Green New Deal: Ocasio-Cortez aims to make air travel obsolete, aid those ‘unwilling’ to work

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

50 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

It is 2019. Men need to stop shaming women just because they feel insecure about themselves and therefore can't handle powerful women. 

If she is so powerful then why is she surrounding herself with old white men? 

 

I thought they were the enemy 🤯

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Also, on the topic of CO2, warmer temps mean more water in the atmosphere, which yields more clouds, which block heat from the sun.  As I said, the earth takes care of herself.  Not saying we don’t upset the imbalance, just saying it’s doubtful our current impact is as great as some think.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, ALFKAD said:

It is fairly simple.  If we as humans produce too much CO2 to survive, we will cease to produce too much CO2 as the earth kicks our butt.  Might not want to be around to see it if it happens, but the earth can handle us.  Personally, I don’t think it will happen as quickly as you are suggesting, but only time will tell.

 

I believe another reason temps are rising is due to all the human construction.  The ground doesn’t hold heat and radiate it the way concrete and asphalt does.  But I don’t really see us tearing things up in order to go back to what was normal 100 years ago.

 

   True. Probably more concerning to people with a little bit more time left than you and I. Not that I ever said it's going to happen "quickly". In a geological time frame maybe, but not as we measure our own life times.

 

   I read an interesting article a few weeks ago about how the so called mini ice age correlates with rapid reforestation caused by the massive depopulation of the American continent. The resulting decrease in CO2 caused a drop in temperature that lasted 2 centuries. Everything humans (or dinosaurs) did affects the environment in some way. It's not about going back to the stone age, but it makes sense to me that if we have some evidence that our increased carbon footprint could be a problem (and we do), we should be looking at what we can do to minimize that.

 

   When something simple and painless and easy to do comes along, people should really be on board with that.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   True. Probably more concerning to people with a little bit more time left than you and I. Not that I ever said it's going to happen "quickly". In a geological time frame maybe, but not as we measure our own life times.

 

   I read an interesting article a few weeks ago about how the so called mini ice age correlates with rapid reforestation caused by the massive depopulation of the American continent. The resulting decrease in CO2 caused a drop in temperature that lasted 2 centuries. Everything humans (or dinosaurs) did affects the environment in some way. It's not about going back to the stone age, but it makes sense to me that if we have some evidence that our increased carbon footprint could be a problem (and we do), we should be looking at what we can do to minimize that.

 

   When something simple and painless and easy to do comes along, people should really be on board with that.  

I think we see things in a similar light.

 

But as to the bolded part... I don’t see humans giving up cars, planes, air conditioning, nor demolishing cities in order to plant more forests, which are all part of increased CO2.  In short, while I agree we should all do what we can, no one in their right mind believes the world will implode in 12 years, nor will the majority be willing to reduce QOL significantly enough to reduce CO2 at least in the next earth second (50 years).  Giving up air travel and remodeling all existing buildings to be more energy efficient is NOT simple.  

 

More of of a concern to me are the millions and millions of abandoned building in every country in the world. They waste forest space, provide no benefit, and hurt the environment.  Plus they are eyesores.  Just my opinion.

Edited February 9, 2019 by ALFKAD

[Steeleballz 7,550]

13 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I think we see things in a similar light.

 

But as to the bolded part... I don’t see humans giving up cars, planes, air conditioning, nor demolishing cities in order to plant more forests, which are all part of increased CO2.  In short, while I agree we should all do what we can, no one in their right mind believes the world will implode in 12 years, nor will the majority be willing to reduce QOL significantly enough to reduce CO2 at least in the next earth second (50 years).  Giving up air travel and remodeling all existing buildings to be more energy efficient is NOT simple.  

 

More of of a concern to me are the millions and millions of abandoned building in every country in the world. They waste forest space, provide no benefit, and hurt the environment.  Plus they are eyesores.  Just my opinion.

