61–70 of 108 posts
This appears to assume that all Republican senators will vote against the climate proposal, which I find overly pessimistic.
Hot take: it doesn't matter who comes out in favour of stronger action on climate change. The only way we'll get significant change is when it becomes economic to do so. The world population or even a significant percentage of it won't change their behaviour altruistically even for a minor inconvenience and risk. New coal plants aren't built (mostly) and old ones are closing not because of altruism or a genuine conce…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Policies touted by a lot of left leaning politicians aren’t practical and many of them know it but they say it anyway. Your point stands, Democrat solutions addressing climate change are definitely pretty bad. That being said, at least they have some climate change policies they're pushing for right now instead of kicking the can down the road. Can you honestly say the same about Republicans?
Considering that the US share of greenhouse gases is fairly small (15% of world total), has decreased quite a lot over time, and becomes harder on the margin, I'd say it's mostly just slinging words for political power at this point. My own take is that you can avoid ecological devastation only through population reduction and in the short term by not up-leveling the Third World via mass immigration and industrializa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Owing largely to the culture war, American Catholics have provided decisive support to the party that calls global warming a hoax. This isn't a political statement on my part, but just a statistical one. Than why are 44% of Catholics Democrat and only 37% Republican? https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-aff... Methinks your own POV poisons your opinions.
True, but if they all went Democratic, it would tip the scales considerably. The margins in many regions are a tiny number of percentage points, and the Senate is 50-50 right now. A small percentage, not even a nationwide majority, have given us a heavily biased supreme court. That's what I mean by decisive support. The Bishops could tip the scales if they were told to. This is about how the Pope could influence the…
It would be a tricky thing. You'd have to convince Catholics that Oregon-style abortion law (legal right up until birth) was reasonable and that the normalization of mental illness was desirable (the current rage for transsexuals).
OTOH, as a trans-national organization, I could see shifting the Catholic hierarchy into thinking that unlimited mass immigration to Western countries was desirable. More membership, more souls to save and all that.
Four words from the Pope could have the greatest effect per effort of any act on our environmental problems: "You can use contraception." It won't solve all problems, but it will help a lot. There is plenty of scripture he could call on to justify it. One, for example, is that the prophecy of having as many descendants as grains of sand on the beach couldn't have meant all at once , because we wouldn't all fit. Decre…
> Getting Biden's climate proposal done, though, will require the support of all 50 Democratic senators, including fellow Catholic Manchin. This appears to assume that all Republican senators will vote against the climate proposal, which I find overly pessimistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering that the US share of greenhouse gases is fairly small (15% of world total), has decreased quite a lot over time, and becomes harder on the margin, I'd say it's mostly just slinging words for political power at this point. My own take is that you can avoid ecological devastation only through population reduction and in the short term by not up-leveling the Third World via mass immigration and industrializa…
The US GHG per capita remains one of the highest in the world, so things can be improved.
Hot take: it doesn't matter who comes out in favour of stronger action on climate change. The only way we'll get significant change is when it becomes economic to do so. The world population or even a significant percentage of it won't change their behaviour altruistically even for a minor inconvenience and risk. New coal plants aren't built (mostly) and old ones are closing not because of altruism or a genuine conce…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Owing largely to the culture war, American Catholics have provided decisive support to the party that calls global warming a hoax. This isn't a political statement on my part, but just a statistical one. Than why are 44% of Catholics Democrat and only 37% Republican? https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-aff... Methinks your own POV poisons your opinions.
True, but if they all went Democratic, it would tip the scales considerably. The margins in many regions are a tiny number of percentage points, and the Senate is 50-50 right now. A small percentage, not even a nationwide majority, have given us a heavily biased supreme court. That's what I mean by decisive support. The Bishops could tip the scales if they were told to. This is about how the Pope could influence the…
Hot take: it doesn't matter who comes out in favour of stronger action on climate change. The only way we'll get significant change is when it becomes economic to do so. The world population or even a significant percentage of it won't change their behaviour altruistically even for a minor inconvenience and risk. New coal plants aren't built (mostly) and old ones are closing not because of altruism or a genuine conce…