A book by David Orr with dozens of contributors espouses amending the constitution and eliminating constitutional rights to give the government more power to address climate change.
Democracy in a Hotter Time
David Orr’s book is Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation.
Democracy in a Hotter Time calls for reforming democratic institutions as a prerequisite for avoiding climate chaos and adapting governance to how Earth works as a physical system. To survive in the “long emergency” ahead, we must reform and strengthen democratic institutions, making them assets rather than liabilities. Edited by David W. Orr, this vital collection of essays proposes a new political order that will not only help humanity survive but also enable us to thrive in the transition to a post–fossil fuel world.
These thoughtful and incisive essays cover subjects from Constitutional reform to participatory urban design to education; together, they aim to invigorate the conversation about the human future in practical ways that will improve the effectiveness of democratic institutions and lay the foundation for a more durable and just democracy.
Understanding the Risk
There were over 20 contributors to the proposed economic and constitutional madness.
I hate giving this the time of day because there is literally zero chance the constitution will be amended to address climate change.
However, it is not beyond the scope of imagination for a president to declare an emergency and seek special powers to deal with it, with Congress approving. Some call for President Biden to do that now.
A friend sent me a link to that book by Orr. It led me to other interesting places.
ASU President Michael Crow Calls For Globalist Revolution Over Climate Change In New Book
Arizona Free News reports ASU President Michael Crow Calls For Globalist Revolution Over Climate Change In New Book
In the book published last week, “Democracy in a Hotter Time: Climate Change and Democratic Transformation,” Crow declared that the principles of the Founding are no longer sufficient.
“Although the philosophical underpinnings of our democratic experiment were pragmatically balanced by the founders, the pivotal formulations of the U.S. Constitution failed to protect nature,” wrote Crow.
Crow’s remarks echoed the sentiments made by the principal author of the book, ASU Professor David Orr, who wrote in his foreword that the time is ripe for a bold experiment in a new kind of democracy worldwide.
“Against all odds, [our Founders] imagined and launched the first modern democracy. Imperfect though it was, the fledgling nation had the capacity for self-repair evolving toward ‘a more perfect union,’” wrote Orr. “Our challenge, similarly, requires us to begin the world anew, conceiving and building a fair, decent, and effective democracy, this time better fitted to a planet with an ecosphere.”
“[T]he principles of capitalism as articulated by Adam Smith in ‘The Wealth of Nations’ imposed no limits on economic individualism or the inclination of societies to exploit natural resources capriciously,” said Crow. “Approaches that ameliorate the interrelated conundrums that now plague the Earth’s systems will require systems-level thinking that challenges the reductionist assumptions of the Enlightenment.”
Orr clarified in the introduction of the book that Crow intends to reform higher education so that students are indoctrinated in climate change activism.
Indoctrination Already Underway
Mercy! Yet, how can anyone deny that indoctrination is already underway?
This is despite the fact that 20 years of end climate change predictions have all been wrong.
Perhaps it’s because rather than despite 20 years of end-the-world predictions failed to happen, that climate advocates have turned to more and more desperate measures.
BlackRock is In on the Net Zero Lie
Further research into this madness led me to Blackrock and a report called ‘Net zero’ is a lie, admits the utility industry and its regulators by JunkScience.Com.
A new report from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) buries net zero. Investment managers, public traded companies, regulators, politicians and more who have so far talked very loosely about net zero should now be on notice that they are talking about pure fantasy, if not falsehood. For investment managers and public-traded companies net zero is false and misleading and should have legal ramifications.
Low Carbon Research Initiative
In turn, JunkScience references the Low Carbon Research Initiative whose 76 page PDF I downloaded.
The conclusion is interesting.
Achieving economy-wide net-zero CO2 emissions while maintaining reliable delivery of energy and energy services across the economy will require a broad set of low-carbon technologies. These include energy supply technologies: renewable energy, nuclear, carbon capture and storage, bioenergy, and hydrogen and hydrogen-derived fuels; and energy demand technologies: efficiency improvements in all sectors, electrification, and fuel-switching to alternative nonelectric energy carriers (i.e., low-carbon fuels). Consistent with previous research, this study shows that clean electricity plus direct electrification and efficiency are cost-effective strategies in many sectors for near-term decarbonization efforts and can drive significant emissions reductions. Some elements of these strategies can be cost-effective even without decarbonization incentives. However, they are not sufficient by themselves to achieve net-zero economy-wide emissions. A broad portfolio of options that includes low-carbon fuels and carbon removal technologies will be required to achieve deep decarbonization across all sectors.
