Life and lifestyle stuff

[Guest Mores]

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

God has made us accountable for the care and preservation of the earth and the wise use of its resources (see D&C 104:13–15). As stewards, we avoid complacency and excessive consumption, using only what is necessary (see D&C 49:19–21). We make our homes, neighborhoods, and cities beautiful. We preserve resources and protect for future generations the spiritual and temporal blessings of nature.

This is absolutely desirable.  We should always be concerned about this.  We call it conservation, not environmentalism.  And this is the ground we can all agree on.  The question is about what measures actually produce the best results? 

No one here believes it is a "good" thing to simply waste due to carelessness.  It's a question of a cost-to-benefits analysis. 

EXAMPLE 1: When Democrats push policies like carbon credits and cap n trade... we look at it and figure that it will take a lot of time, effort, and money while producing zero benefit to the environment.  Many Democrat senators even admitted that it will have NO effect on greenhouse gases or any conditions in the environment.  But they "had to do something" to please the masses.  The stupid part is that at the time, the environmental movement was still the minority in the country.

EXAMPLE 2: Climate Accords (multiple).  All they did was decrease America's output while allowing China and India to increase their output.  This did NOTHING to change any environmental factors.  It simply made us poorer and China and India wealthier.  In fact, the net total was an increase in emissions.

There are plenty of environmental laws that make perfect sense.  The law actually prevents direct damage.  No toxic dumping on public lands.  That makes all the sense in the world.  But much of it is kind of a mixed bag.  Some things really do help.  Others are net zero compared to traditional methods.  Others actually make things worse.

The big problem is that so many things we think of as bad actually are better alternatives to some of the green measures.  Oil vs. Bio-Diesel is one of them.  Even with government subsidies, bio-diesel plants with all the latest technology have been left shuttered because they couldn't make a profit (so no real benefit).  And they ended up dumping a LOT more by-products than their alternatives (actual harm).  Then we see that the fields of corn and other crops supplying the source material were displacing food sources -- causing food prices to go up and people around the world were starving so we could feel good about the environment.

I want to take care of the planet as much as you do, or possibly more.  But I also see a lot more of the background and unintended consequences.  Good old fashioned conservationism helped shape many of the common sense measures that are now law.  But he environmental movement is actually causing more damage than it purports to help.  And most of the time, it simply doesn't help.

[Guest Mores]

13 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I've seen that same sort of thing in other areas as well.  Evidence that is known to have been fabricated, but is still used to spread the dogma.  I actually had a friendly debate on one such subject with a friend, who actually uses these materials in teaching his high school class.  When I asked him why he would use data that's known to have been fabricated, his very candid answer was "it's the best we've got."

Think about THAT.  The conclusion is already assumed to be true, and so they work backward and incorporate anything that corroborates it, even if it's shown to be unreliable.  

It's the best we've got?  How about the true data?  We do have that.  But he hasn't looked for it.  Insane.

[estradling75]

15 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 

Think about THAT.  The conclusion is already assumed to be true, and so they work backward and incorporate anything that corroborates it, even if it's shown to be unreliable.  

That is not science.... That is politics...

[estradling75]

8 minutes ago, Mores said:

I want to take care of the planet as much as you do, or possibly more.  But I also see a lot more of the background and unintended consequences.  Good old fashioned conservationism helped shape many of the common sense measures that are now law.  But he environmental movement is actually causing more damage than it purports to help.  And most of the time, it simply doesn't help.

That is the objection in a nutshell

We want to protect the environment and we are supportive of such actions. But to many "Do something" actions/laws/ideas, do not help and many cases make it worse.  While those that pay the cost of whatever the "Do something" is are harmed and do not see the promised pay off.

 

[2ndRateMind]

29 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

That is the objection in a nutshell

We want to protect the environment and we are supportive of such actions. But to many "Do something" actions/laws/ideas, do not help and many cases make it worse.  While those that pay the cost of whatever the "Do something" is are harmed and do not see the promised pay off.

 

We live, in the Western, developed world, in accountable democracies. If the activities and policies of government are ineffective or counter-productive, it is up to us to vote them out. If we don't, the responsibility is ours.

