Climate Change in the Trump Era

[JES]

I finally have enough time to devote a couple of hours, since I'm not working for a couple of days! And I've been wanting to reply for a while!

Script: https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-climate

"The cost of the Paris climate pact is likely to run to 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. In other words, we will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature, by the end of the century, by a grand total of three tenths of one degree.

Some Paris Agreement supporters defend it by claiming that its real impact on temperatures will be much more significant than the U.N. model predicts. But this requires mental gymnastics and heroic assumptions."

Indeed the Paris Climate Agreement isn't enough. Scientists have said we'd need to do far more if we are to have a real impact. Indeed, it is why Nicaragua didn't sign it.

It was a way of getting countries to the table, to try to get some form of unity. Start low with something all major countries could agree to in hope's that we'd all be willing to later commit to real serious work.

And I have to discount your video completely, since PragerU was founded by Dennis Prager and funded by the Wilks brothers, the former of whom has been accused of being anti-LGBT, anti-Muslim, and pro-Corporatist/Plutocracy, while the latter are two of the richest people in the country who made their fortune via fracking. Dennis Prager has said things that make me question his character entirely.
I normally do not consider the Daily Kos to be a reliable, unbiased media source, so if anyone can prove any of the claims in this article to be false, then I will apologize. There just isn't anything on this in sources I would trust unquestionably like the Guardian or the Washington Post.
It seems very clear what PragerU's agenda is, and I question the validity of any material in said video. I believe his videos don't focus on the truth, but on what he and his billionaire funders want you to think.

And even if it were true that cutting emissions would cost us trillions a year, the details of that claim matter. How would it cost us trillions? Could we compensate for it by changing our economy? Should we even be giving priority to money over the health of our planet?

Essentially the argument staying in this accord supports is that an negligible and barely observable future impact is worth bankrupting your (our) generation worth trillions of dollars a year, to what end: Merely to make liberal politicians feel good about themselves and get them well-paying paper-pusher jobs in a some climate bureaucracy.

And you're apparently supporting conservative politicians who get 6 figure paychecks + benefits (all on the tab of tax payers of course), who are in turn supported by billionaires whose fortunes depend on fossil fuels.
Will it bankrupt my generation, or just the industries that uses carbon emissions? Might I remind you that companies like Tesla are working on alternative clean energies? Will people loose their jobs because of industries that are unable to change, even with assistance from independent sources, or because they are unwilling to change, and would rather hold people's jobs hostage if they don't get what they want rather than sacrificing their fortunes, bonuses, and that of their executives? Maybe paper-pushers aren't given posts at climate bureaucracies via democratic referendums, but then, neither are corporations.

One more video:

The relevant portion starts around 1:22. In the 4.6 BILLION years the earth has been around, the planet has regulated its own temperature. An example he gives is the State of Kansas, which has over the last 40 Million Years been both entirely underwater and under two miles of ice. With ZERO creatures you could identify as a human. The parts per million of CO2 at the time of the dinosaurs was hundreds of times greater than it is today, and yet life including massive vegetative forests thrived. Neither the rate of warming not the ppm of CO2 are death sentences, least of all for humanity which has the intelligence and technology to adapt basically effortlessly relative to any other species in history.

To be fair, I can find nothing wrong with Bill Whittle. I can't find who funds his channel. And while I can't call his channel a reliable source, so too can't I call it unreliable. So with that, let's get into the meaty talking points.

Anyone who says that the climate doesn't change naturally is clearly ignorant. The question is are we changing the climate ourselves, and doing it at a rate that is quicker than normal?

What was the cause of such a massive amount of CO2 millions of years ago, and what was the average temperature? What were the sea levels like?

I'm guessing that the source of the CO2 were likely one or more massive volcanic eruptions (which probably would have cooled the planet).

The climate will change, causing droughts, worsening and increasing amounts of weather conditions like hurricanes, rising sea levels, and more wildfires. This will result in losses of lives and property.

What type of technologies will we use to compensate for this? How soon will we be able to implement? How much would it cost us?

I fear that politicians and their plutocratic masters would be willing to throw those affected by climate change to the wolves, and wall themselves up in safe zones.

And while I think that you are right, and that humans won't go extinct, I do question how many will be left dead or homeless if we continue business as usual. I also question how well our government will even be able to work when we have massive refugee crises. I don't know about you, but if I lost my home to the effects of climate change, I'd demand to be recompensed by the politicians who said there was no "there" there and the billionaires who paid them off to say this, and some might not be above attempting to take their wealth by force if they can.

Details are context are important. How long was Kansas underwater and under ice, and how long was the transition point? Hundreds of years? Thousands? Millions?

I'm very skeptical when I hear that climate change will render the planet uninhabitable to life, or even human life. I have no doubt it won't get anywhere near close to Venus's Greenhouse of Hell. The planet will recover entirely. Eventually. Assuming that worsened weather conditions doesn't cause some caustic pollutants to be released in some accident.

But there is a question of how pleasant it will be for the entire human civilization.

But if you seriously want to believe Trump Suicide Bombed your future, well, stay gullible. Childless European bureaucrats and politicians are depending on your tax dollars to retire in abundance while you struggle under massive taxes, regulations, and laws that restrict your own economic well being and that of any children you might want to have.

