https://www.theblaze.com/news/environmen...mate-scare

I know it’s the blaze but this is a really good read. I plan on getting this book and reading more about the topic but I’m glade someone is finally admitting the environmental apocalypse is a shame. Now maybe we can really talk about ways to keep the planet clean and prosperous without the extreme hyperbole that we’re running out of time. Looking at you AOC, 12 years huh?

---

https://www.theblaze.com/news/environmen...mate-scare

I know it’s the blaze but this is a really good read. I plan on getting this book and reading more about the topic but I’m glade someone is finally admitting the environmental apocalypse is a shame. Now maybe we can really talk about ways to keep the planet clean and prosperous without the extreme hyperbole that we’re running out of time. Looking at you AOC, 12 years huh?

It's important to note that Shellenberger is not a climate change denier, nor is he an anti-environmentalist or reactionary or libertarian.  He is an "eco-pragmatist."  

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/boo...22123.html

"Eco-pragmatism takes on the most critical controversies in environmental law today: how to weigh economic costs against environmental quality and human life, how to assess the long time horizons of environmental problems, and how to make appropriate decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty about the scope of environmental problems."

I think I am an eco-pragmatist, too.  I believe in the theory of man-made climate change, and I believe it will do great harm to civilization, but on the other hand, I think the Green New Deal is ridiculous and completely un-workable and unaffordable.  To me, the correct path to take is not to retreat from climate change with economy-punishing measures that do more harm than good, but rather to go forward and through the climate change disaster.   We can't avoid it, so we must go through it and get past it.  

I actually think that if you look at what climate scientists have been saying for many years, it is not the apocalyptic vision of the future that many on the left would paint.  It's a pretty mainstream line of thought- that climate change is going to do great harm, but in the end, human ingenuity will help us to muddle through and avoid at least part of the damage.  We'll survive and be better.  There will be losers and winners.  It will be a gigantic slow-motion disaster but we will somehow get through it.  

Shellenberger also cowrote the "Ecomodernist Manifesto."  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecomoderni..._Manifesto

---

I can respect this point of view, and it’s valid the points he makes. The biggest problem is Not climate change deniers (the climates going to do whatever regardless if people groove it or not) it’s the alarmist that keep incorrectly predicting the apocalypse as an excuse to take power.

Really can’t wait to dig into this guys book and read more from his perspective a complete different perspective then what I’m used too.

---

This is actually a pretty smart tactic. By acknowledging that environmentalists have over-exaggerated the impact of climate change, I think it will open up people who are opposed to the idea because they think Democrats are using it as a power grab. If that happens, we can have a real discussion about the best methods to reduce our impact on the environment.

I think climate change is real, but I have been very reluctant to embrace it as apocalyptic. Rhetoric goes both ways, but this is one of those tools the democrats have used to advance their platform and gain power. I think Republicans are foolish to ignore the data in its entirety.

---

Using renewables makes obvious economic sense on a planet with finite resources. Even if you think climate change is all made up after reading an online blog or your favourite fox news personality.

---

A carbon tax is a solution that will reduce the amount of climate change we have to deal with down the road. And it's pragmatic, if we cut other taxes while we implement it.
In the 19th century, the socialists described the world as it was, at least in England and northern Europe, and said, "we can create a utopia where none of these problems exist."
Now that the capitalists have borrowed some of the socialists' ideas, and solved some of the other problems without any help at all from the socialists, the socialists of today have to preach impending doom to get us to listen to them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm an "environmentalist" to the point where I try to be a good steward of the land that I own.  As far as "climate change" or "global warming", I don't really believe in it.  The immediate knee-jerk reaction of our resident liberal (mikesez) much like all of the other democrats is to impose a "carbon tax" which solves nothing.  Should I be taxed when I do a controlled burn on my property?  Which is more harmful to our environment?  The burn that I do or not doing it?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm an "environmentalist" to the point where I try to be a good steward of the land that I own.  As far as "climate change" or "global warming", I don't really believe in it.  The immediate knee-jerk reaction of our resident liberal (mikesez) much like all of the other democrats is to impose a "carbon tax" which solves nothing.  Should I be taxed when I do a controlled burn on my property?  Which is more harmful to our environment?  The burn that I do or not doing it?