Nevertheless, it is not only governments that need to act, but also individuals. So, are we to make excuses not to act, or to make some changes in our lifestyle conducive to the survival of other species, and the well-being of our own?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 7, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest Mores]

18 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

We live, in the Western, developed world, in accountable democracies. If the activities and policies of government are ineffective or counter-productive, it is up to us to vote them out. If we don't, the responsibility is ours.

If we were actually free, then I'd agree with you.  The problem is that too many environmentalist have taken draconian measures and even violent measures to silence opposition.  Conservatives open up debate on the matter and invite opposing viewpoints in fair and open discussion of the facts.  I have NO doubt that if we had free and open debate about the topic, that the conservationist positions would win out.  But we don't live in such a political landscape. But if we're going to compare, then I'd say it's USA:1 UK:0

The most open and honest greenies refuse to address actual facts and data.  Instead, they ignore them create entire arguments based on pathos.  They mistake political clout for ethos.  And they mistake lies for logos.

18 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Nevertheless, it is not only governments that need to act, but also individuals. So, are we to make excuses not to act, or to make some changes in our lifestyle conducive to the survival of other species, and the well-being of our own?

I am.  And I certainly wish that all the environmentalists lobbying for government action would actually take their own advice to heart.  I do my best to reduce & reuse.  I have seen some celebrities do so as well.  But the vast majority of the protesters who threaten (and often execute) violence on others in the name of the environment often don't follow their own advice. 

I've had friends (yes, they really are friends that I disagree with) who recycle and live quite spartan lifestyles in the name of the environment.  But when they go to a concert or a rally or any other big public gathering, they litter like crazy.

[2ndRateMind]

22 minutes ago, Mores said:

I've had friends (yes, they really are friends that I disagree with) who recycle and live quite spartan lifestyles in the name of the environment. 

So, I' wondering if a materially spartan lifestyle is necessarily a bad thing. A spartan life might well be a good life. As the writer Hillaire Belloc put it:

Quote

From quiet homes and first beginnings

Out to undiscovered ends

The only things worth the wear of winning

Are laughter, and the love of friends.

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited May 7, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Mores said:

If we were actually free, then I'd agree with you. 

We're (America) still the freest country in the world. And while there are problems, we are "actually free". 

 

10 minutes ago, Mores said:

  I've had friends 

Doubtful. 
 

11 minutes ago, Mores said:

(yes, they really are friends that I disagree with) 

Those are often times the best kind of friends. 

 

[Guest Scott]

2 hours ago, Mores said:

The question is about what measures actually produce the best results? 

OK, so let's discuss a specific example.   Let's use Salt Lake City because it is our Church headquarters.  

Although there has been improvement when in comparison to before the Clean Air Act, the air is Salt Lake City is very unhealthy at times, especially in the winter.   (Of note, this was  the primary motivation I had for moving away from there).  

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/01/09/utahs-air-quality-is-sickening-even-killing-locals-year-round-new-research-suggests/

Even the conservatives are starting to cry foul:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900046954/the-politics-of-clean-air-whats-stopping-the-legislature-from-solving-the-utah-air-pollution-problem-salt-lake-city-worst-air-pollution-epa.html

So, while geography does play a part, the air in Salt Lake City is some of the worse in the nation.   It causes many health problems including pre-mature death, miscarriages, lung problems, etc.   It is almost the sole black mark on what is one of the healthiest populations in the nation.   

So, what would a solution be?

Until now, many conservatives have had the thought that nothing should be done.   The thing is that pollution effects everyone and is taking their right to clean air away.

So, without arguing, I want to hear what you think would be a good conservative solution that would help with the air quality around Salt Lake City?

I'm asking you rather than arguing with you.  

Obviously, we all contribute to the problem.   No one is innocent, so I'm not saying that I or anyone else is somehow on the high ground.  

One final question.  Does the Lord want his holy temples surrounded by unhealthy smog, such as in the photo above?    When I was living in Salt Lake metro, I remember when the Salt Lake Temple had to be cleaned on the outside since the air pollution turned it dark grey and left a layer of soot and grime.  Do you think the Lord is happy with this?   This is a question, not a statement.

 

Edited May 7, 2019 by Scott

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, Scott said:

OK, so let's discuss a specific example.   Let's use Salt Lake City because it is our Church headquarters.  