In all scenarios, regardless of the extent of fossil gas use, gas infrastructure plays a crucial role in providing firm capacity in the power sector (including in the near term as coal capacity is retired) and delivering low-carbon fuel to buildings and industry, particularly in colder climates.
In short, no matter what we do, we cannot get to the goal. Worse yet, there was no realistic estimate of the costs to try.
Mounting Evidence That ‘Net-Zero’ Carbon Emissions Isn’t Achievable
Finally, we come full circle to the Daily Signal article Mounting Evidence That ‘Net-Zero’ Carbon Emissions Isn’t Achievable
Arizona State University President Michael Crow believes we are in such danger that we should amend the U.S. Constitution to empower the government to deal more expansively with climate change. Crow’s view that constitutional protections of our liberties should be eliminated when they become inconvenient wouldn’t square with the founders, but his estimate of the dangers and required remedies for our changing climate are quite mainstream in our society.
“Net zero by 2050” has become an article of faith among our corporate and academic elites, no longer requiring proof or intellectual defense. The notion that we must eliminate or “offset” all carbon emissions by mid-century if we want to save the planet is the organizing principle for ESG investing. ESG is the consideration of environmental issues, social issues, and corporate governance issues when deciding what companies to invest in. In 2022, it was mentioned more than 6000 times in corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The SEC has “helpfully” proposed climate disclosure rules for companies to help investors “evaluate the progress in meeting net-zero emissions and assessing any associated risk.” Skeptics are sidelined as “climate deniers.”
But mounting scientific evidence suggests that net zero is wildly impractical and probably not even achievable. In September, the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm of the U.S. electric power industry (which would seem to be naturally inclined to support proposals that increase reliance on electricity), released a sober report on the practicality of net zero.
Their study concluded that “clean electricity plus direct electrification and efficiency … are not sufficient by themselves to achieve net-zero economy-wide emissions.” Translation: it can’t be done. No amount of wind turbines, solar panels, battery power, fossil fuel, or other available technologies will achieve net zero by 2050.
Silence Is The Tell
The response to this nonpartisan and obviously consequential report was silence. There has been essentially no media coverage. No climate activists rushed to dispute the methodology nor challenge the conclusions.
This is a significant tell. You could assume if the eco-activists were genuinely concerned about our climate future, they would have some interest in responding to this major challenge to their assumptions. But they ignored it to cling to their groupthink.
Three Final Thoughts
- When all else fails, indoctrination and cries to change the constitution begin.
- Indoctrination is already underway.
- It’s not the least bit surprising to see Blackrock in the middle of this.
Perhaps the only thing surprising is Biden has not yet declared a climate emergency. But we are headed in that direction.
Biden’s Green Energy Inflation Reduction Act Needs a Big Bailout Already
Subsidies are not enough to make Green energy nonsense work.
Note that Biden’s Green Energy Inflation Reduction Act Needs a Big Bailout Already
The Shocking Truth About Biden’s Proposed Energy Fuel Standards
In case you missed it, please consider The Shocking Truth About Biden’s Proposed Energy Fuel Standards
Germany Faces the Green Fiscal Truth but Biden Still Clings to EV Fantasy
For more on the EV fantasy, please see Germany Faces the Green Fiscal Truth but Biden Still Clings to EV Fantasy
if you seek a constitutional crisis over “emergency declarations”, just vote for Biden in 2024.
I am baffled that no attention has been paid to the recent report by Statistics Norway showing that the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is within the range of normal variation.
They looked at temperature records since the invention of the thermometer in the early 1700s, ice cores, and tree rings. They also showed that the so-called “global temperature” numbers are statistically invalid. It was a rigorous report, and not even the so-called “climate deniers” have mentioned it.
The report is available for download at the link.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/11/215
There are a number of seriously disabling issues with the so-called “scientific consensus” that human activity is responsible for the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.
For starters, there have been several RECENT examples of this or that “scientific consensus” being wrong. My favorite is the one at the link, which is a serious indictment written in a colloquial style.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/harlenbretz.html
Two others would be the medical “consensus” that dietary fat causes high cholesterol and is responsible for heart attacks, and the oceanographic “consensus” that ocean waves taller than about 65 feet occur once in 10,000 years.
