What's new

The Climate Change Thread

Yep, just another thing that sucks about the US that many people refuse to try to improve upon. Like guns and healthcare.
I wouldn’t be too hard on the US. Our per capita emissions are falling. It is rising china that is the primary culprit. And after china will be India. And after India will be Africa. We’ve had our Industrial Revolution which brought prosperity. Should they be allowed to have theirs?

IMG_3091.png
 
I wouldn’t be too hard on the US. Our per capita emissions are falling. It is rising china that is the primary culprit. And after china will be India. And after India will be Africa. We’ve had our Industrial Revolution which brought prosperity. Should they be allowed to have theirs?

View attachment 18697
I was speaking more about people refusing to improve upon. People hate wind and solar for some reason. Instead of hating those things we should all encourage more research and development and improvement of those things. We should all want to move away from oil.
 
Most recent Frontline….

How Hurricane Helene became an ominous warning about America’s lack of preparedness. FRONTLINE and NPR draw on a decade of reporting on disasters and their aftermath to examine how and why the U.S. is more vulnerable than ever to climate change-related storms.




The reality….


And the divorced from reality response….

 
Last edited:
Do we remember when MAGA and Trump complained about FEMA’s response in North Carolina, to Hurricane Helene, blaming Biden? Too slow. Ignoring any Trump supporters that could be identified as Trump supporters. Remember that last lie? FEMA volunteers did not want to not help Trump supporters. Rather, they were afraid they themselves would be attacked by Trumpers, given Trump’s lies about FEMA.

The following paragraph is from Heather Cox Richardson’s substack:

“….the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has denied North Carolina’s request that it honor a commitment made by President Joe Biden to pay for 100% of the costs for removal of debris after Hurricane Helene devastated the western part of the state in September 2024. That storm killed 107 people in western North Carolina and destroyed or damaged 75,000 homes, as well as destroying roads and leaving mounds of debris.

As Zack Colman of Politico reported yesterday, the storm hit in the last weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign, and Trump undermined FEMA’s response, lying that it was not present and telling North Carolinians that the Biden administration could not help them because it had taken money from FEMA for undocumented immigrants. None of what he was saying was true, but MAGA mouthpieces picked up his criticisms and exaggerated them, claiming that the federal government intended to steal people’s land, that Biden had directed the storm to western North Carolina, and that 28 babies had frozen to death in FEMA tents—all lies, but lies that slowed recovery as riled-up people who believed them refused assistance, threatened officials, and demanded investigations.

Trump suggested he would respond more effectively to voters in North Carolina, and two of the hardest-hit counties there, Avery and Haywood, backed him in 2024 by margins of 75.7% and 61.8%, respectively, similar to those it had given him in 2016 and 2020.

Once in office, though, Trump began to talk of eliminating FEMA. Now the White House has told North Carolina residents they’re on their own as they try to dig out from Hurricane Helene”.
——————————————————————————————————

Remember how Trump took the same approach to the Covid pandemic? Taking federalism to extreme limits, it’s the states that must provide the aid during disasters. Kudos for fast tracking the Covid vaccines, but otherwise Trump has always been in favor of retracting federal support for the states. Less help from the federal government, more responsibility to state governments.

MAGA cried holy hell over FEMA’s response to Hurricane Helene, it happened under Biden! Can we count on MAGA to complain now?


“I think we’re going to recommend that FEMA go away,” Trump said during a January visit to Asheville to survey the damage shortly after taking office.

Three key takeaways:

  1. Trump amplified misinformation about FEMA’s response to Hurricane Helene that sowed distrust in the agency, paving the way for his administration to dismantle it.
  2. The recovery effort in western North Carolina is lagging during Trump’s first three months.
  3. The Trump administration has frozen disaster relief funds, canceled grants to help communities prepare for disasters and signaled it will pull back federal help for long-term disaster recovery.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure what to think exactly. We can definitely do better on the environment but it sure seems like this is just a way for the powerful to expand their powers and clamp down even more on their citizens. It’s another tax, another scam, another means of control. Meanwhile those with power…


View: https://x.com/govt_corrupt/status/1927421157008924896?s=46&t=PfGBft52CF1a98VsjZzilw

Do as I say, not as I do… same goes for Elon, Bezos, Gore, Leo, Ruffalo, and the rest of the bourgeoisie
 
Last edited:
China continues to build out renewables and pumped hydro storage at a torrid pace. Unfortunately carbon emissions continue to rise…

View attachment 18798View attachment 18799
trump probably sees that and gets jealous of china. He is probably hoping his drill baby drill in combination with destroying the EPA and anything having to do with climate change research will get us into first place.
 
trump probably sees that and gets jealous of china. He is probably hoping his drill baby drill in combination with destroying the EPA and anything having to do with climate change research will get us into first place.
Gutting the epa is dumb. That said coal to nat gas switching as a result of low nat gas prices (drill baby drill) has been the driver for 50% of emissions reductions in the US. Renewables adding another 30 - 35% contribution.

IMG_3479.jpeg
 
Many people in the United States, prefer conspiracy to factual information.


Chemtrails believers claim governments around the world are in cahoots with secret organizations to seed the atmosphere with chemicals and materials — aluminum salts, barium crystals, biological agents, polymer fibres, etc. — for a range of nefarious purposes. These include controlling weather for military purposes, poisoning people for population or mind control and supporting secret weapons programs based on the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP)…..