 

   I agree with that. Simple things are also things like LED lighting and energy efficient design and some of the other things that circumstance and technology have allowed us to do. Sure, we need have to have cars and planes and big screen TV's. Life wouldn't work the same without them. We don't have to use little mini space heaters to light up our houses and waste energy though. Cars, TV's, refrigerators, furnaces. All these things are designed with efficiency in mind nowadays. We might eventually find there is enough we can do without giving up too much. If not, as you said, we might find out the earth wasn't meant to support 10 billion people. Equilibrium will always be reached. Unlike the dinosaurs though, we can still try to work that a little more in our favor.  

[Boiler 43,426]

The population of Colorado is 5,500,00 give or take.

 

In 1900 it was 900,000.

 

As far as I can tell before the gold rish when most of the population was Hunter Gatherers it was about 8,000.

 

We have a shortage of water, import most of our food and the population keeps increasing.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The population of Colorado is 5,500,00 give or take.

 

In 1900 it was 900,000.

 

As far as I can tell before the gold rish when most of the population was Hunter Gatherers it was about 8,000.

 

We have a shortage of water, import most of our food and the population keeps increasing.

Cannot be true.  Libs tell us we cannot sustain the US economy without immigrants.

[Neonred 3,446]

Speaking of climate change, here is an interesting read.

 

The climate alarmists just can’t catch a break. NASA is reporting that the sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age; and Earth’s atmosphere is responding in kind.

So, start pumping out that CO₂, everyone. We’re going to need all the greenhouse gases we can get....

 

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/30214-nasa-sees-climate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-sun-activity

[jg121783 3,907]

2 hours ago, Unidentified said:

Thank you for proving my point. This is not a "leftist virtue signaling". This is calling men out for the way they treat women. There is nothing wrong with her in that picture. She is happy and smiling. 

First of all you don't have the slightest idea how I treat women so get off your high horse and quit pretending you do. Secondly it is leftist virtue signaling because I havent seen you once criticize anyone who posts insults here about Trump's appearance as being against men or treating men poorly. If the left didn't have double standards they would have no standards at all. Quite frankly I'm surprised you didn't accuse me of being racist because she is a minority. I better not give you any ideas.

 

2 hours ago, Unidentified said:

 

It is cute that you're trying to defend your friends. But it was clear they were judging her based on the picture only. 

I can't speak for anyone else but my judgement was largely based on her policies and her bug eyed meth mouth pictures (There are many out there) are just icing on the cake.

 

 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

6 hours ago, Póg mo said:

That's all they have. Childish memes, and a world view based on ignorance, and half-truths. 

You mean like calling Trump a pumpkin, commenting on his choices for hair styles etc .. yah just a problem of the right, hypocrite much?

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

7 hours ago, Unidentified said:

It is one thing to say that someone has crazy ideas and another to shame someone for their looks. There is nothing wrong with her, she's not on drugs. She is happy. And I am pretty sure those comments would not have happened if she was a man. 

i guess you missed the orange nixon diatribe.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Give me a break. This has nothing to do with her being a woman. Typical leftist virtue signaling. There are many men I would ask the same question about. I simply posed a question (different from an accusation) based on how she looked in the photo AND based on her actions. Is she on drugs? I have no idea. Does she act and look like she is on drugs? In my opinion possibly.

 

   You asked if she was on meth. Nothing about the picture suggests methamphetamine use.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

5 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

I read an interesting article a few weeks ago about how the so called mini ice age correlates with rapid reforestation caused by the massive depopulation of the American continent. The resulting decrease in CO2 caused a drop in temperature that lasted 2 centuries. Everything humans (or dinosaurs) did affects the environment in some way. It's not about going back to the stone age, but it makes sense to me that if we have some evidence that our increased carbon footprint could be a problem (and we do), we should be looking at what we can do to minimize that.

I saw that as well and it was a good read. Pretty straight forward and worth the read.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   You asked if she was on meth. Nothing about the picture suggests methamphetamine use.

Then why did you jump on the bandwagon accusing him of disparaging her for her looks?  It seems you actually knew it was her words/policies instead.  Interesting.

[Póg mo 1,749]

2 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

You mean like calling Trump a pumpkin, commenting on his choices for hair styles etc .. yah just a problem of the right, hypocrite much?

Ok got, if someone calls you names, the adult response is to act like a petulant child?