When will Republican politicians begin to connect increasing forest fires and climate disasters to humans burning fossil fuels?

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9024
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
30 August 2017 10:35
 

‘What Has Hurricane Harvey Taught Donald Trump in Texas?’

quote:

“And is there a chance that sitting in a control center in Austin is going to persuade Trump that climate change is not a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese? Or that it will make him rethink pulling the United States out of the Paris agreement? Here the problem is not just Trump, or his tweets, or his seriousness. The leaders of the Republican Party—along with too many other Americans—continue to deny what has become obvious: that, although it is hard to connect climate change to any one storm, climate change has increased, and will continue to increase, the number of extreme weather events.  As the storm approached, Trump tweeted repeatedly about what a surprise it was. The only logic by which the devastation of Houston is a surprise is the logic of reality television, with twists that come out of nowhere and serve no human purpose but to move the plot along. Such twists are not meant to provide a basis for changing behavior. As for whether they will change Donald Trump—we’re still waiting.”  -  Amy Davidson Sorkin, New Yorker staff writer - 8/29/2017

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-did-donald-trump-learn-in-texas?mbid=nl_TNY Template - With Photo (43)&CNDID=22703678&spMailingID=11812145&spUserID=MTMzMTc5ODQyMDEwS0&spJobID=1222740797&spReportId=MTIyMjc0MDc5NwS2

[ Edited: 30 August 2017 10:42 by unsmoked]
 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7143
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
30 August 2017 10:58
 

When will Republican politicians begin to connect increasing forest fires and climate disasters to humans burning fossil fuels?

When the political cost of environmental profiteering outweighs the profitability of the industries driving climate change.

 

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2038
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
30 August 2017 16:27
 

When will Republican politicians begin to connect increasing forest fires and climate disasters to humans burning fossil fuels?

Never.

Ron

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9024
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
31 August 2017 10:39
 
MrRon - 30 August 2017 04:27 PM

When will Republican politicians begin to connect increasing forest fires and climate disasters to humans burning fossil fuels?

Never.

Ron

Headline:  “Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Florida estate to be submerged by rising sea levels due to climate change
Experts presented evidence at Senate hearing”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-climate-change-mar-a-lago-florida-flooded-sea-level-rise-global-warming-winter-white-a7677596.html

Never?  Do you mean they will always attribute climate change to natural fluctuations that have nothing to do with human activity?  Nothing to do with our burning fossil fuel?

[ Edited: 31 August 2017 10:42 by unsmoked]
 
 
bigredfutbol
 
Avatar
 
 
bigredfutbol
Total Posts:  5614
Joined  05-04-2006
 
 
 
01 September 2017 06:47
 

When the American economy and the American way of life no longer run on fossil fuels.

The GOP deserves plenty of scorn for embracing ignorance and anti-science; but while it’s easy—and not inaccurate—to point at the corporate interests which financially support their willful climate ignorance; they wouldn’t do so if they didn’t know most of us have an implicit vested interest in keeping things the way they are.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21959
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
01 September 2017 07:17
 

Unsmoked, do you use gasoline?  Tell the truth.

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9024
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
01 September 2017 10:41
 
EN - 01 September 2017 07:17 AM

Unsmoked, do you use gasoline?  Tell the truth.

Yes -  A so-so car that I put about 2000 miles per year on.  But it get’s worse.  I go to a cabin in the woods every day - a wood-burning stove that I use for about 3 hours a day except during summer.  I burn mostly dead branches from fast-growing trees like alder and willow, telling myself that this is carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere during the last 10 or 20 years and now it’s going back into the air.  So far I’ve been able to help save this 40 acre woodland from urban development and as these thousands of trees grow I imagine them taking CO2 out of the atmosphere to build their trunks.  Burning fossil fuel is different - burning gasoline puts carbon in the air that plants sequestered in the ground millions of years ago. 

As a kid in Scotland we had a coal fireplace.  Some days, walking to school, I couldn’t see my hand if held out at arm’s length . . .killer fogs - mist and coal smoke from a million chimneys.  In a recent Sierra magazine I read that in March, Scotland was able to produce all of its electricity with wind generators.

As has often been pointed out, Al Gore produces maybe a hundred times more CO2 than, say, an average person in Bangladesh.  Have you seen the projections for when Third World countries reach our per capita burning of fossil fuel?

 

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2038
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
01 September 2017 15:09
 
unsmoked - 31 August 2017 10:39 AM
MrRon - 30 August 2017 04:27 PM

When will Republican politicians begin to connect increasing forest fires and climate disasters to humans burning fossil fuels?

Never.

Ron

Never?  Do you mean they will always attribute climate change to natural fluctuations that have nothing to do with human activity?

Well, that was a bit hyperbolic, but for the most part I think that most (but perhaps not all) Republicans will unfortunately remain on the denial train.

Ron

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9024
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
22 September 2017 10:21
 
MrRon - 01 September 2017 03:09 PM
unsmoked - 31 August 2017 10:39 AM
MrRon - 30 August 2017 04:27 PM

When will Republican politicians begin to connect increasing forest fires and climate disasters to humans burning fossil fuels?

Never.

Ron

Never?  Do you mean they will always attribute climate change to natural fluctuations that have nothing to do with human activity?

