Ocasio-Cortez proposes a 70% tax on the most wealthy to pay for a "Green New Deal".

[LaCroix]

The problem is that even cutting all transportation emissions would only remove 28% of the US greenhouse emissions (EPA 2016)

And since you can't cut all Truck/Ship/airplane emissions, it would be even less.
Additionally, even if you 1:1 replace cars/ships and airplanes by electric cars and electic mass transit - the electric emissions would rise accordingly, and we all know that they would build coal and gas plants, first of all, and the production of the new infrastructure would also cause long-term rise of emissions. So it's even less than the fraction of the 28%, since it will be eaten up somewhere else.

So this drastic thing costing millions of people their livelyhood would only help very little, while targeting mostly the poor and lower middle class.

In addition, US cars have crap fuel efficiency...
So even if Europe has the same car density (it hasn't) , it would have even less impact.

And looking at the data makes it even more obvious that even if all global cars&ships&planes combined would immediately cease, with no replacement that would cause more emissions to pop up elsewhere (optimal which would be impossible, see above)...

...we'll only be removing at most, 14% of global emissions.

Too little.

So, it's time to stop talking about stupid ideas, and start talking about sane ones, like how to capture emissions, and how to actively remove excess carbon dioxide from our atmosphere in industrial scale to stop and eventually undo the damage done.

[Jub]

The problem is that even cutting all transportation emissions would only remove 28% of the US greenhouse emissions (EPA 2016)

And since you can't cut all Truck/Ship/airplane emissions, it would be even less.
Additionally, even if you 1:1 replace cars/ships and airplanes by electric cars and electic mass transit - the electric emissions would rise accordingly, and we all know that they would build coal and gas plants, first of all, and the production of the new infrastructure would also cause long-term rise of emissions. So it's even less than the fraction of the 28%, since it will be eaten up somewhere else.

So this drastic thing costing millions of people their livelyhood would only help very little, while targeting mostly the poor and lower middle class.

In addition, US cars have crap fuel efficiency...
So even if Europe has the same car density (it hasn't) , it would have even less impact.

And looking at the data makes it even more obvious that even if all global cars&ships&planes combined would immediately cease, with no replacement that would cause more emissions to pop up elsewhere (optimal which would be impossible, see above)...

...we'll only be removing at most, 14% of global emissions.

Too little.

So, it's time to stop talking about stupid ideas, and start talking about sane ones, like how to capture emissions, and how to actively remove excess carbon dioxide from our atmosphere in industrial scale to stop and eventually undo the damage done.

In that case, how about we just cull the 10 worst nations by greenhouse emissions wholesale while the rest of us get to live. Why should we have to go down with the USS Coal Guzzler?

[LaCroix]

Talk about cost of that Capture measures:
Human annual CO2 emission: 40 billion tons.

Direct Air Capture: A 2018 study calculates this to be between $94 and $232 per tonne. -> 400 billion to 1.5 trillion dollars.
Half to double the US military budget, and 100 % reduction in emissions.

BECCS: €50 per tonne... Even now, there are 3 facilities up and removing half a million tonnes per year.

Compare that to the cost of creating a public transit system in just the us alone, and the cost to get cars off the road/replaced, and you see why any other solution is stupid.

Also, it would create jobs all around the globe, instead of killing off whole industries.

[Crazedwraith]

What the heck is your obsession with genocide as a solution, Jub?

[LaCroix]

In that case, how about we just cull the 10 worst nations by greenhouse emissions wholesale while the rest of us get to live. Why should we have to go down with the USS Coal Guzzler?

Because it's expensive, causes more suffering and needs to be redone every couple of years?

It's actually cheaper to just remove the carbon we emit from the atmosphere, recycle part of it back into fuel, and gradually expand along this line with future expansions of humanity.

Thus, being cheaper, and causing less suffering, it is the obvious choice.

[LaCroix]

Direct Air Capture: A 2018 study calculates this to be between $94 and $232 per tonne. -> 400 billion to 1.5 trillion dollars.
Half to double the US military budget, and 100 % reduction in emissions.

Sorry, I got a math error, it is 10x the cost for DAC - 4 to 15 trillion US dollars. Still, that's global expense, and should be doable, since it also creates more jobs and GDP, in turn. World GP is about 80 trillion, currently, and since it is done large scale, it should be towards the lower side of the expected cost spectrum.

[Jub]

What the heck is your obsession with genocide as a solution, Jub?

It's easier to have a big global war over global warming than it is to convince the US to give up their gas guzzling cars and fossil fuel power plants and frankly we're all fucked anyway if we don't fix things. Hell, we might not fix things and get a war over what's left and won't that be fun!

I mean, we can't really fix this over a span of 10 or 20 years at this point. No plan that we can enact faster than that timeline has a hope of working without fucking millions anyway. Why not just skip the slow suffering death of poverty and ever decreasing quality of life on a melting ice ball and get right to the fun bits?

Because it's expensive, causes more suffering and needs to be redone every couple of years?