Then there’s the “scientific consensus” on global warming, which was never a “consensus” to begin with.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Related to that fallacy is the idea that the science is “settled” on global warming. This goes directly against the scientific method. Nothing is settled in science. There are widely accepted “laws,” but even those have fallen at times.
Finally, there is the basic failure of the human-caused global warming group. They arrived at their groupthink far too quickly. They should have deployed the “Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses” outlined in 1890 by Thomas Chamberlin, the father of American geology. The paper is still considered a landmark in the study of the scientific method
Chamberlin developed the geology department at the University of Chicago, and later went on to become president of the University of Wisconsin.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56020891e4b0194ec174ba5f/t/58e178db37c5814ef82665ff/1491171560618/Chamberlain%26Platt_Wk5.pdf
Addressing the climate changes demands the radical cuts in CONSUMPTION by citizens especially in the Western Economies. This is NO starter.
About 6000+ day to day products are produced by oil/gas, as of NOW. How many are willing to reduce their standard of living, to achieve this? Without radical conservation, all this talk is hogwash
ASU bought into Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences, on Bermuda, a British dependency and tax haven, to further their agenda, the head of BIOS coems across as a Guardian-reader. WTF has Arizona got to do with Britain and it’s dependencies?! Americans out!
Related at least to the climate of political change, I thought that the new leader of Argentina, conservative Javier Milei, gave the world a tiny bit of hope! As Milei heads to the United States and a meeting with Biden and administration officials, sadly I was mistaken. Trying to think of the absolutely most incompetent fucked up place I could possibly go in the world for help, Biden and the Democrats would be way ahead of every evil group or place I can possibly even think of or imagine.
It’s good that Milei has joined the dots and seen the CCP’s tentacles in all UN activities.
Average temperature of the Earth is 59F, which is not ‘hot’ (or even warm) by any stretch of the imagination and is much cooler than normal for the planet – which is why we are still currently in an ice age.
Interestingly, nearly all of the tiny increase in average temperatures over the last 150 years (since the Little Ice Age) are at night and in cooler parts of the world. Peak daytime temperatures have hardly changed.
Everything you say is true. And you do an excellent job of making it all sound so benign. Sadly, it isn’t benign.
All that information you mentioned comes from the scientists who are doing all those measurements on your behalf.
Scientists who explain that the average temperature increase of 1.9F (1.1C) since 1880 is a problem for humanity and most other living species on the planet. Particularly since the increase in temperature is accelerating and will continue to accelerate because CO2 levels keep increasing.
CO2 levels have ranged from a low of 180 ppm to a high of 300 ppm for the last 3 million years. But in the last 150 years,
man has caused an increase to 420 ppm. Which is why temperatures have already increased by 1.9F in that time. But that is just the start. It will take the planet many decades or even centuries to fully respond to elevated CO2 levels, particularly since the levels are still rising. The last time CO2 levels were 400 ppm was 4 million years ago. At that time, temperatures were 5F warmer and ocean levels were 50 feet higher. And the climate was very different from what we have today. Which is where we are headed. That is why scientists are concerned.
Scientists also predicted that the current warming would be greatest at night and in the worlds coldest places.
Nice to chat with you.
Everything you say is true. And you do an excellent job of making it all sound so benign. Sadly, it isn’t benign. All these generalises numbers are pretty meaningless, because most climate activity is local, and averaging them out across large data sets skews results: it’s mis/dis/mal-information.
Neither changes in CO2 nor changes in temperature (up or down) have the linear effect you assume; remember when “the ozone layer” was a thing?
Pop science is fun, but it’s for children, not for grown-ups or policymaking.
Scientists get funding for regurgitating “anthropogenic climate change” in the start of papers. How do I know? I’ve done that work myself.
You cannot have a career or get funding if you diverge from this message. Even saying what the Guardian would regard as blasphemies will harm your career as a scientist in any field linked to climate research. Where does the funding come from? In the USA, a lot from philanthropists (usually left-leaning corporate types), a lot from government (“deep state” etc…). This is especially true in Europe, where funding from the larger economies, including the UK, is funnelled through EU bureaucracy and skimmed off of by kleptocrats, and rebranded such as “Horizon 2020”. These initiatives are nudged by all kinds of left-leaning lobbyists and institutions like the WEF and UN, and they are very much “jobs for the boys” in the socialist statist sense.
