Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewNuclear energy undermines renewable solutions to climate change
"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Any investment put in nuclear is investment taken away from renewable energy, the proven climate change solution. Nuclear energy distracts governments from taking the real global action necessary to tackle climate change and meet people’s energy needs."
Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.
US, Japan, China, Germany, India, and Brazil are among the largest and most powerful countries in the world. This list, and a larger list of G20 states, includes both developed and developing nations. China, India, and Brazil are the most notable large developing nations in the G20. Due to their size, economic power, and emissions (now and in the future), they share an equal responsibility to fight global warming. For the same reason, they share an equal responsibility with developed nations to apply their leadership role in their respective regions to lead the fight against climate change. If they do not, surrounding countries - fearing a loss of competitiveness in particular - will not take strong actions to combat global climate change. Therefore, it is important that all of the most powerful nations in the world - developed or developing - lead their regions in the fight on global climate change.
CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.
I would first recommend reading [The Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf) if you haven't already, its about 14 pages, with huge spacing (about 3-4 real pages). But to summarize the bill in my own words, the Green New Deal calls for essentially every democratic agenda to be passed into law(to include climate change). As a democrat, I agree with most of the agenda items(it's literally the democratic agenda), but there is something wrong with creating a bill like this. By tying together climate change, and a plethora of other issues, like equal protection and rights for illegal immigrants, government-run(?) healthcare for all, etc, it is ensuring intense opposition by non democrats. Since I do not believe any rational human being could read the bill, and think it would get bi partisan support, my view is that there was no real intention of ever getting the bill passed into law/policy. (Sure, the gender wage gap is important, so are Native American rights... But there's no need to make that stand on a climate change bill, and doing so is insulting to the Americans who want to see huge climate change initiatives as our national policy) **The abridged, loose, logical argument:** Premise 1) If you want a bill to get passed into law, when possible, you will write it in a bi partisan way. Premise 2) Climate change can be written in a Bi-Partisan way Premise 3) The Green New Deal was not written in a bi partisan way(or was written in a partisan way). Conclusion) The Green New Deal was not written to be passed into law. (And this disappoints me, because in my opinion, climate change is the #1 issue of my lifetime.) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Edit 1: I learned that the intent of the bill wasn't necessarily to pass something into law, but more of a political statement or some sort of rally cry. Not sure how I feel about that one or what changes, but its worth noting. (its a function of a specific type of house resolution) Edit 2: After reading some of these posts, I now realize that the Green New Deal is actually divisive within the democratic party, and received a (soft) "bipartisan" rejection in the senate. This seems to indicate the increased importance of having a specific targeted bill, as it seemed some senators did not want to go on record supporting it, because of what it said.
Consequences of geoengineering could be worse than climate change
Graeme Wood. "Re-Engineering the Earth." The Atlantic. September 12th, 2010: "as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life. Perhaps more disturbing, it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the The Atlantic. September 12th, 2010: "as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life. Perhaps more disturbing, it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the climate that would hit the globe unevenly. 'Plausibly, 6 billion people would benefit and 1 billion would be hurt,' says Martin Bunzl, a Rutgers climate-change policy expert. The billion negatively affected would include many in Africa, who would, perversely, live in a climate even hotter and drier than before. In India, rainfall levels might severely decline; the monsoons rely on temperature differences between the Asian landmass and the ocean, and sulfur aerosols could diminish those differences substantially."
The Lisbon Treaty pays too little attention to climate change
"An alternative guide to the Lisbon Treaty". Sinn Fein, Liberal Irish political party. - "Climate Change The Irish government has made great play of its “success” in having Sinn Fein, Liberal Irish political party. - "Climate Change The Irish government has made great play of its “success” in having climate change introduced into the Treaty. However, this “addition” amounts to a mere 6 words that do not empower the EU to do anything it could not currently do under existing Treaty provisions. The relevant article states, “promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.” Indeed the current EU Climate Change package is based on the existing provisions. Considering the urgency of the climate change crisis, the fact the Irish government could only secure these six words, and nothing additional to the existing provisions, is an indication of the lack of seriousness in regard to this issue."
Better ways to fight climate change than geoengineering
Lisa Hymas. "We need birth control, not geoengineering." The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; climate change is serious enough that it requires all of our best efforts in all arenas. But it may be that many of the technologies with the most potential for averting climate change already exist -- the Pill, the condom, the IUD. We just need to spread them far and wide. Baby stroller crossed-out in greenGINK: green inclinations, no kidsBetter still, providing contraception to women who lack it is one of the most cost-effective ways to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Each $7 spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a metric ton, while achieving that same reduction with the leading low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32, according to a recent study by the London School of Economics [PDF], commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust."
Mars reveals more to scientists about climate change
Buzz Aldrin. "Commentary: Let's aim for Mars". CNN. June 23, 2009: "Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of June 23, 2009: "Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of climate change, of how planet-wide processes can make a warm and wet world into a barren landscape."