It's actually cheaper to just remove the carbon we emit from the atmosphere, recycle part of it back into fuel, and gradually expand along this line with future expansions of humanity.

Thus, being cheaper, and causing less suffering, it is the obvious choice.

Except that there's essentially no chance we can roll it out fast enough to matter and all the while we're just tossing more coal on the fire. At least with my idea, we stop chucking coal on the fire as fast by killing the ones doing most of the shoveling.

Sorry, I got a math error, it is 10x the cost for DAC - 4 to 15 trillion US dollars. Still, that's global expense, and should be doable, since it also creates more jobs and GDP, in turn. World GP is about 80 trillion, currently, and since it is done large scale, it should be towards the lower side of the expected cost spectrum.

Renewables are also worth billions and yet oil companies are still preferring to sell oil instead.

Your plan has as much chance of happening as mine does but with the added benefit of being complicated.

[Crazedwraith]

What the heck is your obsession with genocide as a solution, Jub?

It's easier to have a big global war over global warming than it is to convince the US to give up their gas guzzling cars and fossil fuel power plants and frankly we're all fucked anyway if we don't fix things. Hell, we might not fix things and get a war over what's left and won't that be fun!

I mean, we can't really fix this over a span of 10 or 20 years at this point. No plan that we can enact faster than that timeline has a hope of working without fucking millions anyway. Why not just skip the slow suffering death of poverty and ever decreasing quality of life on a melting ice ball and get right to the fun bits?

So you're a psychotic little shit. Got it.

[aerius]

In that case, how about we just cull the 10 worst nations by greenhouse emissions wholesale while the rest of us get to live. Why should we have to go down with the USS Coal Guzzler?

Congratulations, you've just killed about half the people on this planet, including everyone in Canada. Oh, and by the way, you've also just depopulated the only countries with the vital industries that can actually get us off this damn planet. You've also just killed the modern semiconductors industry so better get used to 1980s computers once the current ones break down.

[Jub]

So you're a psychotic little shit. Got it.

Question, what is the estimated global death toll just due to storms, rising sea levels, and desertification if we continue to do nothing/move at the glacial (enjoy those while they last) rate we have been? Then factor in that at least genocide doesn't also fuck the flora and fauna of the planet.

Literally what we are currently doing is already genocide it's just a genocide with very diffuse responsibility. Nobody wants to take a loss to fix shit, not the companies, not the governments, not the rich, not the poor. Well, somebody has to take a loss here, we don't have a better option.

I'm at least willing to take the blame for suggesting drastic action, what the fuck are you doing?

Congratulations, you've just killed about half the people on this planet, including everyone in Canada. Oh, and by the way, you've also just depopulated the only countries with the vital industries that can actually get us off this damn planet. You've also just killed the modern semiconductors industry so better get used to 1980s computers once the current ones break down.

Fine, we'll take the top 15 and only kill 80%, that ought to leave enough left to do research.

[LaCroix]

Your plan has as much chance of happening as mine does but with the added benefit of being complicated.

No, because no one wins a war against the USA. (hint, if they loose, they nuke...)
Your plan causes a lot of additional greenhouse gasses and ecological desasters, due to war blowing up a lot of things, nuclear bombs going off everywhere, burning cities, burning oil fields, decomposing bodies of humans and lifestock releasing methane, industrial waste from all the damage polluting everything, nuclear reactors melting down, whole ecosystems eradicated due to fallout, the oceans dying off due to algae bloom once all the decomposing matter ends up in there.

And still, global warming would not be stopped by that...

Even if we immeadiatly stop all industry and fall back to medieval population numbers and tech, the global warming won't be undone. It most likely wouldn't even stop getting worse.

You just like killing people instead of solving the problem.

[Jub]

No, because no one wins a war against the USA. (hint, if they loose, they nuke...)
Your plan causes a lot of additional greenhouse gasses and ecological desasters, due to war blowing up a lot of things, nuclear bombs going off everywhere, burning cities, burning oil fields, decomposing bodies of humans and lifestock releasing methane, industrial waste from all the damage polluting everything, nuclear reactors melting down, whole ecosystems eradicated due to fallout, the oceans dying off due to algae bloom once all the decomposing matter ends up in there.

And still, global warming would not be stopped by that...

Even if we immeadiatly stop all industry and fall back to medieval population numbers and tech, the global warming won't be undone. It most likely wouldn't even stop getting worse.

You just like killing people instead of solving the problem.

So, our best guesses at how to slow things down and adapt are long shots, even if we do cut emissions we're just as fucked anyway, and we're nowhere near getting a sustainable colony off the planet. If there's basically no hope anyway give me the fireworks.

[LaCroix]

So, our best guesses at how to slow things down and adapt are long shots, even if we do cut emissions we're just as fucked anyway, and we're nowhere near getting a sustainable colony off the planet. If there's basically no hope anyway give me the fireworks.

Aaaand he's selectively deaf, as well...

