Climate change thread of despair


Uh, rescinding rules is definitely the same thing as eliminating environmental rules. How are they different?

I never said they were eliminating all rules. Maybe you should read what is actually written as you like to brag.


You are absolutely right. Government environmental regulations for example have nearly put large scale mining in this country out of business, so now we must import (at great expense and strategic danger) most of our mineral based products. The environmental damage that those industries were doing in our country pale compared to what they are allowed do overseas to produce the same raw materials for those products (which, to a large extent, are also now manufactured without considering environmental consequences overseas.). The net result is that far more environmental damage is being done to the Planet than if we cut them a little slack here.


I thought you were concerned about the environmental health of the Planet.


I am. Where did I say otherwise?


Culpability for what? Staying alive? Humans are the dominant species and have been able to vastly increase our population (in spite of modest procreation abilities) because of our ability to use technology and adapt to a wide range of environmental conditions. For that, I refuse to be sorry.


Fewer tornadoes

New Record Low Tornado Count as of October 3


I know what you said. The point is, environmental rules that have been in effect and functioned quite adequately for more than 40 years right up to the point of Obams’s “add-ons” are not being eliminated by Trump. It is disengenous of you to imply that rollIng back some regulations, that demonstratively would hurt the economy, to 2016 status will hurt the environment.


AKA human nature. Let me know when you come up with a solution to that.


Right here:

“no matter what we do, the developing nations are going to pollute.”


You need to look at the context of the discussion you decided to insert yourself into. That was my assessment of another poster’s argument.

This is quite disingenuous even for you.


Clearly not since you are quite literally making up things I’ve supposedly said.

Do you honestly think Trump is merely “rolling back some regulations to 2016” status? Is that a serious assessment of his administration?


What did your post have to do with climate change?


That’s not an assessment of his administration, it’s what his administration has done. All other environmental statutes and rules are still in effect.


Samm, you’re just trolling now.

Go back and look at what I was writing to the other poster and come back with some honest if you want.


So you’re saying no rules rolled back predate 2016.



You’re one to talk about being honest. You’re the one who started this diversion by confusing “improvement” with “habitable.” But then that’s what you always do … shift the topic and then try to make that the focus of the thread.

But on topic, a clean environment has very little to do with climate change, although clean air does allow more insulation at the surface, which raises surface temperature. When they cleaned the air in LA the average temperature of the urban area went up about 3 degrees.


None that I know of. Which rules are you referring to specifically?


Incorrect. This “diversion”, that is the current thread you inserted yourself into was between me and two other posters regarding a discussion on how to reduce pollution from Chinese factories and has nothing to do the “habitable” quote.

So yeah, I think I do get to say something about honesty when your last post demonstrates none.


How many examples do you need?


I lost faith in environmentalists when I realized that most of them are anti-nuclear energy.

I mean come on. It’s the one technology we have developed that could replace our dependence on coal and fuel oil with a sustainable energy source who’s emissions (when everything is working correctly) is water vapor right now. Unlike solar and wind it can handle current and projected energy needs for the entire planet.

And yes I know about the spent fuel rod dilemma. That is an issue that could be solved with designating several areas worldwide as no go dispersal zones, placed in casks after cooling sufficiently for storage.

Simple truth is that humans aren’t going to give up what we have achieved as a species. It’s not going to happen. What we should focus on is increasing efficiency, slowly moving ourselves away from fossil fuels for power generation and transportation. Nuclear power is the key part of that equation.