Actually, the Democratic Party opposes a carbon tax.
Their mainstream opinion favors cap and trade, like the Kyoto protocol tried to do. And their fringe, now led by AOC, also favors a regulation based scheme, but where the "cap" keeps going down until it's eventually zero.

As to your question, no. The carbon tax would be more like an income tax, where the tax man can ignore the small potatoes.
At about $20 per metric ton, or $0.20 per gallon of gas, your controlled burn is not going to amount to much either way.

It's definitely a worthwhile question to ask if the environment's better off with you doing it versus not doing it. I definitely think the environment is there to serve us and make us comfortable. I definitely think a controlled burn that protects your home and that prevents a future uncontrolled forest fire is a good idea. The problem is the world is going to get less comfortable in the near future if we don't get our carbon emissions under control now.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Nobody knows what's going to happen. There's evidence that suggests increased climate could reduce desertification. Increased evaporation creates more rainfall. It just doesn't disappear.

---

Read the article this environmentalist is saying hyperbole used to push agendas like the carbo tax are counter productive, more harm is done financially than any environmental gain. His argument is industrialization has lead to less environments harm not more and it should be encouraged not punished.

I also like renewable energy but he points out with current technology renewable energy would increase land use required to produce energy and be more harmful.

---

The dust storm caused more pollution than the last 50 years or something like that a headline said.

While yes we should try to take care not to harm the earth as much as possible, but climate change isn't real. The earth can handle volcanoes, huge fires, etc. Sure you can kill the local environment, but it will survive and cleanse itself. Once technology catches up and makes it practical, people will move to greener things, so focus on that and stop trying to make people switch to it before it even works. You can't make the leftist rich who own all the companies that do nothing and make nothing without taxing people to give them free money.

---

Nobody knows what's going to happen. There's evidence that suggests increased climate could reduce desertification. Increased evaporation creates more rainfall. It just doesn't disappear.

Actually, with increased temperature, the amount of water vapor that has to be in the air before clouds can form increases. The water vapor, while it is detained in the air this way, absorbs even more infrared radiation than the CO2 molecules do. 
when a cloud finally forms, it has much more water vapor in it than it did back when temperatures were colder.
So the immediate, local result is longer droughts and more intense thunderstorms. Unirrigated agriculture is going to have a hard time coping with it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't know about climate change or global warming but I can say with absolute certainty that the sky above me looks [BLEEP] disgusting. If we could clean that up a bit I wouldn't mind.

---

I can respect this point of view, and it’s valid the points he makes. The biggest problem is Not climate change deniers (the climates going to do whatever regardless if people groove it or not) it’s the alarmist that keep incorrectly predicting the apocalypse as an excuse to take power.

Really can’t wait to dig into this guys book and read more from his perspective a complete different perspective then what I’m used too.

I think climate change deniers are like flat-earthers.  They are more and more irrelevant.  They're just off in their own little corner talking among themselves, dreaming up conspiracy theories and demonizing the scientific community, while most people have moved on to the relevant question, which is, what can we do, what will work, what can we afford, etc.  

Personally, I am pretty sure it's not going to wipe out the human race.  It might be pretty bad, and as usual the billions of poor people around the world will bear the brunt of it.  But it's happening so slowly, I am pretty sure we can muddle through and come out the other side somehow.   We can safely assume we're not willing to cripple our economy and way of life, so what will happen is a whole lot of ways we get through it.  Sea walls, moving off the coastline and out of flood prone areas, low-lying cities abandoning the ground floor of buildings, installing pumping systems, and thousands of other things.  I believe in human ingenuity and adaptability.

---

I feel the same, more or less.

---