REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Real news, MSM news, and faux news

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, August 24, 2023 05:03
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5160
PAGE 1 of 2

Friday, June 28, 2013 8:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


There is real news and then there is the rest. Unfortunately, real news- which is about events that are life-altering for the vast majority of the population- aren't topical, funny, or horrific. It doesn't bring in the advert dollars. If I may use a RW comparison, it's like the overall debt versus the IRS "scandal": one is more important but has all the interest (heh, get it?) of a clock ticking, the other one has the attraction of a dogfight. And who doesn't like a good dogfight, right?

So, in the real news today:

The earth is still warming. Alaska is sweltering in an unprecedented heat wave, Calgary is unprecently flooded. Last year, the Danube was so low that boats lay in the riverbed, this year, there was historic flooding in Bavaria and part of Eastern Europe. The Sierra snowpack reached an unprecedented low. This is what climatologists have been predicting for a long time: Less snowpack, more droughts AND more floods. That's exactly what's happening.

-----------------

Demonstrations in Egypt, Brazil, Argentina etc. You don't hear much about Greece anymore, but Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and most of Eastern Europe are suffering from youth unemployed of 25%+. This does not bode well for places like Pakistan, which has a very large, angry, young population. It doesn't seem to matter whether the system is democratic, semi-democratic, or authoritarian, or capitalist or mixed... modern economies, when tied into international trade, are finding it impossible to stabilize their economies at high employment.

Developed and developing nations are "investing" in Africa: another cheap labor pool to exploit, and a possible market to suck dry. Obama is urged to follow suit, and get in line behind China and Russia before the good deals run out.

-----------------

Fertilizers are killing our oceans and lakes

Gulf of Mexico could see record-sized ‘dead zone’ from pollution this year

Quote:

The Gulf of Mexico could see a record-size dead zone this year of oxygen-deprived waters resulting from pollution, US scientists have cautioned based on government data models. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s forecasts said the dead zone could be as large as New Jersey, or up to 8,561 square miles (22,172 square kilometers).

Dead zones are toxic to marine life and are caused by excessive nutrient pollution due to agriculture runoff. They are influenced by weather, precipitation, wind and temperature.

When there is little oxygen in the water, most marine life near the bottom is unable to survive.

“This year’s prediction for the Gulf reflects flood conditions in the Midwest that caused large amounts of nutrients to be transported from the Mississippi watershed to the Gulf,” NOAA said in a statement.

“Last year’s dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico was the fourth smallest on record due to drought conditions, covering an area of approximately 2,889 square miles.”


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/gulf-of-mexico-could-see-record-
sized-dead-zone-from-pollution-this-year
/

Like the record algal bloom in the Great Lakes,





the Gulf Dead Zone is tied to corn farming. Corn is an extremely nitrogen-demanding crop, and farmers spread lots and lots of nitrogen fertilizer on their corn. Half of the corn is destined for ethanol subsidies.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2013 4:49 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, in the real news today:

The earth is still warming. Alaska is sweltering in an unprecedented heat wave, Calgary is unprecently flooded. Last year, the Danube was so low that boats lay in the riverbed, this year, there was historic flooding in Bavaria and part of Eastern Europe. The Sierra snowpack reached an unprecedented low. This is what climatologists have been predicting for a long time: Less snowpack, more droughts AND more floods. That's exactly what's happening.



And your solution is?
Even if North America and Europe do everything possible to reduce global warming, China, India, South America, and Africa are still going to increase their usage of fossil fuels for the forseeable future. Should we rearrange the deck chairs by reducing carbon emmissions when they're increasing everywhere else, or try to adapt to a changing climate?

Quote:

Demonstrations in Egypt, Brazil, Argentina etc. You don't hear much about Greece anymore, but Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and most of Eastern Europe are suffering from youth unemployed of 25%+. This does not bode well for places like Pakistan, which has a very large, angry, young population. It doesn't seem to matter whether the system is democratic, semi-democratic, or authoritarian, or capitalist or mixed... modern economies, when tied into international trade, are finding it impossible to stabilize their economies at high employment.


And your solution is?

Got jobs for hundreds of millions when heavy equipment, automation and computers reduce the bodies needed to do the work necessary to provide for everyone?

Quote:

Developed and developing nations are "investing" in Africa: another cheap labor pool to exploit, and a possible market to suck dry. Obama is urged to follow suit, and get in line behind China and Russia before the good deals run out.


Unlike the U.S. government, China and Russia don't care about rights of Africans. They'll gladly bribe dictators and arm them to get plum deals. Wanna go to war with the Chinese and Russians over better government for Africa?

Quote:

Fertilizers are killing our oceans and lakes

Gulf of Mexico could see record-sized ‘dead zone’ from pollution this year

Quote:

The Gulf of Mexico could see a record-size dead zone this year of oxygen-deprived waters resulting from pollution, US scientists have cautioned based on government data models. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s forecasts said the dead zone could be as large as New Jersey, or up to 8,561 square miles (22,172 square kilometers).

Dead zones are toxic to marine life and are caused by excessive nutrient pollution due to agriculture runoff. They are influenced by weather, precipitation, wind and temperature.

When there is little oxygen in the water, most marine life near the bottom is unable to survive.

“This year’s prediction for the Gulf reflects flood conditions in the Midwest that caused large amounts of nutrients to be transported from the Mississippi watershed to the Gulf,” NOAA said in a statement.

“Last year’s dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico was the fourth smallest on record due to drought conditions, covering an area of approximately 2,889 square miles.”





And food - which a lot of folks can barely afford - gets more expensive.

As one of my old bosses - who I didn't particularly like but respected - said, "Don't bring me problems. Bring me solutions."


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 2:54 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!




