Real news, MSM news, and faux news
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, April 19, 2026 14:49
VIEWED: 7882
PAGE 4 of 8
Hypocrite indeed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Americans actually do care a lot about the environment, especially global warming. The problem isn't that people don't care. "In fact, environmental issues were cited more often than any other category, including terrorism, which was only mentioned by 10 percent of respondents."
http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/research/opinion-
polls-underestimate-americans-concern-about-the-environment-2/
Opinion Polls Underestimate Americans’ Concern about the Environment: Tweaking the Most Important Question
SUMMARY OF REPORT
Introduction
When pollsters ask Americans to name the most important problem facing the country, fewer than 3 percent mention the environment. But when asked to name the most serious problem facing the planet if left unchecked, the environment and global warming rise to the top, according to a study by Senior Fellow Jon Krosnick. When pollsters ask Americans to name the most important problem facing the country, fewer than 3 percent mention the environment. But when asked to name the most serious problem facing the planet if left unchecked, the environment and global warming rise to the top, according to a May 2010 study by Woods Institute Senior Fellow Jon Krosnick.
Krosnick and colleagues from Stanford and the Associated Press analyzed the results of a recent Internet survey of 906 adults. When asked “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?” about 49 percent of respondents answered the economy or unemployment, while only 1 percent mentioned the environment or global warming.
But when asked, “What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?” 25 percent said the environment or global warming, and only 10 percent picked the economy. In fact, environmental issues were cited more often than any other category, including terrorism, which was only mentioned by 10 percent of respondents.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hypocrite. You had your chance, Geezer. Yes, indeed.
As noted before, I think some problems are beyond solution by one country or set of countries. I've stated my reasons for believing this. Your asking me for solutions for problems I cosider insoluble...now that's hypocricy.
You apparently think that there is a solution, but seem unwilling to state it.
Put up or shut up.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Americans actually do care a lot about the environment, especially global warming.
Fine.
Now show me where the other 6.5 billion folks on the planet feel the same way, and are willing to sacrifice to do something about it.
Heck. Show me that the Americans who said yes in the cited poll are willing to sacrifice to do something about it.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And something else to think about.
Per the CDIAC site: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
U.S. carbon emissions are about 1.5 trillion tons a year (these are all 2008 figures).
Say we went hell-for-leather and reduced that by 50% by 2030 (not that this is extremely likely).
That be a 750 billion ton per year reduction.
India currently produces 475 billion tons a year, but as noted above they expect to increase their carbon emissions threefold by 2030.
That'd be a 950 billion ton per year increase.
Net increase, just looking at the U.S./India comparison, is 200 billion tons a year.
So thinking that the U.S. can solve the carbon problem on its own isn't looking so good.
This is why I'm asking if anyone has concrete ideas for getting the developing world on board.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
2011
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/12/hl-compact.htm
The biggest contributors to global emissions in 2011 were China (2.5 PgC, 28%), the United States (1.5 PgC, 16%), the European Union (EU27; 1.0 PgC, 11%), and India (0.6 PgC, 7%).
Together the US AND the EU contribute 27% of all global emissions. It's realistic to think the US could cut its emissions by a third, to be more in line with the EU rate. Why do I claim this? Because other western countries with modern economies and standards of living even higher than ours have achieved and sustained rates roughly half that of the US. (1)
And it's realistic to think that a chunk of this reduction would come in the form of renewables. (With no national renewables energy policy in place, the US currently stands at 11%.) (2)
It's further realistic to think that this could be achieved relatively quickly. Other countries have done this, for example Germany:
"The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012." So Germany increased its renewable energy production by about 19% absolute over 12 years, or 1.6% absolute per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
In fact, it's realistic to expect the EU to reduce its global emission by another fifth, because, as the map shows (2), there are countries with very few renewables, hence, very high comparative emissions rates.
So let's say that the US CAN technically achieve an emissions reduction of 1/3 over the next 12 years (0.5 PgC), and the EU can reduce their emissions by another 1/5 (0.2 PgC). That's a 0.7 PgC per year reduction after 12 years between the two of them.
Contributions to global emissions growth in 2011 were largest from China (0.226 PgC above 2010 levels, 9.9% growth) and India (0.043 PgC, 7.5%).
Between the US and the EU, achievable reductions are roughly 3 TIMES the increases due to China and India. So yes, in fact, the US and the EU COULD solve the problem all on their own, at least when it comes to balancing emissions from China and India. In fact, the US could solve the problem without any contribution from anyone else.
