DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez to introduce measure to declare climate change an official emergency: report

They serve nuclear and gas interests. The difference is, they weren't put in charge of the government agency that regulates the industry. People have fought for years to get special interests out of greasing the palms of politicians. Now you seem to go one step further by thinking those lobbyists should be in charge of the government.



They don't produce the CO2 emissions that coal does. Coal is the dirtiest energy source on the planet.

Nuclear causes Chernobyl.

Fracking causes air and water pollution, damage to soil and vegetation, earthquakes, Hydrocarbons – such as benzene and toluene, it cause leukemia and other types of cancer. It's pretty much pick your poison.

I also don't agree with the guy Trump put in charge, just like I didn't agree with Obama trying to put coal out of business. I think both are/were wrong.

The problem is, I think you're missing the entire point to a degree. What I'm suggesting is we work at renewable energy sources and none of the ones you mentioned.

And your suggestion that Obama tried to put coal out of business is silly IMO.

And none of what you posted changes the fact that coal is the dirtiest energy source on earth.

Or you could use obummers own words.

“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/uttered-in-2008-still-haunting-obama-in-2012-074892

Yeah, when you make coal pay for their pollution it gets costly.

WOW! That's a damning documentary... created by MRCTV... Who?

"MRCTV is an online media platform designed to broadcast conservative values, culture, politics, expose liberal media bias, and provide entertainment and information to a new and diverse audience."

https://www.mrctv.org/about

I remember this. Obama did target coal because it's a major source of air pollution, dangerous and environmentally destructive to mine, and the use of coal powered plants is thought to be a large contributor to climate change. But let's not details get in the way of this political hitjob.

Ok but the democrats are the ones who have changed the name of it about 5 times...

Even when you call a pig a cow, it's still ham, bacon, sausage and pork chops.

He's the one accusing republicans of playing semantics..

I'm not sure if what you're describing is semantics. I mean even though the terms have changed the meaning hasn't.

I am all for working for renewable energy sources. But I am 110 percent against dumping our current energy sources before we have a solution.



I claim bullcrap on that one bro. He did his best to destroy coal as a power source. I have zero problem with that ONCE we have a good alternative which we don't.



and none of what you posted admits that nuclear, and gas are any better for us than coal.

They are less dirty than coal, period. But they also have their problems which you pointed out.

The market dictates right now that natural gas is king.

When it comes to nuclear, 34 plants have been shut down and only two reactors are under construction as of 2017.

I am not pro coal. I am pro not screwing our country over because some people want to pretend that the things they are bragging up are better because they are not. I believe those who are screaming for gas as a energy source are no better than those screaming for coal. Just as those who screamed for years that nuclear thought it was better than coal.

BTW I wish we could be sitting at a bar while I drank my coors light, and you had an sweet ice tea/coke/pepsi/ or anything else. I miss you bro

I miss you too man. And I'm not a drinker anymore but it's not like I've sworn it off or anything. It's not like I had a problem with my drinking and went through a 12 step program. Some people need that and it's a great thing for those it can help.

But I'd have a couple of brews with you any time my friend.

Love you too bro. and I am so glad we can agree, and disagree without any problems

The either or politics is really telling. Why wouldn't both situations constitute an emergency. I think the border and our climate are worthwhile causes.

I'm not for dumping it either but sometimes necessity is the mother of invention... you put a little pressure on fossil fuel prices and suddenly folks start thinking more seriously about other sources... or you could keep subsidizing the fossil fuel industry to keep it as cheap and accessible as possible... while complaining about any investment in research into new technologies and wonder why things never change.

I do agree with you that Obama (and Hillary after him) were both set on pushing coal to extinction.. now some folks might think that's a good thing and that's ok if they do... but that was their goal.


Gas is the better option at the moment... it's cheaper, cleaner, and easier to transport. TBH, nuclear scares the heebeejeebees out of me. The possibility of a catastrophic accident at a plant is real... then there is the fact that we have tens of thousands of metric tons of spent uranium stored all over this country and we are creating thousands of metric tons of new waste every year.. and that stuff is dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years... talk about kicking the can down the road and creating a potential nightmare of a problem for future generations...

Well contrary to popular belief, I'm not nor is any dem I know of for 'open borders'. The border emergency we have today is a humanitarian crisis. The mass influx of immigrants is an issue too, but not an issue requiring a wall. Dems have offered money for high tech solutions, more agents and judges, and even tried initially to compromise for the sake of the dreamers... Trump doesn't want common sense solutions, he wants a wall to fulfil a stupid campaign promise.

Climate change is an emergency, but even I don't think it's a 12 years or it's over emergency. However, when people refute facts with 'alternative facts' and nonsensical rhetoric just to protect profit margins in the face of global disaster... well I think they are the silly ones. The right move is to do our part in reducing carbon emissions and giving mother nature a break. That's all I'm saying.

I also think we can all agree that green energy is the way of the future. Why the hell can't we agree to invest in the technologies so that we can be the leaders in it too? China is doing just that with solar and wind right now.

I’m glad you brought this up. You of all posters should appreciate the climatological impact on higher latitudes, and higher elevation. In my 8 years in Colorado, I have seen change.

1 comparing 1970’s technology to 2019 is laughable
2 you are actually on the front line of climate change, see a pine beetle

No offense to you personally, but if you believe otherwise, you absolutely have your head in the sand.

People will never see what they refuse to look for or at.

Just like slavery and segregation. History will judge the south accordingly, including anthropogenic climate change. Shame on all of you.

How much biodiversity will be lost, before the south kneels? Genuflect before technology, and awareness. Last shot across the bow to Republicans.

We will bury your ideology.