American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

This is the problem with climate deniers. Here is this peer reviewed scientific article. "ITS BIAS" Never mind that the actual bloody fossil fuel industry is on the other side of the argument.

You're clearly not understanding anything I'm writing if your takeaway is that the problem is merely "bias." The problem is that modeling the weather any more than a few weeks out becomes heavily unpredictable, as it is a chaotic system with many inputs. The dastardly fossil fuel industry cannot claim any more expertise than the small army of climate scientists who churn out this garbage. The future climate is generally unknowable.

But lets try to logic through something simple shall we. Warmer = more melting. Can we agree here?

Yes, but this is the extent of our agreement. There will be some more melting of ice. How much more? How much more gets translated directly into sea level increase? How fast? Will melting Siberian permafrost actually release deadly fart clouds of doom that will kill most life on earth? Any climate scientist who claims to have a definitive answer to these questions is full of shit. They already revise their predictions on sea level rise all the time - anyone remember Al Gore telling us that the great flooding of the coast would already have happened by now?

...These very simple predictable issues. And then you compare the  cost of preventing and you start to wonder, wait this is so much cheaper.

None of these issues are cheap to resolve. The cost of resolving CO2 emissions would be exorbitantly expensive. We live in an industrial society where a great deal of daily necessities are dependent on manufacturing, fertilizer, and transportation that cannot be effectively replaced with "green" alternatives - many of which still depend on an industrial manufacturing plant that belches CO2 anyway! Furthermore, it would not be sufficient for the first world to adopt such measures, but it then would need to immediately wage war on the developing world to force them to adopt these measures as well! Perhaps one hopes that nuclear war with China and India would reduce emissions? Lol.

Let me try one more argument. I know the I'll give you we are half wrong argument should be good enough, but lets try one more argument. Lets say me and all the climate scientists are wrong. The worst that can happen is that we waste some money, but there is still some nice cheaper solar that comers out of it and you know when we eventually run out of fossil fuels in a couple hundred years we closer to dealing with that. The worst if you and the fossil fuel industry are wrong is catastrophic. So do we side with the actual scientists and if they are wrong its still fine or do we think the fossil fuel industry and their surrogates are telling the truth (which we have evidence of them know about climate change since the 50s) and if they are wrong we face horrible consequences. Its not really a tough choice to me.

Eventually, declining petroleum and coal reserves would force some sort of energy shift or economic decline. This would happen more slowly and predictably than forcing such changes now, at gunpoint. Why is the latter preferable?

I mean the same logic applies to Chinese capacities being so close to US allies. Again, to me the best way of preventing war isn't to have a balance of powers, its to make sure your opponents know that in no way shape or form would it be equal. That is why strengthening our relations with Europe is important so they would factor in (even if its just with economic sanctions ect; you just want to increase the perceived guaranteed cost).

China isn't currently threatened by native Japanese or South Korean capabilities. A realistic option for containing China would be focusing on remilitarizing Japan, but this would go against all the rules in FDR's book, so no one is going to try it until the time for doing so is too late.

Few Europeans are going to be eager about signing up to go and die to protect Taiwanese independence. The champagne liberals most concerned with maintaining the US led world order are chickenshits who don't want to get their hands dirty fighting (see how few of them wanted to volunteer to fight and die in Ukraine!), and the general declining population will grumble even louder at such burdens.

[darrelljs]

I found though that despite all that, china has an insane amount of cement production (4-5 times as much as second place India), and more than half of global steel / aluminum production too, far ahead of the US, and those are very energy / CO2 intensive industrial processes.

Don't forget bitcoin .

China is the manufacturer of the world. To be on par with China on emission is shameful when Canada and US produce practically nothing.

If the US is practically nothing, then China is only twice of practically nothing.

My observation is one thing Americans and Chinese have in common is they Really Like Stuff. Fortunately the Chinese are rebalancing the way they generate power as they get rich. If Google can be trusted, here are a few per capita GDP/Emissions ratios for 2021, GDP in $1000 units and emissions in tons of CO2:

China = 12.5/8.7 = 1.43
US = 70/14 = 5
Haiti = 1.8/0.28 = 6.4
EU = 38/6 = 6.3
Denmark = 68/6.7 = 10.1
Sweden = 61/4.49 = 13.6
Greenland = 54.6/0.03 = 1820

Darrell

[Charr Babies]

So do you know who the next 5 slots of ship building are? They are all US allies. Again for people who like to just compare US and China there is a larger picture and that includes the historical worlds largest alliance network that some people just want to throw away because nationalism? This is amplified when looking at long range missile capacity, submarines, ect. There is a reason alliances are important.

