"The debate over the best ways to fight climate change has clear parameters. If you are a Democratic candidate for president, you believe climate change is an existential threat not only to the United States but to human civilization. You believe the country needs to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 at the very latest. And there are certain policies you can’t avoid if you want to get there.
Pretty much everyone wants a moratorium on oil and gas leases on public lands. Pretty much everyone wants to create incentives for more sustainable farming practices. And everyone wants to rejoin the Paris climate accord — though the candidates’ proud declarations on that front irritated Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey.
“I’m sorry,” he said. “That is, like, a cost of entry even to run for president or talk about the presidency.”
Most of the candidates also support some form of putting a price on carbon emissions, at least in theory. But their level of specificity varies: Andrew Yang, the tech entrepreneur, knows exactly how much he wants to charge per ton of carbon dioxide, while Ms. Klobuchar wants to see who controls Congress before deciding whether to pursue a tax or a cap-and-trade program or something else.
One thing is certain: All of the candidates want to spend money, and lots of it — money for clean energy research, money to develop carbon-capture technologies, money to expand public transportation, and money to help communities withstand the effects of climate change already underway."
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2019/democ … ate-change
Since the GOP isn't currently even talking about climate change, I have no recent summary of the party's position. The RNC platform in 2016 called for dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency as it currently existed and, of course, abolishing the Clean Power Plan, Obama's plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
I suppose we can get a clue of how Republicans feel about climate change by looking at what the Trump administration has done: leaving the Paris climate agreement, weakening methane regulations, freezing fuel efficiency standards, eliminating the Clean Power Plan (no surprise!, that was in the GOP platform, and Obama did it), promoting drilling on public lands,and allowing offshore oil and gas drilling in almost all U.S. coastal waters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/clim … rsing.html
I believe this could be a defining issue in the coming election, as more Americans see the effects of climate change happening in their own back yards. And big climate events like the burning of the Amazon rainforest and massive, slow moving hurricanes like Dorian will also magnify this issue for people who might not normally pay attention. We are seeing how the Democrats are responding to the threat of climate change. Will the GOP continue on their current course of reversing environmental protections and denying man's impact on the climate? Is this issue important to you, and will it be a major deciding factor in who you want as President and who represents you in Congress?
No, it will not be a major factor deciding who to vote for, but it could be a major factor concerning who not to vote for.
Translation: I think it is an important mitigation consideration, I don't want a candidate that will ignore it, but I don't want a candidate that endorses, (only for understandable illustration), an extreme AOC-type platform.
How do you feel about the reversal of environmental protections that had been put in place by previous administrations? I expect it would continue under a Trump administration, but do you think it would also continue under any other GOP administration?
Some reversals I can agree with. Without recalling specifics there were many areas where I think the EPA over-reached. Sometimes to the point of being silly.
However, there are several major reversals I disagree with, such as the reversal of vehicle emissions restrictions. I don't think a different GOP administration would be as extreme in its actions. (always the optimist)
I wish we could parse two issues from "Climate Change" which would be Pollution and Global Warming (extreme weather).
We have a major Pollution issue, plastics in the oceans will reach toxic levels and begin poisoning food supplies soon enough, this should be a major issue... call it Planet Poisoning because that is what we are doing to our food and water resources.
A Secondary issue to that would be deforestation, especially what is occuring with the Amazon right now, not a good thing.
When it comes to "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" there is so much impacting what is occurring with our weather that is beyond our control.
Those who are truly interested in learning more about this particular topic and where Earth is headed should watch the movie below, it is filled with interesting information:
In short, we should want to end air pollution because of the damage those chemicals are doing to our lungs, our food and water. We should want to do away with plastics because they do not decompose and break down in nature, and are a threat to reach toxic levels in the food chain.
Focusing on the real and measurable problems should be enough.
If only makes sense if you honestly care about the natural environment is to vote Green party. The other two, only know how to destroy it.
It is grossest thing that I can imagine then to have these two wings of the same vulture hypnotize people. They are lobbist corporation who polute the world most. The Green party won't collect from lobbyist because they know it's wrong.
Once North America had more bears living than people before Washington arrival. There has not been a third party elected (like the Green party) since Washington.
Today mammals mass weight is 96% human and their livestock. What a kind of horrible environmentist rap-sheet these two BS vulture have, dose that mean the public suck too?
Sorry, but you forgot the light bulbs! You know, that make you look better.
True. And did you know that conservatives are less likely to buy a light bulb if it is labeled environmentally friendly?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news … -labeling/
Maybe companies should take a cue from the Trump administration and label things the opposite of what they are.
Ha! I was skeptical until I read your link. Now I am only skeptical because of the inferred message of your comment.
It seemed to be a balanced article. Besides the "Conservative" determination, it also noted that price was an obvious influencer because when all prices were equal, Conservatives chose the energy-efficient choice. It also noted that some of the resistance may be a residual of early years when Environmentally Green products were overly expensive and didn't perform as promised.
So there! The decision-making influencers weren't just political leaning. Their wallet and past experiences seemed to be big factors too.
Well, the issue is a little complex. Conservatives would have saved money in the long run with the environmentally friendly bulbs, and their buying behavior was altered by the label. Conservatives basically chose to lose money in the long run to avoid buying something labeled environmentally friendly. That's how I read it, anyway.
"But when the study represented retail realities, that more efficient options carry a higher up-front price tag (though consumers save money in the long run through lowered utility bills), fewer conservatives were willing to pay the extra cash for bulbs labeled as good for the environment.
"Our results demonstrated that a choice that wasn't ideologically polarizing without a ("protect the environment") label became polarizing when we included that environmental labeling," Gromet said. "We saw a significant drop-off in conservative people choosing to buy a more expensive, energy-efficient option."
The explanation, Gromet suggests, could lie in labeling a consumer choice to represent values that simply aren't shared by all buyers—in this case the environmental issue of reducing carbon emissions."
This has to be one of the silliest "studies" I've seen yet.
Equally priced bulbs produce purchases of the efficient one regardless of ideology.
Higher priced bulbs, with an environmental sticker, produce lower purchases from conservatives. And therefore we know that it was because of the sticker, not the price.
Is this really how liberals reason? Simply draw conclusions they want to be true without regard to other factors or reality? I find that hard to believe.
I have no idea whether it was "liberals" who conducted the study. As for the silliness of the study, it is common for companies to study what influences consumers to purchase products. This study was done by a university. If one is trying to encourage consumers to purchase products that are better for the environment, wouldn't one want to know if something as basic as how it is labeled is a positive or negative influence? I don't think it's silly at all.
Setting aside this "silly" study, are you comfortable with the current GOP effort to dismantle environmental protections? Do you want those efforts to continue, resulting in more deregulation? Will climate change be a factor in who you prefer as President or who represents you in Congress?
Like GA, I agree with some of them and disagree with others. I think we've gone way overboard in some cases and probably not far enough in others.
But on the whole, I'm satisfied with our efforts to be green, at least in a very general sense, and climate change will not be a factor...unless some whacko runs that wants to destroy our culture and economy, returning us to the point of horses and wood burning fireplaces for heat. That would definitely prick my consciousness on the matter! And yes, we've already seen some in congress proposing to do just that.
The old lightbulb conspiracy revenge. Make a cluster f of throw away products for dimwits.
Here again, an example of twisting facts, or creating falsehood.
What they found was this:
"Political divisions appeared in purchasing choices—but not until price became an issue. When all bulbs were priced the same, every participant save one chose the energy-efficient option regardless of political persuasion."
In essence the study showed that "Liberals" were willing to pay more for a bulb if it was labeled energy-efficient, and "Conservatives" just wanted the cheapest bulb and weren't willing to pay extra for the energy-efficient labeled one.
You could turn that into all sorts of things... maybe it shows that "Liberals" are easily duped, all you have to do is put a label stating it is energy-efficient and they will buy it, even if it costs double. Maybe it shows "Conservatives" don't believe it makes a difference, and they want to save money and buy the cheapest bulb.
What the "study" proved in fact, is that politics don't matter to "Conservatives" they will buy what is cheapest. Where-as those looking to 'save-the-planet' would spend substantially more, if you slap a saving-the-planet label on it.
That's about the way I read it, too. I'd add that conservatives may doubt the "cost savings" of a high priced bulb - certainly I've yet to have an LED bulb last the 10 years they advertise.
I grow cannabis and microgreens for great profit with the most efficient light system out there, for duration and energy savings ligh- led. Trump bulbs sign off is about as crappy as he is. It will take a lot more than crappy bulbs, nukes, standing by a tree or ice cubes from Vegas hotels to save us from Trump's claim hoax of Global warming.
What type of lightbulb is that? I need all the help I can get.
by savvydating 10 days ago
Is climate change a threat to our existence? If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization? What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change? How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics? Do you believe Al Gore? What are your thoughts...
by AdsenseStrategies 12 years ago
Gwynne Dyer is well-known around the world as a military-political analyst, who publishes columns in newspapers in many different countries. He interviewed the military on their view of climate change. He asserts that, even under Bush, the Pentagon and British military have been planning for it......
by ptosis 7 years ago
Geoengineering to reverse global climate change: good or bad idea?Scary? Or maybe filling the sky with chemicals that would partially block the sun would be a solution? Or is it too risky & fraught with potential unintended consequences? What would be worse? Global warming or a...
by Ralph Deeds 10 years ago
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/v … olls-video
by SparklingJewel 13 years ago
here's a sensationalized Jessie Ventura "Conspiracy Theory" episode on climate change--its summation is not that climate change is not true, but that it is being used to make money for elitists around the worldcheck it out...lots of good information...Ventura is a hoot in how he speaks so...
by Sychophantastic 9 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|