What do you believe and what are you advocating for regarding Climate Change?

[Pete at Home]

The researchers estimated that 98 percent of the world’s primary forests occur in just 25 countries. Half of this is found in just five developed countries: the U.S., Canada, Russia, Australia, and New Zealand. In fact, Canada and Russia possess the most and second most primary forest in the world, respectively. Yet, even in these rich countries, primary forests continue to fall.



Despite the many unique characteristics of primary forests, these long-untouched ecosystems have not been given special status by many conservation initiatives or under current climate change groups working to stem forest loss.



“The definition of ‘forests’ as agreed under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change does not distinguish between primary forests, logged forests, young re-growth forests and plantations forests,” explained Mackey. “The definition includes vegetation canopy as low as two meters. We need formal definitions of forests that recognize these differences.”



Even more worryingly, the new study found that only 22 percent of the world’s standing primary forests are currently protected, this amounts to only five percent of the world’s pre-agriculture forests. Even those found in protected areas are not wholly secure as many countries are opening up, and in some cases even abolishing, protected areas for mining, logging, fossil fuels, and other industries.

[TheDrake]

Don't get me wrong, forests absolutely matter. Reforestation projects are underway in a lot of areas. We just need to understand that we can't just regrow forest and not do anything to curb rises in emission. We need to keep tearing down the coal plants so nobody can fire them up again if we fall on hard economic times.

I like the future, and I like science fiction. I would rather that the Earth not get turned into Geidi Prime, and I have yet to hear about a coal fired starship.

[Pete at Home]

I agree that reforesting ( May I use this as a shorthand for allowing three growth of old growth forest and expanding coral reefs and buffalo plains, basically all complex ecosystems) won’t be the only thing that we need, but they are more important and lower hanging fruit than kyoto’s Emissions diet.

Please consider also the psychological impact of more forests, cameras showing us rain forest canopies . from our own homes. For a fee rich kids fly drones over the canopy, getting a reward if they provide first alert to a forest fire.

 Turn the people hearts to the Earth and we may see changes in culture and consumption.

[NobleHunter]

Proper prairies also matter and they'll flourish where trees won't.

[Pete at Home]

Proper prairies also matter and they'll flourish where trees won't.

Amen. Let’s bring back the buffalo plains.

[Seriati]

Sometimes when I read discussions on the issue of climate change, I feel like I'm not entirely sure what people believe.

I'm not sure why there is a focus on belief at all.

1. What data do you believe to be true about temperature change in the last 100 years and why?  Provide links to primary sources of data if possible.

Not sure what this means.  I think most temperature data has been recorded in good faith.  I think most micro studies have data they honestly collected.

There's some questions about adjustments to the data.

2. What narrative do you have for the cause of any such temperature change?  Provide links to any public figures whose narratives and justifications you think are basically accurate.

So not about the data, but rather about the conclusions.  I'm not going to lie, I don't trust the conclusions, and especially the predictions.  In my view they have repeatedly overstated the case.

I don't trust the conclusion that human caused carbon is the only relevant factor to any increase in temperature.

That said, as far as "narrative" I don't have one I subscribe to, and I have no reason to dispute either that warming occurs or that carbon contributes to it.  I guess my narrative would be to stop trying to use science that someone poorly understands as a hammer to implement policies that wouldn't even address the issues.

3. What actions do you believe we should take collectively on the federal level, if any, in response to your views on #1 and #2?  Why do you think these actions will have a net positive impact?

Generally I'm pro-green and an anti-waste.  Those seem like beneficial policies for a host of reasons, even if they don't necessarily impact climate change.

On the federal level we should immediately impose tariffs on goods produced in countries that don't have an equal level of environmental laws to our own.  Our official policy should be to put polluters out of business by supporting the cleanest operations capable of producing the goods in question.

We should continue to refine and adjust our own environmental laws, but we seriously need to bring back the legally required economic impact analysis is a fair way (and not just, the way the radicals at the EPA do it where any environmental harm = infinite on the balance).

4. What actions do you believe we should take collectively on the state level, if any, in response to your views on #1 and #2?  Why do you think these actions will have a net positive impact?

Federal government should generally pre-empt the states on this.  Though land use and zoning support could be helpful, most state actions are actually disruptive and/or self interested.

5. What actions do you believe we should each take on an individual level, if any, in response to your views on #1 and #2?  Why do you think these actions will have a net positive impact?

We should stop supporting fake solutions and demand real ones.

[TheDrake]

WASHINGTON—During a press conference held in a D.C. parking lot, Environmental Protection Agency head Andrew Wheeler went out of his way Friday to show carbon emissions were safe by putting his mouth over the exhaust pipe of an idling Jeep Grand Cherokee and taking several deep breaths. “Despite all the fear-mongering on behalf of politically motivated scientists, carbon emissions are not harmful in any way, as you can see,” said a coughing, unsteady Wheeler, moments before he was seen vomiting, losing his balance, and collapsing onto the pavement. “They pose no threat at all to the American public, and any hysterical claims to the contrary have no basis in reality. Sure, it does burn the lungs a little, but it doesn’t cause any serious harm to internal organs—look, I’ll even take another puff. Oh, God. Oh, God. Someone help me.” At press time, local authorities had confirmed Wheeler’s death.

Heee. Exactly. Satire on the point.

[Pete at Home]

WASHINGTON—During a press conference held in a D.C. parking lot, Environmental Protection Agency head Andrew Wheeler went out of his way Friday to show carbon emissions were safe by putting his mouth over the exhaust pipe of an idling Jeep Grand Cherokee and taking several deep breaths. “Despite all the fear-mongering on behalf of politically motivated scientists, carbon emissions are not harmful in any way, as you can see,” said a coughing, unsteady Wheeler, moments before he was seen vomiting, losing his balance, and collapsing onto the pavement. “They pose no threat at all to the American public, and any hysterical claims to the contrary have no basis in reality. Sure, it does burn the lungs a little, but it doesn’t cause any serious harm to internal organs—look, I’ll even take another puff. Oh, God. Oh, God. Someone help me.” At press time, local authorities had confirmed Wheeler’s death.

Heee. Exactly. Satire on the point.

I’ll put that argument in the same file as old growth doesn’t matter because forest fires.  Two sides of the same confederate coin

[Seriati]

I think it's interesting that somehow use of cars is ascribed to being Republican.  Maybe we all missed how everyone of both parties in America over uses cars?  Or how the liberal elite continues to travel in private jets?  The solutions proposed rarely start with forcing people to give up their cars, forcing public transport or even gas rationing for private use, they all have to do with putting efficient factories out of business so Chinese ones can profit and pollute more.

So nice meme concept, but it actually detracts from the debate.

[Grant]

My modest policy proposals to combat climate change:

1.  End all production of meat.  Eat all the cows and pigs we have and just keep enough left for zoos and movie stars and that saltbae guy.  Don't breed anymore.  Castrate them all. 

2.  Invade India.  Eat all their cows.  Eliminate huge amounts of second most populous country on earth. 

3.  Invade China.  Eat all their pigs and chicken.  Eliminate huge amounts of second most populous country on earth.  Eliminate Chinese carbon based industries.  Watch billions of people starve.  Light a cigar, lean back, contemplate a portrait of Mao, and scoff: "amateur". 

4.  Invasions of India and China are going to eliminate most of your population of the USA anyways.  Eat more corn. 

5.  Invade and castrate everyone in Africa.  That will reduce population growth and stop all those pesky wars. 

Boom!  World peace and climate change averted.  I will accept my accolades through breeding rights and steak rights.  Enjoy the peaceful and climatically stable world I have provided you, plebs.