How did politics become the climate change debate?

My Opinion, Observations on life 18 comments

I recently had a friend tell me there is no data demonstrating climate change. His political views are solidly in the Trump camp. At the other end of the spectrum are some on the far left who want all fossils fuel banned now.

Of course there is climate change, some a natural phenomenon and much from human action- all humans, in all countries, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, not conservatives and not liberals.

It is such a stupid debate. No matter who is right or wrong why wouldn’t we want to reduce pollution that certainly does us no good?

Having said that we need to approach change is a logical, strategic manner. Proclamations we will be all electric vehicles in six years are absurd.

We must consider sources of raw materials, the impact of acquiring them, the global political implications, disposal of batteries and much more. We must also consider the impact on the entire fossil industry and all that is linked to it.

This is a global issue, a humanity issue, not the USA next election issue.

Politicians who dismiss the issue or cite false claims are no help. There are facts to consider, let’s consider them, evaluate them. The fact that we are talking about negative impacts over many decades doesn’t lesson the problems, but no doubt makes our ability to address climate change for future generations much more difficult when we are focused on selfish short-self interests.

Knock off the nonsense- focus

18 comments

  1. Pingback: Lights out, you ain’t goin nowhere – QUINNSCOMMENTARY

  2. Now that home insurers are pulling out of areas of Florida and California due to updated risk assessments – something is going on. 100 year old full grown sauguaros are dying in the Phoenix area from lack of rain. Think about that. Cactus plants that evolved to thrive in a harsh environment aren’t making it. I also vote for nuclear power plus hopefully figuring out a technology to scrub carbon from air.

    Like

    Reply

  4. It does not matter what the USA does to fight climate change, when we give a pass to India and China, who continue to build and operate Coal fired power generation. We have much bigger problems than climate change to deal with and they are not being addressed by either political party. Homelessness, poverty, infrastructure, government and private debt bomb that may in the future collapse the whole economy. I saw a report that there are 186 banks in the US that are close to default. The FED keeps saying that our banking system is sound, but we will not know it is not, until after the crash. EVs would not even be selling if there was not a tax break involved. They put the cart before the horse on the EV side. Not enough charging stations, people waiting hours in CA to charge at a Tesla charging station.
    Telling people in TX not to plugin and charge because it is summer and charging + A/C = grid cannot handle it. I will never own an EV, I drive less than 7,000 miles per year, so I could never recoup the cost of an EV in fuel savings. My 3 year old Ford Edge with just 30,000 miles on it, will be my last car. Most people do not realize that they could save just as much by conserving the current energy that they use as buying an EV. Just cut out unnecessary trips, adjust water heater, and furnace thermostats and turn off lights that you are not using.

    Like

    Reply

  6. It is a shame that the partisanship prevents most Americans from seeing the very real progress over the last ten years, that has benefitted everyone. This includes solar power and wind power prices now much more competitive than fossil fuels, huge advances in battery technology, and relative energy independence from America as opposed to the former vulnerability to OPEC. Despite the doomerism of the extreme left and the anti-science of the MAGA crowd, if we stay the course and continue to make practical and rational decisions, we will likely have a future of energy abundance and eventually make progress towards the long term goal of decarbonization. Do not be swayed by the other comments from people who who would gladly sacrifice the prosperity of our future generations just to give a middle finger to the “other side”. Every generation has had its Luddites and people unwilling to embrace technological change.

    Like

    Reply

  7. It seems you’ve staked out your position on the problem and what is necessary to be done. That means you agree with the governmental solutions posed by one segment of the political spectrum. Those solutions are seen as radical by people such as myself. I don’t believe the climate issue is as severe or the solutions are anything but harmful in the long run. Therefore I have to stand opposed to you and the ilk you align with on this issue. That is why there is such a deep divide between Dems and Republicans. You stake out what you believe the problem and the solution is and then throw in with the side that suits you and shout stop the nonsense, agree with me. This is why Trump has support, you offer no compromise.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I think you may be a victim of fear mongering and disinformation. What radical changes are you referring to? Do you realize that the US is the number one oil producer in the world and produced a record amount of oil in 2022. Because we realize that we still need it until the technology and infrastructure is all there for a complete switch to cleaner energy.

      The alternative energy sources we already have now (solar, wind, etc) give us more grid resilience and protect against price fluctuations in the world market. Where is the downside to that? It seems to be that the US has done a great job finding a middle way of making gradual changes while not disrupting the economy. What you are describing as radical would be if the government had banned all gasoline vehicles or use of fossil fuels. That is simply not the case.

      So this really gets back to the same misinformation issue. I suspect that if we discussed just facts, we would probably agree on 99 percent, because we are presumably both Americans who want the best for the country.

      Like

      Reply

    2. What government solutions? Moving to renewable sources of energy? What is radical, how are you impacted negatively? How is moving to renewables harmful even if the issue isn’t as severe as some say, and how can that be determined based on a belief as opposed to data? ARE YOU SAYING THERE IS NO NEED TO DO ANYTHING and if not, do what? The government has issued emission standards for cars for decades, is that too a bad government solution?

      Like

      Reply

      1. You haven’t been paying attention. The government solution is the shift to 100% renewables with no consideration for nuclear power. If that were feasible, we would have the private sector doing it now without billions in government subsidies. Change is proposed at what cost dollarwise to us. You don’t think that it won’t be harmful if your money goes to windmills and solar panels instead of the many current infrastructure needs and other social needs. How do you know that there is a need to change our economy almost immediately due to what, CO2. The emission standards for cars were a good thing along with other standards for water and other products. That is different than overhauling the entire economy because some guys think the sky is falling. The earth has had ice ages and warming periods before, and it couldn’t have been because I drive a vehicle with an ICE engine and heat my house with natural gas. You can follow the lemmings but don’t try to drag me over the cliff with the climate change hustlers.

        Like

      2. Mini nuclear plants are under development. The private sector is heavily involved in wind and solar. Nobody said nor is it possible to change immediately. It’s a very long term change which is why it is difficult to get people to focus.

        Like

  8. If requiring electric vehicles is “absurd”, as you say, there in lies the key to the debate. The absurd is what is upon us. The recommendations are not the answers, just the abyss of conformity and control.

    Like

    Reply

    2. I didn’t say that at all. I said proclamations we will be all electric in six years is absurd. Conformity and control? You’re kidding? Does your car have safety features required, emission standards, inspection requirements, do they use use unleaded fuel? Is all that just bad conformity and control?

      Like

      Reply

Leave a Reply