What would you have me place more belief in? A massive globalist conspiracy where anthropomorphic climate change is a lie, or an Oil Baron conspiracy where conservative politicians are paid off to make you believe there is no artificial climate change, and to make you so fearful of taxes and regulations, that they can even spin tax cuts for billionaires as a good thing? It seems to me that the wealthy elite have control over you, holding jobs hostage if they don't get what they want.

Well Deck Knight posted pretty much the same ideas before me but I want to bring my opinions on the matter of the subject.

Yes, Trump made the right choice. Thank goodness he pulled out just in time. I also want to say this: just because we oppose stuff like the Paris Agreement doesn't mean that we hate the environment. Does Donald Trump hate the environment? Maybe yes, maybe no. Just to completely say that Trump pulled us out of the Paris Agreement because "I hate the environment hur durr, lets pull out" is pretty much poor reasoning.

Problem 1: It will harm America's economy to a big effect.

Deck Knight pretty much handled the economic reason so I'll keep this short. The Paris Agreement was going to harm not just America's economy, but it jobs as well.

"Policies adapted from domestic regulations emphasized in the Paris agreement will affect a variety of aspects of the American economy. As a result of the plan, one can expect that by 2035, there will be:

• 
  
  
  • An overall average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs;
  • An average manufacturing shortfall of over 200,000 jobs;
  • A total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four;
  • An aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and
  • Increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent." source: http://www.heritage.org/environment...l-devastating-economic-costs-essentially-zero

Not only would we lose jobs but also increase our national debt (which i don't know why people are seeming to forget that America still has a big debt atm) while electricity taxes will raise up as well.

I'd suggest never, EVER using the Heritage Foundation as a source ever again. Why? Because Charles and David Koch are key fund providers. Anything in your link is likely biased or false.

Deck Knight isn't "breaking cong". He's one of the most non-toxic conservatives atm and his opinion doesn't warrant him being personally attacked. If he wasn't posting, this would just be a thread about liberals acting SOOO surprised that Trump pulled out of the accords like of course he fucking pulled out. Is this really the BIG ISSUE or just the big issue of the week? Mostly a rhetorical question, but I'm saving my outrage for the death camps and that's just me. Point is, don't treat everyone who disagrees with you like shit every time. Please.

I don't even know what "breaking cong" means, nor can I confirm or deny that he is one of the most non-toxic conservatives at the moment, so I'll just table/avoid that. Actually, should political identity even matter that much? Maybe our culture is a little too judgmental regarding political leanings, but maybe that's another discussion for another time.
But I don't appreciate him posting a video, that if I didn't know any better, could have pretty much brainwashed or confused me, nor accusing us of being gullible, but defending his own argument with a conspiracy theory.

And if I lived somewhere that was already being affected by climate change, where people were actually dying as a result, I imagine that I'd have zero patience left, and have the pessimistic, sarcastic attitude that Soul Fly has. P.S. Soul Fly, I expect that you are not exaggerating.

And this isn't about how us liberals are surprised that Vladimir Fucking Trump pulled out. This, at least for me is a "how dare you fucking pull out without giving those who are concerned about this issue a voice in the matter you fucking bastard!!!".
No referendum, not even a discussion in the Senate or Congress, or any other forum! He just authoritatively said "we're pulling out"!

He has basically given me and anyone else who is concerned about the future of our children and so on a middle finger, and authoritatively given a signal to the world that our country isn't going to do a thing about climate change, at least not if he has any say in the matter. He didn't even try to convince us that our concerns are unwarranted, just acted like we don't exist, like usual!

And this decision, for better or worse, will effect us. And if, God help us, we Progressives are right, then it will irrevocably effect everyone on the planet. There will be no escape clause for those of us who are concerned anymore than anyone else, more so for those who are currently very young or not even born yet.

And that has really pissed me off. So much so that I am working on a very detailed letter to the White House to express my disgust.

Every conservative is alt-right? They aren't exactly hiding here. Attacking every person with any conservative idea (as opposed TO their ideas, which are free game) is tantamount to wanting them all banned from the subforum. And that's not happening.

You have a very good point here, and one that I think everyone should be aware of. Just because someone is a conservative, doesn't mean they aren't a good person, or supporting policies that in their point of view are for the common good. I can say that from my experience with conservatives online, some of whom are reasonable if you get to know them a little. That doesn't mean they are always right, but just because you're wrong, doesn't mean that you are a bad person.

Too many people deal in absolutes (e.i. If you're a conservative/liberal, you're stupid/brainwashed/wrong/destroying the country), and I think that we have been developing that culture where we distrust/hate the "other". Even I have to admit my distrust of conservative sources. I fear if this continues, that it could eventually destroy our country.

And so I am going end this post here by taking this opportunity to say that if we truly want to make America/Earth great again, that is something we are going to learn to get past, and be willing to educate and listen to one another. Like it or not, we are stuck with each other, and as the past months have shown, Republicans can't get much done without Democrats, even with control over all three branches. If there is one thing that gives plutocrats nightmares, it is conservatives and liberals enlightening one another, finding common ground, and uniting.