Some also comes from the capitalist world, where there are tax breaks and scorecards for shareholders like pension funds managed by yet more left-leaning quangocrats. Like the proxy war in Ukraine, it bears all the hallmarks of a massive debt-driven money laundering insider trading scheme, where punters like you are conditioned into believing that the theft of money from you via various parasitic means, is somehow benefitting humanity. It isn’t.
There remain millions ravaged by poverty and disaster around the world, meanwhile your money is lining Swiss bank accounts and propping up the luxury brands industry – you are being taken for a ride.
Nice to chat with you.
Oh for f*ck sakes. I thought you were worth some of my time. My mistake. Just another cult conspiracy loony. Since there is no IGNORE feature I will simply have to stop reading your posts.
Bye.
“Scientists get funding for regurgitating “anthropogenic climate change” in the start of papers. How do I know? I’ve done that work myself.”
Where is the cult conspiracy loonyism in that comment? As Dr. Malone said, “at the top, science is about money and power.” A scientist who indicated the Covid virus came from a lab, changed his tune a few days later, to natural origin. Days after that he received a grant from Fauci. The connection is obvious. Money talked.
WARNING TO COMMENTERS!
Never ever contradict PapaDave’s religion.
“ESG Advocates Want to Amend the Constitution to Address Climate Change“
There is absolutely no other reason, than that above, that assures the need for some/many of those in our current government to be removed…
Net zero or close in a century is likely. The mineralogical reserves of reduced carbon, e.g. coal, oil, gas, are by no means unlimited.
Agree. Oil and gas companies have been reducing capex for close to a decade now, so they are no longer expanding their reserves by as much as they used to. Why expand reserves if they may end up being stranded assets at some point in the future?
So this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Less capex now means less supply in the future, which contrasts with ever increasing global energy demand, and forces fossil fuel prices up to levels that eventually reduce demand. Or substitution with renewables.
For oil companies its a win-win for a decade or two. Less spending and higher prices resulting in big cash flows heading back to shareholders.
Which ones? Those who work in this industry see plenty of new exploration and drilling going on, perhaps not in your country, but around the world, it’s a very different story.
Which ones? I guess you missed out on the last 3 years worth of my oil stock recommendations on this blog. Too bad. You missed some huge gains.
As for the rest of your post; believe what you want.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/294607/total-us-gas-and-oil-industry-expenditure/
Nah. There’s plenty of oil and gas out there still to be exploited. It will likely become gradually more expensive to do so, but production will remain high for centuries unless we find some new source of cheap, abundant energy. Google “methane hydrates”.
The only things likely to stop (or nearly stop) oil and gas production would be a global nuclear war (the neocon fruitcakes) or our own stupidity (the climate change fruitcakes). Otherwise, we’re good for a very long time!
Reduction in trade, reducing shipping, reduces oil consumption. China’s swap lines to Russia in 2014 being replicated to Saudi in an attempt to unseat the petrodollar in favour of the petroyuan is a bit of an unknown. Future growth looks more likely in the Indian Ocean region than Atlantic.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271823/global-crude-oil-demand/
Oil demand is up over 2 mbpd this year to over 102 mbpd. Demand is expected to keep growing by the long term average of 1 mbpd.
Fortunately, in spite of some OPEC cuts, other supply increased by 1.5 mbpd this year. Global oil inventories are still declining as a result.
Netzero wealth, perhaps. You seem to miss the implication of what you are advocating – that is a cause that seeks the decline of human civilisation, trapping us on this planet and securing our extinction – which is a situationally ironic outcome, given the supposed goals of your cult to preserve the current world in aspic, for fear of the inevitability of the passage of time. How many pro-ESG transhumanists are funding cryogenic freezing to preserve their precious selves for all eternity (so they hope)?
Constitutional amendments will be our undoing. Whoever said “‘Democratic liberty’ is an oxymoron” could not have been more correct.
The ultimate grift.
Nobody who tried was ever able to establish a known world government but they will keep trying and keep failing. It is not possible. No system could ever control billions of people. ESG and all this stuff has no impact on most of the planet. Just ignore them. They can only enforce as far as they can which is not very far outside of major cities.
The British established a world government long ago, and the USA is part of it.
And their influence and power is shrinking as the global south is growing
“Democracy in a Hotter Time calls for reforming democratic institutions as a prerequisite for avoiding climate chaos and adapting governance to how Earth works as a physical system.”
Destroying democratic institutions. Dictatorship is not democracy.