That guy on Breaking Point, Saagar, once commented he loves Japan, Japan is an ally, it's like a loving brother. That's got to be the funniest thing I've heard for a long time. If you know the history of the bombS, concentration camps and the economic smack down on Japan during the 80s, you would find that funny too. 

Allies are formed from mutual benefits, for only as long as it benefits both sides. But of course, with a healthy dose of bullying. And we are known to throw our allies under the bus when the need arises, or, when we get a new potus - Hence greenlines's "Lack of accountability"

Take Aukus, us stole the 90 billion submarine contract right under France. So France said EU should build up their military instead of relying on the us. 
Korea swings back and forth. Japan is governed by the US. I highly doubt they would fight a proxy war against China. US need to be directly involved.
Philippine's Marcos paid tribute to China when first elected, then got blackmailed by the US to be used as a running dog. Marcos is a wanted man in the us, and the us has Marco's ~400 millions.
US bet on the wrong horse and recognized KMT as China, then changed its tune and throw Taiwan under the bus and declared there is only one China, and Taiwan belongs to China. 
And then we blew up the Nord Stream pipeline
Henry Kissinger, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal”  

So do you know who the next 5 slots of ship building are?

Not worth mentioning when compared to China. But that's beside the point...
None of them would produce WAR machine for the US. Why?

[Charr Babies]

Any bank can claim a better GDP/Emissions ratio than a foundry

[Mjmd]

So there is a reason I like the half argument. So you know if for some odd reason you don't believe the predictions from scientists across multiple countries and different political persuasions, you can still say ok if half of what they think will happen happens, is that still bad? YES. So yes we can't 100% know EXACTLY what will happen. But we have a pretty good idea and even if that is half wrong, its still pretty bad.

Again, I'm not saying its going to be cheap, but its less expensive than half of the expectations, so actually yes its cheap in comparison. And you are definitely going overboard with nuclear war to make people go green. It says something that China is putting effort into. How many things do they agree with us on? They've studied history, they know what happens in unpredictable climates. They too have a lots of cities that will flood and they are food importing country. I'm not saying it will be easy, but it will be a lot easier than living through the consequences if we do nothing.

Lets say this, Bidens major green bill cost $800 billion over 10 years (it was paid for btw and not all of it went to green initiatives). We got green energy jobs and investment (amounts differ depending on time frame and source) Again most of the world believes scientists (for some odd reason) so having things built in the US is a nice plus going forward. There is anticipated energy savings. And of course predicted significant reductions in emissions. Not enough, but significant. So we got multiple pluses in our countries capabilities, job creation, and reduction in C02 and we did it for 1 years of military budget over 10 years. I mean we had do a 15% min corp tax rate and step up IRA enforcement to pay for it, but such measures don't seem too bad to help prevent future climate disasters. Even the fairly conservative wall street journal puts current climate change costs at $150 billion per year (NPR which is more liberal has at 165 billion). Point being seems super cheap in comparison to me as future predictions only get worse depending on where we end up. Most estimates end up in costs of trillions per year. So if you even assume 50%of ONLY 1 trillion in costs you could still come out ahead by tripling current investment. IE I'm giving you a low estimate and then half of that low estimate and its still clear we should do it. Again, how wrong do the scientists have to be before you are right? Its a lot. How wrong do science deniers have to be before we are screwed; not a ton. Play it safe; the world literally depends on it.


1st off Japan is re-militarizing (and Germany and we want both, what a world). Again, for both of you I think the most likely scenario if China invades Tiawan isn't an actual world war. Its probably a blockade and economic sanctions. Those are things our allies might do. The Asian ones will be afraid they are next (with good reason). The European ones realize we've recently helped stop a country who likes invading neighbors (which is why we should do more here). A lot of US alliances are built on "heh being allied to the US aint too bad compared to that guy actually trying to take us over". So would Korea and Japan directly fight China? No. But even some trade sanctions would hurt them a lot, but I bet they would do it, which would hurt China. That is they key to preventing war. Make sure they know it would cost too much. Not that dictators haven't miscalculated before (see world wars, Kiaser in WWI didn't think Britain would join, and WWII Hitler didn't think partitioning Poland would cause)

[greenline]

So there is a reason I like the half argument. So you know if for some odd reason you don't believe the predictions from scientists across multiple countries and different political persuasions, you can still say ok if half of what they think will happen happens, is that still bad? YES. So yes we can't 100% know EXACTLY what will happen. But we have a pretty good idea and even if that is half wrong, its still pretty bad.

The reason people do not believe the scientists from multiple countries and different political persuasions is that these scientists repeatedly come to the same incorrect or unverifiable conclusions. This points to the shared process they are using just being wrong. A million flies enjoy eating shit, and a million climate scientists have a conference every year saying that only now have we finally crossed the threshold where catastrophic, runaway climate change is now unavoidable. Each time before they said that, they must have been wrong, but this time, they should be trusted!

Again, I'm not saying its going to be cheap, but its less expensive than half of the expectations, so actually yes its cheap in comparison. And you are definitely going overboard with nuclear war to make people go green. It says something that China is putting effort into. How many things do they agree with us on? They've studied history, they know what happens in unpredictable climates. They too have a lots of cities that will flood and they are food importing country. I'm not saying it will be easy, but it will be a lot easier than living through the consequences if we do nothing.

Lets say this, Bidens major green bill cost $800 billion over 10 years (it was paid for btw and not all of it went to green initiatives). We got green energy jobs and investment (amounts differ depending on time frame and source) Again most of the world believes scientists (for some odd reason) so having things built in the US is a nice plus going forward...

The modest emissions reductions achieved by footing billion dollar taxes on Americans are not enough to stave off the severe consequences of global warming - if you take NASA and the IPCC at their word. If they are lying or just being repeatedly incorrect when they say that they need such a significant level of carbon reduction as to necessitate taking action against the biggest polluters of China and India - why listen to them at all? Their reputation as scientists is supposed to be from accurately assessing the nature of the world. If the best they can do is being half right, over and over, without improving their methods, then they are hardly credible scientists at all.

(China's expansion in green energy is not driven primarily by environmental concerns, but strategic. Most of China's carbon fuels come via sea lanes that would be vulnerable to blockades, so they are looking to expand all possible local energy production. They have not closed down their coal plants while they build wind farms.)

1st off Japan is re-militarizing (and Germany and we want both, what a world). Again, for both of you I think the most likely scenario if China invades Tiawan isn't an actual world war. Its probably a blockade and economic sanctions.

If sanctions alone are supposed to stop China, then the example of Ukraine shows that Taiwan is doomed. Economies are flexible things, and China seems to be putting in the effort now to be self sufficient in the case of a blockade.

Japan's remilitarization is happening, at a crawl, entirely driven by its domestic policies. The US is not doing anything to speed this process along, because the US military is run by bureaucrats who are still operating the WWII rulebook that says that an independent Japan is not to be allowed. Very Brezhnev-arian.

[Charr Babies]

It always amazes me people talk of money as a drop in the US budget when the us national debt has risen from 7 trillions to 34 trillions in the last 20 years. That's 5 trillions since biden. 

 But even some trade sanctions would hurt them a lot, but I bet they would do it, which would hurt China. That is they key to preventing war.

How is the US trade war and sanctions against China doing?

I think we are hurting ourselves more that it hurts China. LoL. Paying more to get the same stuff from China via a couple more middlemen only help China do more business. Places such as Vietnam, especially Mexico, are loving it. Mexico has become the largest trade partner with the US this year, selling Chinese good. Thanks to the trade war, China is now buddies with Mexico, good business for both. (rumor has it that Mexico is going to apply for BRIC++++ membership) Apple, as an example, tried to move their productions to India. We all know how that worked out. Poor quality control and low production efficiency, while they are still getting parts from China. The supply line cannot be overlooked. 

On the Tech front. Thanks to the trade war and sanctions! China now has its own Space Station, own satellite systems. Huawei surpassed IPhone being able to make satellite calls. They are already working on 3nm chips which no other single country can produce. China is already installing 5.5G (6G coming up soon) while US and the west is still mostly 4G. Yada yada yada. If this trend continues, we are going to lose the fourth industry revolution to China.

How is the trade war and sanction against Russia going? (Are all your allies even sanctioning Russia, for real!?)

Admittedly, any sort of hostility is no good for anyone involved. Definitely not good to hurt yourself more just to hurt the other party a little bit. 

Seems you haven't heard of BRI and BRIC++++++

---

[Mjmd]

They aren't flies, they are scientists. Science gets new inputs, new models, ect all the time. To me the important thing is they are all pointing in the same direction consistently. Again across multitudes of scientists, disciplines, and countries. So just dismissing really smart people because we won't get 100% confirmation until it happens is not the best logic. Take the recent high seas temperatures. From what I read climate scientists weren't expecting it. So ya they were wrong, but does our planets major heat sink getting warmer faster than even really smart people thought comfort you or concern you. When you read ice sheets are melting faster than expected sure that makes the scientists look bad, but its not really a win point for the overall argument. These things are signs we are in MORE trouble than we thought, not less. Again, directional.

We 100% should be working more in the international community to do more. We should be doing more ourselves, make it part of deals ect.

BTW Japan was one of those countries ahead of Ukraine in receiving arms shipments.

Its important to note that Chinas economy is vastly different than Russias. Russias was much smaller and mainly reliant on hydrocarbons. They have two major world economies on their border willing to buy them. So are sanctions hurting Russia yes. Are they fully crippling, no. China's economy is already hurting because countries and companies are very minorly starting to think about the repercussions of trade sanctions. They are a manufacturing economy that sells discretionary goods. They import a vast amount of raw materials. Most of their major trade partners are in US alliances / the US itself. Is Russia going to buy all their stuff instead? Ya no. Even if India didn't join in (somewhat likely) they wouldn't be able to get close in trade volumes.

[greenline]

They aren't flies, they are scientists. Science gets new inputs, new models, ect all the time. To me the important thing is they are all pointing in the same direction consistently. Again across multitudes of scientists, disciplines, and countries.

Yes, direction. I've already said that the direction is the only consistently correct information these committees are providing. The future average temperature points warmer.

But an average global temperature increase hardly implies that anything must be done. The same climate models say the Earth has seen such warmer climates come and go throughout the years. So the IPCC makes apocalyptic warnings on a regular basis. Thresholds of runaway warming. Doomsday scenarios involving Siberian methane pits. Currently one would expect to see the deadly sea level rise happening, or happening soon. What we do not see is any particular doomsday scenario occurring precisely the way the IPCC and the scientists say they would. Instead, we see regularly occurring natural disasters like floods and hurricanes, that happened long before the industrial revolution, hastily given a sticker by the news saying, "This happened because of climate change!" Is there any reputable science that links climate change to deadlier hurricanes - a thin link already given that there isn't a trend of deadlier, stronger hurricanes in the first place? Certainly there is peer reviewed science, but if you investigated the methods and models used, it would almost certainly be lacking in any sense.

We 100% should be working more in the international community to do more. We should be doing more ourselves, make it part of deals ect.

BTW Japan was one of those countries ahead of Ukraine in receiving arms shipments.

I suppose I was not clear enough in specifying what 'remilitarizing Japan' means. It does not mean providing a trickle of US made weapons designed to annoy a rival, it means aiding Japan in restarting an industrial base to build and repair its own weapons on the fly. One is far more robust at the goal of containing China.

Its important to note that Chinas economy is vastly different than Russias. Russias was much smaller and mainly reliant on hydrocarbons. They have two major world economies on their border willing to buy them. So are sanctions hurting Russia yes. Are they fully crippling, no. China's economy is already hurting because countries and companies are very minorly starting to think about the repercussions of trade sanctions. They are a manufacturing economy that sells discretionary goods. They import a vast amount of raw materials. Most of their major trade partners are in US alliances / the US itself. Is Russia going to buy all their stuff instead? Ya no. Even if India didn't join in (somewhat likely) they wouldn't be able to get close in trade volumes.

Currently, China is focusing its state led efforts on ensuring essential resources will be available in China in the event of a blockade. It's clear they see the potential weakness of being cut off from trade and are aiming to remedy it for the duration of a war with Taiwan. It's likely that the Chinese population would be willing to suffer material deprivation during a war to see Taiwan annexed. Do the math.

[Mjmd]

Why has Earth seen warmer climates in the past hmmm? I wonder if there are direct linkages with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere? And its not just about future models it is about what is happening now. If you look how fast its warmed up since industrialization for instance. When you see worlds warmest temperature both on land and in the seas do you just shrug and say "this is fine" (yes I almost inserted the meme).

Have the number and intensity of hurricanes increased. Yes. There isn't any denying that. Again, warmer = energy, this is expected. The sea level rise won't happen soon, but it will happen and we can only control how much. Remember our one area of agreement warmer = melting. I don't need complex science to know simple logic also points the same direction. You can choose to believe science for how bad, but again even if you believe half it behooves us to act. We know more carbon = warmer. We know humans are producing a lot of carbon. This isn't hard logic.

Lets say this, we've argued this for at least a page now. If I'm wrong you, your children, and mine can laugh at me for eternity and I will be fine with it. If you are wrong, me, mine, and yours will curse you and others like you who have slowed down our response. Can you live with that?


What use are the resources if there isn't much of a market for what those resources produce? I'm not saying they may not choose to pay a price. I hope they don't. Let me be very clear about that. But a lot of our major conflicts have been because some idiot thought the other side wouldn't make them pay a price, so I want to make sure the price is high and very clear. At least that way maybe they don't decide to take more of what they consider theirs.