What a relief

[Postvieww]

The executive order is aiming for a 50% goal of zero admission vehicles by 2030. It is not binding and is largely symbolic. But I'd guess the car manufacturers would know what the public wants. So they are aiming for 40 - 50% themselves and GM will only be selling electric cars by 2035. Again, all from your linked article.

Maybe you can explain how cutting production of combustion cars by some and eliminating them from production by GM is not "forcing" the public into a product many do not want? I have no problem with electric cars but they have their own set of problems and costs. They should be a choice, liberals do like that word "choice" right?

 

[Postvieww]

Let me know when you can't buy a steak in the local deli. Talking of 'controlling the food supply' is a fantasy. Again, read your own linked article for details.

From the article:

"The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has urged that we all make more of this “underutilised” resource. And given the issues of food supply sustainability, it may not be a question of choice."

Maybe you should read the article!

"It ought to be obvious to anyone with an appetite that the way we eat is not sustainable – and that something fundamental will have to shift if we do not want to end up with half the world obese and the other half under water."

Sounds like that ole scare em' to death tactic to me.

Thanks for the offer but I'll buy my own until that right is taken away, then maybe you can share one from your freezer if you still have one. After all we must all make sacrifices to save the planet from imminent destruction.


Better yet I ll have my steak while you save the planet, deal?

 

[Postvieww]

It seems that your own links dismantle your own arguments...

I don't think so, neither does your analysis of my posts.

 

[Postvieww]

Thank you for doing the work for us.

Maybe you should do your own work , see post #300

 

[Astrid]

Pointing out blatant hypocrisy is not "profoundly ignorant" ignoring it just might be!

Claiming the other guy is a hypocrite
is seldom a good argument.

For one, whether or not one is of good
character ( say, stealing sheep) is irrelevant
to whether some cause or ism or building
technique he favors is sound.

And it sure does not make the finger pointer
right.

 

[Frank Robert]

Pointing out blatant hypocrisy is not "profoundly ignorant" ignoring it just might be!

Being a hypocrite may take away from the hypocrite's credibility but does not change the fact that climate change existential danger to humanity.

You have pointed out that climate has been changing throughout its history but neglect that current changes are happening at an unprecedented rate due to human activities and its impacts such as:
Rising sea levels
Extreme weather events
Habitat destruction and biodiversity loss
Food and water insecurity

The sad part is that you foolishly believe the fossil fuel industries who have been lying to us for decades.

See: Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better.

Climate change is an existential danger to humanity because it poses a significant threat to the long-term survival of our species and our way of life.

 

[Astrid]

You really are profoundly ignorant about what you are allegedly arguing against.

Rising sea levels are one danger from climate change in that it will severely damage water tables, ecosystems and low lying residences over the next century... not that it will flood the coastal villas that rich people live in.

In fact on a small scale there's no reason small, very wealthy communities won't be able to put up sea walls and keep their nice homes.

Do you see only bad results, irrversible harm in
rising sea levels?

 

[Shemjaza]

Pointing out blatant hypocrisy is not "profoundly ignorant" ignoring it just might be!

So specifically explain the hypocrisy.

"Global issue will damage and endanger coastal lifestyles over the next century." is a fundamentally different issue to "rich guy in his 70s wants to live in a nice house on the coast."

 

[Shemjaza]

Do you see only bad results, irrversible harm in
rising sea levels?

Initially yes.

A change in the environment will lead to other areas that aren't fertile becoming so and for some inland areas becoming a very nice coastline.

But the speed of change will be pretty bad for human civilisation and terrible for natural ecosystems.

On a long enough time scale almost everything is either something that can be adapted to or reversed.

 

[Bradskii]

Excuse me for not being precise.

No, I won't. You had the article. You read the article. You saw what it said. And you thought you'd use it to bolster your view despite what it said. You're not excused. Especially in light of the rest of your posts.

 

[Bradskii]

I guess you just missed this opening sentence.

"Energy experts and manufacturers are warning that the Biden administration's aggressive regulatory regime will lead to more expensive household appliances that are far less effective than current models."

So let's see who the experts are. Let's see if they can be trusted. They would be the Competitive Enterprise Institute and one or two of their employees quoted in the article. Not heard of them? Me neither. So let's check them out out. From wiki:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a non-profit libertarian think tank founded by the political writer Fred L. Smith Jr. on March 9, 1984, in Washington, D.C., to advance principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty. CEI focuses on a number of regulatory policy issues, including business and finance, labor, technology and telecommunications, transportation, food and drug regulation, and energy and environment in which they have promoted climate change denial.

In May 2006, CEI's global warming policy activities attracted attention as it embarked upon an ad campaign with two television commercials.[7] These ads promote carbon dioxide as a positive factor in the environment and argue that global warming is not a concern. One ad focuses on the message that CO2 is misrepresented as a pollutant, stating that "it's essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in... They call it pollution. We call it life.'

CEI's founder Fred Smith said of anthropogenic climate change: "Most of the indications right now are it looks pretty good. Warmer winters, warmer nights, no effects during the day because of clouding, sounds to me like we're moving to a more benign planet, more rain, richer, easier productivity to agriculture."

Fred certainly comes out with some zingers, doesn't he.

So it seems your experts are people that don't think we should be concerned about global warming in the first place. Hey, it's actually beneficial! Warmer nights! And all this as reported on that bastion of truth in journalism. The network that admits to you that it lies - Fox News.

