@orathaic is is always good to ignore argument and rhetoric and label the advocates as crazy and destructive. Very productive way to hold a debate. Is it possible, you are brainwashed and part of a cultish thought process that stifles any opposing viewpoint?

There is no debate Eturnage, you are the only one who seems to think that there is some vast conspiracy involving thousands of scientists from all over the world.

It is ridiculous, and not worth engaging.

You are wasting your time, and all of ours.

There is some truth that ought to be highlighted however

A) emissions generated from Cattle Ranches is a major contributor to emissions and C0'2 - Methane infusion into our atmosphere.

B) Chinese and Indian coal far exceeds harmful emissions to the atmosphere when compared to American emissions.

That being said - us being a leader in climate change is great but no matter what we do China will continue to be the dirtiest worst source of greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the reasons for Paris accords was to set an example of how developed nations hope to proceed to slow the destruction of our polar land ice and stymie rising sea levels / radicalization of our climate from manmade issues.

If US is not a leader on this - China will consider its tactics to be winning.

In 2014 Nasa released this time lapse video showing documented Chinese emissions

http://www.takepart.com/video/2014/11/19/what-does-years-worth-c02-emissions-look-nasa-video-shows-scary-details/

Yes, there is a debate. It is well established by scientists from all over the globe that it would basically take all of human civilization returning to the stone ages to have an impact. Moreover, China and many third world countries, who have been screwed by the West, are not going to take apart their economies. So, there are both practical and realistic objections. The information is freely out there. Keep telling yourself a lie and don't look if you don't want to know (or hear) the truth.

Second, my point is you are directing your efforts in the wrong place. Sustainable agriculture is the best means humans have of changing and making a positive environmental impact. That is undisputed and unequivocable. The chem ag system is unsustainable. I don't know why you won't hear it. The only conclusion. You are part of a cult.

More importantly, sustainable agriculture is available to poor people without the need of government control over our lives. That is why this is not on your agenda.

As someone who has children and lives in a coastal state - how can that possibly be your answer

The cattle ranching issue is bogus. You're only measuring one aspect. If cattle are used properly, as in the mob grazing model used to restore African deserts, they can restore ecosystems and get grass and trees growing in those areas. The net gain when you have a successful restoration of an ecosystem is positive from a carbon sequestration standpoint.

but I don't disagree a confined cattle operation can have a negative economic impact.

@eturnage you said "Manmade global warming is an issue pushed by elites to gain control over energy use."

No it isn't, you're an idiot.

@then you said "es, there is a debate. It is well established by scientists from all over the globe that it would basically take all of human civilization returning to the stone ages to have an impact."

Well that's called changing the goal posts.

You come in here and say manmade climate change isn't a thing, and then you try to pretend we're debating how to fix it.

When you clearly started out with lies about the cause.

You are worse than wrong. You are intentionally trying to cause confusion. Please frakk off. You bring webdiplomacy's reputation down.

Please dont frak off. We dont want webdip to start having earthquakes

How to politically tackle the issue is a difficult question, over which there is much debate.

Whether it is all a scam perpetrated by some global elite is not.

Not trying to be confusing. I don't believe allowing government to exert control over our individual energy use is an effective means to accomplish the goal you want. If you really want to change the environment, why not consider retreating from the chem ag system touted by the same governments who want us to surrender our way of life.

Government always defaults to the point of more control over us. That is why we have Keynesian economics. It's an obviously stupid economic model. But the governments love it so we keep repeating the same mistakes over and over. Giving government more control over anything results in a worsened human condition.

Why not quit subsidizing the oil and agriculture industries? Is that something they are debating in Paris? No. They are talking direct and indirect taxes, sanctions, and tariffs.

I think you will find that something is better than nothing when it comes to trying to change our air quality and emissions.

On the indivual city amd state levels - this isnt felt as much in rural areas that lack smog-traffic-oil spills-and possibility for dimished air quallity.

However in many instances global warming has caused massive floods to rural lands - floods which happen on frequencies of 100-1000 years but instead happening in greater abundance and danger. Heavy rain soaks the mississippi obe year while drought plagues farms in California the same year.

There is a discernible reason that 1000 year floods and 1000 year level droughts could happen wothin a decade and its not a fluke of science - its a symptom of a suffering planet beleagurred by manmade destruction.

Also eturnage I would end all subsidies -period- . Farming, energy, military subcontractors - all of it.

Free markets that produce growth have resulted in the utilisation of carbon rich energy resources for over 100 years, state capitalist societies, communist organisations, and attempted socialist utopias have all done the same.

It doesn't make a difference whether we have a state regulating us or not. We have seen all humans everywhere produce more and more (economic growth) because of the availability of technology to harness coal and then oil.

There is no free market solution to this, only regulated industries can, and if you have a better solution, i'm open to hearing it.

All systems of power will accumulate more power to themselves if they can, those that don't act in this way are quickly replaced by ones which do. That is a natural consequence of power. Governments, Corporations, or Organized Religions it makes no difference, they are power structures, and they necessarily act to first preserve themselves, and second extend that power.

The fact that we're trying to agree a global climate deal is completely unrelated to the fact that our governments are collectively acting to accumulate more power - they would do that no matter what. Unfortunately, we can't go back to the stone-age, so we require a global solution, and that means an effective global power structure.

