“The New York Times this year put together 10 resources to refresh your understanding of our warming planet.
The article, which as is evident is geared toward climate change believers, includes resources like websites, fact sheets, podcasts, videos and short books.”
YOU DON”T SAY! The NY Times put together resources for “believers”. Who would have predicted that?
How about a list of the scientific facts that justify skepticism about what we know? CNN? NBC? You guys up for it? Insurance Journal? Hello?
Such as 1. why did NASA change the historical temperature record four times if it is all “settled science”? 2. why should we worry so much about computer predictions if all the past computer predictions have been wrong? 3. how much of the warming is natural? How much is man-made? What percentage of each is involved? 4. Is it really that urgent to address CO2 emmissions if liberals won’t discuss the obvious immediate solution, clean nuclear power? After all, suppressing CO2 emissions will take decades, since China and other developing countries are rapidly increasing their emissions. 5. Since polls show Americans who “believe” in Climate Change don’t want to sacrifice even $10. a month to address the problem, aren’t efforts to suppress fossil fuel production doomed anyway?
Feel free to hand this list to family members at Thanksgiving in lieu of discussing real issues. Hey, you can ask them to answer your questions from NY Times list of resources!
#1 & 2) I do not think you understand the scientific method. By definition, it evolves over time to explain new facts as they are discovered. We can say something is settled science and still account for new data points.
For example, acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s squared. That’s pretty settled science, right? We can all agree on that? Great. Well, that doesn’t factor in dark matter or dark energy because we don’t have a good grasp on that at all. Once we learn about those things and have math behind them, maybe acceleration due to gravity will change because of those new data points. That doesn’t mean it’s not settled science RIGHT NOW based on all the available data we’ve accumulated.
3) That’s a great question.
4) We should discuss CO2 emissions AND all alternative sources of energy. However, I don’t think “clean nuclear power” is as clean as you may think. There’s still heavy CO2 emissions during mining, milling and enrichment, and it can take 10-18 years until it produces NET energy,
5) Just because something is hard or that the public doesn’t want to spend their own money to fix the problem doesn’t mean we should not do it. People are required to pay for stuff all the time in taxes that they don’t want to, but they do anyway.
Let me ask you a serious on-topic non-emotional question about your 4th point.
There is no known way to safely dispose of nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for ~250,000 years, and a typical “clean nuclear” generator creates 20 to 30 TONS of waste EACH YEAR. We currently have 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that already requires disposal.
What EXACTLY would you suggest we do with all that nuclear waste? There’s no nuclear waste disposal site in the USA, so where do you REASONABLY suggest we put all of it?
Let me ask you a reasonable question: is the problem so dire that we only have 12 years left to address it or are those people who say that ignorant or lying? No dodging now, this is real.
And if we only have 12 years left, there is no other solution than nuclear and tree planting. We just don’t have enough time.
So which is it? Put up with the waste until we find a true solution? (How about taking it up in Elon Musk’s returnable rocket and send it off towards the sun?) Or are all the doom sayers lying?
Craig – you previously had an issue with me asking you a question when you did not think I provided an answer to a prior question you asked me.
I ask you to show me the same respect in debate that you held me to….
If you answer my direct, on-topic, non-emotional question without resulting to insults/attacks/etc., I will be happy to answer the question you asked me in response.
I answered your question. We don’t have an option other than underground but if the situation is so dire, then that is what we do. Perhaps in the near future we can truly send it up into space and send it to burn up safely in the sun.
Stop posturing. You and I both know you played a game before, “answering” my question only somewhere else in a response to someone else?!?!!?? And I didn’t insult/attack/ etc. I have answered your question twice.
First, I said that ONCE and subsequently re-posted my answer in the direct conversation we were having when you got on me for suggesting you read another one of my posts.
Then for days after, you kept replying to my questions with “see my answer somewhere else” without ever answering me. I wouldn’t suggest you call me out for playing games when I have done no such thing in spite of your actions.
Second, you say we should store it underground, but “there is still no disposal site in the United States.” So you want to put it all underground … but WHERE? That’s the question. (Potential follow-up questions could be: which states would allow that? How can we guarantee it’ll be safe for 200,000+ years? What happens when that site fills up – where does the next batch go? I’m not asking you to answer those follow-up questions, but you certainly can if you want)
In good faith, I will answer your question in hopes you can see I’m not playing games (even though you didn’t REALLY answer me because you suggested we put it somewhere that doesn’t exist)
“is the problem so dire that we only have 12 years left to address it or are those people who say that ignorant or lying?”
