and drive my car, and wont criticize AOC because she doesn't use the subway.

The fact is that we are all part of the problem, like it or not.

When I clean up a mess, I go for the biggest pieces first. In ten minutes, a B52 jet consumes more fuel than the average driver per year. Any climate change initiative which doesn't directly address the military is probably just lip service. The Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements; they don't have to report anything to anyone, so it's almost impossible to know the exact numbers. Barry Sanders researched US military fuel consumption for his book, and if his calculations can be believed, he concluded the DoD contributes 5% of the world's climate pollution. Since the entire country has been calculated at about 15% globally, that means tackling a third of the country's problem by addressing one single entity. If what's her name has said, or ever says, she intends to clean up the DoD, then will take her a little more seriously.

In other words, it's always someone else's responsibility?

Right.

[odeon]

What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?

Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable. Their purpose is to legislate and regulate, and that's about all they're not entirely terrible at doing. Though to be specific, the timelines are impossible and so absurdly idealized, they are harmful to the entire idea by making it mockable. Guaranteeing everyone a job alongside a plan which require all income to be invested in the plan reads like slavery. Guaranteeing everyone access to healthy and affordable food in a country where food is probably the most attainable commodity, even for the poorest of the poor. If americans cared about healthy food we wouldn't be so fat, so that one is genuinely funny. Providing everyone with free higher education. Am thinking once read the only country with free higher education, and also ranks significantly higher than the US in graduates, is Canada. It might seem higher education could be more about aptitude and want, than money. As long as the US ranks in the top ten highest educated countries, it could be the least of national concerns.

The timelines are not impossible but they do require more than mockery.

[Jack]

What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?

Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable.

Anything like a free market, without some penalty for the causes of climate change (imposed by whom OTHER than a
regulatory body?) is truly laughable.

Unless there is a significant change in human behavior, there is no way that the private sector has a chance at this -
any more than they did of winning WWII or putting a man on the moon by '70.

That said, I suspect that we can't manage it publically either. In short, we fucked.

Like I said, legislate and regulate. That's what have to do. They can't even house the poor, and they're not going to rebuild the entire infrastructure or provide everything everyone needs. As for your in short, sure, that's probably right.

[Jack]

Again, the general public are duped to believe they are the problem and/or the solution. How about the federal government should clean up its own house first. The department of defense as an entity has been labeled both the nation's and the world's largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than the top five largest US chemical companies combined. The single largest consumer of fuel in the world, and thus the largest greenhouse gas emitter. The third largest polluter of US waterways. So on and so on. In the meantime, I'll eat meat and drive my car, and wont criticize AOC because she doesn't use the subway.

The fact is that we are all part of the problem, like it or not.

When I clean up a mess, I go for the biggest pieces first. In ten minutes, a B52 jet consumes more fuel than the average driver per year. Any climate change initiative which doesn't directly address the military is probably just lip service. The Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements; they don't have to report anything to anyone, so it's almost impossible to know the exact numbers. Barry Sanders researched US military fuel consumption for his book, and if his calculations can be believed, he concluded the DoD contributes 5% of the world's climate pollution. Since the entire country has been calculated at about 15% globally, that means tackling a third of the country's problem by addressing one single entity. If what's her name has said, or ever says, she intends to clean up the DoD, then will take her a little more seriously.

In other words, it's always someone else's responsibility?

Right.

To answer the question, no. Anymore words you want to put in my mouth?

[Gopher Gary]

I'm not doing anything to save the planet.

I refuse to bathe in order to save electricity. You're welcome. 

[Gopher Gary]

What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?

Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable.

Anything like a free market, without some penalty for the causes of climate change (imposed by whom OTHER than a
regulatory body?) is truly laughable.

Unless there is a significant change in human behavior, there is no way that the private sector has a chance at this -
any more than they did of winning WWII or putting a man on the moon by '70.

That said, I suspect that we can't manage it publically either. In short, we fucked.

The government actually does a pretty good job of taking care of its prisoners. In better company, I could definitely live under their thumb, three hots and a cot and some interwebs. I might be a worthless shirker in my new fancy guaranteed government job assignment, but I'm sure someone else can pick up my slack. 

[Calandale]

What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?

Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable.

Anything like a free market, without some penalty for the causes of climate change (imposed by whom OTHER than a
regulatory body?) is truly laughable.

Unless there is a significant change in human behavior, there is no way that the private sector has a chance at this -
any more than they did of winning WWII or putting a man on the moon by '70.

That said, I suspect that we can't manage it publically either. In short, we fucked.

Like I said, legislate and regulate. That's what have to do. They can't even house the poor, and they're not going to rebuild the entire infrastructure or provide everything everyone needs. As for your in short, sure, that's probably right.

Regulation and legislation are the only tools capable of keeping the private sector focused on such a goal.
Make the cost of carbon emissions as high as its effects, and you instantly see it move.

The thing that stops it is that the govt is owned by those who don't want the changes.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

So basically doing fuck all, just because nobody else gives enough of a fuck to support any initiative that might prevent us from making the planet uninhabitable within the foreseeable future, is the mature approach?

To answer the question, no. Anymore words you want to put in my mouth?

Not putting words in your mouth. Simply taking your statements to their logical conclusion.  It's something that people do all the time in debates. If there is another logical conclusion, I'd love to hear it.

Personally, I think that trying to do something about an issue that threatens humanity is a lot more mature than denying science and doing nothing.

[Jack]

So basically doing fuck all, just because nobody else gives enough of a fuck to support any initiative that might prevent us from making the planet uninhabitable within the foreseeable future, is the mature approach?

To answer the question, no. Anymore words you want to put in my mouth?

Not putting words in your mouth. Simply taking your statements to their logical conclusion.  It's something that people do all the time in debates. If there is another logical conclusion, I'd love to hear it.

Personally, I think that trying to do something about an issue that threatens humanity is a lot more mature than denying science and doing nothing.

Rephrasing what I said into something I didn't say is putting words in my mouth, and implying I'm a do-nothing science denier isn't going to change that. You haven't offered one single counterpoint to anything I've said. Not going to sling mud with you.

[Jack]

What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?

Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable.

Anything like a free market, without some penalty for the causes of climate change (imposed by whom OTHER than a
regulatory body?) is truly laughable.

Unless there is a significant change in human behavior, there is no way that the private sector has a chance at this -
any more than they did of winning WWII or putting a man on the moon by '70.

That said, I suspect that we can't manage it publically either. In short, we fucked.

Like I said, legislate and regulate. That's what have to do. They can't even house the poor, and they're not going to rebuild the entire infrastructure or provide everything everyone needs. As for your in short, sure, that's probably right.

Regulation and legislation are the only tools capable of keeping the private sector focused on such a goal.
Make the cost of carbon emissions as high as its effects, and you instantly see it move.

The thing that stops it is that the govt is owned by those who don't want the changes.

It's not only our own government, unless that's what you meant too. Considering the military is potentially a third of the US share of climate damage, much different changes than suggested in the new green deal would be required. World leaders appear to crap their pants a little at anything suggesting the idea of the US stepping down from the center stage of global arms.