……I don’t have space to get into the absurdities of belief in a plot that would require worldwide collusion between governments, scientists and airline company executives and pilots to amass and spray unimaginable amounts of chemicals from altitudes of 10,000 meters or more. I’m a scientist, so I look at credible science — and there is none for the existence of chemtrails. They’re condensation trails, formed when hot, humid air from jet exhaust mixes with colder low-vapor-pressure air. This, of course, comes with its own environmental problems.

But what interests me is the connection between climate change denial and belief in chemtrails. Why do so many people accept a theory for which there is no scientific evidence while rejecting a serious and potentially catastrophic phenomenon that can be easily observed and for which overwhelming evidence has been building for decades?

To begin, climate change denial and chemtrails theories are often conspiracy-based. A study by researchers at the University of Western Australia found “endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories … predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings.

Many deniers see climate change as a massive plot or hoax perpetrated by the world’s scientists and scientific institutions, governments, the United Nations, environmentalists and sinister forces to create a socialist world government or something.

Not all go to such extremes. Some accept climate change is occurring but deny humans are responsible. Still, it doesn’t seem rational to deny something so undeniable! In a Bloomberg article, author and Harvard Law School professor Cass R. Sunstein points to three psychological barriers to accepting climate change that may also help explain why it’s easier for people to believe in chemtrails: people look to readily available examples when assessing danger, focus “on risks or hazards that have an identifiable perpetrator,” and pay more attention to immediate threats than long-term ones.

Researchers Ezra Markowitz and Azim Shariff of the University of Oregon Psychology and Environmental Studies departments add a few more, including that human-caused climate change “provokes self-defensive biases” and its politicization “fosters ideological polarization.”

People who subscribe to unbelievable conspiracy theories may feel helpless, so they see themselves as victims of powerful forces — or as heroes standing up to those forces. Whether it’s to deny real problems or promulgate imaginary ones, it helps reinforce a worldview that is distrustful of governments, media, scientists and shadowy cabals variously referred to as banksters, global elites, the Illuminati or the New World Order….

….The problem is that science denial is, in the case of chemtrails, a wacky distraction and, in the case of climate change denial, a barrier to addressing an urgent, critical problem. Science is rarely 100 percent certain, but it’s the best tool we have for coming to terms with our actions and their consequences, and for finding solutions to problems. The science is clear: human-caused climate change is the most pressing threat to humanity, and we must work to resolve it. We don’t have time for debunked conspiracy theories.



 
Last edited:
Gutting the epa is dumb. That said coal to nat gas switching as a result of low nat gas prices (drill baby drill) has been the driver for 50% of emissions reductions in the US. Renewables adding another 30 - 35% contribution.

View attachment 18801
Ya trump will probably try to make america the greatest polluter on the planet.
 
Must be part of MAHA, lol…


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed a new ruling that heat-trapping carbon gas “emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.’'

The Associated Press asked 30 different scientists, experts in climate, health and economics, about the scientific reality behind this proposal. Nineteen of them responded, all saying that the proposal was scientifically wrong and many of them called it disinformation. Here’s what eight of them said.

“This is the scientific equivalent to saying that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer,” said climate scientist Zeke Hausfather of the tech firm Stripe and the temperature monitoring group Berkeley Earth. “The relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperatures has been well established since the late 1800s, and coal burning is the single biggest driver of global CO2 emissions, followed by oil and gas. It is utterly nonsensical to say that carbon emissions from power plants do not contribute significantly to climate change.”

“It’s about as valid as saying that arsenic is not a dangerous substance to consume,” said University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann.

“The world is round, the sun rises in the east, coal-and gas-fired power plants contribute significantly to climate change, and climate change increases the risk of heat waves, catastrophic storms, infectious diseases, and many other health threats. These are indisputable facts,” said Dr. Howard Frumkin, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health and a retired public health professor at the University of Washington.

Climate economist R. Daniel Bressler of Columbia University, said: “We can use tools from climate economics, including the mortality cost of carbon and the social cost of carbon, to estimate the climate impacts of these emissions. For instance, in my past work, I found that adding just one year’s worth of emissions from an average-sized coal-fired plant in the U.S. causes 904 expected temperature-related deaths and over $1 billion in total climate damages.”

University of Arizona climate scientist Kathy Jacobs said: “Their statement is in direct conflict with evidence that has been presented by thousands of scientists from almost 200 countries for decades.

“It’s basic chemistry that burning coal and natural gas releases carbon dioxide and it’s basic physics that CO2 warms the planet. We’ve known these simple facts since the mid-19th century,” said Oregon State’s Phil Mote.

Andrew Weaver, a professor at the University of Victoria and former member of parliament in British Columbia, said: “President Trump is setting himself up for international court charges against him for crimes against humanity. To proclaim you don’t want to deal with climate change is one thing, but denying the basic science can only be taken as a wanton betrayal of future generations for which there should be consequences.”

Stanford climate scientist Chris Field, who coordinated an international report linking climate change to increasingly deadly extreme weather, summed it up this way: “It is hard to imagine a decision dumber than putting the short-term interests of oil and gas companies ahead of the long-term interests of our children and grandchildren.”
 
Back
Top