Based on all the evidence available to date, yes, I believe that ESTIMATE is reasonable. I do not believe the people making that claim are ignorant nor are they lying.
PLEASE NOTE, based on the Scientific Method described above, should additional data be uncovered which impacts the estimated time frame, we reserve the right to adjust the estimated time frame based on the new data. That’s not being dishonest or deceitful, it’s just how science has always worked in human history.
November 22, 2019 at 5:20 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
So, AGAIN, if we only have 12 years left – and you rule out nuclear – WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION?
Try to be realistic. The fantasies of AOC et all that we can convince hundreds of millions of people to adopt dramatically poorer lifestyles is never going to happen.
November 22, 2019 at 6:20 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
Man, I can’t wait for AOC to push out these conservative dinosaurs and open all the renewable energy forever! She really has her act together huh guys?
November 22, 2019 at 5:44 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Cite me where I said we should rule out nuclear. I said there’s not safe place to put the waste, but I also said just because something is hard that doesn’t mean we should not do it. For at least the 10th time, PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth and making Straw Man Arguments.
Stop whining. I asked you what your solution is and you pointed out only the difficulty of the waste; you never endorsed nuclear at all. Anyone reading that would infer you rejected nuclear as a solution.
I asked a direct question: what is your solution. I never got a direct answer.
Your games are tiresome, especially with all your civility lectures.
I’m not whining – I’m asking you to stop making straw man arguments.
Not specifically endorsing something is different than ruling it out.
Just because I don’t specifically say that I want dessert doesn’t mean I’m not going to eat a bite of chocolate cake when it gets brought to the table.
November 25, 2019 at 4:38 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
And so your only solution is nuclear. Welcome to the club. Why all the argumentation then?
November 25, 2019 at 5:01 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Do you even hear yourself Craig?
First you say I’m ruling out nuclear.
Now you say my only solution is nuclear.
I shall re-post this in hopes you understand I’m saying there’s a COMBINATION of things we can do, for example:
“We should discuss CO2 emissions AND all alternative sources of energy” “
November 25, 2019 at 5:19 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
But we HAVE been discussing CO2 emissions ad nauseum. Renewable energy is a joke, predicted by most experts to be far less than half of energy production in 25 years in the very best of circumstances..
And we only have 12 years!.
Your vague response tells it all. “Discucssing CO2 emissions.” You still driving a car, Rosenblatt? Flying on airplanes? Heating your house?
Well the discussion doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. 12 years YOU said. In the immortal words of Prince, “over, oops, out of time”.
November 26, 2019 at 8:04 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey Craig – remember when you started this conversation with “Is it really that urgent to address CO2 emmissions” and then I replied with “We should discuss CO2 emissions AND all alternative sources of energy”? No. I guess you don’t if you’re now ‘debating’ that my CO2 comment was vague even though it was a direct reply to your question. SMH.
November 22, 2019 at 1:30 pm
Robert Magyar says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
One can always deny the realities of Climate Change and are free to hold their own opinions but when the insurance, banking, and legal industries start sounding the alarm bells of the increasing financial costs and risks which result from extreme weather events, it might be prudent to, “follow the money”.
You trust corporations to speak the truth? They are just marketing the usual PC nonsense in order to keep sales up. The questions I posed are about the real known science. Care to answer any of them?
All you’ve done is re-post the talking points directly from the oil companies, and you’re questioning someone else? Why do you think people directly benefiting from hiding the impacts of man made climate change are telling you the truth about it? You’re the one accepting pain from big corporations and asking “Thank you sir may I have another?” here.
All you’re doing is re-posting the talking points from religious zealots like AOC. You just want to take from the people and give to the Democrat elites in Washington.
Your characterization of her as a religious zealot is incorrect. You afraid much bro? I think I’d rather give the “democrat elites” a chance versus the clowns you want in charge bro, good job making our country a joke on the international landscape LOL Russia 2020 much?
November 22, 2019 at 1:36 pm
Jimbo says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
All well and good to have insurance carriers consider climate change in their cat models, but how about the regulators doing the same?
You have flooding in the mid west every year, often more than once. Can NFIP charge policy holders a rate based on that risk? Not really. Congress won’t let them because it becomes un-affordable for people living in those areas. Fire risk areas are the same, the dept. of insurance goes nuts when carriers pull out of writing the areas, does not allow them to use cat models in pricing, put pressure on carriers that want to raise prices to support losses.
So when will the regulators do something to prepare and help mitigate the damage caused by such events?
I disagree with those people who dismiss the efforts of others who try to take individual steps to conserve energy and protect the planet, whether those taking such steps are individuals or “green” corporations. Those taking steps are dismissed as ‘virtue signalers” or socialists or lefties. Contrary to their critics’ claims, they are not so naïve as to think they alone can fix it but they are setting an example, trying to experiment and learn firsthand and maybe set an example for their families, neighbors, competitors and a few others. Sometimes individual efforts inform neighborhoods, which in turn inform states, which in turn might inform nations. What is wrong with some virtue signaling anyway, especially by public officials or corporations? Just what is the harm? It seems they make their critics uncomfortable. But why?
At the same time, the same critics go after people who support change but do not themselves make individual sacrifices, calling them hypocrites because they are still using air conditioning or driving gas cars.
So it’s not clear there is any way to impress these critics. According to them, only those who personally practice conservation should advocate for policies that would require us all to conserve. Of course, they know that few of us are saints or martyrs. But what they forget is that while we may be not be willing to sacrifice alone, we are very willing to support policies and follow laws and policies that require change by everyone and that benefit the greater good. Few citizens like paying taxes but we do it because it is required of us all and we want schools, roads, national defense, etc. We do it for the greater good. That’s how societies work.
At the same time the critics belittle and disparage those taking small steps to address climate woes, they are implicitly acknowledging that individual action is not enough, that bigger changes are necessary, changes in corporate, energy, transportation, etc. and overall public policies in order to save the planet. Yet there, too, mostly what they do is whine, criticize, nitpick and deny, and even worse, obstruct, attempts to implement even small changes. They not only criticize and obstruct but they place the burden on others to come up with a perfect solution and take no responsibility themselves. They have never tried to help fix it; they have only made it worse.
Telling the truth IS trying to fix it. Lying about the problem and potential solutions defeats trying to fix it. Because people of intelligence and honesty see the lies and then stop listening.
Polls show that 70% of Americans believe Climate Change is a problem to address. But less than half of those would spend even $10. per month to fix it. In other words, political campaigns that ask Americans to pay higher gas taxes or energy taxes or any other sacrifice are losers.
When will you people learn? You turn people off to helping when you are hysterical (12 YEARS LEFT!) and then don’t have a 12 year solution.
You want to help? Disagree with people who aren’t being honest. It is a very complicated problem. China contributes 1/3 of ALL global CO2 emissions. And yet we never hear the “12 years to go” crowd come up with a solution for China. Or India. Or the rest of the developing world.
And yet no one talks about that part of the problem either.
Once again, why should the poorest americans pay to fix the climate when it’s the richest americans that profit? If the richest 1% were taxed higher the effects would be pennies on the dollar, yet the poorest americans making fractions of a fraction are the ones to pay for fixing the planet? Meanwhile, those at the 1% often are directly profiting from big oil and other things that continue to damage the planet. You are literally trying to rob the poor to line the pockets of the rich. When will YOU people learn that the poorest americans aren’t cheap slave labor, and we all should deserve a planet to live on, maybe those benefiting from destroying the planet should have to pay instead.
You want to help? Maybe try to stop the laws allowing the uber rich to dodge their taxes, like your president, and put that money to good use instead of whining that poor americans working multiple jobs aren’t fixing things while the richest americans fly private jets to recreational activities.
Good Question, Karl. Why did the Democrats in California increase gas taxes and energy taxes on the poor and middle class? We are now in the top 5 of all states in both categories.
And the subsidies for roof top solar go to the affluent, paid for by higher energy bills on the poor, who can’t afford houses in California.
Why are Democrats so heartless? (And why did the blue collar voter leave the Democrats, which used to be the base of the Democrat party?)
Aside from the insulting insinuation that I’m Karl Marx, why are conservatives so unwilling to tax the rich? You ignored my question and tried to deflect, why don’t you answer me: Why should the poorest americans pay to fix the climate when it’s the richest americans profiting from hurting the climate? You have no response because there isn’t a good answer. You just want to keep the status quo, not fix anything, and you certainly don’t care for the poor and middle class americans. You call me democrats heartless while trying to get them to pay to have a livable planet. Why not the billionaires? OK Boomer.
Too funny!
“The New York Times this year put together 10 resources to refresh your understanding of our warming planet.
The article, which as is evident is geared toward climate change believers, includes resources like websites, fact sheets, podcasts, videos and short books.”
YOU DON”T SAY! The NY Times put together resources for “believers”. Who would have predicted that?
How about a list of the scientific facts that justify skepticism about what we know? CNN? NBC? You guys up for it? Insurance Journal? Hello?
Such as 1. why did NASA change the historical temperature record four times if it is all “settled science”? 2. why should we worry so much about computer predictions if all the past computer predictions have been wrong? 3. how much of the warming is natural? How much is man-made? What percentage of each is involved? 4. Is it really that urgent to address CO2 emmissions if liberals won’t discuss the obvious immediate solution, clean nuclear power? After all, suppressing CO2 emissions will take decades, since China and other developing countries are rapidly increasing their emissions. 5. Since polls show Americans who “believe” in Climate Change don’t want to sacrifice even $10. a month to address the problem, aren’t efforts to suppress fossil fuel production doomed anyway?
Feel free to hand this list to family members at Thanksgiving in lieu of discussing real issues. Hey, you can ask them to answer your questions from NY Times list of resources!
#1 & 2) I do not think you understand the scientific method. By definition, it evolves over time to explain new facts as they are discovered. We can say something is settled science and still account for new data points.
For example, acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s squared. That’s pretty settled science, right? We can all agree on that? Great. Well, that doesn’t factor in dark matter or dark energy because we don’t have a good grasp on that at all. Once we learn about those things and have math behind them, maybe acceleration due to gravity will change because of those new data points. That doesn’t mean it’s not settled science RIGHT NOW based on all the available data we’ve accumulated.
3) That’s a great question.
4) We should discuss CO2 emissions AND all alternative sources of energy. However, I don’t think “clean nuclear power” is as clean as you may think. There’s still heavy CO2 emissions during mining, milling and enrichment, and it can take 10-18 years until it produces NET energy,
5) Just because something is hard or that the public doesn’t want to spend their own money to fix the problem doesn’t mean we should not do it. People are required to pay for stuff all the time in taxes that they don’t want to, but they do anyway.
Let me ask you a serious on-topic non-emotional question about your 4th point.
There is no known way to safely dispose of nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for ~250,000 years, and a typical “clean nuclear” generator creates 20 to 30 TONS of waste EACH YEAR. We currently have 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that already requires disposal.
What EXACTLY would you suggest we do with all that nuclear waste? There’s no nuclear waste disposal site in the USA, so where do you REASONABLY suggest we put all of it?
Citation for nuclear waste: https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary
Let me ask you a reasonable question: is the problem so dire that we only have 12 years left to address it or are those people who say that ignorant or lying? No dodging now, this is real.
And if we only have 12 years left, there is no other solution than nuclear and tree planting. We just don’t have enough time.
So which is it? Put up with the waste until we find a true solution? (How about taking it up in Elon Musk’s returnable rocket and send it off towards the sun?) Or are all the doom sayers lying?
Craig – you previously had an issue with me asking you a question when you did not think I provided an answer to a prior question you asked me.
I ask you to show me the same respect in debate that you held me to….
If you answer my direct, on-topic, non-emotional question without resulting to insults/attacks/etc., I will be happy to answer the question you asked me in response.
I answered your question. We don’t have an option other than underground but if the situation is so dire, then that is what we do. Perhaps in the near future we can truly send it up into space and send it to burn up safely in the sun.
Stop posturing. You and I both know you played a game before, “answering” my question only somewhere else in a response to someone else?!?!!?? And I didn’t insult/attack/ etc. I have answered your question twice.
First, I said that ONCE and subsequently re-posted my answer in the direct conversation we were having when you got on me for suggesting you read another one of my posts.
Then for days after, you kept replying to my questions with “see my answer somewhere else” without ever answering me. I wouldn’t suggest you call me out for playing games when I have done no such thing in spite of your actions.