Although there has been improvement when in comparison to before the Clean Air Act, the air is Salt Lake City is very unhealthy at times, especially in the winter.   (Of note, this was  the primary motivation I had for moving away from there).  

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/01/09/utahs-air-quality-is-sickening-even-killing-locals-year-round-new-research-suggests/

Even the conservatives are starting to cry foul:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900046954/the-politics-of-clean-air-whats-stopping-the-legislature-from-solving-the-utah-air-pollution-problem-salt-lake-city-worst-air-pollution-epa.html

So, while geography does play a part, the air in Salt Lake City is some of the worse in the nation.   It causes many health problems including pre-mature death, miscarriages, lung problems, etc.   It is almost the sole black mark on what is one of the healthiest populations in the nation.   

So, what would a solution be?

Until now, many conservatives have had the thought that nothing should be done.   The thing is that pollution effects everyone and is taking their right to clean air away.

So, without arguing, I want to hear what you think would be a good conservative solution that would help with the air quality around Salt Lake City?

I'm asking you rather than arguing with you.  

Obviously, we all contribute to the problem.   No one is innocent, so I'm not saying that I or anyone else is somehow on the high ground.  

One final question.  Does the Lord want his holy temples surrounded by unhealthy smog, such as in the photo above?    When I was living in Salt Lake metro, I remember when the Salt Lake Temple had to be cleaned on the outside since the air pollution turned it dark grey and left a layer of soot and grime.  Do you think the Lord is happy with this?   This is a question, not a statement.

 

A point of order:  Geography plays a *huge* part on the Wasatch Front, especially when the inversion kicks in.  I don’t think we pollute much more per capita than anyone else—those dag-blasted mountains just keep it all here, rather than letting it blow on to the natural cesspool that is Colorado.  I suggest we fix that with the use of ginormous fans.  Or we could use nuclear bombs to blast a giant wind tunnel all the way to Denver—now, there’s a conservative solution!  

As for what to do about it, on a more serious note:  I think the idea of cap-and-trade was actually the brainchild of Milton Friedman.  I don’t hate it in principle—polluters need to bear the cost of their pollution—but I don’t trust government to run such a system in a non-corrupt way.  I think it’s unfortunate that it seems more conservatives aren’t giving it some deeper thought and figuring out ways to make such a system work in the real world. 

Edited May 7, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Fether]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A point of order:  Geography plays a *huge* part on the Wasatch Front, especially when the inversion kicks in.  I don’t think we pollute much more per capita than anyone else—those dag-blasted mountains just keep it all here, rather than letting it blow on to the natural cesspool that is Colorado.  I suggest we fix that with the use of ginormous fans.  Or we could use nuclear bombs to blast a giant wind tunnel all the way to Denver—now, there’s a conservative solution!  

As for what to do about it, on a more serious note:  I think the idea of cap-and-trade was actually the brainchild of Milton Friedman.  I don’t hate it in principle—polluters need to bear the cost of their pollution—but I don’t trust government to run such a system in a non-corrupt way.  I think it’s unfortunate that it seems more conservatives aren’t giving it some deeper thought and figuring out ways to make such a system work in the real world. 

The geography is a HUGE factor. I live in vegas and the worst days with inversion are like the best days in SLC.

[Fether]

4 hours ago, Scott said:

OK, so let's discuss a specific example.   Let's use Salt Lake City because it is our Church headquarters.  

Although there has been improvement when in comparison to before the Clean Air Act, the air is Salt Lake City is very unhealthy at times, especially in the winter.   (Of note, this was  the primary motivation I had for moving away from there).  

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/01/09/utahs-air-quality-is-sickening-even-killing-locals-year-round-new-research-suggests/

Even the conservatives are starting to cry foul:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900046954/the-politics-of-clean-air-whats-stopping-the-legislature-from-solving-the-utah-air-pollution-problem-salt-lake-city-worst-air-pollution-epa.html

So, while geography does play a part, the air in Salt Lake City is some of the worse in the nation.   It causes many health problems including pre-mature death, miscarriages, lung problems, etc.   It is almost the sole black mark on what is one of the healthiest populations in the nation.   

So, what would a solution be?