I was just reading today that the week ending November 6, showed snow cover was at the 57 year maximum. Jingle bells.
I was also just reading on Zero Hedge, that the top 1% pump as much carbon as the bottom 66% of humanity. The elitists fly into Davos on private jets for thew WEF. It seems to me that they should have drastically cut their carbon footprint lifestyle, if there really was climate crisis. All i can see, is that the common people are being played for their benefit.
The ESG movement has lost its momentum and a book coming out will not reverse the trend. A book laying out that their manifesto depends on ditching our democracy for something run by group of activists that we all know will not stand.
It has already happened in the EU, why not the world?
On the Continent, most democracies are skin deep only as is free speech.
Pretty much spot on Mish. There is no way to “net-zero” in this century. Pretty much, what I have been saying for the last 3-4 years on your blog. Maybe we can get there in the next century. So global warming and climate change are going to keep getting worse for many more decades.
I take issue with this statement though:
“ This is despite the fact that 20 years of end climate change predictions have all been wrong.”
That depends on what you mean. If you are referring to the extreme statements made by climate “activists”, politicians and the press in order to get people’s attention, then yes, you are correct.
However, if you are referring to the published predictions in peer reviewed scientific papers, then you are wrong.
Predictions made by actual scientists who work and publish in this field have been remarkably accurate for many decades now. In fact, some would say that, if anything, they have tended to be too conservative and in some cases have somewhat underestimated the impact of our emissions. Some things are happening a bit faster than predicted by scientists. But most things are happening exactly as predicted.
I have read same. Unfortunately the climate change debate has become extremely politicized and because of this most have difficulty ascertaining what is really happening.
That’s because they can’t think for themselves. Instead they listen to whatever political party they align with. Which is why I mostly avoid politics, and focus on reality.
Given your pronouncements, that doesn’t seem to be going too well for you.
Come, come Papa. We all know that you focus totally and exclusively on money and profit. Obviously both your mother and father are Ferengi.
ESG is a fanatical religion of science deniers.
Pay no attention to ASU president, Michael Crow. He’s the dork that got one of his economic professors to calculate the worth of the Pac-12 athletic conference to negotiate a higher deal with ESPN. ESPN offered what would be roughly $30 million per year per team. This would have been on par with the ACC and the Big-12. The professor ‘calculated’ that Pac-12 teams should be paid $50 million per year, comparable to the SEC and BIG. The Pac-12 presidents rejected ESPN’s $30 million offer and wanted the $50 million as the ASU president proposed. ESPN told the conference presidents to pound sand. The end result?? The Pac-12 is now the Pac-2, consisting of just Oregon State and Washington State. Stay away from Michael Crow had his wild jabberings.
What rights did they propose to eliminate?
What rights don’t they propose to eliminate?
Their right to lie, steal, and kill at will, but for your good. Have a nice day.
I take it that you haven’t read the book. I am asking for a serious answer.
That’s a good question and deserves an upvote. I don’t have the answer because I haven’t read the book.
What is the purpose of messing with the Constitution which is a document that defines the role and limits of government power? I agree that new energy sources are needed. But that is an engineering problem which is best handled by industry. The supposed “greenies” have a totalitarian mind set and thus are always suspect since they are ruled by emotion, not science or logic. Know nothing Greta is a perfect poster child for these loonies.
Oh, the silliness that #DumbAgeians occupy their child brains with…..
Climate hysteria is a farce. However, even if it were true, the US Constitution could handle it. There is no need to have know nothing, grifter politicians rewrite the Constitution to give themselves more power. The feedback required to control the problem would happen through economics means where rising costs reflect the realities and changes behavior. What is needed is less centralized political power , not more. The clowns in DC are the problem, not the solution. Who is dumb enough to think that Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi could solve any difficult problem? These people are dispicable morons.
Exactly! Insurance companies are already providing pressure by backing out of coverage in western fire prone states and southeastern hurricane prone states
It appears that there is a second bout of mass hysteria building now that the Covid madness has passed
Only a 2nd?
Bouts of mass hysteria are a lot more common than that and have been around for pretty much forever.
Seems to be the new governing principle, rule by hysteria. The modern day witch hunt has become fashionable.
All of the stuff you wrote above is not worth reading. It is symptomatic of the claptrap surrounding climate change. But it is good to get Conservatives riled up and wanting to go out and fight.
America loves to fight. It is not a peaceful nation. Soon it will be at war with China. It doesn’t know any better!