Working on an investigative report about the 'Jamaican Lottery' Scam, which turns out is based mostly in USA. NEWS SCOOP! $400,000 stolen from my dad so far this year, $25,000/day going to the scammers as we type. Death threats against me and my family. Kidnapping of my father by a convicted felon who spent 10 years in Crime College. But law enforcement won't touch it 'because its outside our jurisdiction' -- which is why the scammers in USA pretend to be in Jamaica. Also indictations the 'Jamaica Lotto' kingpin in my Hometown USA may be in Witness Protection as a police-salaried 'confidential informant' with immunity from prosecution for his current crime spree.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 3:26 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

And your solution is?

Got jobs for hundreds of millions when heavy equipment, automation and computers reduce the bodies needed to do the work necessary to provide for everyone?



That's got nothing to do with the unemployment rate in Europe, which is in fact due to " a combination of complex factors, including the globalisation of finance; easy credit conditions during the 2002–2008 period that encouraged high-risk lending and borrowing practices; the 2007–2012 global financial crisis; international trade imbalances; real-estate bubbles that have since burst; the 2008–2012 global recession; fiscal policy choices related to government revenues and expenses; and approaches used by nations to bail out troubled banking industries and private bondholders, assuming private debt burdens or socialising losses." wiki

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 4:51 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Even if North America and Europe do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to reduce global warming ... (cites?)


I'm not sure why you're including Europe - their per capita emissions are roughly half ours.

[img][/img]

So IF the US was really doing SOME of what we could be doing, our emissions would be cut in half - more in line with Europe's per capita use. And IF the US was really doing EVERYTHING POSSIBLE that we could be doing, our emissions would be cut to a fifth - more in line with Cuba's per capita use.

And you point was? Oh, you didn't really have one.


And your solution is?

Got jobs for hundreds of millions when heavy equipment, automation and computers reduce the bodies needed to do the work necessary to provide for everyone?



And YOUR solution is .... ???? More of the same that got us this problem? C'mon big boy, cough it up.


Unlike the U.S. government (cites?), China and Russia don't care about rights of Africans (cites?). They'll gladly bribe dictators (you mean, unlike us?) and arm them to get plum deals. (cites?)


You mean the US ISN'T and WASN'T arming, funding and supporting Mubarek, the Saudi royal family, Zine el Abidine Ben Ali (we were for him 1987-2011 before we were against him), Nursultan Nazarbay, et al? This has also been discussed before, and, again, you have nothing to add to the topic except your very tired old propaganda about how the US is always! for freedom! and democracy! all around the globe! and we're ALWAYS! the GOOD GUYS! and THEY'RE the BAD GUYS! and blah blah blah blah ...

So, do you have anything substantive to add to the topic?


And food - which a lot of folks can barely afford - gets more expensive.


"According to the World Resources Institute, global per capita food production has been increasing substantially for the past several decades." WIKI

So OBVIOUSLY the problem isn't one of 'supply' and 'demand' - because per capita, the supply has gone up. So you tell me Geezer, what's the problem? How can price be going up when supply is going up?



So there - an example of why I think you're the just another boring, predictable, mindless, and dishonest poster. Like the others of your ilk, you have added not one interesting, new, salient or factual element to this discussion - or to ANY discussion I have ever read since day 1. The only difference between you and PN is that he at least provides links to the drivel he spews. Your one point of dsitinction, as found in your very own name, is your claim to be THE old fart around here. A point I have duly noted in my replies.

This reply, BTW, was an illustration for someone about the meaninglessness of your posts. After this, I won't be respondng to you, since, as always, you add N.O.T.H.I.N.G.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 7:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

:So, in the real news today:

The earth is still warming. Alaska is sweltering in an unprecedented heat wave, Calgary is unprecently flooded. Last year, the Danube was so low that boats lay in the riverbed, this year, there was historic flooding in Bavaria and part of Eastern Europe. The Sierra snowpack reached an unprecedented low. This is what climatologists have been predicting for a long time: Less snowpack, more droughts AND more floods. That's exactly what's happening.- SIGNYM

And your solution is?
Even if North America and Europe do everything possible to reduce global warming, China, India, South America, and Africa are still going to increase their usage of fossil fuels for the forseeable future. Should we rearrange the deck chairs by reducing carbon emmissions when they're increasing everywhere else, or try to adapt to a changing climate? -GEEZER

Demonstrations in Egypt, Brazil, Argentina etc. You don't hear much about Greece anymore, but Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and most of Eastern Europe are suffering from youth unemployed of 25%+. This does not bode well for places like Pakistan, which has a very large, angry, young population. It doesn't seem to matter whether the system is democratic, semi-democratic, or authoritarian, or capitalist or mixed... modern economies, when tied into international trade, are finding it impossible to stabilize their economies at high employment.-SIGNY

And your solution is? Got jobs for hundreds of millions when heavy equipment, automation and computers reduce the bodies needed to do the work necessary to provide for everyone? -GEEZER

Developed and developing nations are "investing" in Africa: another cheap labor pool to exploit, and a possible market to suck dry. Obama is urged to follow suit, and get in line behind China and Russia before the good deals run out.-SIGNY

Unlike the U.S. government, China and Russia don't care about rights of Africans. They'll gladly bribe dictators and arm them to get plum deals. Wanna go to war with the Chinese and Russians over better government for Africa? -GEEZER

Fertilizers are killing our oceans and lakes
Gulf of Mexico could see record-sized ‘dead zone’ from pollution this year

Quote:

The Gulf of Mexico could see a record-size dead zone this year of oxygen-deprived waters resulting from pollution, US scientists have cautioned based on government data models. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s forecasts said the dead zone could be as large as New Jersey, or up to 8,561 square miles (22,172 square kilometers).

Dead zones are toxic to marine life and are caused by excessive nutrient pollution due to agriculture runoff. They are influenced by weather, precipitation, wind and temperature.

When there is little oxygen in the water, most marine life near the bottom is unable to survive.