Until now, many conservatives have had the thought that nothing should be done.   The thing is that pollution effects everyone and is taking their right to clean air away.

So, without arguing, I want to hear what you think would be a good conservative solution that would help with the air quality around Salt Lake City?

I'm asking you rather than arguing with you.  

Obviously, we all contribute to the problem.   No one is innocent, so I'm not saying that I or anyone else is somehow on the high ground.  

One final question.  Does the Lord want his holy temples surrounded by unhealthy smog, such as in the photo above?    When I was living in Salt Lake metro, I remember when the Salt Lake Temple had to be cleaned on the outside since the air pollution turned it dark grey and left a layer of soot and grime.  Do you think the Lord is happy with this?   This is a question, not a statement.

 

Fantastic public transportation. That is the only thing I could think of. Have some sort of bullet train that goes from Payson up to Logan, and from Tooele over to Park City. Then a bunch of teams and buses that go around town. Perhaps even some sort of bike system built. 

I think if you make public transportation easy to use and convenient, people will naturally switch.

Edited May 7, 2019 by Fether

[estradling75]

20 hours ago, Scott said:

OK, so let's discuss a specific example.  

 

Ok lets...

First thing to understand is that what you have described is a symptom.  No one likes or wants the smog.  But to deal with it we need to truly understand the causes.  This is not a case were "seems likely" is good enough.  We need to understand it well enough to say  "If we change A by B % then we will alter C by D%"  Until we do that we are stumbling in the dark and making half baked guess.

I assume/hope such research has been done... but if it has I do not currently have access to it, nor do I know for sure what it is.  So for the purposes of this discussion I am going to go with a "seems likely" (Which I just said we should not do)

It seems likely that it is a combination of personal driving, and environmental factors that trap the pollutants. (aka the inversion).  Which means if we stop the inversion we will not have it, or if we stop/reduce the driving we will not have it/have less.  This points to two possible points of counter... 

Stopping the inversion that is a big task... Moving mountains and redirecting air flow level big. Terra-forming planet level big. While I would love to see anyone come up with a plan to do that, it seems beyond us do to the technical requirements and understanding the wider spread of such an massive change to the environment.   A simpler version of this is Cloud-seeding (aka making it rain).  Rain clears the air right up, we are in the infancy of Cloud-seeding know-how, but we are doing it.  Can we ramp it up? Can we regularly clean the air by making it rain?  These are interesting questions that I would love to see the answer to.  However the environmental side answers do not stop the pollution it simply changes its location/concentration.  While it is 'an answer' to the smog problem it is hard to call it a 'good answer' at this point.

So that leaves personal driving (again based on the 'seems likely').  This is a behavior problem that we need to again better understand what behaviors are the driving force.  Is there a behavior that has a higher impact?  Does the work commute cause 75% of the problem? Or is it the short errand runs to the store?  Or is it the hauling and shipping?  Or is it something else? If we have a behavior that has the higher impact then we can tailor our answer to that problem. Again 'seems likely' is not good enough, we need to know.

Again to continue this discussion I am going to pick a "seems likely."  Lets say the work commute.  How do we change the work commute behavior?  How about more remote working?  How about better housing options near work locations?  Both those would eliminate/reduce travel.  But we can also change the type of travel.  How about electric or hybrids vehicles? or as @Fether suggested improving public transportation?

These are all possible ways to go.  But before we can really dig in we need to understand the details of the problem so we can pick the right solution.  And I agree with @Just_A_Guy   I think people would be willing to do their part. But we have been burned by corrupt politics who either lined their own pockets and/or "did something" just to be seen as "doing something" rather then figuring out the right way.

That is the political side.. on the personal side (which is were I have stewardship) I have electric lawn tools instead of gas, and I am trying to figure out the finances to get solar power on my home and get an electric or hybrid car.  I am not there yet but I am working it.

 

[2ndRateMind]

On 5/7/2019 at 4:46 PM, Mores said:

EXAMPLE 2: Climate Accords (multiple).  All they did was decrease America's output while allowing China and India to increase their output.  This did NOTHING to change any environmental factors.  It simply made us poorer and China and India wealthier.  In fact, the net total was an increase in emissions.

