The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

There's a huge chasm of middle ground on this and many, many other issues. But between the winner-take-all mentality and demonization of the "other side" -- at least in American politics these days -- there's no longer any trust and so compromise becomes impossible. The marriage of socio-economic zealotry with environmental causes is but one example that is anathema to achieving broad consensus on climate change issues. It has nothing to do with what any one of us may be for or against, what we may approve or disapprove, or whether someone believes the GND has "worthy" goals or completely unrealistic ones. It's instead all about what is achievable consensus-wise. The only people who gain from the divisiveness are the politicians and their naive sycophants who never question actual motivations.

It takes two to tango of course.

The left has been a natural home for environmental causes, especially serious ones, because (besides all the airy-fairy Mother Gaia, one world, touchy feely stuff ) the environment is a common, it's thinking about the "many" and the future, not the self, and the problems are such that resources and effort are required, personal and corporate behaviours must be changed or improved, and government direction and regulation is required.

But this doesn't mean that the right must therefore be naturally opposed to environmental actions. As when I linked to the list of prominent right-wing leaders who had strong environmental ideals, there's plenty of ways in which a positive regard for the environment is in accord with conservative principles and ideals. And there are many possible actions (eg carbon trading or tax, sorry) that use free-market mechanisms to achieve the desired result.

Except of course when the political parties of the right choose to make it a wedge issue, to capitalize on that soshulist greenie perception, to deny or downplay the problems, and that becomes just another set of differences between the two ends of the axis. There cannot be "consensus" as long as one side is capitalizing on the division.

The left is of course also capitalizing on their green cred... but they're kind of with the angels on this... even when they apparently do get it wrong (eg NDZ). It's usually better to act and screw up occasionally then to refuse to act. In business this is called bias towards action.

So the question I would put to those who truly want to move past the polarization over the environment: why hasn't the right tried to steal this issue from the left by acknowledging ecological problems and championing their own solutions? Even if this didn't extend to full-throated support for CC action, it would go miles to rob the left of much of their environmental cred.

The foregoing all has to do with achieving consensus. Sometimes problems are so critical that stronger action is required. Like with WW II, or terrorism, there's little time to build consensus, you just have to act, even if it's unpopular, difficult or involves some sacrifice. A boat has a skipper that everyone agrees to obey, because when something goes sideways, there's no time to build consensus.

[transmitterdan]

Nobody ever claimed politicians are particularly bright....

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... So the question I would put to those who truly want to move past the polarization over the environment: why hasn't the right tried to steal this issue from the left by acknowledging ecological problems and championing their own solutions? Even if this didn't extend to full-throated support for CC action, it would go miles to rob the left of much of their environmental cred ...

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Nobody ever claimed politicians are particularly bright....

I don't believe that any of us, here on CF, are politicians.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

* * *

Except of course when the political parties of the right choose to make it a wedge issue, to capitalize on that soshulist greenie perception,

The GND, and even more importantly mainstream Dems being too fearful to say a word against it, turned the socialist obsession from perception to reality. Much to the glee of the Trump 2020 campaign no doubt.

The left is of course also capitalizing on their green cred... but they're kind of with the angels on this...


* * *

No, they're not. And it's exactly why they screw up and lose credibility. For far too many it's far too personal, and involves an unhealthy level of self-absorption which leads to a lack of objectivity. Hard for conservatives as well as more moderate people to understand.

So the question I would put to those who truly want to move past the polarization over the environment: why hasn't the right tried to steal this issue from the left by acknowledging ecological problems and championing their own solutions? Even if this didn't extend to full-throated support for CC action, it would go miles to rob the left of much of their environmental cred.

Most of the spectrum save the far left has long been onboard with most mainstream environmental causes, remedies, and actions. What they're not onboard with is the highly personalized hatred for fossil fuels & the oil industry, any level of expert or non-expert dissent, the curtailing of basic liberties like free speech, needless over-regulation, and the marriage between environmentalism and repeatedly failed socio-economic policies like socialism. Environmentalism has long since been mainstream, and only the sanctimonious (and often hypocritical) far left like to believe they are "with the angels." But since angels aren't real in the minds of many, maybe they are?

The foregoing all has to do with achieving consensus. Sometimes problems are so critical that stronger action is required. Like with WW II, or terrorism, there's little time to build consensus, you just have to act, even if it's unpopular, difficult or involves some sacrifice. A boat has a skipper that everyone agrees to obey, because when something goes sideways, there's no time to build consensus.

This sounds straight out of the AOC alarmist playbook. Few are swayed by such comparisons.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The GND, and even more importantly mainstream Dems being too fearful to say a word against it, turned the socialist obsession from perception to reality. Much to the glee of the Trump 2020 campaign no doubt.

That's not true. Pelosi and many other establishment Democrats have been decidedly cool to it. Another example.

