Posted on 09/06/2019 5:06:24 AM PDT by Krosan
The idea that all life on this planet is in jeopardy if America doesn’t wean itself from fossil fuels is just hyperbole. ‘Climate change is an existential crisis,” Senator Elizabeth Warren declared Tuesday, unveiling her plan to fight climate change in advance of CNN’s interminable townhall event on the topic with ten Democratic presidential candidates.
The use of the term “existential crisis” is ironic. No doubt, they mean “existential threat,” i.e. that global warming threatens to end life on earth. It doesn’t. But we’ll get back to that in a second.
The term “existential crisis” comes from psychology or philosophy, not environmental science. An existential crisis is when you’re overcome with panic or dread about your place in the world or your purpose in the universe. If you’re depressed and ask “What’s it all about?” you might be having an existential crisis.
A giant asteroid barreling toward earth is an existential threat, midlife adultery is a sign of an existential crisis.
The irony is that concern over climate change — which is a real and legitimate concern — seems derived more from an existential crisis than from an existential threat.
At the CNN event, many of the Democratic candidates insisted that life on earth was at stake. Warren said climate change is an “existential threat” that “threatens all life on this planet.” According to Senator Bernie Sanders, “We are dealing with what the scientists call an existential threat to this planet, and we must respond aggressively; we must listen to the scientists. That is what our plan does.”
That’s not true. Our quality of life on earth might be threatened, but our existence isn’t. Now, of course, something can come up far short of an extinction-level event and still be really, really bad. But the idea that all life on this planet is in jeopardy if America doesn’t wean itself from fossil fuels is just hyperbole. And even if America did exactly that, there’s little reason to believe the rest of the world would follow suit.
Still, if we take them literally, not just seriously, they’re saying we’re doomed if we don’t implement some version of the Green New Deal — a sweeping, wildly expensive hodgepodge of proposals first unveiled by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that aims to eliminate carbon emissions inside of twelve years.
And yet, both Sanders and Warren (and others) are against using nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions. “In my administration, we won’t be building new nuclear plants,” Warren declared. “We will start weaning ourselves off nuclear and replace it with renewables,” by 2035. Sanders called nuclear power a “false solution” and vowed to end it.
It’s an odd argument. Sanders says we must “listen to the scientists,” but there are scads of scientists who think nuclear-waste storage is eminently manageable, including the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. They report that the “consensus” is that safe geological storage is entirely feasible.
More importantly, if you honestly believe that climate change is an existential threat, akin to an impending asteroid strike, why would you rule out one of the only proven tools to combat it? It’s a bit like refusing to use a firehose on a burning orphanage because you’re afraid of the subsequent water damage.
There are plenty of people who despise nuclear weapons and want to see them eradicated. But it would be hard to take such people seriously if they argued against sending nuclear missiles into deep space to head off an extinction-level asteroid impact.
All the Green New Deal proposals are sold as huge economic bonanzas, offering lavish subsidies for displaced workers, socialized medicine, and other improvements to our quality of life.
And this is what I mean by the existential crisis underlying the alleged existential threat of climate change.
According to the Washington Post, in July, Saikat Chakrabarti, who then was Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, admitted that “the interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” The Post reported that, in a meeting with Governor Jay Inslee (D., Wash.), Chakrabarti said, “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
Climate change is not the hoax that some claim it is. But to the extent that it’s a crisis, people like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Warren want to use it as an excuse to radically transform the American economy and political system along lines that have less to do with climate change and much to do with their ideological animosity to the status quo.
And when the fight against climate change conflicts with their fight for “social justice,” it’s climate change that takes a backseat.
Goldberg is a kool-ade drinking idiot.
That is all modern environmentalism has ever been - a Front for Communism - Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
It is a hoax with millions of years (i.e. ice cores showing much higher CO2 levels than we have now) of scientific evidence to disprove it.
“Climate change is not the hoax that some claim it is. “
Yes.it.is. And you are a never Trumper idiot.
Stopped clock.
Watermelons.
The “climate change” advocates remind me of the nuclear freeze “protesters” of the 1980s. After the Soviet Union fell and the Venona cables were discovered, it became clear that (as long suspected by those of us on the right) the nuclear freeze movement was contrived and funded by the Soviets to push their agenda of disarming America. Similarly, the climate change hysteria is merely a front for a globalist, leftist agenda to weaken America economically, redistribute its wealth, and usher in a world government.
Tariffs on China and India and cutting back on use on massive cargo ships (which means making more stuff in America so they aren’t needed) would do more for environment that removing plastic straws.
Who made politicians running for President and liberals on T.V. experts on the environment? Most of these talking heads memorize talking points, with no understanding of the subject matter.
The natural process of climate change, which has existed for as long as the earth, is not a hoax. But the notion that humans cause climate change as a result of improving their standards of living, is.
CNN had 7 hours of free advertising for Democrat candidates to come before the world and present their solution to fix climate change.
This is what the solutions were. All of which will cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars with to ROI.
1. Tax anyone who earns a paycheck.
2. Get rid of the only energy source that is cheap and clean.
3. Pay foreign governments to offer free abortion to women who want them.
Here’s the solution I would have proposed. Every country is held accountable to clean up their water resources. They have 5 years to do it or else they lose American funding. Every country is held accountable to clean up their air pollution. They have 5 years to do it or else they lose American funding.
After 5 years we will create a new baseline.
“But the notion that humans cause climate change as a result of improving their standards of living, is.“
Bingo. If actual climate change ever ceases, it will probably herald the end of Earth’s ability to support life.
The proper response to climate change (which is real) is - adapt.
If walking barefoot over gravel exposes the sole of your foot to injury, it has been found that putting leather between the sole of your foot and the gravel eliminates the potential for injury to your foot.
The liberal solution would be to lay down great sheets of leather everywhere there is gravel and people are inclined to walk. But the much better solution would be to cut out pieces of leather, the size and general shape of the sole of the foot, and secure these pieces of leather by means of thongs or straps of some kind to the foot. Much more economical use of the supply of leather, and it would not be necessary to go on ahead beforehand and lay down the leather to cover over the gravel.
Did anybody stop to think where the leather comes from?
Can you read u need apologize for that post
Why?
It is a hoax and he is a never Trumper
He was quoting the post above that is what italics were abojt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.