This is a very sad attitude. The Paris climate accord of 2016 (which Trump reneged on) was simply an agreement to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, this century. Each nation is at liberty to choose whatever policies they like to contribute to that achievement. For the richest and second most polluting country in the world to complain that the accord is unacceptable because it allows poorer countries to develop their economies and so lift millions out of absolute poverty* is a hypocrisy too far even for me. And, incidentally, it is way too early to determine the overall effect of the accord.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*income less than $1.75/day

Edited May 8, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

42 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

This is a very sad attitude. The Paris climate accord of 2016 (which Trump reneged on) was simply an agreement to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, this century.

If it's worth noting that Trump pulled us out of the accord, it's also worth noting that even without the elements of the accord, the United States is still on track to be c ompliant with them while several other signatories of the Paris Accord are not.  It is also worth noting that the nations with the highest contribution of pollutants (like China) were never signatories to begin with.

[2ndRateMind]

19 minutes ago, unixknight said:

If it's worth noting that Trump pulled us out of the accord, it's also worth noting that even without the elements of the accord, the United States is still on track to be c ompliant with them while several other signatories of the Paris Accord are not.  It is also worth noting that the nations with the highest contribution of pollutants (like China) were never signatories to begin with.

Actually China, the highest polluting country in the world, is a signatory. As is India. In all, before the defection of the US, 184 states and the EU were signatories, covering 87% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited May 8, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Actually China, the highest polluting country in the world, is a signatory. As is India.

Best wishes, 2RM

I stand corrected.  

That said, the accords aren't working, and the U.S. isn't even out of it yet.  (Legally it takes 3 years, which means we'll be out this year.)

[2ndRateMind]

31 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That said, the accords aren't working...

For example:

In July 2017 French Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot announced a plan to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles in France by 2040 as part of the Paris Agreement. Hulot also stated that France would no longer use coal to produce electricity after 2022 and that up to €4 billion will be invested in boosting energy efficiency. To reach the agreement's emission targets, Norway will ban the sale of petrol- and diesel-powered cars by 2025; the Netherlands will do the same by 2030. Electric trains running on the Dutch national rail network are already entirely powered by wind energy.The House of Representatives of the Netherlands passed a bill in June 2018 mandating that by 2050 the Netherlands will cut its 1990 greenhouse-gas emissions level by 95%—exceeding the Paris Agreement goals*. The UK plans to be carbon neutral by 2050, with the entire UK fleet of cars electric by 2040.

Best wishes, 2RM

*wikipedia.

Edited May 8, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[anatess2]

On 5/7/2019 at 10:43 AM, estradling75 said:

I am not an environmental scientist (I am a more of a computer scientist by profession which is not relevant to the environment but shows I am open to logic and reason).

Estradling, you are actually in a profession more relevant to Climate Change than Environmental Science.  You know why?  Climate Change predictions is based on System Engineered Computer Models.  Environmental Scientists - the credible ones, not the self-proclaimed ones like Bill Nye the unscientific guy - have pointed out the errors on the computer models (either lack of system inputs or imposed limitations on statistical samples, etc.) that predict these doom-and-gloom scenarios but those scientists are labeled Climate Deniers and their work stigmatized so changes to the computer models have been slow in coming.  I do have hope that eventually... EVENTUALLY... when people like @2ndRateMind start making politicization of Climate Change a HIGHER PRIORITY for reform than chasing solutions for extinction level predictions... we might get somewhere with analyzing what the REAL PROBLEM is, if there's even any, and how we can work towards clear solutions.

Edited May 8, 2019 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On 5/7/2019 at 10:02 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

Perhaps because there is a significant difference between religious convictions and forecasts grounded on evidence extrapolated by science.

Here's the issue with this statement: 

You are assuming that religious convictions cannot be grounded on evidence extrapolated by science.

You are also assuming that all Environmentalism in its current politicized form is grounded on evidence extrapolated by science.

Remember, Flat Earthers claim to have grounded evidence extrapolated by science. 

