This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Climate: We Can ALL Agree On Two Things
Whatever you think about the leaked emails showing that "tricks" were used to "hide the decline" in the climate data, and the fact that the original source data showing historical climate information was destroyed, you should agree on two things.
The Carbon Footprint of War
First, as Harvey Wasserman notes,
continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will more than wipe out any
reduction in carbon from the government's proposed climate measures.
Writing about the escalation in the Afghanistan war, Wasserman says:
The
war would also come with a carbon burst. How will the massive emissions
created by 100,000-plus soldiers in wartime be counted in the 17%
reduction rubric? Will the HumVees be converted to hybrids? What is the
carbon impact of Predator bombs that destroy Afghan families and
villages?
The continuance of the Afghanistan and
Iraq wars completely and thoroughly undermines the government's claims
that there is a global warming emergency and that reducing carbon
output through cap and trade is needed to save the planet.
I
can't take anything the government says about carbon footprints
seriously until the government ends the unnecessary wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq. For evidence that the Iraq war is unnecessary, see this. Read this for evidence that the U.S. could have taken Bin Laden out years ago and avoided a decades long war in Afghanistan. And for proof that the entire war on Muslim extremists is unnecessary for our national security, see this.
War is also very harmful to the economy. See this, this and this.
Carbon Trading
Second, the proposed solution to global warming - cap and trade - is a scam. Specifically:
- The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won't work for global warming
- Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won't effectively reduce carbon emissions
- Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley,
Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into
carbon trading. As University of Maryland professor economics professor
and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission
Peter Morici writes:
Obama
must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal
bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to
worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading
and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced
plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed
influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it
remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same
bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.In
other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives
and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going
to make billions from carbon trading.
Consensus
Everyone should read the leaked emails and rationally think through what they mean. But whatever one believes about climategate
(the leaked emails showing that "tricks" were used to "hide the
decline" in the climate data and the destruction of the original source
data), we should all be able to agree that:
(1) We should end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; and
(2) We should not let the financial giants who caused the financial crisis to profit off of cap and trade schemes.
- advertisements -
That sounds a little bit like a ... cough ... crusade:
The Iraq War Really Is a Crusade Was Torture Really Part of a Religious Crusade? Senator Praises Inquisition as Proof that Torture WorksIt's self defense.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/.
Your "Crusade" arguement is hypocritical otherwise your financial work is brilliant and vital.
Remember...we were attacked on 911?
Remember that the attackers were motivated by religion.
History books are your friend...try reading about Islam's wars of conquest then come back and tell us how the Christians are guilty.
ding.
"Then come back and tell us how the Christians are guilty."
The "Christians" are not monolithic. Do you know whether I am Christian? Do you know whether I attend church?
You may be very surprised by the answers.
And when former British colonies like South Africa tried to follow in America's footsteps, in the earl 1900s, where was the US then?
And why did the British stop fighting against the Americans so quickly? They followed a SCORCHED EARTH policy on the South Africans, burning down houses and farms, and taking women and children captive.
So please tell me, why was it that the US, good democratic nation looking to spread freedom, was nowhere to be seen when Boers were fighting for their freedom.
And why was it that the British did not use scorched earth policies in the US?
And when former British colonies like South Africa tried to follow in America's footsteps, in the earl 1900s, where was the US then?
Ron Paul was in power then and we were non-interventionists...oops sorry that was Ron Pauls Great Grandfather.
Maybe they used scorched earth policies against the Boers because they learned in the colonies that being mister nice guy doesn't often win wars.
Btw the proposition that the Brits were a bunch of fun loving long haired hippies in the American Revolution is absurd. They were brutal.
Yea we should just turn around and invite Al Qaeda to fuck us again! This is where most libertarians lose me...this absurd belief that we can afford to not fight against Islam's radical defenders. Apparently they believe that because a war is hard it should not be fought.
Pray tell what is the solution for preventing these barbaric bastards from killing us in the thousands again?
Based on factual accounts in the public domain, the CIA and by extension the US-government is the single greatest sponsor of terrorism in human history. Hope that puts things in perspective.
Maybe it was a freudian slip amongst your failboat of a comment but this sort of destroyed your argument before any of the respondees got a chance to do it:
maybe you meant to say that we cannot afford to fight defenders of radical Islan? I don't know. But ask yourself: if we are fighting people that are defending themselves and their way of life, as you so aptly put it, is it the right thing to do? Were American revolutionaries circa 1776 radical defenders of democracy?
We cannot help that beliefs and faiths exist in the human condition. A lot of the time they serve a very good and caluable purpose. But when people defend these faiths and beliefs you should ask yourself, why? Why do they defend and why do we attack?
#1 -STAY OUT of other countries business and stop instigating, aiding and abetting one side over another like we have done since 1900 and close 95% of overseas bases.. Believe me we would just as irate and vengeful if the showe were on the other foot. We will be safer by far if we stop sticking our nose in everywhere in order to keep a stranglehold on their resources.
You are easily freightened friend of an external threat, whether real or promulgated, read these quotes:
Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. - Hermann Goering
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" -Abraham Lincoln
Never has there been a good war or a bad peace - Benjamin Franklin
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?- Gandhi
I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. - George McGovern
How fortunate for leaders that men do not think. - Hitler
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses...I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. - Major General Smedley Darlington ButlerWar is not as romantic as you would like to think. If you don't understand the motivations for conflict (Israel defense, oil, dollar backed oil, or defense industry angles) you should investigate them and listen again to the quotes above. If Iraq or any other country (including supposed allies) was in fact involved I would clearly support regime changes in those countries.
If we continue to react as we did after 9-11 then al Qaeda will win. This primarily being a financial site, everyone here should understand ROI. They invested less than a million and made us spend 1 trillion+. They could pass the collection plate around at the average mosque in Pakistan and bankrupt us with 1 more operation. Even if you are not convinced that we are creating more extremists than we are killing, we simply cannot afford to "win the war on terrorism". Fighting fire with fire just makes things burn faster.
My preference is to keep from getting the attention from these nut jobs. Keep in mind as well that most empires that have been defeated were not anhilated on the battlefield, but rather in the bank account. In that respect Al Qaeda is way ahead of us.
the CIA has been behind the radicalization of islam from the getgo, and if you think islamic extremists brought down WTC after all the evidence to the contrary, you are a hopeless idiot. we've killed over 1 million, thats right million iraqis, over weapons that did not exist. who are the barbaric bastards really?
"Pray tell what is the solution for preventing these barbaric bastards from killing us in the thousands again?"
By removing our invading troops and our weapons of mass destruction from their towns and villages. By putting an end to the killing of their wives and children.
These wars are not being fought to protect you.
You could start by getting the hell out of their lands!
The solution is to stop killing them in the tens of thousands!
The solution, it should be obvious to even morons, is to stop letting them into our country.
Hallelujah! And get them out of our military.
and the solution you seek...is to stop killing them first.
google: blowback
Wars that are just should be fought and for no other reason. Claiming that we "should" fight these wars because by not doing so gives "the terrorists" a reason to attack us is nonsense. How about keeping our nose out of their business, giving them a reason to leave us the hell alone? How about that? Or we could just turn the whole Middle East into a giant glass crater and be done with it. I'm not sure which one I prefer...option number one, I think. I'm being unrealistic, I know. The camel is in the tent, so it's said.
We'll never get out of Iraq or Afghanistan unless we admit defeat, like when we left Vietnam.
We'll never get out of Iraq and Afghanistan unless we admit defeat, like when we left Vietnam....or we decide to fight to win, like we didn't do in Vietnam.
Our glorious leaders see the economic value in a protracted police action. Hey, why don't we try enemy combatants in civil courts, too.
Didn't win in Vietnam? Nixon said it was "Peace with Honor". What?
As a side note, that's not a cow...it's a steer.
The best way to discourage "terrorism" against the US mainland is to stop committing "terrorist" acts against other countries;
a few examples;
1982 - shelling the muslim population of Lebanon by US battleship
1980's shooting an unarmed Iranian airliner down- killing hundreds
supplying the weapons that Arab dictators use on their own people (example saddam, saudi arabia, etc)
invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 - a country that didn't do anything to us
How about getting our bases out of there? how about getting our troops and fleets out of there? We have bases and troops all over the middle east - do they have bases and troops all around us? No.
Turner
Now there's an idea worth considering, a Saudi military base in
every state. Think what it would do for the balance of payments.
Probably wouldn't help the local bars much, though, if their
marines are devout Muslims
Hal? Is that you? /s
That Iranian airliner was full of dead soldiers.
I agree. How would you feel if they came over here and did what we've done there? I wouldn't like it and nor would you...so why is it ok for the US to do these things? Why is it ok to supposedly police the world and take up arms in their country?
We do a tremendous disservice to ourselves when we try to enforce our moral / political agenda with guns. And I believe this is why we were attacked in 93 and 2001.
Ultimately the US will be forced to withdraw...financially. These wars are bankrupting our country and for what. History shows us what happens to nations who engage in war and empire building...and it's not pretty.
There is no solution. That's why it's pointless to be there. Islamic radicals are the least of our problems, are you scared of them???
I'm not.
Me either.
Stop taking my money and rights away to defend me from things I do not fear.
By your logic, would nukes have less of a carbon footprint? Would we get to deduct the average carbon footprint of all that we kill? Perhaps that paradox makes war more palatable, again, using your logic.
End the wars for sure...fight to win or get out. But please don't do it because you are worried about the carbon footprint. It makes your second point less valid.
They never wanted to win in the first place. They just used the wars to get the American taxpayers' money.
Exactly, the point of the wars is not to win but to place the American citizen in the state of mind of having to rely and depend on government for security. Sort of like in 1984.
you mean Chinese 'taxpayers'?