Your claim is rejected in it's entirety.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe you can explain how cutting production of combustion cars by some and eliminating them from production by GM is not "forcing" the public into a product many do not want? I have no problem with electric cars but they have their own set of problems and costs. They should be a choice, liberals do like that word "choice" right?

They are a business. Their shareholders are interested in making a profit. GM can see which way the wind is blowing and can see the uptake of electric cars world wide. I'd never heard of electric cars ten years ago, now I've got a hybrid sitting in my drive. It uses about a third of the gas than my last car used.

Other companies will still be producing internal combustion vehicles so you'll still have a choice. But why do you think they are tooling up to make 50% of their product electric? It's not because they are being forced. They are not. It's ecause they want in on the profit. They can see that people will want to buy them. These guys don't make what the people don't want. They make things that people are keen to buy. Kinda one of the rules of business.

So please, no bull about no choice. You've got it and will still have it for decades. And if you want to run a car on gas in 20 years time when gas itself will be heaven knows what price or you could fuel your car off the solar panels on your roof for free, then that's your call.

 

[Bradskii]

From the article:

"The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has urged that we all make more of this “underutilised” resource. And given the issues of food supply sustainability, it may not be a question of choice."

Maybe you should read the article!

"It ought to be obvious to anyone with an appetite that the way we eat is not sustainable – and that something fundamental will have to shift if we do not want to end up with half the world obese and the other half under water."

Sounds like that ole scare em' to death tactic to me.

Thanks for the offer but I'll buy my own until that right is taken away, then maybe you can share one from your freezer if you still have one. After all we must all make sacrifices to save the planet from imminent destruction.


Better yet I ll have my steak while you save the planet, deal?

This is risible. Do you really think that meat is going to be replaced by insects? You mention scare tactics, but all your posts have been exactly that and this is the most outrageous. 'They'll make you eat bugs!'

If you think that they'll be making an appearance in delis and supermarkets, then you'd be right. My local Woolworths already sells ground crickets as a protein additive. And if you've ever been to S. E. Asia or Africa eating insects is entirely normal. I've snacked on quite a few myself. They go down well with a cold beer.

Note those pointy teeth, top row, right and left? They're incisors. For tearing flesh. We're omnivores but most of us love meat. My local butcher won't be boarding up his shop anytime soon and I don't see Mackers rearranging their supply chain to include bugs for their burgers.

It's a silly argument. Not even worth rejecting.

 

[sjastro]

This is risible. Do you really think that meat is going to be replaced by insects? You mention scare tactics, but all your posts have been exactly that and this is the most outrageous. 'They'll make you eat bugs!'

If you think that they'll be making an appearance in delis and supermarkets, then you'd be right. My local Woolworths already sells ground crickets as a protein additive. And if you've ever been to S. E. Asia or Africa eating insects is entirely normal. I've snacked on quite a few myself. They go down well with a cold beer.

Note those pointy teeth, top row, right and left? They're incisors. For tearing flesh. We're omnivores but most of us love meat. My local butcher won't be boarding up his shop anytime soon and I don't see Mackers rearranging their supply chain to include bugs for their burgers.

It's a silly argument. Not even worth rejecting.

 

[Bradskii]

View attachment 331003​

I keep thinking of the end scene of that Charlton Heston film. 'Soylent Green is people!' Except now, as they cart the deniers off somewhere safe they'll be shouting 'They're making us eat bugs!'

 

[Astrid]

Initially yes.

A change in the environment will lead to other areas that aren't fertile becoming so and for some inland areas becoming a very nice coastline.

But the speed of change will be pretty bad for human civilisation and terrible for natural ecosystems.

On a long enough time scale almost everything is either something that can be adapted to or reversed.

Sea levels have been continually
rising for 15k years or so.

Continental shelf makes for
great fishery.


In the event, the human species had been as honourable American saying go,, "cruisin' for a brusin' " for some time now.

Higher sea levels seem like among
the least of it.

 

[USincognito]

Pointing out blatant hypocrisy is not "profoundly ignorant" ignoring it just might be!

Given that no one claims that oceans will rise 10 feet in the next 50 years, I'm not seeing the hypocrisy.

 

[Shemjaza]

Sea levels have been continually
rising for 15k years or so.

Continental shelf makes for
great fishery.

All pretty long term advantages... in the short term, catastrophes.

Another example from history is the KT extinction event... if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out then there's basically no chance for primates and eventually humans to exist which is pretty positive for us, but the world probably looked a real mess for a long, long time after the asteroid hit.

In the event, the human species had been as honourable American saying go,, "cruisin' for a brusin' " for some time now.

Higher sea levels seem like among
the least of it.

It's another thing that just exacerbates the things we are bringing on to ourselves.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

soda pop

soda pop

You keep bringing up soda pop in your list. Why?

 

[Astrid]

All pretty long term advantages... in the short term, catastrophes.

Another example from history is the KT extinction event... if the dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out then there's basically no chance for primates and eventually humans to exist which is pretty positive for us, but the world probably looked a real mess for a long, long time after the asteroid hit.


It's another thing that just exacerbates the things we are bringing on to ourselves.

So mankind and coastal ecosystems have been
in a state of continuous disaster for 12 or 15k
years.

The dinosaur bit is relevant how?

Exacerbates...most everything we do
is like that.
Overpopulation is the core of all of it.

And we get countries like Russia, China, Japan,
Korea trying to increase birth rate.


USA and Europe worrying about falling birth rate.

Pushing people back from low lying coastal areas
will make overpopulation more acute and obvious
but nobody is going to do anything about it.

Meanwhile people fuss with feckless symbolic
projects like e- cars.

Hold back the seas with lithium batteries.