“This year’s prediction for the Gulf reflects flood conditions in the Midwest that caused large amounts of nutrients to be transported from the Mississippi watershed to the Gulf,” NOAA said in a statement.

“Last year’s dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico was the fourth smallest on record due to drought conditions, covering an area of approximately 2,889 square miles.”

-SIGNY

And food - which a lot of folks can barely afford - gets more expensive.
As one of my old bosses - who I didn't particularly like but respected - said, "Don't bring me problems. Bring me solutions." -GEEZER



I re-quoted the whole thing discussion in a more contiguous format so there's no lack of context and it will be easier to respond.

I've got solutions to all of these. But instead of asking me for them, why don't you come up with some of your own?

------------------------

I picked these crises because we cause 100% of them.

Since we're causing 'em, we can fix them, right?

And, as we're causing them simply by... doing what we usually do and thinking how we usually think, it seems obvious that the only way to solve these crises is to do and think differently.

But you'd be surprised, even accepting that we must change our behavior and economy somehow, when people start looking for solutions, the first thing that pops into their head is "Oh, we can't do that because our society isn't set up that way" or "We can't do that because people don't think that way" or "We can't do that because the government always screws things up". I'll tell you right now that if you restrain yourself from thinking new thoughts, you'll wind up exactly where we are now and without solutions.

But if you let go of old habits, you will find multiple solutions to every one of these problems. It just depends on how much change you're willing to envision. So, if you let go of your main premises you might find some really insightful ideas.

So, in this marketplace of ideas, bring some. Since I get on the board roughly once a week, I'll give you a week to develop some thoughts. If anyone else wants to chime in, feel free!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 3:15 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Even if North America and Europe do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to reduce global warming ... (cites?)


I'm not sure why you're including Europe - their per capita emissions are roughly half ours.

[img][/img]


Your map is energy consumption, not carbon emissions. Also 10 years old.



"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 5:26 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

And your solution is? Even if North America and Europe do everything possible to reduce global warming, China, India, South America, and Africa are still going to increase their usage of fossil fuels for the forseeable future. Should we rearrange the deck chairs by reducing carbon emmissions when they're increasing everywhere else, or try to adapt to a changing climate?


So is your solution to do nothing? How about being world leaders in this stuff?

Taking active steps so that your country is cleaner and greener generally, has less waste, more recycling. How about encouraging investment in energy efficent products and discourgaing growth in dirty industries?

Tell me where the negatives are in any of this? Because who wants to live in a tip or a wasteland?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 5:28 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


2010

[img][/img]

Europe, still half, or less, than the US. Cuba 1/10 of US.

Did it change anything? Yes, it made my argument stronger. So thanks for pointing that out, old fart.

Now, do you have any solutions?



Yeah, I thought not.



ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD FART!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 5:46 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So, if I were going to do anything about global warming -

Well, of course the first thing I'd do is go on a massive energy efficiency/ solar power/ wind power/ fuel-cell vehicle/ program. They are things we can do RIGHT NOW - without having to completely reinstall the infrastructure. Plus honestly, there's a lot of benefit to having a distributed electric-grid power source, and being free of imported energy to run our vehicles.

I'd look at carbon sequestration, especially man-made wetlands (1) and biochar (2).

(1) https://www.agronomy.org/story/2013/jun/mon/farming-carbon-study-revea
ls-potent-carbon-storage-potential-of-man-made-wetlands


(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar

I'd require large flat-roofed commercial buildings to install EITHER highly reflective coatings (to reduce heat gain and loss) OR solar panels.

Water is going to be a serious problem. We'll have intense rain episodes which will flood and then drain away, followed by prolonged droughts. I'd start serious water conservation efforts to catch the rain and allow it to infiltrate the ground, replenishing ground water, streams, lakes, and rivers.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 5:51 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Now this is real news:

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/12889

As CO2 Approaches Symbolic Milestone, Scripps Launches Daily Keeling Curve Update

Levels of the greenhouse gas are approaching 400 parts per million; Scripps offering daily Twitter feed, news and analysis of climate indicators

These iconic measurements, begun by Charles David (Dave) Keeling, a world-leading authority on atmospheric greenhouse gas accumulation and Scripps climate science pioneer, comprise the longest continuous record of CO2 in the world, starting from 316 ppm in March 1958 and approaching 400 ppm today with a familiar saw-tooth pattern. For the past 800,000 years, CO2 levels never exceeded 300 parts per million.

Scientists estimate that the last time CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably the Pliocene epoch, between 3.2 million and 5 million years ago, when Earth's climate was much warmer than today. CO2 was around 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began releasing large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. By the time Dave Keeling began measurements in 1958, CO2 had already risen from 280 to 316 ppm.







NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 6:02 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


The Most Influential Climate Science Paper Today Remains Unknown to Most People

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20140213/climate-change-science-carb
on-budget-nature-global-warming-2-degrees-bill-mckibben-fossil-fuels-keystone-xl-oil


The Most Influential Climate Science Paper Today Remains Unknown to Most People
Just six pages long, it is stoking a new moral urgency for climate action and forcing the financial world to reconsider the value of fossil fuel reserves.

Though just six pages long, its dense, technical writing makes it largely incomprehensible to non-experts. And yet this paper is transforming the climate change debate—prompting the financial world to rethink the value of the world's fossil fuel reserves and giving environmental activists a moral argument for action.

That's because behind its complicated terminology is a simple question that affects every aspect of society and business: How much time do we have before the burning of fossil fuels pushes the climate system past tipping points? In a worst-case scenario, about 11 years at current rates of fossil fuel use, according to the paper.

The paper, "Greenhouse-Gas Emission Targets for Limiting Global Warming to 2C," was published in April 2009 in Nature, the prestigious science journal. It was the work of researchers from Germany, the UK and Switzerland, led by Malte Meinshausen, a climatologist at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact.