Now for this part. You claim that people don't 'care' enough to actually DO something about global warming. Well, we don't need 'people' to care globally, we need people in the US to care. B/c, as estimated above, the US, all on its own, COULD solve the problem of global warming. Yet, while only 10% of people polled think that 'terrorism' is the most important global problem, at least a trillion was spent on Afghanistan and Iraq, with ongoing defense and security expenditures. In the meantime, 25% of people think the environment/ global warming is the largest issue facing the planet, and the US spends ... wait - it doesn't even have a national plan. Let alone a budget.
So the problem isn't that PEOPLE (specifically US people) don't care, it's that government is not representing the people's will. Now, since we supposedly live in a democracy, the solution to that should be simple.
"hell-for-leather" I'm not sure why you repeatedly misquote this, as written, it's hell-bent for leather.
(1)
(2)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, like I said, I don't want to jump the gun.
You apparently think that there is a solution, but seem unwilling to state it. Put up or shut up.
But I would like to hear more about
Quote:And...
America, tired of the same old politics and government, overwhelmingly adopts a Libertarian philosophy and the Non-aggression Principle - Libertarians sweep the 2016 elections. We bring the troops home and stop all foreign aid. Government support for insurance of coastal dwellings and those on floodplains goes away. Subsidies for coal go away (yes, there are some http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/13/463874/top-three-ways-that
-american-taxpayers-subsidize-dirty-coal-development/ ).
Embracing the Libertarian philosopy of self-reliance, and the understanding that initiating violence - physical, emotional, or environmental - against others is wrong, individuals strive to reduce their energy footprint and reduce pollution and carbon generation. Entrepeneurs find ways to, for example, capture the methane in cow farts and use it to generate clean energy.
Seeing the success of Americans in breaking free of massive, all-controlling government, people around the world rise up in Libertarian revolutions - recognizing that while one should not initiate violence, it is perfectly appropriate to violence initiated agains oneself.
Now, I don't think this is likely, but I also am not to sure about any other scheme for getting most everyone on the planet to "go hell-for-leather" for reductions in energy usage or carbon emissions reduction.
Quote:Well, then who COULD solve this? One-world government?
As noted before, I think some problems are beyond solution by one country or set of countries. I've stated my reasons for believing this
I'm not looking for solutions that are going to be put on a development grant, Geezer, I'm just trying to spark some ideas. Altho I don't want to jump the gun, let me give you two examples:
Using USA food exports as a leverage for carbon reductions.
Using tariffs to discourage high-CO2 imports.
There! See? That was easy! We, as a nation, are not helpless.
Oh, as for the "hell-for-leather misquote", Geezer is being a stickler. Two sayings were combined, hell-for-leather (horse being ridden too hard, a favorite of Kipling's) and hell-bent (aimed for hell) into the common phrase hell-bent-for-leather: riding hard to perdition. Not sure what Geezer is trying to show here, but ... okay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
America, tired of the same old politics and government, overwhelmingly adopts a Libertarian philosophy and the Non-aggression Principle - Libertarians sweep the 2016 elections. We bring the troops home and stop all foreign aid. Government support for insurance of coastal dwellings and those on floodplains goes away. Subsidies for coal go away (yes, there are some
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/13/463874/top-three-ways-that
-american-taxpayers-subsidize-dirty-coal-development/ ).
Embracing the Libertarian philosopy of self-reliance, and the understanding that initiating violence - physical, emotional, or environmental - against others is wrong, individuals strive to reduce their energy footprint and reduce pollution and carbon generation. Entrepeneurs find ways to, for example, capture the methane in cow farts and use it to generate clean energy.
Seeing the success of Americans in breaking free of massive, all-controlling government, people around the world rise up in Libertarian revolutions - recognizing that while one should not initiate violence, it is perfectly appropriate to violence initiated agains oneself.
So explain it to us in a way that will convince a majority of American voters. Remember, that's your standard for Kiki and Signy, so please stick to it.
You have not convinced me. I doubt you've convinced even a majority of this site, and we're supposedly known for being fiercely independent.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I looked it up as well. But though it's composed of two originally separate phrases, it was first recorded being used in 1889. I think it's been around long enough to have acquired its own legitimacy as a phrase.
http://books.google.com/books?id=l_LxuR1jMVgC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA2
08&dq=hell+bent+for+leather++%22first+used%22&source=bl&ots=YEe0qERJrz&sig=PQYj0iBbrvI7nnFCWPtvK0HSSvk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GzDSUYXRO8WsywHxx4D4CA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=hell%20bent%20for%20leather%20%20%22first%20used%22&f=false
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oooohh, a book of idioms! I've got to get me one!
As far as Geezer is concerned.... still waiting for ideas, I guess! I tried to give hm some starter ideas, yanno- like a starter culture. Maybe he's fresh out?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME