That's cute,.. thanks for saving the planet.
Supercharged flooding caused by climate change is threatening the region of the US that least believes in climate change . . .
- Thread starter torbee
- Start date
That's cute,.. thanks for saving the planet.
FUNFACT: Sea level rise isn't the exact same, everywhere.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,289
- 191,199
- 113
Your defeatist attitude is noted. And dismissed.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,289
- 191,199
- 113
what? you're actually trying to conserve/wisely use resources and keep more money in the local, non-corporate economy?
what a loser!!! NERD!!!!
You don't understand what those people want to do. Living in a way to minimize your carbon footprint doesn't mean you have to move into a tiny house in the woods that doesn't have plumbing or electricity. Besides, the end user is the least efficient way of dealing with it. The manufacturers and power producers are likely the only way to effectively address the problem.
Oh, well when you logically lay out your argument like this you are super more credible.
I'll take that by saying there are a lot of easily brainwashed lemmings in blue and red states.
Have you ever considered owning a bridge? I know where you can get one at a real good price.
Sure. All those giant SUVs double king cab trucks multiple homes boats European vacations and 3000 square foot homes don’t hurt anything. It’s the utility company
God damn where is my “I care more than you Ribbon”? Because I sure as hell don’t want to compare reality.
Maybe we need a carbon footprint tax. We can look at home(s) vehicles and travel and come up with an environmental impact tax. I would give that tax revenue to those with a small impact. Regardless of politics.
Guessing your average upper crust traveling soccer mom liberal family in Waukee will pay a hell of a lot more that the piss poor trailer trash flying a trump flag while enjoying their weekend entertainment of a 12 pack of Busch Light on their shitty picnic table.
Environment impact is what matters not a persons mood, beliefs, or opinion is.
Last edited:
I would fully support a carbon tax. Any economic incentive to decrease your carbon footprint is an effective one because ultimately, that's all people care about. But it's not liberals that are blocking a carbon tax policy from happening.
Also, if you live in an area that is powered by wind, solar, or nuclear and you have electric heating then you actually have a pretty small carbon footprint for powering and heating/cooling your home, even if your home itself is less efficient at doing those things. If the easiest vehicles to own and operate are electric, people will buy them. That's why it is far more effective to change the policies at the points of production rather than asking 300 million people to go out of their way to do things. Especially since you will never get more than half of them to do it, so whatever changes the other half make actually don't accomplish anything because the other half refuses to change.
1990's GOP actually supported (I think they were the ones who came up with) the "revenue-neutral carbon tax" idea.
That GOP doesn't exist, anymore...
Perhaps some bridge on a country road in Iowa……that has been condemned?
When American adults last month were given a list of issues and asked to judge their importance, “climate change” scored near the bottom, with only 45 percent considering it “very important”, alongside “issues of race and diversity” at 40 percent.
Compare that with the list-toppers: the economy (82 percent), inflation (79 percent), and crime (65 percent), according to the CBS News poll conducted last month by YouGov. When real problems arise, fake ones tend to fade.
Compare that with the list-toppers: the economy (82 percent), inflation (79 percent), and crime (65 percent), according to the CBS News poll conducted last month by YouGov. When real problems arise, fake ones tend to fade.
Just following the math, bro.
Sea level rise acceleration (observed, which DOES NOT include much for land-ice losses yet) indicates:
For 2100:
+2.5 ft (nominal)
+3.1 ft (upper bound - which is more likely when Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets start losing mass into the sea)
For 2224 (200 years from now, which was what my post stated):
+13.3 ft (nominal)
+16.9 ft (upper bound)
Those numbers are based on the yearly increases and acceleration values observed currently by satellite.
Congrats on being proactive. Have you sold your lake house and motor boat?
LOL - I'm not abandoning my fossil fueled vehicles so in 200 years the temperature might drop 1 degree.
Instead of learning something from undoubtedly listening to the wrong people when it comes to Climate Change over the last 20-30 years (Al Gore was right on the money! Rush and Fox News et al not so much!), of course the reaction of these types of dudes is to treat the issue as just more culture war fodder. I guess it is easier to go through another round of trashing out the imaginary libturds in your head than putting a little thought into the actual issue itself.
We're so effed, maybe we were anyway.
That’s where I am and have been for a while. It’s obvious we’re not going to act until long after it’s too late. “I told you so” just won’t have that satisfying feel, though.
But one side will be able to say, “See! We told you so!” It feels good to be right!
His wife owns everything they have, I doubt his name is even on the title of the vehicle he drives. LOL!
- Sep 13, 2002
- 94,289
- 191,199
- 113
Heck no! The 4-stroke Toona Schoona is quite efficient and I have a solar plug in to charge its batteries and trolling motor.
Being conscientious doesn’t mean sacrificing 🙂