The study filled a factual void in a simmering debate over climate change. By 2006, the year the scientists began their research, many world governments had endorsed the scientific consensus that global temperature rise should be kept below 2 degrees Celsius in this century. But governments didn't know how far down the path of global warming they had already gone—and how much further they could safely go.

Meinshausen and his team, which included his brother Nicolai, a statistician at the University of Oxford, took up the puzzle. "It seemed the obvious thing to do with so many governments asking the question," Meinshausen said.

The scientists created what is called a global "carbon budget," which details how much carbon countries have emitted in the atmosphere from burning coal, oil and natural gas—and how much more they can "spend" before crossing 2 degrees. They didn't invent the concept—many others had crunched carbon budgets. But none were as rigorous.

The paper's methodology was groundbreaking. It was the first to incorporate hundreds of uncertainties in the climate system into a single climate model—factors that had never been modeled together or that hadn't been given proper weight in previous studies, such as radiative forcing or unknowns in the carbon cycle like how much carbon is stored in the deep ocean. In total, 400 environmental parameters were run under 1,000 different emissions scenarios.

What they found was stark: To have a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees, humans would have to stick to a carbon budget that allowed the release of no more than 1,437 gigatons of carbon dioxide from 2000 to 2050.

To have an 80 percent chance of avoiding that threshold, they would have to follow a stricter budget and emit just 886 gigatons.

The paper found that by 2006, nations had already spent a quarter of that amount, or 234 gigatons. Meaning, the planet's carbon budget would be exhausted by 2024—11 years from now— if emissions levels stayed the same, or even earlier if they continue their upward trend.

From a scientific point of view, burning all of the world's proven fossil fuel reserves isn't an option, the paper suggested. The reserves "vastly exceed the allowable CO2 emission budget for staying below 2C" of warming, it said.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2013 9:50 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


One last thing:

"The global warming signal is now louder than the noise of random weather, as I predicted would happen by now in the journal Science in 1981. Extremely hot summers have increased noticeably. We can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in Texas and Russia, and the one in Europe in 2003, which killed tens of thousands, were not natural events — they were caused by human-induced climate change.

We have known since the 1800s that carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere. The right amount keeps the climate conducive to human life. But add too much, as we are doing now, and temperatures will inevitably rise too high. This is not the result of natural variability, as some argue. The earth is currently in the part of its long-term orbit cycle where temperatures would normally be cooling. But they are rising — and it’s because we are forcing them higher with fossil fuel emissions."



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 2:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So is your solution to do nothing? How about being world leaders in this stuff?

Taking active steps so that your country is cleaner and greener generally, has less waste, more recycling. How about encouraging investment in energy efficent products and discourgaing growth in dirty industries?

Tell me where the negatives are in any of this? Because who wants to live in a tip or a wasteland?



My point is that reducing carbon emissions in the U.S., while a worthwhile goal, isn't going to be a solution - not as long as China, India, Africa, and South America increase their carbon emissions.

In 2012, U.S. carbon emissions dropped 3.8%, but Chinese emissions increased 3.8%. Since China produces more carbon overall than the U.S., thats a net loss. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/carbon-dioxide-emission
s-rose-14-percent-in-2012-iea-report-says/2013/06/09/35d32bac-d123-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html


India expects its per capita carbon emissions to increase threefold by 2030.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/per-capita-co2-emissions-to-rise
-threefold-by-2030/article113168.ece


So unless you have a way to get China, India, etc. on board - which I figure is gonna be kind of difficult, since their populations are clamoring for more energy and a better life - It's going to be difficult to reach a global reduction in carbon emissions. This is why I don't have much faith in putting all our eggs in the emissions control basket, and think we need to be prepared to deal with the effects of climate change as well.


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 3:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
2010


[img]]
Quote:


Europe, still half, or less, than the US. Cuba 1/10 of US.

Did it change anything? Yes, it made my argument stronger. So thanks for pointing that out, old fart.

Now, do you have any solutions?

Yeah, I thought not.



And what was your argument? That the U.S. has higher carbon emissions per capita than Europe? When did I say it didn't?

Lets look at my statement:

"Even if North America and Europe do everything possible to reduce global warming, China, India, South America, and Africa are still going to increase their usage of fossil fuels for the forseeable future. Should we rearrange the deck chairs by reducing carbon emmissions when they're increasing everywhere else, or try to adapt to a changing climate?"

"Even if" would seem to indicate that this is a supposition, sort'a like "Even if Kiki could pedal a bike at 70mph, a Corvette could cover a mile faster."

And did I say that the U.S. and Europe ARE doing everything possible to reduce global warming? No.

Now I have shown, in the response to Magons above, that China and India are increasing carbon emissions at a rate faster than the U.S. is reducing them. Africa, while still low in overall terms, has increased carbon emissions twelvefold since 1950, and doesn't seem to be slowing down. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_afr.html
Latin America is up tenfold since 1950 and still increasing as well. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_amd.html
Also, "Because of more rapid growth elsewhere, particularly Asia, emissions from North America have shrunk from 46.4% of the global total in 1950 to 20.5% in 2008." http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_nam.html

Look at the regional graphs of total emissions and per capita emissions here http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_regn.html and you'll see that while North America and Europe have pretty much flattened out, China, the Far East, China, Africa, and Latin America are all trending sharply up.

So it seems pretty clear that, even if the U.S. (or we can throw in Canada and call it North America) and Europe do quite a bit to reduce carbon emissions, the rest of the world is gonna be increasing at a higher rate for quite a while.

As I've noted several times in the past, I have no problem with energy efficiency and reduction in emissions. But I think it foolish to believe that if North America and Europe reduce emissions when much of the rest of the world is increasing them dramatically (India threefold in the next 17 years, for example), the problem will be solved. I doubt developing countries are going to tell their people to give up their aspirations for a better life just so New Jersey doesn't get coastal flooding.

Now if you have an idea of how we can get China, India, etc. to reduce carbon emissions, or even hold them at current levels, I'd be glad to hear 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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 4:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer: any solutions yet?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 6:53 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Geezer: any solutions yet?



No.

My point is that there are sometimes no solutions, especially that the U.S. can impose on the rest of the world. Sometimes the only solution is to let things work out and prepare for the possible outcomes.

You'll note that even President Obama endorsed this in his recent climate address. He's trying to reduce carbon emissions, but also realizes that actions are going to have to be taken to limit the effects of climate change.

"Obama's strategy in the second-term rests on three pillars: cutting carbon pollution in America, preparing the U.S. for the impacts of climate change, and leading international efforts to cut global emissions."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-2013_n_3
497151.html


Since The U.S. and Canada together now produce only 20% of carbon worldwide (as noted above), even with reductions in the U.S. the amount of carbon being generated elsewhere is still going up(as also noted above). I'm kind of doubtful of the ability of the Obama Administration to get the countries of the world where folks are hungry for a decent standard of living and more stuff to reduce, or even limit, carbon emissions. I think preparing for the impacts is a good move.

I have no problem with reducing energy usage and making production cleaner, but the U.S. doing this is not gonna fix the problem.


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 7:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What I'm hearing is that everything stays essentially the same, but the outcome should change.

Hmmm... eh?

But what if everything DOESN'T stay the same? What if we were to go hell-bent for leather to either reduce climate change, or mitigate the impacts of climate change, or both? What could we do? (Trying to get you to think out of the box, in brainstorming mode. Surely you've been in brainstorming sessions!)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 9:28 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


So Geezer - do you want to know why I laugh at you? Probably not, but here it is for all to read - because you are so ideologically driven you can't think any other way.

FOR EXAMPLE:

You start out with the argument that EVEN IF the US and Europe were to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to slow down (or even eventually reverse) global warming, the emissions from China and India would undo those efforts. You take this as gospel, and expect everyone else to do that as well.

But there's one really enormous, gaping, obvious logical flaw in your argument - you don't know. You've drawn a conclusion on a qualitative assumption when you need to do quantitative analysis. What do I mean by that? What I mean is that if the US and Europe were to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE - by which I mean technically feasible at the moment * - that one logical possibility is that US and Europe could do SO MUCH that they would at least mitigate the effects of China and India, and perhaps reverse them. You have to run the numbers. You have to make estimates as to how much heat-trapping gasses could be eliminated on one side of the balance sheet, and how they compare to the heat trapping gasses generated on the other side of the balance sheet. Until you do that, you don't KNOW that EVEN IF the US and Europe did EVERYTHING POSSIBLE that it would be moot.

To me, that is such an obvious and seriously fatal flaw in your argument, I can't imagine how you would post it with any level of sincerity.

So, here are the choices as I see them, singly and in various combinations:

you are so blinded by your own ideology of 'US and business first' you really didn't see it

you are so blinded by your partisanship you really can't admit it to a 'liberal'

you are so dishonest you really don't care if you post things you know to be untrue

you really believe that global warming has already gone past the tipping point, and nothing we do to slow it down or reverse it will help

Out of all the reasons I can think of that would motivate your argument, only one is a logic-based one. The rest - all in your head.


So yeah, when I see such patently flawed arguments from someone with a 100% history of patently flawed arguments - who refuses to engage in meaningful discussion - what else is there to do but point and laugh?

So, not to undo SignyM's efforts to remove you from the mental box you've caged yourself in - how about it? How about brainstorming on the basis of 'just suppose'? If you were to imagine what should be done - to mitigate global warming, or to prepare for its effects, or both - out of your storehouse of knowledge, what would you propose?

* CO2 neutral or negative energy generation like solar power, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency, altering the types of food we produce, and so on

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:32 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:


So unless you have a way to get China, India, etc. on board - which I figure is gonna be kind of difficult, since their populations are clamoring for more energy and a better life - It's going to be difficult to reach a global reduction in carbon emissions. This is why I don't have much faith in putting all our eggs in the emissions control basket, and think we need to be prepared to deal with the effects of climate change as well.




Yeah, its going to be difficult until they do get on board, but we mustn't make the assumption that they won't or aren't interested.

Pressure from the international community, as well as having cheap and efficient fuel alternatives - which we can and will develop with the will - can fix this issue.

The problem is the climate debate itself. While this pointless argument persists, the will isn't there. It will go down as one of the stupidest discussions ever, when businesses and governments could be putting that energy (no pun intended) into developing cleaner sources of energy that don't emmit the same levels of carbon. To me its a no brainer. But I guess you have a lot of vested interested working against common sense in this case.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:35 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


From Forbes

Quote:

According to a recently released United Nations report, global investment in renewable energy reached a record $257 billion in 2011, a 17 percent increase from the amount invested in 2010. Globally, renewable energy covers approximately 16.7 percent of energy consumption. Of this share, modern technologies such as solar and wind accounted for just 8.2 percent, even less than the 8.5 percent contributed by biomass. By comparison, more than 80 percent of electricity consumed worldwide still comes from fossil fuels.

China was responsible for almost one-fifth of total global investment, spending $52 billion on renewable energy last year. The United States was close behind with investments of $51 billion, as developers sought to benefit from government incentive programs before they expired. Germany, Italy and India rounded out the list of the top five countries.

According to China’s 12th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (2011-2015), the country will spend $473.1 billion on clean energy investments over the next five years. China’s goal is to have 20 percent of its total energy demand sourced from renewable energy by 2020.

In 2011, solar led the way as far as global investment in renewable energy, with investment surging to $147 billion, a year-on-year increase of 52 percent, due to strong demand for rooftop photovoltaic installations in Germany, Italy, China and Britain. Large-scale solar thermal installations in Spain and the United States also contributed to growth during the year. Wind power investment slipped 12 percent to $84 billion as a result of uncertainty about energy policy in Europe and fewer new installations in China, according to the report.

Despite the substantial investments in solar energy, the industry is in turmoil. A number of large American manufacturers such as Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Solar Millennium and Solon fell victim to price pressure from Chinese rivals that helped to halve the cost of photovoltaic modules in 2011.

Even the survivors are not doing well. Shares of First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ:FSLR), are selling at their lowest level in five years. The company, which is the leading solar company in the United States, lost $39.5 million last year. In the first quarter of this year, First Solar reported a loss of $449 million after non-recurring expenses of $405 million. The company is due to report second quarter results on August 1.

Not unexpectedly, the industry’s poor fundamentals are provoking trade battles. In May, the U.S. Commerce Department found several Chinese solar-panel companies guilty of dumping and imposed 31 percent tariffs on their products. The action came as a result of a complaint filed by the American subsidiary of Germany’s SolarWorld AG (DE:SWV) and a half-dozen other solar-energy companies that said that the Chinese manufacturers are selling solar panels at below-market prices. The Chinese companies affected are Suntech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. (NYSE:STP) and Trina Solar Limited (NYSE:TSL). SolarWorld has now asked the European Union to investigate claims that Chinese rivals have been selling their products at below market value in Europe as well.

While China pricing has been devastating for American and European solar manufacturers, it has been no less devastating for their Chinese rivals. Suntech, Trina, Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (NYSE:YGE) and Canadian Solar Inc. (NASDAQ:CSIQ), four of China’s largest solar manufacturers, lost a combined $1.7 billion in 2011, and the shares of all four companies are selling at five year lows.

The economics for the solar industry, both globally and in China, have never been worse, and there are no bright spots on the horizon. Clearly, solar investments in the United States and Europe will take a hit in 2012. However, the underlying unprofitability of the industry is in sharp conflict with China’s long-term goal to derive 20 percent of its energy needs from renewable energy sources as well. How can the Chinese companies continue to operate in the face of such losses? Will China continue to support the industry’s development? These are some of the questions that the country’s new leaders will need to address as they take the helm this fall.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 12:44 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"... China’s long-term goal to derive 20 percent of its energy needs from renewable energy sources as well."

And that's another problem (among many) with Geezer's argument. While it's true that INDIA doesn't have 'clean' energy goals, the same isn't true of China. China's been aggressively pursuing green energy in order to meet renewable energy goals they have publicly adopted. In fact, they put the US to shame, considering the US has no national renewable energy goals at all.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_renewable_energy_target#United
_States


For sources other than biofuels, The United States carries no mandatory renewable energy targets although they do support the growth of renewable energy industries with subsidies, feed-in tariffs, tax exemptions, and other financial support measures.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:04 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


India's making some moves, too - including things like covering irrigation canals with solar panels, which cuts back on TWO problems at the same time: it creates electricity to run irrigation pumps, sprinklers, etc., AND it helps cut down on evaporative losses from the canals themselves.





"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:10 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Oh, and they're also going ahead with building solar energy plants to help provide power to their COAL MINES.

Yes, you read that right.

“India has an abundance of sunshine and the trend of depletion of fossil fuels is compelling energy planners to examine the feasibility of using renewable sources of energy like solar, wind, and so on.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/06/2104601/the-worlds-biggest
-coal-company-is-turning-to-solar-energy-to-lower-its-utility-bill/?mobile=nc







"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:23 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I think its a kind of inverted racist response, that these countries aren't civilised enough to care.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 3:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I'm hearing is that everything stays essentially the same, but the outcome should change.



No. I'm saying that some things are out of your control, and if they are going to affect you, you need to develop a plan to deal with those effects that you can control.

Quote:


But what if everything DOESN'T stay the same? What if we were to go hell-bent for leather to either reduce climate change, or mitigate the impacts of climate change, or both? What could we do? (Trying to get you to think out of the box, in brainstorming mode. Surely you've been in brainstorming sessions!)



Couple of things.

"What if we were to go hell-bent for leather..."

Which "we" is this? The World? Developed nations? North America? the U.S.? How do you get everyone on board?

Also, on the "hell-bent for leather" theme.

How do you convince the guy in India or China who's just gotten a good enough job and income to afford a car or a scooter or an air conditioner that he (and the several billion Indians and Chinese and Africans and Latin Americans like him) should "go hell-bent for leather" and give this up?

Then again, how do you convince the guy who's just moved to his new house in the Phoenix suburbs that to save energy he should really sell his car and move back to an apartment in the city to cut down on travel miles?


The problem with "What could WE do?" is in believing that the "we" all want what you want, and are willing to give up what they believe they've earned for your agenda.

Tell me you have a plan to convice the guy in India, and the guy in Phoenix, and the billions of other guys like them, that they should give up their cars and A/C for you, and I'll be glad to critique 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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 3:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
So Geezer - do you want to know why I laugh at you? Probably not, but here it is for all to read - because you are so ideologically driven you can't think any other way.

FOR EXAMPLE:

You start out with the argument that EVEN IF the US and Europe were to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE to slow down (or even eventually reverse) global warming, the emissions from China and India would undo those efforts. You take this as gospel, and expect everyone else to do that as well.

But there's one really enormous, gaping, obvious logical flaw in your argument - you don't know. You've drawn a conclusion on a qualitative assumption when you need to do quantitative analysis. What do I mean by that? What I mean is that if the US and Europe were to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE - by which I mean technically feasible at the moment * - that one logical possibility is that US and Europe could do SO MUCH that they would at least mitigate the effects of China and India, and perhaps reverse them.



Actually, the first thing you have to do is figure out how you're going to get the U.S. and Europe to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. That's the big IF.

Like this:

If you expect the U.S. and Europe to reduce their carbon emissions to the level of Cuba, as you've proposed, you're insane.

