The posters here who disagree can cherry pick all the scientists they choose to fit their agenda of having their heads in the sand, but that doesn't change the sad reality that **** is really bad right now in the Earth's atmosphere -- and it's not getting better, unless we make some serious changes.
Greenland Flash Thaw Part of Natural Cycle?
Lora Koenig, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, noted that such events are known to have happened before, in the pre-satellite era.
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average," with the last one happening in 1889, Koenig, a member of the NASA team analyzing the satellite data, said in a statement.
Scientists estimate that if all of Greenland's ice sheet were to melt, the global sea level would rise by 23 feet (7 meters).
"To be perfectly clear, that is not what we're seeing," Mote said. "Greenland is losing mass, but it would take a very long time to lose all of that mass."
Serious changes - I do not expect a new governing body to dictate behavior. I hope that the U.S. government can, in the very near future, start taking more serious measures to help combat climate change. More funding for alternative energy (non-fossil fuel) research which in effect creates new jobs - win, win. Then harness that alternative energy. Keep raising the prices of gas to encourage more green alternatives. Tax the living hell out of it (I'm sure that'll go over real well in this forum). But that's me. Set up a better rail system in the U.S for better and more efficient long-distance mass transit. Make it cheap so that people use the system. That's just the tip of the iceberg of possibilities. I took a class on sustainability in college and there really are some very easy measures Americans can take to ensure a better future.
Last edited by MCBNY; 07-30-2012 at 02:30 PM.
Funding which must come from Govt. Revenue, which is currently at a Trillion+ Deficit.More funding for alternative energy research which in effect creates new jobs - win, win.
So, new and higher taxes then, and a Green Industry based not on competition and innovation, but Govt. selection of winners/losers.
Ok, so thats part of our higher taxes. Moving on....Keep raising the prices of gas to encourage more green alternatives. Tax the living hell out of it (I'm sure that'll go over real well in this forum).
A massive cost of gargantuan proportions.Set up a better rail system in the U.S for better and more efficient long-distance mass transit. Make it cheap so that people use the system.
Assume that too would be paid for via new/higher taxes?
By all means, please tell us some of the other possabillities.That's just the tip of the iceberg of possibilities. I took a class on sustainability in college and there really are some very easy measures Americans can take to ensure a better future.
Thus far we have higher taxes on Oil to pay for Green Investment and a new Transnational Rail Network, none of which would have an effect on other Nations, only our own.
What tax rates do you think would be required to pay for this in a deficit-neutral form?
Taxes should be raised IMO. I don't know to what extent, but they are too low at the moment. I believe in bigger government obviously, so I don't expect the majority here to agree with me.
Couple these two options together and there's no reason we can't get more efficient as a country, and further, help the Earth.
The problem is a massive increase in Govt. Spending, without an equivalent increase in revenue generation, will only serve to vastly increase the debt further.
One fiscal mistake does not justify another.We obviously had no problem blowing a gazillion dollars to wage two completely useless wars.
As you just noted, the Wars were unbudgeted. Part of our problem at current is the lack of a Federal Budget. As such, we simply spend whatever with far less limit and accountabillity.How about we spend some of the money we would have sunk into Afghanistan and better use it to fund alternative energy? Just brainstorming here.
Well, the problem is you NEED to know how high youw ant to raise it. You don't get to want one thing (massive new spending) without having the same respect and knowledge of what it takes to get that new thing.Taxes should be raised IMO. I don't know to what extent, but they are too low at the moment. I believe in bigger government obviously, so I don't expect the majority here to agree with me.
Your argument loses alot of it's strength and steam if you cannot deliniate what and how you want to raise taxes to fund your ideas. without that, it;s just fantasy. With it, we have someplace to begin debate and discussion, i.e. is projects A & B worth new Tax Rates of X, Y & Z.
it's very easy to say "I want this". ****, I want a Mars Colony.
It's far harder to pay for it. I'd go so far as to say it's less important what youw ant, than it is how you plan to pay for it, and how we (the taxpayers) would feel about it.
Sorry to pick nits, but we're not helping "the Earth". It's not a person, it has no interests of it's own, it's aplanet that will exist with or without us or our help.Couple these two options together and there's no reason we can't get more efficient as a country, and further, help the Earth.
What we're doing (or you wish to do) is maintain an ecological status quo of non-change in the interests of current biodiversity and human interest. Anti-Evolution, if you prefer, human-led actiopn to stop normal evolutionary and climactic processes to maintain the current ones.
Like the lack of abillity to explain the payment side, describing the debate as "helping the Earth" is silly emo-talk. We're aiming to achaive something far more in OUR percieved interests than the planet. The planet could care less, it's a planet.
The value of what we taxpayers get is, obviously, debatable. If it wasn't, we wouldn't all be here debating it.Government funded. Yeah, we have to pay for it with taxes. That's the good thing about taxes - you pay 'em, you get rewarded with great public options.
And thats just the value of what we actually get, not counting the losses incurred to do costs, waste and fraud inherant in the system.
It seems like we are pretty set in our ways, so I'm not gonna continue debating on this topic that's digressed. I admit to not knowing taxes more in depth, so I can't offer you a specific plan in that regard. I'm young and still learning. But I do have strong ideas about taxes in general (that they should be higher).
Just one thing...
As for a lack of knowledge on taxation, well, educate yourself and then answer the question. I maintain that promotion of a policy, without any idea how said policy can and should be paid for, is making only half of an argument, and a weak half at that.
For example, "Hunger is a Problem" is easy. Creating a policy that addresses it, is funded, and is supported by the majority is hard.
The real challenge in Governance is not identifying a problem, it's crafting a sustainable, affordable, funded policy position to address it.
I know exactly what you mean, and again, it's a poor and IMO dishonest emo-directed way of stating the case. You do it again here saying "abuse it less". Abuse implicates that there is some "right way" the planet should be treated, as if it were a sentient being with "human" rights of it's own.You know what I meant though. Okay, we can't help an inanimate object like the whole Earth. But we can abuse it less and in effect that'll help human beings.
Again, people need to stop anthrpomorphisising the argument. There is no "Mother Nature" who needs "protected" from the "abuse" of human.
There is a non-sentient planet that does not care one way or the other how it's used by the organisms living onboard it. We, the organisms, care....which is why a meaningful portion have decided to promote an agenda of anti-evolution and anti-climate change, to "in-effect "freeze" the planets biosphere and climate exactly as it is today forevermore. Our interests, not he planets, and no "abuse" involved wither way.
Accurate arguments are important.