 

On 5/7/2019 at 10:02 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

I reject, also, the notion that environmentalism is a religion for for atheists. There may be some atheists who are environmentalists, but the moral issue that confronts us; what kind of world do we intend to leave as legacy for our children? seems to me to cross all religious boundaries. I find, as a Christian, no problem with environmentalism, and I am at a loss to understand the hostility this thread has provoked.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Believe it or not, you and everyone else on this thread are ideologically on the same side of this argument - we all want a great planet for our progeny to live on.  The LDS Church takes this task on as a COMMANDMENT.  It's not just some "afterthought" or "hobby horse".  But, you just cannot understand that your idea of what environmentalism means is different from ours.  You believe in politicized environmentalism.  Most of us here do not.  So, if you really want to talk about it in a way that it doesn't become contentious, you have to first parse out the politics from the environmentalism.

[2ndRateMind]

OK @anatess2 Here's my political agenda; put as succinctly as I can manage.

Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to eradicate absolute poverty while remaining comfortably within the Spaceship Earth's ecological carrying capacity. So, for example, we all need to start thinking about living within 80% of the world's land, sea and air resources, to leave a decent amount of room for the preservation of species. By way of comparison, if all the world's population lived like the average American, we would need 4 planet earths to sustain us all. Europeans would need 2.5 earths. Changing that to 0.8 of an earth for everyone is inevitably going to be political.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 10, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[anatess2]

25 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

For example:

In July 2017 French Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot announced a plan to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles in France by 2040 as part of the Paris Agreement. Hulot also stated that France would no longer use coal to produce electricity after 2022 and that up to €4 billion will be invested in boosting energy efficiency. To reach the agreement's emission targets, Norway will ban the sale of petrol- and diesel-powered cars by 2025; the Netherlands will do the same by 2030. Electric trains running on the Dutch national rail network are already entirely powered by wind energy.The House of Representatives of the Netherlands passed a bill in June 2018 mandating that by 2050 the Netherlands will cut its 1990 greenhouse-gas emissions level by 95%—exceeding the Paris Agreement goals*. The UK plans to be carbon neutral by 2050, with the entire UK fleet of cars electric by 2040.

Best wishes, 2RM

*wikipedia.

Preparing alternative sources of energy is a good cause.  Fossil fuels is not inexhaustible.  It will eventually run out.  The idea, though, that if we get rid of fossil fuels, the Climate will stop Changing has zero scientific evidence.

Now, France has been in chaos as the Yellow Vest protests continue on to its 5th month.  France's policies is creating mass poverty as French politicians put its economic stability on the altar of Climate Change.

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

OK @anatess2 Here's my political agenda; put as succinctly as I can manage.

Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to eradicate absolute poverty while remaining comfortably within the Spaceship Earth's ecological carrying capacity. So, for example, we all need to start thinking about living within 80% of the world's resources, to leave a decent amount of room for the preservation of species. By way of comparison, if all the world's population lived like the average American, we would need 4 planet earths to sustain us all. Europeans need 2.5 earths. Changing that to 0.8 of an earth for everyone is inevitably going to be political.

Best wishes, 2RM.

What's happening in France should tell you, Politicized Environmentalism is leading Spaceship Earth's French Sector into absolute poverty.

[2ndRateMind]

Ummm. I don't think so. The French are far from absolute poverty, and actually live rather well. And it's not the environmental stuff the gilet jaune movement is about, but Macron's really rather conservative economic policies and reforms.

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited May 8, 2019 by 2ndRateMind

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

This is a very sad attitude. The Paris climate accord of 2016 (which Trump reneged on) was simply an agreement to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, this century. Each nation is at liberty to choose whatever policies they like to contribute to that achievement. For the richest and second most polluting country in the world to complain that the accord is unacceptable because it allows poorer countries to develop their economies and so lift millions out of absolute poverty* is a hypocrisy too far even for me. And, incidentally, it is way too early to determine the overall effect of the accord.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*income less than $1.75/day

This is disingenuous.  This is not about "complaining that the accord allows poorer countries to develop their economies and lift millions out of poverty".  Statements like these is why your threads become contentious.  You like to minimize those who disagree with you as evil hypocrites.  Stop doing this.

The main issue of the accord is that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that decreasing global temperature by 2 degrees will prevent the Climate from Changing.  Meanwhile, you are setting up the conditions for top pollutants with a population of billions to take over world production while decimating the economies of industrialized nations that HAVE BEEN EXERCISING responsible environmental protections.