It sucks, but then going back to the stone age would be even worse... And we can't do it even if we wanted to (because some people wouldn't agree).

@Brainbomb, the military subcontracts get 'business contracts' - does that really count as a subsidy?

I mean so long as the US refuses to buy it's missile components and high tech parts from South Korea, Taiwan or Japan, then you have to rely on US companies to produce them (even if they would be produced cheaper elsewhere) - so in some sense that is a subsidy, you're paying more than it would cost elsewhere to get a US company to do it...

Just like paying more than the market value of corn to US farmers is a subsidy, (you're paying more than it would cost elsewhere to get a US farmer to do it...). Same thing, right?

The market doesnt need to account for climate change - which is why libertarians will.always whiff on environmental policies. The truth is the market is malleable and has no reason to care if ten million floridians have to move. The market benefits by displacement of any kind. If 36 million people living in low lying areas of the maldives, coastal india, china - it is inconsequential to the market as someone always makes money off of someone elses plight

"@Brainbomb, the military subcontracts get 'business contracts' - does that really count as a subsidy?

I mean so long as the US refuses to buy it's missile components and high tech parts from South Korea, Taiwan or Japan, then you have to rely on US companies to produce them (even if they would be produced cheaper elsewhere) - so in some sense that is a subsidy, you're paying more than it would cost elsewhere to get a US company to do it...

Just like paying more than the market value of corn to US farmers is a subsidy, (you're paying more than it would cost elsewhere to get a US farmer to do it...). Same thing, right?"

There is something that can be said for subsidizing rocketry admittedly. We have programs that are cheaper to subsidize in space exploration than having NASA. tesla and space x are subsidies that I think are valid to bother with. But military subcontracting is essentially just furthering an already overblown military industrial complex at this point.

As for farming theres many instances where farm subsidies get spent on corvettes for the kids and big screen TVs for the family room.

First, we don't have a free market and haven't for more than 100 years. Governments subsidize and control our markets. The problems we have now with the use of petro chems are caused by distortions from government subsidizing those industries and not a functioning anarcho-capitalist model. The solution isn't more government control, it is less.

Second, there is not much that even huge economic and personal sacrifices will accomplish now if most of the climate change in environment is due to factors beyond our control--such as the sun cycling through a hotter phase. What we can do is try to educate on a better people on a system of sequestering carbon through our agricultural system. That mitigates what we can actually control and does so in a positive way for the most human beings. The chem ag system we're primarily using now is counter-productive and harmful--and sponsored by your governments. Yet, you guys are ignoring correcting this in favor of giving them even more power to through taxes, sanctions, and tariffs.

The corn subsidies are the result of your arguments. They are there for the purpose of putting ethanol in gasoline to decrease global warming. The result is that poor farmers in Mexico have been driven out of business by USA corporate ag interests. They love the corn subsidies for ethanol usage.

If I had a dollar for everytime someone told me that big government was the problem - to literally any arbitrary problem - id be warren buffet by now. The only people strongly concerned about governments steering markets are people who would prefer to live in a society run by warring tribes with little to no natural order

You really believe it's just coincidental that the climate deal they want to structure in Paris gives enormous new controls to them over us. No, I'm too cynical to accept that premise. They know exactly what they're doing.

Then why haven't we ever tried reducing it? All it does is get bigger, and bigger faster. At the same time, things just get worse and worse. You guys call me insane.

Im.an environmentalist. That is my #1 voting issue. My big problem with Obama and the Democrats was/is we have ceded our concern for inproving the environment to a radical left wing green party that will take votes from us. Democrats have moved too far to the center and the right on energy while giving up what was a scientific and moral highground.

For this alone- I am ashamed to be a Democrat. I think we could transition out of an oil based infrastructure like India in less than 10 years. For fucks-sake electric cars were around in the 90's. Neither political party has pushed a climate change platform that begins to improve anything - its all just been lining the pockets of dirty polluters.

Shell should be indicted for blasting in the arctic -Not given permits.
Theyre killing whales with undersea explosives and ruining an already dying ecosystem

That's pretty stupid eturmage. Scientists are hardly elite. They work hard and are often paid dirt. Environmentalists are people who have put in the work to become scientifically literate and care about something other than themselves. Hardly elites. In fact elites have been very slow to react

The fact is your beloved polluting crap is going under because it just can't compete. The fact that sun and wind are free means fossil fuel plants lose a ton of menu now

Yeah, etunrage, you're a fucking idiot. Return to the Stone Age my ass. How much do you get paid for by the fossil fuel industry to spew that garbage. Yeah, people want to squash you"viewpoint" and mock it because it is complete bullshit

I am sitting right now in an electric car powered entirely by renewables that is CHEAPER than the stupid gas car it replaced. That's just reality. (And EVs are a solid solution. Not tens years from now, now. Again, the solution is here, but it would take political will to end the distortions that make gas cars remotely competitive. Charge gas taxes that internalize the full costs of fossil fuels and no one would ever buy another gas car, ever)

And eturnage, you also understand crap about the Paris accords. They're mostly voluntary pledges. At most it commits governments to address the issue. The only people who complain about ""controls" that protect everyone are people who want to do harm. Murderers, rapists, and gangbangers complain about "control" by police too. Nice company you keep.

Yeah, you deserve fully to be mocked.