Bernie bad Climate plan

USA doesnt need a climate plan

1 sentence andy can't help himself. 

Who would have thought someone with little to give actually gives even less. 

NPC's mad

usa doesnt need climate plan

NPC confirmed. 

USA can't fix the world.

Dems are butthurt that Trump is pulling out of the world police gig, so the dems want to enter the world eco-terrorist gig.

Global warming freaks don't really care about the world, not on a macro scale. If they did, then they would care about all the struggling shithole countries that are mostly dependent on fossil fuels to keep their people fed.

What's the death of a few billion residing in shithole countries compared to that smug feeling of satisfaction as an eco-terrorist prig unplugs their Prius?

Man can't terraform the planet, they can only create accommodations. We really do not have the technology to "set" the thermostat for the planet.

Reality will kick in with these supercilious blowhards when they realize places like India, China, and all of the Middle East and Sub-Sahara will choose to feed their people over choosing to reduce fossil fuel emissions while they WILL look at the circus America is morphing into just as we wonder TODAY how Japanese pop culture got so freaky like a carnival show.  

Sorry, I just wanted an excuse to use the word prig. (and supercilious)

90% of the oceans pollution come from africa and asia, America wont do ANYTHING

You naively seem to be suggesting that the world is lots of separate unconnected and unrelated bits.

It is, we are unconencted With China and Africa is a basket case, ask Harikrish

You seem to naively suggest that India and China give a rat's asshole about a 2-degree rise in global temperatures.

NPC's are things that are properly programmed to serve a specific purpose meant to provide some sort of benefit or improvement... 'Properly programmed' is disqualifying in this case as it doesnt apply

Humans are silly if they think they have any significant influence over climate. Climate is controlled by the sun.

It's called the greenhouse effect, because more of the Sun's energy is retained in the atmosphere near the surface of the earth.

It's called nature and you can't f with it

The atmosphere is thought to have changed in composition in the past.  Logically, if the sources of fossil fuels were once living organisms, they would have extracted CO2 from their environment.  By most estimates we have only hundreds of years of fossil fuel reserves at the current rate of consumption, meaning a significant amount of the material would be moved into the atmosphere in short order if we don't stop burning them to produce usable energy.

Of course the climate changes

There was far more life millions of years ago with higher co2...we also had much more O2 as well.....might see some larger lifeforms make a comeback with the increased O2.

I don't think its wise from a standpoint of national security to be using up our own finite reserves for the sake of decadence.  Its in the economic interest of the United States to pursue a system that is more sustainable, and keep some juice in our back pocket until we can come up with a comparable energy storage/transfer medium, and we certainly want to stay on the forefront of technological innovation throughout the 21st century.   

I don't agree. Necessity is the mother of invention, and people won't be motivated unless gas is 10 dollars a gallon.

Ban nuclear? WTF? "Nuclear can't solve the problem" alright, I guess that's a valid opinion, but seriously? Is the man constantly high?

I was simply pointing out that assumed U.S. insularity is no protection against the effects of a changing climate.

Asia, Africa, Europe, The Americas, One World, One Ecosystem, One People. The Earth is a rare and precariously balanced speck of cosmic dust and we've got nowhere else to go to.

The effects that we are experiencing now were largely caused by the past actions of the developed World, so trying to lay the blame at the door of developing nations is extremely hypocritical and arrogant.

 

This is a totally baseless opinion to hold. You have been listening to way too much end of the world proselytizers.

Study a book on the geological history of the Earth and you'll see that the cosmos over billions of years has done worse things to the earth than mankind by many orders of magnitudes and it came out just fine. The hubris of mankind to think we matter in the tiny blip of existence we have had in the 4+billion lifespan of the earth matters in the least is insanely short-sighted. George Carlin said it the best. The planet is fine and will always be fine. It's the people who are fucked. Save the people before worrying how Earth is going to handle a glut of cow farts and jet planes.

If you really want an interesting article to read, check this out.

Take note, mankind with zero technology pulled through a disaster by at least 2 orders of magnitude more powerful than the simultaneous detonation of every atomic weapon ever created by man. And you really worry about cow farts? Come on man.

And you also kinda missed my point about how the vast majority of the world right now would lose billions to starvation if their fossil fuel usage dropped significantly...most notably in China, India, the Middle East, and Sub Saharan Africa. 

Short of going to war (which America would handily lose btw) none of those nations are going to allow their people to die from starvation just so you can have a comfy cooler planet for your great-grandkids. Man is pretty freeking adaptable, and though it might irk you to see species in your lifetime going extinct, 99.9ish% of all species that ever lived on this planet have come and gone, and you don't moisten an eye over it. There are a few serious pressing issues that will ultimately determine the future of the quality of life of people living on this planet, but a warmer climate aint one of them.

Yep I'm not wholly in disagreement with a lot of that. But you've changed the goalposts somewhat.

My contention was with the notion that perceived problems were not U.S. problems, but solely the problems of Asia and "Shithole Africa".

I was therefore, simply pointing out that it would be naïve to bury your heads in the American sand.

You seem to be hung up on global warming as a pressing problem.

Let me ask you something, what are 5 things you can think of off the top of your head that could cause the quality of life of humans to increase due to global warming. Here is a hint, if you can't find a single thing, then you are clearly relying on biased sources with a narrative to spin where only one outcome is desired. Nothing in nature is an absolute negative, even the inevitable extinction of the sun.

Firstly, as I tried to indicate I am far from hung up on global warming and once again you seem to have missed the point of my initial contention. 

However. I have a much broader philosophical and hypothetical outlook and consequently regard " human influenced global warming" as an evolutionary event, perhaps even an inevitable evolutionary event.

And just to make it clear I refer to evolution in a universal and material sense, in so much as I regard human influence as a small but nonetheless significant stage in a much greater universal process.

Therefore I regard human influenced global warming simply as what it is and any resolutions or actions that may or may not transpire as a result, will be what they will be.

Furthermore: Did you mean increase or decrease?