Jump to content

Foraker

Rhodes Tower 629'
  • Content Count

    1,097
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Foraker last won the day on February 18

Foraker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Foraker

    Global Warming

    I'm still trying to understand what you mean about the science being settled that climate change is happening while also saying there is scientific doubt about "veracity of that climate change." Veracity means truth, conformance to facts. If the science is settled that climate changes is happening, how can there be any doubts about the facts? What are you talking about? The "Left" is not conflating those two things. The "Left" has a long laundry list of proposed actions to take, and I suppose some combination of those actions is seen as the "solution" but I don't think anyone on the left sees just one solution. The Right has no solutions, no actions have been proposed. What Republicans are proposing building more seawalls and how are they proposing to pay for it (being so fiscally conservative, will they say we can't afford it?)? What do Republicans propose to do to encourage less beach development (surely not more regulations!)? You say that it does not make economic sense to use inefficient, dirty energy, yet your Ohio Republican colleagues have added a "tax" to our utility bills to provide a public subsidy to a private company to keep two coal plants and two nuclear plants operating that otherwise cannot compete in the market. This is your Republican Party.
  2. Foraker

    Global Warming

    I'm sure I won't be the only one to respond to this, but we can improve our quality of life AND reduce our carbon emissions. No Americans have to give their lives to the cause. Why are we even negotiating with China if we are certain that they won't cooperate and they are just out to kneecap us? The free-market Republican Party should just close our borders already rather than play these "trade-war" games. World food production that relies on petrochemical inputs is not sustainable. There are alternatives. And climate changes will reverse the gains we've made in food production. We do need to start adapting, but there are limits to what we can adapt to. "America first" means not just limiting the effects of climate change but exacerbating them. What sort of thanks will the rest of the world have for America? Isolationists may get their wish, and they might not like it. The rest of the world will increasingly ignore the US. You seem convinced that we cannot do anything about climate change, and with the Republican Party in charge of any part of the American government I would have to agree that you might be right. Not because we "can't" limit climate change, but because we "won't" change. Like petulant children who don't want to eat any vegetables, you'll have us wait until the Great Plains is the Great Desert so that we can transition from corn, peas, and carrots to algae blocks and soylent green. Perhaps it's time to start ignoring the Republican Party altogether. It's irrelevant.
  3. California to Las Vegas train project continues to advance. 2020 construction date estimate. https://abcnews.go.com/US/high-speed-california-las-vegas-train-plan/story?id=65264856
  4. We all agree that China's human rights abuses are something that should be addressed. But what reform are we trying to achieve? The problem with the trade war with China is that we do not have clearly stated goals. What steps are being taken to make us less economically reliant on China?
  5. Foraker

    Global Warming

    People, particularly poor people, are going to suffer the most due to climate change. Swift and dramatic action is the only way to mitigate the damage. But you are arguing that we shouldn't take swift action because people's lives would be disrupted, is that correct? I disagree with your premise about the challenge we face. The biggest challenge is to get the Republican Party to acknowledge both that climate change is caused by human activity and that there is something we can and should do about it. If we can overcome that challenge, then we can have a debate about what to do about it. No bills have been presented in Congress to get rid of cars or all fossil fuels in 10 years or to ban commercial air travel. Scare tactics will not lead to an agreement on reasonable actions to take and is not a serious position to take in a debate. You say that burning more fossil fuels, faster, is a path to energy independence because right now we are energy independent. Of course, burning more fossil fuels, faster, also is a path to more climate change, which will "hurt the poor immeasurably." And since we don't know where we'll be in 20 years we should both burn more fossil fuels until we develop commercially viable alternative sources, is that what you're saying? https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/
  6. There are no doubt quite a few fiscal conservatives out there. They're just not represented by the current GOP. Time for a new party or increased activism (and $$$) within the GOP if you don't want to be a fiscally-conservative Democrat.
  7. Foraker