Well, that was a bit hyperbolic, but for the most part I think that most (but perhaps not all) Republicans will unfortunately remain on the denial train.

Ron

Here is a series of pictures showing aerial views of major U.S. cities now and 80 years from now.  Many kids will live to see it.  A Chinese hoax?  Will Baron Trump’s kids ask their dad questions about Grandpa Trump and his response when scientists showed him these pictures?  (see Trump’s Florida ‘White House’ at end of series). 
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/27/before-and-after-images-show-what-major-us-cities-could-look-like-in-2100/23004249/#slide=6794034#fullscreen

[ Edited: 22 September 2017 10:24 by unsmoked]
 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9024
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
16 November 2017 11:24
 
Jefe - 30 August 2017 10:58 AM

When will Republican politicians begin to connect increasing forest fires and climate disasters to humans burning fossil fuels?

When the political cost of environmental profiteering outweighs the profitability of the industries driving climate change.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world?mbid=nl_Daily 111517&CNDID=22703678&spMailingID=12368044&spUserID=MTMzMTc5ODQyMDEwS0&spJobID=1281437553&spReportId=MTI4MTQzNzU1MwS2

quoted from this article by New Yorker staff writer Elizabeth Kolbert:

“This past April, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached a record four hundred and ten parts per million. The amount of CO2 in the air now is probably greater than it’s been at any time since the mid-Pliocene, three and a half million years ago, when there was a lot less ice at the poles and sea levels were sixty feet higher. This year’s record will be surpassed next year, and next year’s the year after that. Even if every country fulfills the pledges made in the Paris climate accord—and the United States has said that it doesn’t intend to—carbon dioxide could soon reach levels that, it’s widely agreed, will lead to catastrophe, assuming it hasn’t already done so.
Carbon-dioxide removal is, potentially, a trillion-dollar enterprise because it offers a way not just to slow the rise in CO2 but to reverse it. The process is sometimes referred to as “negative emissions”: instead of adding carbon to the air, it subtracts it. Carbon-removal plants could be built anywhere, or everywhere. Construct enough of them and, in theory at least, CO2 emissions could continue unabated and still we could avert calamity. Depending on how you look at things, the technology represents either the ultimate insurance policy or the ultimate moral hazard.”

 
 
Pilotdad100
 
Avatar
 
 
Pilotdad100
Total Posts:  7
Joined  15-11-2017
 
 
 
16 November 2017 12:47
 

Sam,

Really disappointed on your recent discussion on climate change.  Could not have found two debaters that were clearly on the same team with the same agenda.

This was evidenced by your softball question “who are the 97% that agree on climate change” versus a more probing and reflective question “what exactly do the 97% agree on”.

Let me attempt to answer that for you, the 97% of scientist agree that there is climate change, probably 100%.  What no one seems to agree on is the degree to which fossil fuels are causing the warming,

That’s the big conindrum.

Regards - Steve

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9024
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
17 November 2017 10:37
 
Pilotdad100 - 16 November 2017 12:47 PM

Sam,

Really disappointed on your recent discussion on climate change.  Could not have found two debaters that were clearly on the same team with the same agenda.

This was evidenced by your softball question “who are the 97% that agree on climate change” versus a more probing and reflective question “what exactly do the 97% agree on”.

Let me attempt to answer that for you, the 97% of scientist agree that there is climate change, probably 100%.  What no one seems to agree on is the degree to which fossil fuels are causing the warming,

That’s the big conindrum.

Regards - Steve

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And methane from livestock and melting permafrost.

Image Attachments
 
126_2626.JPG
 
 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  773
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
19 November 2017 17:34
 

I believe that as recently as the 1990’s and maybe early 2000’s prominent Republicans acknowledged the importance of dealing with climate change.  If I’m recalling things correctly, John McCain was one of them, but he flip-flopped on the issue around the time that he ran for president.  Even Newt was once on board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

 
virtual cancer
 
Avatar
 
 
virtual cancer
Total Posts:  4
Joined  21-12-2017
 
 
 
21 December 2017 16:17
 

Increased forest fires a caused by many factors, only one of global climate change. These factors were set on a slowly rising incremental accumulations of bad habit and by-products of civilization. One major one is the increase in forest density. Especially lodgepole pine forests this increased density has caused what is supposed to be a natural occurrence that generally moves through an area with limited amount of crown fires (the disastrous ones that are occurring with increased frequency). Other forests such as ponderosa pine forests exhibit the same effects from increased forest density. Selective logging or fires are necessary to have healthy forests. There are many ecological systems that need fire in a cyclical process for continued healthy existence. Also even with a system where every car in america is electric this would not eliminate the necessity for fossil fuels. Even with a majority of LEED certified structures we will still be reliant on fossil fuels. All the material today to go into manufacturing, from house products to phones, to engines to solar will require a large amount of fossil fuels. Blaming the evolution of an humanity on the GOP is disastrous in its ignorance, and does nothing to create effective solutions. The way in which we react and live in the environment needs a paradigm shift. By the way fires are good in most cases for the environment. Global climate change is causing increased desertification of some areas and the effects are not generally seen as advantageous as a whole, but these effects are varied and will in turn change each ecological system differently. I am not saying global change is good by any means, by a nuanced understanding needs to happen before blanket statements such as this are made.