"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 5:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Actually, the first thing you have to do is figure out how you're going to get the U.S. and Europe to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. That's the big IF.
Actually, the first thing you have to do is figure out how you're going to get people to think past what currently exists. You can't have change if you can't think past the present. That bears repeating:

You can't have change if you can't think past the present.

Here, let me give you an example that a right-winger would appreciate: We could have never developed democracy if the FF couldn't think past monarchy which, up until then, was the only form of European government extant, which therefore would have been the predicted model.

So, can you? Think past the present and imagine a different future? I've asked... oh, I dunno... three or four times now. I don't want to jump the gun and start giving you my ideas, I want to see yours. Not looking for a "prediction" but some blue-sky thinking. At the beginning of a brainstorming session, one NEVER rejects ideas for being "impractical", so fire away.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 6:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Actually, the first thing you have to do is figure out how you're going to get the U.S. and Europe to do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. That's the big IF.
Actually, the first thing you have to do is figure out how you're going to get people to think past what currently exists.



And since you apparently think you can convince folks of this - not just a few but the vast majority worldwide that'd be necessary to actually reduce carbon emissions worldwide - let's hear it.

Quote:

Here, let me give you an example that a right-winger would appreciate: We could have never developed democracy if the FF couldn't think past monarchy which, up until then, was the only form of European government extant, which therefore would have been the predicted model.


But people had been thinking of democracy for some time prior to the American Revolution. Even English Common Law gave us the basis for a lot of our push for democracy. The Colonies just happened to hit the sweet spot when England was busy with a global war against France, and didn't have the resources to stop our rebellion.

Then again, look at how well the later French Revolution, supposedly based on the same ideals, turned out.

Quote:

So, can you? Thinks past the present and imagine a different future? I've asked... oh, I dunno... three or four times now. I don't want to jump the gun and start giving you my ideas, I want to see yours. Not looking for a "prediction" but some blue-sky thinking. At the beginning of a brainstorming session, one NEVER rejects ideas for being "impractical", so fire away.


Okay.

Quote:

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.

Why don't you present yours, and we'll see.


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 6:39 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


You're the one who insists that people bring solutions, not problems. Except, apparently, you. WAY TO GO MR HYPOCRITE!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 6:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hypocrite indeed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 6:50 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 6:54 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 6:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 7:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 9:50 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 3:20 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

You apparently think that there is a solution, but seem unwilling to state it. Put up or shut up.
Well, like I said, I don't want to jump the gun.

But I would like to hear more about
Quote:

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.

And...
Quote:

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
Well, then who COULD solve this? One-world government?

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 3:49 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 3:53 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 5:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 1, 2013 5:32 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


BTW, I apologize mightily for intruding into your attempt to have a reasonable discussion. I'll stop posting to this thread.

But YES - that book on idioms is cool. I got rather distracted and started reading it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
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%).

...

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.



Not really.

You're assuming that China and India's emissions don't increase at all during that 12 year period. Assume instead that they continue to increase at the rates shown above, and in 12 years China will be producing around 7.75 PgC per year and India around 1.43 PgC.

At China's rate of 7.75 PgC per year after 12 years, the next year's increase, at 9.9%, will be 0.76 PgC. India's will be 7.5% of 1.43 PgC, or another 0.10 PgC, for a total of 0.86 PgC.

So a 0.7 PgC per year decrease in twelve years against a 0.86 PgC increase leaves a net increase of 0.16 PgC per year. And this doesn't even take into account probable increases in Latin America, Africa, the rest of Asia, and let's not forget Russia and the former Soviet Bloc countries not in the EU.


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:17 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.



Interesting that you left out the bit where I said I didn't think this was likely.


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:23 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
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?



So you're still asking me for solutions to a problem (reducing net global greenhouse gas emissions) I consider unsolvable.

Could this be because you don't have any real solutions yourself? That you know that the problem is not amenible to solution, but hope that "If you wish hard enough you can fly"?


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 6:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


And bringing this over from the "climate money pit" thread to keep SignyM happy.

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Also if you can find any evidence that SignyM's and KIKI's proposals to reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 1/3 or 1/2 or 4/5 are actually feasible, I'd be happy to see that too.
Oh, so you ARE discussing the topic? HAHHAHAHAHA! Thought so!

And yanno, the funny thing is, I keep saying I'm look for ideas, not proposals. In fact, I specifically said "I'm not looking for solutions to put on a development grant" (ie, a proposal). And so far, I haven't made any "proposals", I've provided three nascent ideas with the thought that perhaps they might spark other, possibly better ideas.

And finally- not that I'm trying to dictate where people post, but I keep trying to corral the discussion in the original thread, so it can be contemplated with all of the original context. So FWIW, here is the link, again.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=55505




So what "ideas" do you want?

1. "Ideas" on how the U.S. can reduce the U.S. share of carbon emissions, or possibly reduce overall U.S. carbon output?

2. "Ideas" on how the U.S. can get the rest of the world to reduce global carbon emissions, or possibly reduce overall global carbon output? (Note: This is the one you're going to need if you believe that the greenhouse gas tipping point is near or already past.)

3. Something else?

What's your goal?

If it's #2, I don't think it's possible without a Deus ex Machina on the order of aliens landing and ordering us to mend our ways, with their superscientific help.

#1 could be doable, but probably not at the pace and rate of decrease that KIKI has proposed. Obama's plan is a good start.

You seem to think I'm against reducing carbon emissions in the U.S., but I'm not, and I'll tell you why.

Fossil fuel is a finite resource, and it's getting used up fast. A move to remove greenhouse gasses, even if if will not reduce global carbon one bit (And I've stated why I don't think it will) will have the benefit of reducing energy consumption and bringing online more renewable energy sources. Once we get over the unreasonable fear of nuclear energy and get some well-designed and safe plants up and running(Yeah. I know. Just take it as read for the sake of argument.), in concert with renewables, hydropower, and reductions in consumption, we'll be in a better position when the coal, oil, and natural gas run out.


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 6:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well, there seems to be a lot of "cross thread posting", which is fine except it makes it hard to track where a point is coming from, or going to.

From the other thread, you made the point -
Quote:

I often find that statement, or something similar, in discussions here and elsewhere. It seems to me to be the same wishful thinking as "If you believe it, you can fly", but expanded to "If everyone would just believe it, we could all fly"


It fits in with your argument here:
Quote:

Could this be because you don't have any real solutions yourself? That you know that the problem is not amenible to solution, but hope that "If you wish hard enough you can fly"?... .


My response to that, in the other thread, was
Quote:

If you don't think that can occur, then you can hardly support the idea of a Libertarian society.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=55522

First of all, as I've said- oh probably about a dozne times by now- I'm not looking for solutions, or proposals. I'm simply trying to spark ideas. AND BY THE WAY, EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO JOIN IN! This isn't supposed to be a grudge-match between Geezer and me.

I was going to wait until the coming weekend, but let me give you some examples of various ideas that have ocurred to me:

It seems we have several large problems, one of them is lack of jobs and the other is climate shift. What prevents us (the government) from hiring large numbers of people to do the climate-directed remediation?:

Careful and selective forest thinning to biochar, and better fire prevention

Redeveloping wetlands which not only retain nutrients from being washed into the ocean but also act as even better carbon sinks than forestland

Pre-planting a variety of heat-resistant plant further north to act as nuclei for the transition of biomes

Retrofitting old houses to be more energy-efficient.

Rebuilding and replanting barrier islands, and re-planting those stagnant dysfunctional estuaries which are currently transitioning from freshwater to saltwater, going thru a rotting-vegetation stage which is not productive for either regime.

These kinds of jobs require hands-on, job-creating work. (Elsewhere, Geezer asked: Should we revert to manual labor when we have automation to do things for us? My response was: Why not? You don't have to dump EVERY piece of machinery, but you can do it selectively).

The bars to this are: Well, people like Geezer just don't like the government doing ANYTHING. Also, there is the problem of spending. Corporations would object. But these are very "decisional" points: people have "decided" on various activities, there is nothing inherently impossible in any of them, and supportive scientific papers on all of them. All of these represent real investments in reducing futire costs and improving future outcomes, they're simply investments that corporations are unwilling to make.

We could reduce military spending and invest, in an active and conscious way, to not only to mitigate climate chnage but also to prepare for the coming problems. The problems are actually rather simple to solve (at least mentally) if one is willing to let go of old ideas.

Or we could direct market forces to do some of our work for us. Right now, corporations and nations are rewarded for maximum profit by a series of "free-trade" agreements, supported by law, which require decisions to be made on a pure profit basis, despite the fact that total costs may go up as long as they're "externalized" to society or the environment at large. But these are decision points. It's not as if we are wishing to fly (an impossibility without aircraft). There is nothing physically impossible, or even counter-productive to human happiness and development.

Laws can change if goals change. What if we were to trade food for energy efficient goods? What if we were to trade energy assistance for stablized populations? What if we were to implement a carbon tax? The USA is still a large economic actor, and energy, population, and environment policies can go a long way towards influencing nations in new directions. After all, it's not as if we haven't invaded other nations before to support corporatism (framed as "anti-communism"), why do we think we should be so pure in this regard?

Anyway, I have to go. I have a lot more ideas. I'll save them for later.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 11:16 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I think a really big issue has been corporate responsibility. Until fairly recently, corporations made money, sometimes an incredible amount of it, but give very little back, or at least a lot of them, including taxes. apart from bits of regulation, there was little requirement for responsibility around environmental mess they have caused directly or indirectly. There only impetus has been profit, the bigger the better, that's where CEOs are rewarded by their enormous renumeration packages. While profit remains the bottom line of success, everything else is expendable, including the environment. I could also add that there are many other casualties along the way, humane working conditions, nation building et al.

When legislation such as carbon taxes are introduced, the wailing that happens is around the impact on profit. The conventional thinking is that lower profits means economic disaster and higher profits mean more jobs. On one level that is true. A company needs to be earning enough to employ and grow, but there comes a point where super profits just go back to shareholders and company directors.

Anyway, no solutions, just some thoughts.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 11:44 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.



Interesting that you left out the bit where I said I didn't think this was likely.




So you're sticking to your libertarianism, even though you've already admitted that not one country on Earth has ever used it as a foundation of government, you admit it's unlikely ever to happen, you've got zero plan to try to convince people or push your agenda...

... but you just still like talking about it?


Huh. So I have to ask at this point...

Why are you busting Kiki and Signy's chops for bringing up climate change?

Are you the only one who's allowed to daydream about an ideal world, or suggest that maybe we should be pushing towards such a thing?

I mean, how do you expect libertarian beliefs to win out if China, India, the EU, and others aren't on board?

Apparently you choose your unwinnable battles based purely on a whim.



"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 11:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


All thoughts welcome, solutions not required!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 2, 2013 12:13 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Geezer seems to have fallen into the age-old trap of looking for someone to come up with The One Magic Solution. He's looking for someone to come up with a single step that solves 100% of the problem. That's like thinking that you can begin your thousand-mile journey be starting at your destination.


I've been saying this for years: There isn't one single monolithic perfect solution. That holds true for pretty much any Big Problem you're ever going to face. To go chasing the magic bullet is to set yourself up for disappointment and failure. If you put all your money on the 100% solution and fail, you have one hundred percent failure and zero help.

Instead, look for a hundred different one-percent solutions. Look for all the tiny things you can do, right now or in the immediate future, and start doing them. None does much, all do something.

If you start looking at a hundred small solutions, and half of them fail, you're still halfway there.



"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL