Discussion
  • Read More
    RegretsalotHamilton Nolan
    12/08/15 12:02pm

    I live in a country where the guy who wants to save the planet receives about 1% as much media attention as the guy who wants to get rid of all the brown people.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      J.MastrangeloRegretsalot
      12/08/15 12:11pm

      My first thought was “What country?”

      My second thought was “...Oh. I need a drink”

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      iGatsbyRegretsalot
      12/08/15 12:14pm

      He doesn't actually want to save the planet. If he did nuclear energy would be part of his solution. This was just a plan to rile up as much of his base as possible. A fantasy.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    iGatsbyHamilton Nolan
    12/08/15 12:11pm

    Bernie’s plan also calls for a moratorium on nuclear energy so obviously he is either not serious and just trying to score political points, doesn’t believe that global warming is an EXTREMELY important issue and is willing to play around with it, or is living in a complete fantasy land completely unattached from scientific analysis of this issue.

    I keep saying it here because it’s extremely important: we don’t have a lot of time to counter some really bad climate effects. The only viable solution we have at the moment is to fully embrace and exponentially expand our use of nuclear power. Once we’ve bought ourselves time, we can work on how wind and solar and geothermal can power us for the next part of humanities growth.

    There's simply no other way.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      DR honkhonkhonk, tyvmiGatsby
      12/08/15 12:33pm

      Dude this is the fifth comment you’ve made about nuclear energy in one short thread. You’re not lending the pro-nuclear camp any credibility favours.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      iGatsbyDR honkhonkhonk, tyvm
      12/08/15 12:49pm

      As I said before, I’m willing to duke this one out. Bernie gets zero credit. Carbon tax could work, we don’t know. But if there isn’t a viable energy solution to turn to in order to avoid the tax the tax itself will just be forced inflation and efficiency boosting. Still burning coal and oil. Still ruining the earth.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Johnny ChundersHamilton Nolan
    12/08/15 12:10pm

    Whats up with all of the Democratic candidates making detailed policy proposals? It’s like they actually want a “sensible government” or whatever and don’t get that screaming about Muslims is how shit gets done around here.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      iGatsbyJohnny Chunders
      12/08/15 12:26pm

      That “detailed policy proposal” calls for a moratorium on nuclear power, and thus stops the biggest weapon we have today to fight carbon emissions. Caloifornia, with it’s wealth of sun, win, accessible geothermal heat, and hydro power, only produces 19% of its energy from “renewable” and “green” resources. That is after an enormous effort by California to shift to green energy. Germany is the same, after an enormous amount of energy and capital, only 25% of the production is renewable and green. We have an EXTREMELY limited amount of time to solve this problem. We cannot wait for the tech to get better and for people to install the improved piecemeal. We have to set the plan in motion very soon so that in 10 years these plans are reality.

      Nuclear energy is the only viable tool we have to reduce worldwide emissions in a meaningful way. And he is giving that option up. And you are applauding him and calling it “sensible.” Nice.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MickeyDonovansJacketiGatsby
      12/08/15 12:31pm

      Keep it in your pants, nuke boy.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    GrumpyEagleHamilton Nolan
    12/08/15 12:02pm

    Sometimes it's hard to be the only grownup in the room.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      iGatsbyGrumpyEagle
      12/08/15 12:13pm

      This plan was 100% political and unrealistic. Any plan to reduce carbon emissions that seeks to put a moratorium on nuclear power is a fantasy. This is just as bad as the GOP pretending it doesn't exist.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      GrumpyEagleiGatsby
      12/08/15 12:26pm

      The point is, he's talking about issues and ideas that don't involve hating people and running up more charges on our Warbucks Visa Card.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Jerry-NetherlandHamilton Nolan
    12/08/15 12:10pm

    When I was in college (circa 1980) cigarettes were 65¢ a pack. Then states and the feds started piling on taxes, so they are now roughly ten times that price, and smoking is down by nearly half (from ~40% to <25% of American adults).

    GIF

    This is how a government can impose public health policy (and global warming is a health policy, amongst other categories).

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      IanJerry-Netherland
      12/08/15 12:17pm

      That’s what taxes are for. Make it expensive to do any particular thing, and people will stop when it becomes too costly.

      This is why we should slap tax increases on soda and other foods that have been deemed “bad” for us. The ones that lead to health issues down the road, like diabeetus and colon cancer, and so on and so forth. But nooooo, the Sarah Palin whackadoodle crowd will cry “tyranny!! I want to eat shit and not have to worry about the government telling me what to do!!”.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      kamla deviJerry-Netherland
      12/08/15 12:18pm

      Honestly, had NYC not charged $13 a pack I may have never kicked the habit.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SpringSprungHamilton Nolan
    12/08/15 12:06pm

    Sorry Bernie, but the impending end of life as we know it on this planet just isn’t that scary. Throw some brown people in there who worship a different invisible monster than mine and something-something second amendment and we’ll get back to you.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      jokepitchSpringSprung
      12/08/15 12:17pm

      Clearly the solution is to anthropomorphize carbon emissions into little brown people so the rubes will finally demand action.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Jerry-Netherlandjokepitch
      12/08/15 12:52pm

      How about this bunch?

      [OPEC Conference Summit]

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Low Information BoaterHamilton Nolan
    12/08/15 12:07pm

    What we really need is a exergy/BTU tax. Any process that consumes energy in a less than perfectly efficient manner should be taxed at a rate commeasurate with its ratio of thermal loss!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Johnny ChundersLow Information Boater
      12/08/15 12:24pm

      Well, we will just have to develop devices with efficiency greater than 1!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Low Information BoaterJohnny Chunders
      12/08/15 12:27pm

      The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is an unconstitutional infringement upon my natural rights. I never voted for Lord Kelvin.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    LeeedHamilton Nolan
    12/08/15 12:04pm

    So basically Sanders is proposing a massive tax on poor and middle class americans. The carbon tax is basically a war against your average consumer. They will be paying significantly higher prices for energy which makes the average Americans living standards lower.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      codeonthisLeeed
      12/08/15 12:12pm

      If only we could do something about this, like addressing the horrible lowest paid full-time employee to CEO pay ratio. Nah, who am I kidding. Just pass it on to the already strained poor/middle class or take it from the employees pay/bonuses.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      America's WangLeeed
      12/08/15 12:15pm

      Were you not singularly full of shit re: your concern for the less fortunate I’d almost say you were waging class warfare.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ArdenHamilton Nolan
    12/08/15 12:16pm

    Liberals have been handed a flush and they’re folding. In the same year we have the leading Republican candidate is a Fascist advocating violations of the constitution as the standard policy, while *simultaneously* having an actual Liberal Socialist running in opposition...

    ...and Liberals are, en masse, shrugging and saying “naaaah, I think I’ll vote for the Centrist Conservative”

    Good job, everyone. Way to really stand up for all those Liberal ideals you like spouting online, but when it comes down to put your money where your mouth is, you reveal yourself to be an ideological coward who can’t stand up to the slightest pressure.

    I hope Trump wins. We DESERVE it.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      large_eddyArden
      12/08/15 12:28pm

      “...an actual Liberal Socialist...”

      Sort of. What he wants his actually social democracy. He is still a capitalist.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SoapBoxcarWillieHamilton Nolan
    12/08/15 12:25pm

    I’ve never understood why this isn’t more of a conservative priority—it’s a market based solution that will create a new industry (JOBS!) around the carbon market. I guess if you reject the entire premise—that carbon and other greenhouse gases cause or contribute to increased rates of global warming, which is beyond a reasonable doubt a man-made phenomenon—you’ll see it as regulation in disguise. Or, if you’re truly cynical, the powers that be at the energy companies that support your campaign have decided they don’t want it (even though they’d probably be the ones owning the market and benefitting from it), you vote against it because they’ll back your opponent in the next primary (likely some tea-party lunatic).

    I do think it would be smart to not refer to this as a “tax” because people hate taxes. However, “Carbon Marketplace”, “Cap & Trade” and other things that sound Libertarian and Businesses-y will do more to endear people to this cause (although Sanders has done very well calling himself a Socialist, rather than a Social Democrat). Hopefully Hilary (still likely the most electable candidate, although it’s hard to be too enthusiastic about her) can do a better job selling this to her and Bill’s friends in the business world.

    Back to the whole issue of the premise for a moment: if your position is that “science isn’t settled on this issue yet”, it means exactly that—man-made greenhouse cases still COULD be causing increased rates of global warming, although they also might not be (and people who say these kinds of things tend to believe that they are definitively not man-made). We’re typically faced with similar situations involving issues of national security—we often don’t know for sure that “Radical Islamic Terrorists” are plotting anything in a specific place, but I’d imagine that there’s a pretty low threshold for the possibility before we decide to take action (a lot lower than the 98-99% of climate scientists who are pretty damn certain about global warming), BECAUSE WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF WE ARE WRONG? And maybe the Right’s response to this is just more cynicism: selecting the facts that are preferred by those that fund their campaigns and keep them in office.

    Reply
    <