Climate Change is akin to a global nuclear war. And if America must fight something then fight climate change. By that, I mean stop it from running its full course. (You can’t stop it from happening because it is already happening. Conservatives are being told enormous lies by people they trust all for political reasons. If you fight climate change then you get the grand prize of living much longer than you will if you don’t fight it. It is that simple! What have you got to lose? Oh, yeah your life.
America is not experiencing much in the way of climate change disasters at present whereas much of the rest of the world is experiencing climate change. So don’t be fooled. It will come to America.
We have time to do something about Climate Change to avoid the bad latter stages of the change. This will allow your children and grandchildren and their offspring to have lives.
Of course, it is possible (or likely) if Climate Change is not stopped that some countries will look to invade other countries that they see as “better off” than their own. Hopefully, the world, including America, will prevent this from happening.
Finally, people think that without intervention, societies will collapse. I am of that view for American society. What does this mean? Many things that you rely on today will just not be there. As people realize that they need to protect and help their families, they will not go to work. Many won’t be able to because there will be no gas for their vehicles. It will be much worse than Covid, although it is anticipated that there will be plenty of infectious diseases around. There will be no credit cards. There will be no banking. I suspect stores will not open. If you think this is all junk then line up and try it. The dates they are working to (2030/2050) are way too optimistic! Things have become much clearer in recent years and these data way way back.
By the way, the sooner we start to work on controlling climate change (we are not presently controlling it) the more likely we will save people and save the planet for these people.
Don’t forget, if you don’t help you are gambling not only on your own lives and the lives of all your interconnected family.
This is not a political statement.
So since nobody but nobody but nobody is doing anything about China or India … that means to get anywhere near Net Zero … the rest of the world has to be markedly negative. This, of course, assumes, that we can legitimately tie anthropogenic activity to climate change … which we can if we keep changing the historic data from NASA and NOAA.
I think you will find that China is doing much better than America. India is a big problem. I put America on a par with India.
You really deluded and deranged if you think “China is doing much better…”. I can only assume you are trolling. Anyone whose been there and seen the technicolor pollution and complete lack of interest, knows this.
The Almighty controls the weather, as a means of blessings or curses, corrective punishment. Manmade climate change of emitting or releasing stored CO2, that changes or alters our weather patterns is mathematically impossible….
Not correct and never will be correct. If we cannot control climate all of us will be toast. There is no almighty.
The fact that you say something like, “There is no almighty” tells me that you have a level of hubris that betrays that you lack wisdom.
Whether you are religious or not (I am not very religious), you cannot KNOW with any certainty what exists outside of earth’s paradigm. You just cannot.
People who believe they know everything (you) are dangerous to those of lesser minds.
The way you write makes me believe that you are young, perhaps a Gen Z or millennial. You have so much certainty.
On the God, angle. Religions and Gods were thought up many, many centuries ago to control the people. Of all the satellites and all of the disasters in the past, how can there be any Gods? It is only logical to ascertain that there can’t be.
Don’t be stupid.
Read up on Pascal’s Wager.
Virtually cost free.
“But it is good to get Conservatives riled up and wanting to go out and fight…”
And then,
“This is not a political statement.”
The rest is not even worth debating, as this is an incredibly disingenuous post.
Thank you I confirmed what I wanted from this. America is toast!
You’re a troll.
Maybe. Avocado or cinnamon/sugar?
Nobody can “control” the climate, least of all the US. 95% of the human race does not even live in the US.
I presume you are an American. I don’t want to sound rude, but America’s ability to get the rest of the world to do anything has decreased precipitously in the last few decades. India, China (most of S.E. Asia) and most of Africa, for all the talk, have no intention of reducing their CO2 emissions at the expense of their development. You want to improve the future in the US? Start working on things that you CAN do – reduce crime, improve your education system, support marriage and family instead of single mothers, address the epidemic of drug and alcohol abuse, depression, diabetes/obesity and related diseases, control your borders and immigration. Above all, stop borrowing and spending/wasting money you don’t have. The climate has been changing for millennia and it’s incredible arrogance to think you can do anything about it.
Perhaps the best and most succinct comment about Americans and Climate Change I’ve ever read.
All this stuff about Climate Change while nobody is doing anything about controlling Gravity. Think of the immense savings in energy if we just reduce Gravity by 10%. Everyone is so short-sighted.
This, to me, is the definition of treason and those supporting it should enjoy a traitor’s reward.