    Global Warming

    We can agree to disagree with those economists on whether it makes sense to do anything about climate change. I'd argue that it does -- first because we do not know all of the costs (if heatwaves and drought greatly reduce food crop production in a much wider area than expected, for example), and second because our lives can be made better as a side effect of making an attempt to reduce the effects of climate change whether we manage to change the rate of climate change or not. Let's take your desire for energy independence (I suspect you mean "oil and gas" but I don't think that should be as much of a concern as it was 40 years ago; we no longer make a lot of other things in the US but import them from other places, from food to clothes to electronics. Arguably the world is more interconnected and better off as a result. How much oil would we have to import to make a significant dent in the American way of life?) We don't all have to stop driving cars tomorrow, but we could do more to incentivize burning less fossil fuels. Even if we disagree on whether that would make a difference to climate change, making more efficient use of energy is to everyone's benefit (except the fuel industry, which is already one of the most profitable industries in the US). Using the energy we have more efficiently surely contributes to maintaining energy independence. Government commitment to cleaner energy will help those industries become more economical and encourage new competitors to enter the space. The government already uses a lot of energy, they could simply commit to buying increasing amounts from cleaner energy sources. Government also could fund research. Energy storage and distribution seem like near-future advances to watch for. Distributed energy generation and storage also may be more common in the future. Imagine if every power substation had a small battery for storage. Imagine if every homeowner had a battery to store energy (even an electric car battery that could be used to power the refrigerator during a power outage -- having a refrigerator during a heatwave would be priceless). With an efficient transmission system and distributed power generation, widespread power outages could be nearly impossible. And could be developed incrementally. The government should use both carrots and sticks, and the sticks are regulations. Those regulations could be negotiated with industry (like car fuel efficiency standards and appliance efficiency standards), or imposed through the regulatory process, which includes talking to experts and soliciting public input. Like mandating that Ohio utilities invest in cleaner energy sources. While regulation decreases freedom for some, it can increase freedom for others. Barring smoking in restaurants took away smokers' freedom to smoke in restaurants but gave freedom to the nonsmokers in the restaurants to breathe cleaner air. The right to breathe clean air in a confined space trumped the freedom to create pollutants that your neighbor could not avoid. Burning fossil fuels puts pollutants into the air that we all breathe, and burning less pollutes less and we all win. The Republican Party may have different approaches to incentives (tax credits instead of grants), but as far as I know the Republican-controlled Senate hasn't passed any legislation to strengthen our efficient use of energy or make any attempt at mitigating climate change or providing incentives for people to prepare for climate change, and neither has the White House, which sought to increase the use of coal, increase oil and gas production (perhaps to excess for natural gas, which is fairly inexpensive), and decrease efficiency standards, some of which had previously been negotiated with industry rather than imposed on them. How is burning more fossil fuels, faster, a path to energy independence?
  8. Foraker

    Global Warming

    Brutus, a challenge: It might be 30 years or 50 years or 100 years, but let's assume for the sake of argument that the seas are going to rise 20ft and temperatures worldwide are going to increase 4C, and this additional energy in the atmosphere is going to mean more violent storms and weather extremes. What policies would help Americans adapt to the new environmental reality without limiting anyone's freedom. And without bankrupting the nation, of course. What policies should the Republican Party be endorsing?
  9. THAT is awesome! Safety standards have obviously changed a bit. The lower floors of the Keith building look blackened -- is that just from the facade not yet having been applied or was there a fire early on?
  10. I don't have the answer to your questions. Others have pointed out that Burke provides valuable relief for Hopkins for smaller planes. Sports teams bring their jets to Hopkins, whenever the President comes to town we don't have to completely shutter Hopkins, etc. There may be some redundancy between Burke and the county airport, I don't know. Hopkins does seem to be hemmed in by development and Burke does seem to be under-utilized. But I also don't get the obsession with closing Burke. Just looking at those red circles in your image above it seems like there are better places for cleaning up the lakefront for a park.
  11. There are still questions about states requiring disclosure of tax returns to get on the ballot. If those hold up, Trump will still have problems.
  12. You mean "another" $3.6B, he previously diverted $2.25B. Mostly from projects building housing, medical facilities, and other amenities for the troops on bases around the world. Senator "Moscow Mitch" McConnell hates American troops apparently. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/03/trump-administration-prepares-to-raid-military-projects-for-border-wall-1479981
  13. I disagree, and I note that you did not identify where to draw that line, other than the status quo is good for you -- which apparently means you accept the reality of mass shootings. We'll just have to disagree on that. Any police officers on this board want to comment on how heavily armed they want the civilian population to be? Personally, I don't think the police really need AR15s either. Their superior training and the quality of their equipment should give them an edge -- if civilians weren't so heavily armed. I also don't think the police would be too happy with allowing civilians to hoard smoke and flash-bang grenades...
  14. I find it odd how the fundamentalist Christian support for guns and against gay marriage, etc., are almost always quoting the Old Testament. But where do you draw the line between weapons that individuals "need" to protect themselves and weapons that are lawfully regulated out of private ownership? Revolver, semi-auto handgun, fully-auto handgun, shotgun, rifle, AR-15, fully-auto machine gun, tank, nuclear hand-grenade? You can go to gun ranges near Vegas and shoot any kind of gun you want. It can be a blast. Why do you need to have military-grade weapons in your home? really, you can't defend yourself and your home with a shotgun that you hunt with, you NEED an AR-15 and a 20-round clip? Remember the recent shooting in Odessa happened in Texas, which has more guns per capita than anywhere outside of Yemen, and the maniac still managed to fail a background check, get an AR15 and lots of ammo, and proceed to kill a bunch of people before he was killed BY POLICE, yet again not by a good-guy-with-a-gun. The odds are decent that some of the people he killed were actual gun owners who were not protected by their ownership of guns. What's the current over/under on how many days until the next mass-shooting?
×
×
  • Create New...