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Developed states have more available money to fight climate change
"Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change
The idea that some countries are more to blame than others for causing global climate change may be true, but it distracts from the more important and just cause, which is for the world to come together to solve the problem.
Developed states have more available money to fight climate change
Developed states obviously have more wealth to employ in combating global warming. These more able countries have a responsibility to employ their available financial resources toward fighting global warming. Developing countries also have this obligation to commit as much as they can, but because they have far fewer available resources, their obligation and commitment will simply be smaller. Developed nations are uniquely obligated to employ these greater available resources in the fight on global climate change.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
"Obligations"/"equality" distract from solving climate change
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Developed states are doing everything they can on climate change
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
States should contribute equally to combating climate change.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
China is worst contributor to climate change; has equal obligations
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Large developing nations are wealthy enough to lead on climate change.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
"Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change
CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.
Legal for who? Because there are absolutely legal ways for people in government to bring real change in the USA. Just because they don't make certain needed changes doesn't mean they aren't possible. I know this sounds like a semantic distinction but it's not. You have to keep in mind that there is no universal law saying, for instance, that politicians have to listen to lobbyists. They choose to do so, and they can choose not to. Just because it isn't simple, because it might harm their future prospects, because in reality it would take a while to untangle the repercussions, doesn't mean they can't choose not to. Saying otherwise is defeatism and downplays their responsibility. Following from that, one legal way to bring real change in the USA for someone currently not in government is to run for office. Which by no means is easy or guaranteed or something everyone wants, and when they're in office they can always, again, just not make the change, but it's been very effective for the Tea Partiers/Trump supporters and the changes they wanted.
CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.
First off, I sort of reject a lot of your premises involving bipartisanship. I don't think there are enough republicans serious about trying to be bipartisan to actually pass any meaningful climate change bills with 60+ votes. If dems try to be bipartisan, it's primarily a stalling tactic by the GOP to ensure that nothing gets done for long enough that they can run on the "look how ineffective the democrats are". Related to this, bipartisanship is *not* the only way to get things done. They can also try to get rid of the filibuster. You can debate whether that's actually a good idea, just like we can debate whether bipartisanship is actually a good idea, but it is a path forward. That said, even to get 50 votes, you still need moderate Democrats like Manchin who are almost certainly unlikely to be interested in the green new deal. So in a sort of roundabout way, I agree with you that it's not realistic right now, although I disagree with your exact reasoning. But I do disagree that that necessarily makes it a "distraction". On this point, I think you have to disentangle two things. There's the green new deal itself, which So in a sort of roundabout way, I agree with you that it's not realistic right now, although I disagree with your exact reasoning. But I do disagree that that necessarily makes it a "distraction". On this point, I think you have to disentangle two things. There's the green new deal itself, which is notably not an actual bill that's currently under consideration to become law, and is more a set of goals. What can actually pass should be a practical consideration when actually legislating, but it's silly to try and argue that people shouldn't even clearly state *what they actually want*. Anything that actually passes will surely be a compromise, bit you don't help your cause in a negotiation by dumbing down your opening offer to try and avoid having to negotiate entirely. You start with what you want and work from there. Now, you could make a strong case that there are democratic figures that treat the green new deal as an all-or-nothing no compromise purity test and use it to attack other Democrats in ways that are pretty unproductive. But that's a critique of those Democrats, not the green new deal itself, which is a pretty accurate platform of what a lot of people on the left genuinely want.
CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.
>c*orruption-* sorry- **lobbyism** People really overestimate how much lobbying is done and also assume that all lobbying is even bad. Would you say people that lobby for BLM are also perpetuate corruption in the system? >A good example is Obama-care which was the idea of free healthcare for everyone, but now isn't free That wasn't the general idea behind obama care.The idea was to cover some people not to be a univeral free healthcare. The only reason people are even currently talking about a universal health care is because of Obama care, it showed people that it's possible to make it a reality in the US. >so that there isn't a discussion about things like minimum wage, healthcare, prisons, police etc. I mean those discussions are literally happening and we have recordings of them, and policies are made from those discussion that are a compromise between what both parties want. People are just to lazy to follow those discussions and rather read twitter headlines / reddit headlines for their news. This remindes me of the [scroll of truth](https://www.google.com/search?q=scroll+of+truth&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ALeKk00nlH7UFp1E8RiOQ-GZ0VMtoREZCg:1611867686919&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxhZ2Hw7_uAhWTPewKHQpjBf0Q_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1680&bih=936#imgrc=wPc1v4HYmJ_tDM) meme where people just throws away the truth for their own believe because the truth does not fit with their narrative. ​ Politics especially on federal level is all about incremental changes that have a end goal which will be achieved in decades, not about changes that will happen tomorrow.
Debate.org
Debatepedia