Second, you say we should store it underground, but “there is still no disposal site in the United States.” So you want to put it all underground … but WHERE? That’s the question. (Potential follow-up questions could be: which states would allow that? How can we guarantee it’ll be safe for 200,000+ years? What happens when that site fills up – where does the next batch go? I’m not asking you to answer those follow-up questions, but you certainly can if you want)
In good faith, I will answer your question in hopes you can see I’m not playing games (even though you didn’t REALLY answer me because you suggested we put it somewhere that doesn’t exist)
“is the problem so dire that we only have 12 years left to address it or are those people who say that ignorant or lying?”
Based on all the evidence available to date, yes, I believe that ESTIMATE is reasonable. I do not believe the people making that claim are ignorant nor are they lying.
PLEASE NOTE, based on the Scientific Method described above, should additional data be uncovered which impacts the estimated time frame, we reserve the right to adjust the estimated time frame based on the new data. That’s not being dishonest or deceitful, it’s just how science has always worked in human history.
So, AGAIN, if we only have 12 years left – and you rule out nuclear – WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION?
Try to be realistic. The fantasies of AOC et all that we can convince hundreds of millions of people to adopt dramatically poorer lifestyles is never going to happen.
Man, I can’t wait for AOC to push out these conservative dinosaurs and open all the renewable energy forever! She really has her act together huh guys?
Cite me where I said we should rule out nuclear. I said there’s not safe place to put the waste, but I also said just because something is hard that doesn’t mean we should not do it. For at least the 10th time, PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth and making Straw Man Arguments.
Stop whining. I asked you what your solution is and you pointed out only the difficulty of the waste; you never endorsed nuclear at all. Anyone reading that would infer you rejected nuclear as a solution.
I asked a direct question: what is your solution. I never got a direct answer.
Your games are tiresome, especially with all your civility lectures.
I’m not whining – I’m asking you to stop making straw man arguments.
Not specifically endorsing something is different than ruling it out.
Just because I don’t specifically say that I want dessert doesn’t mean I’m not going to eat a bite of chocolate cake when it gets brought to the table.
And so your only solution is nuclear. Welcome to the club. Why all the argumentation then?
Do you even hear yourself Craig?
First you say I’m ruling out nuclear.
Now you say my only solution is nuclear.
I shall re-post this in hopes you understand I’m saying there’s a COMBINATION of things we can do, for example:
“We should discuss CO2 emissions AND all alternative sources of energy” “
But we HAVE been discussing CO2 emissions ad nauseum. Renewable energy is a joke, predicted by most experts to be far less than half of energy production in 25 years in the very best of circumstances..
And we only have 12 years!.
Your vague response tells it all. “Discucssing CO2 emissions.” You still driving a car, Rosenblatt? Flying on airplanes? Heating your house?
Well the discussion doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. 12 years YOU said. In the immortal words of Prince, “over, oops, out of time”.
Hey Craig – remember when you started this conversation with “Is it really that urgent to address CO2 emmissions” and then I replied with “We should discuss CO2 emissions AND all alternative sources of energy”? No. I guess you don’t if you’re now ‘debating’ that my CO2 comment was vague even though it was a direct reply to your question. SMH.
One can always deny the realities of Climate Change and are free to hold their own opinions but when the insurance, banking, and legal industries start sounding the alarm bells of the increasing financial costs and risks which result from extreme weather events, it might be prudent to, “follow the money”.
You trust corporations to speak the truth? They are just marketing the usual PC nonsense in order to keep sales up. The questions I posed are about the real known science. Care to answer any of them?
All you’ve done is re-post the talking points directly from the oil companies, and you’re questioning someone else? Why do you think people directly benefiting from hiding the impacts of man made climate change are telling you the truth about it? You’re the one accepting pain from big corporations and asking “Thank you sir may I have another?” here.
All you’re doing is re-posting the talking points from religious zealots like AOC. You just want to take from the people and give to the Democrat elites in Washington.
Your characterization of her as a religious zealot is incorrect. You afraid much bro? I think I’d rather give the “democrat elites” a chance versus the clowns you want in charge bro, good job making our country a joke on the international landscape LOL Russia 2020 much?
All well and good to have insurance carriers consider climate change in their cat models, but how about the regulators doing the same?
You have flooding in the mid west every year, often more than once. Can NFIP charge policy holders a rate based on that risk? Not really. Congress won’t let them because it becomes un-affordable for people living in those areas. Fire risk areas are the same, the dept. of insurance goes nuts when carriers pull out of writing the areas, does not allow them to use cat models in pricing, put pressure on carriers that want to raise prices to support losses.
So when will the regulators do something to prepare and help mitigate the damage caused by such events?
I disagree with those people who dismiss the efforts of others who try to take individual steps to conserve energy and protect the planet, whether those taking such steps are individuals or “green” corporations. Those taking steps are dismissed as ‘virtue signalers” or socialists or lefties. Contrary to their critics’ claims, they are not so naïve as to think they alone can fix it but they are setting an example, trying to experiment and learn firsthand and maybe set an example for their families, neighbors, competitors and a few others. Sometimes individual efforts inform neighborhoods, which in turn inform states, which in turn might inform nations. What is wrong with some virtue signaling anyway, especially by public officials or corporations? Just what is the harm? It seems they make their critics uncomfortable. But why?
At the same time, the same critics go after people who support change but do not themselves make individual sacrifices, calling them hypocrites because they are still using air conditioning or driving gas cars.
So it’s not clear there is any way to impress these critics. According to them, only those who personally practice conservation should advocate for policies that would require us all to conserve. Of course, they know that few of us are saints or martyrs. But what they forget is that while we may be not be willing to sacrifice alone, we are very willing to support policies and follow laws and policies that require change by everyone and that benefit the greater good. Few citizens like paying taxes but we do it because it is required of us all and we want schools, roads, national defense, etc. We do it for the greater good. That’s how societies work.
At the same time the critics belittle and disparage those taking small steps to address climate woes, they are implicitly acknowledging that individual action is not enough, that bigger changes are necessary, changes in corporate, energy, transportation, etc. and overall public policies in order to save the planet. Yet there, too, mostly what they do is whine, criticize, nitpick and deny, and even worse, obstruct, attempts to implement even small changes. They not only criticize and obstruct but they place the burden on others to come up with a perfect solution and take no responsibility themselves. They have never tried to help fix it; they have only made it worse.
George,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a good steward of the planet. More should follow that example.
Telling the truth IS trying to fix it. Lying about the problem and potential solutions defeats trying to fix it. Because people of intelligence and honesty see the lies and then stop listening.
Polls show that 70% of Americans believe Climate Change is a problem to address. But less than half of those would spend even $10. per month to fix it. In other words, political campaigns that ask Americans to pay higher gas taxes or energy taxes or any other sacrifice are losers.
When will you people learn? You turn people off to helping when you are hysterical (12 YEARS LEFT!) and then don’t have a 12 year solution.
You want to help? Disagree with people who aren’t being honest. It is a very complicated problem. China contributes 1/3 of ALL global CO2 emissions. And yet we never hear the “12 years to go” crowd come up with a solution for China. Or India. Or the rest of the developing world.
And yet no one talks about that part of the problem either.
Once again, why should the poorest americans pay to fix the climate when it’s the richest americans that profit? If the richest 1% were taxed higher the effects would be pennies on the dollar, yet the poorest americans making fractions of a fraction are the ones to pay for fixing the planet? Meanwhile, those at the 1% often are directly profiting from big oil and other things that continue to damage the planet. You are literally trying to rob the poor to line the pockets of the rich. When will YOU people learn that the poorest americans aren’t cheap slave labor, and we all should deserve a planet to live on, maybe those benefiting from destroying the planet should have to pay instead.
You want to help? Maybe try to stop the laws allowing the uber rich to dodge their taxes, like your president, and put that money to good use instead of whining that poor americans working multiple jobs aren’t fixing things while the richest americans fly private jets to recreational activities.
Good Question, Karl. Why did the Democrats in California increase gas taxes and energy taxes on the poor and middle class? We are now in the top 5 of all states in both categories.
And the subsidies for roof top solar go to the affluent, paid for by higher energy bills on the poor, who can’t afford houses in California.
Why are Democrats so heartless? (And why did the blue collar voter leave the Democrats, which used to be the base of the Democrat party?)
Aside from the insulting insinuation that I’m Karl Marx, why are conservatives so unwilling to tax the rich? You ignored my question and tried to deflect, why don’t you answer me: Why should the poorest americans pay to fix the climate when it’s the richest americans profiting from hurting the climate? You have no response because there isn’t a good answer. You just want to keep the status quo, not fix anything, and you certainly don’t care for the poor and middle class americans. You call me democrats heartless while trying to get them to pay to have a livable planet. Why not the billionaires? OK Boomer.