Trump and the GOP would no doubt like to claim that the Democrats have completely climbed aboard. It's not true of course, but that's apparently not an impediment to claiming that.

The GND is doing what it was mainly intended to - get people talking about those issues. Some ideas might make it as party planks. It will never get passed into law as a complete package, you know that.

Most of the spectrum save the far left has long been onboard with most mainstream environmental causes, remedies, and actions.

...uh huh. Which is why those problems continue to languish, and their advocates get tarred with the same brush that you're wielding against CC advocates.

What they're not onboard with is the highly personalized hatred for fossil fuels & the oil industry, any level of expert or non-expert dissent, the curtailing of basic liberties like free speech, needless over-regulation, and the marriage between environmentalism and repeatedly failed socio-economic policies like socialism. Environmentalism has long since been mainstream, and only the sanctimonious (and often hypocritical) far left like to believe they are "with the angels." But since angels aren't real in the minds of many, maybe they are?

Speaking of mainstream...


I guess you haven't observed how most environmental causes became mainstream, and the fights to get it there, and who fought those. And who fought against.

Anyway, I know we won't ever agree.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don't believe that any of us, here on CF, are politicians.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was agreeing with Lake-Effect. If they were smart, the conservatives should promote a revenue neutral carbon tax. But then I realized the folly in wishing for smart politicians. You have to take an IQ reduction procedure to run for office these days it seems.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Marc1

....So, unless the prices paid for beach properties suddenly plummet, you can be confident that hysteria over rising sea levels is just one aspect of financially-motivated global warming hysteria.....

In the US the rich keep pushing coastal property prices up, apparently willing to bet that either they won't be the ones to swallow a bullet, or that current flood insurance premiums are too low to not take advantage of. But institutional investors are growing increasingly wary of long-term risks.

Wall Street Is Masking the True Cost of Climate Change for Coastal Homes | Bloomberg

....In North Carolina’s Outer Banks, the average sales price was up 11.5 percent over the last three years. Luxury real estate in Miami Beach was up more than 60 percent year over year during the fourth quarter of 2018. In 2018, Nantucket island saw a 161 percent increase in the total number of sales over the prior year. In contrast, annual National Flood Insurance premiums were raised by an average of about 8 percent on April 1, 2018, from an annual average of $866 to $935 per policy.

It’s not that homebuyers are ignoring the growing threat of climate-related damage; Petrarca says his clients are increasingly concerned about the climate threat. It’s just that currently there are too few financial repercussions for coastal homeowners, says John Rollins, an actuary at Milliman who specializes in catastrophe-exposed property and flood insurance. “People are moving into harm’s way, and there are multiple threats associated with living near the coast,” he says, “but there’s been a tremendous abundance of capital that has become available to insure property risks.”

The investment capital that has gone into insurers and reinsurers has increased competition in the industry and held premiums down. That, in turn, has artificially suppressed the cost of coastal homeownership. “The consumer got the benefit of the disconnect between the flood of available capital that came into the reinsurance market and the voices of scientists indicating higher client risk,” says Rollins.

Simultaneously, “the national flood insurance program is artificially subsidized due to a lot of political pressure,” says Howard Mills, the global insurance regulatory leader at Deloitte. “Currently, people who live in areas of the country that will never, ever flood are subsidizing those who live in risky areas.”...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Institutional investors are factoring climate change into real estate deals in coastal cities

....“We are getting more sophisticated and starting to get hyper-local risk assessments,” Grayson told the 200-plus attendees. “[Managers] are thinking about how not to overload someone’s portfolio with high-risk assets. People are starting to draw lines of where they will and will not invest.”....

“We also hire third-party consultants, usually engineers, to do deeper dives to understand what is being done at the city level,” Craft said. “We are using projection models. If it goes above a certain threshold, it means the property is more vulnerable and a physical threat could happen.”

Craft said institutional investors want data in order to formulate how much capital to put into a building to make it more secure and safe, and to factor in the fluctuating cost of insurance premiums. “We are all working on how to price the risk into the deal,” she said. “Before we really didn’t have the tools to assess portfolios. We used to rely on FEMA maps and a few other sources.”....

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

....The GND, and even more importantly mainstream Dems being too fearful to say a word against it, turned the socialist obsession from perception to reality. Much to the glee of the Trump 2020 campaign no doubt....

Which of the following 10 points of the Green New Deal do you find to be unacceptably socialistic?

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey released a fourteen-page resolution[40] for their Green New Deal on February 7, 2019. According to The Washington Post (February 11, 2019), the resolution calls for a “10-year national mobilization” whose primary goals would be:[41]

1. "Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."
2. "Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."
3. "Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
4. "Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
5. "Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."
6. "Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
7. "Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."
8. "Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
9. "Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
10. "Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

[my numbering]

[Marc1]

In the US the rich keep pushing coastal property prices up

Waterfront properties are more expensive than the rest because they are more appealing for obvious reasons and therefore the demand is higher which in a free market increases it's value. Your "the rich" qualifier only highlights your bias and disqualifies you from a rational debate.
Of course this may not apply in Cuba, but it does all over the rest of the world including Russia, not only the US.

The "global warming" fraud, was invented to shift power and resources and make an otherwise non competitive industry viable with obscene offerings of taxpayers money at the altar of a phoney god.

The fake enemy, CO2, demonised using smoke and mirrors is 0,04% of the environment and of that humans contribute 3%, that is 0,0012% of the environment. It is essential to life on earth as the only bridge between the sun as contributor of energy to earth, and plants. To call it pollution is akin to treason to human kind.

The only way to push such a gargantuan lie, was to create a religion where the lie can not be question. "The debate is over" The priest of the anti humanity religion have enough power to make you lose your job if you speak up.

Their promoters, in true used car salesman fascion, have hidden the many flaws and the highly polluting side of wind and solar to achieve political support.

For this purpose they use otherwise rational and nice people by exploiting emotional issues and half truths and mixing it with socialist issues and repressed hate and envy, to push the agenda that has political power and subsidy money as target and clearly not the environment.

They would otherwise not pedal those monstrosities of solar farms or wind farms that pollute the manufacturer's country, destroy the ecosystem they are in, have short lives and no back up plan for disposal of their highly contaminating components.

Much that passes as idealism, is disguised hatred or disguised love of power. Bertrand Russell

[Puddleduck]

Business goes on!

[URL="

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WNkJX2DgH9M

[Puddleduck]

[URL="http://

[Marc1]

Emotional blackmail.
Is this supposed to be humans' fault?
With 5 to 15 cm of sea rise a century?
May be you think salmons in Alaska should be saved too?
Natural selection, population control and adaptation to a changing environment.
This is how nature works and has been working effectively for millions of years.
What is wrong with that? Grow up!

Why don't you show the birds massacre in wind farms?
The massacre of turtles when building the solar farms in california?
And I can go on for a week.

The idea that humans can turn a dial and control weather or sea level is so arrogant and stupid that is beyond comprehension.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

On the island of Bonaire is a large fringing reef. Algae (red and green) has been crowding out and suffocating corals since about 1980 and probably earlier. Even so, the reefs are pretty good and I have been there many times. One year (1999 I think) instead of hiding out of fear of Y2K we visited Bonaire. Because of a strange weather front preceding what later became known as hurricane Lenny, we could dive the windward side of the island. Imagine my surprise when we discovered a reef system with hardly any algae and was much healthier than the leeward side. In those days very few people lived on the windward side.

These reefs were in the same water at the same temps with the same sunlight and so on. I would really like to go back and see how the two sides compare today. But the windward side simply isn’t safe enough.

Same water chemistry, different Flow rates? Most macro algae’s struggle to gain a foothold in high velocity or high volume water flow.

Never been to Bonaire but maybe the windward side experienced more water movement?

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Marc1

Emotional blackmail.
Is this supposed to be humans' fault?
With 5 to 15 cm of sea rise a century?
May be you think salmons in Alaska should be saved too?
Natural selection, population control and adaptation to a changing environment.
What is wrong with that? Grow up!

Why don't you show the birds massacre in wind farms?
The massacre of turtles when building the solar farms in california?
And I can go on for a week.

The idea that humans can turn a dial and control weather or sea level is so arrogant and stupid that is beyond comprehension.

I’m not attributing blame, just highlighting what change looks like!

Sometimes I get the feeling we’re all so psychopathic we sometimes forget, that’s all

[Marc1]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

I’m not attributing blame, just highlighting what change looks like!

Sometimes I get the feeling we sometimes forget, that’s all

Mate, I don't know you but I bet you are a very nice guy.
However just go back and think why you posted that video.
It is in reply to my rant about the big global warming fraud, the con job that blames humans for changes in the weather ... sorry climate.

By doing so you become part of the scaremongering industry that blames humans for changes in the climate, changes that have been happening for millenia, for one purpose: Shift political power and resources towards fake industries.

It is a multi trillion dollar industry that nurtures those who in the past had interest in nature and that now are the cheerleaders of the doom and gloom, blame humans especially the bad rich.

And the sad part is that by doing so, the real pollution, not CO2 but everything else that could be addressed is sidelined in favour of a fake problem, manufactured, invented by fake prophets of doom.

The real pollution and the real polluters are those who think, great! business as usual, and pass under the radar.

Change is the only constant when it comes to weather and nature in general.
Change is what made us who we are, and change will shape our future. And sure, our future will look different from today.
Nothing wrong with that.