It's Good News Friday! (CLIMATE CHANGE)

Joe Manchin aide to work for fossil fuel lobbyists.

https://www.axios.com/2023/01/12/manchin-lance-west-american-petroleum-institute

Nice response to an argument the majority (and definitely Demiurge) aren't making.

Most people who support environmental measures quite like that we have a global technological civilisation, and would prefer that to keep going.

So the measures supported are ones that minimise impact as much as practical (without us all going and living in caves), keep the trend of technology moving towards increased sustainability, and give us as much runway as possible to figure out the many remaining problems so that we have the time and resources as a civilisation to do so.

Going back to hunter/gathering wouldn't sustain the current world population.
It would be mass genocide by starvation for awhile.
So, it's genocide by environmental catastrophe (the George Carlin way), genocide by "environmental reboot" of humanity back to at least medieval times (the Kingsman villain way), or we improve technology (the Star Trek way).
No one's lining up to die, so we must be arguing for choice three.

Every single daily annoyance UA whines and blubbers about comes from overpopulation, which comes from the "bounty" created by industry, fueled by the ravening corporate greed, fueled by the absolutist "unlimited liberty" shit people like him spew.
But when you suggest he go live in the wilderness, he acts like you've got jumbo shrimp coming out your nose.
He never makes the connection.


We turned the corner into this mess at the agricultural revolution, and all it did was create overpopulation, and the wealthy class.
It's a trap we're in now.
The conservative movement's answer to the ways out of the trap (see the above 3 choices) is choice 1, but pretending it isn't happening.
Basically Jim Jones shouting into the bullhorn "don't tell the children they're dying!! It'll just make them cry!".

Wrong. Lifetime total (manufacturing and the fuel lifecycle) GHG emissions for electric cars drop below those of ICE vehicles later than they would powered by anything else, but still after only 80k miles*, at a 100% coal power mix (vs. 8k miles at a 100% wind/solar power mix, and even faster for 100% nuclear), largely thanks to coal plants being more efficient than car engines in terms of CO2 per mile.

*keep in mind, 80k miles is less than 1/5 of the expected lifetime of the car.

On the subjects of arguments nobody fucking made, recall that my objection was the selective meddling in the freedom to spend your money as you see fit.

stop huffing the lead based fuel additives!!!

You claiming "arguments nobody made" is the funniest thing I've read this morning.

"Even handed"... you mean willing to go along with yet another UA false equivalence that you expect everyone to just accept because you said they're the same? Fuck off with that.

"You may not buy the thing" = "You may not buy the thing"

The difference of rationalizing is no difference at all.

LOL. Libertarians brains just don't work, do they?

You many not buy the thing because it's actively killing the human race.

You may not buy the thing because we want to sell you more of this thing that is actively killing the human race.

Wanna celebrate Burns Night?

Tough - you can't buy proper haggis as the US prohibits the sale of food with sheep lungs in it. Because there's a risk of infection with scrapie.

Electrical stuff with PCBs in? Nope. Causes cancer.

Tons of stuff is banned for health or environmental reasons.

But what if people WANNA buy houses with radon and asbestos!

In UA's case, I think he's just pining for the house he grew up in. Never stunted his development, oh no.

Yes because we live in a nanny state where politicians think they know better than us on how to live our lives.

Yes, because a fuckton of idiots didn't die of radium poisoning because they liked the luminous glow and also thought it would give them stronger erections.

Politicians do indeed nanny. But when it's backed by actual scientific and medical advice.... but of course, you fuckers don't trust that either because conspiracywaffle.

Though right now the idea of letting you all die of your own idiocy is pretty appealing. Not in favour of letting you drag others down with you, however.

forget the windows, I've been saying for ages he licked the walls.

also, you guys didn't get rid of leaded gas until '96?

but... glowy army watches for everybody!!

Don't post that here, post it on the Twitter feeds of the oil, tobacco, and sugar companies.

You mean the companies that paid scientists to lie? But the government and universities would never do that, right?

You know how we know about that?
More science, not less.
Idjit.

Universities pay scientists to lie? They're getting us cheap then.

I knew a prominent scientist who was world-renowned in the field. His (joking - I hope) retirement plan was to switch sides and denounce all his research for the religious right, because they'd pay better.

Way to miss the point entirely.​

Yeah, I should believe in conspiracy theories, and I'm stupid if I don't.
I'm so ashamed.

And of course any scientific advice you disagree with conveniently falls into one of those categories.

We just went through two years of “science advice” that turned out to be complete bullshit.

Yeah, covid is really actually good for you.
Those million people didn't die; they got super powers, and flew away.

Didn’t say that, try again.

You really don't know how this works, do you?
You think you can keep losing respect, and there's this infinite supply that makes it so you keep deserving respect as automatic default.
No, it was finite, you used it up, and now fuck you.

Both are killing people. You're not as pure as you think.

Houston, we have a problem.

Perhaps you should double check the post I replied to?

This is what I quoted:

It's as shallow and silly as arguing that if people aren't allowed to build raging tyre fires they shouldn't be allowed to have a backyard bonfire.