My plan would short term stop, and REVERSE the damage done, long term. These plants are already being built as test projects (half a million tons per year capacity, so far, by just 3 plants), we just need to build a fuckton more of them.


edit:
Actually, it's even better than that, and China is taking part in the world's efforts...

http://www.gasworld.com/china-establish ... 65.article

[Jub]

Aaaand he's selectively deaf, as well...

My plan would short term stop, and REVERSE the damage done, long term. These plants are already being built as test projects (half a million tons per year capacity, so far, by just 3 plants), we just need to build a fuckton more of them.

Half a million tons per year, that's what 1.388e-4 of the 36 billion tons produced yearly, where are we going to put the 22,000 plants needed to meet demand and how much extra pollution will be produced building them? What is the emission cost per plant and how quickly do they pay it off?

EDIT: Even if that Chinese plant sets the rate that's 6,000 plants.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Holy fucking shitballs. Jub, seriously advocating genocide is in violation of posting rule 2. Killing billions (and yes, killing billions will harm the flora and fauna of the planet) is not only off the table as solutions go, it is morally repugnant and against board rules.

Can it, or GTFO.

[Lonestar]

I'd bet any amount of money that somehow he wouldn't be on the billions killed lol

[FaxModem1]

Jub, I'm going to recommend reading some of the articles posted in this thread. There are people and nations trying to make a positive influence on the environment. Advocating such practices and getting public support behind them is a more sensible route than trying to start World War III.

I hope this helps your view on the future.

[Broomstick]

You wouldn't be. Nobody would be, but what other options do we have? You even admitted that there are no drastic changes we can make that wouldn't hurt you. So do you want to the slow death for your grandchildren or the suffering for yourself?

First of all, I have no children nor will I ever, much less grandchildren. So that argument is not effective for me, although I do give a damn about humanity and large and wish to see it continue. It just doesn't have to be my close relatives that do it.

Second, no matter what drastic changes we make at this point NONE will stop climate change. None. At this point we're talking about mitigating the damage, not preventing it.

Maybe I just have this crazy notion we should try to keep as many people alive in the boat as possible until the storm is over, rather than throwing folks overboard hoping it will make the bad weather go away.

So why isn't taking your beater off the road one of those possible leaser evils? We can't sit around waiting for the fire to go out while shoveling coal into it.

I guess you didn't actually read my post, did you?

You are proposing simply taking my transportation with no compensation. That is you are proposing taking my two most valuable assets with nothing in return and expecting me to go along with that, without protest. This is not how people work in the real world.

I, on the other, suggested a trade of sorts - find me something to replace that old vehicle and we can talk about a deal. I didn't even limit it to getting me another vehicle - get public transportation, relocate me to where there is public transportation, get viable bike-to-work routes, get me a job I can do from home.... What I am asking is that if you're going to ask me to sacrifice two of my most valuable items, at least one of which I need to get to and from work, for the sake of the planet then I am asking that we figure out a way for me to continue to work and thus survive. That way, you get buy in from me (and people like me) and cooperation rather than a fight.

Rather than coercing people and getting into situations that require bullets to enforce, try giving people a REASON to go along with your plan. We already had a program in 2009 with the aim of getting people to ditch old, inefficient cars and purchase newer, more efficient models called the Car Allowance Rebate System, which, while not perfect, was a good first attempt in that direction. Participants got a voucher of $3000-45000 towards purchase of another vehicle, which is enough to be of substantial help, especially if you allow not just the purchase of completely new vehicles but qualifying used ones as well.

Or - as I mentioned - provide assistance to relocate people, or get them jobs they can do from home, or otherwise mitigate the problems caused by taking away their personal transportation.

I read A Brave New World and saw a system that was working, bring on the death lotto and happy pills.

Guess you missed the point of the book, then.

Hey, YOU might be willing to kill yourself for the good of the planet, 99% of humanity is not. That's why your planned genocide won't work.

Congratulations - you have just stated you're quite willing to see me die, and thus have removed any incentive I might have to buy into your program. Fuck you. Rinse and repeat for everyone you deem "guilty". That's... quite a lot of people, actually, if you're going to include just the US, nevermind the rest of the industrialized world that helped get us to this place. How many billions are you willing to kill for the betterment of humanity in the future? Please, do elucidate further.

I also included myself and everybody I've ever loved in that. There is nothing I wouldn't give to see humanity as a whole have a future out among the stars.

Again:

1) That is YOU. That is not everybody else.

2) There is NO guarantee it is even possible for us to get off this planet in any meaningful way. So there's no guarantee your sacrifice will have any meaning whatsoever.

So... you're saying the Axis powers should have won WWII?

That doesn't really follow. There's no chance that Nazi Germany would have survived in a stable state post-war even if they had won, the same way the USSR didn't survive. Plus, they would have stifled innovative designs with their policies even had they lasted to the present day.

I didn't say "Nazi Germany", I said the "Axis Powers", all of which were fine with mass murder to further their polices, give their own people resources and "living space", or for any other reason said not-them people were inconvenient. Rather like you're advocating.

Taking away your car probably won't kill you anyway.

No, "just" leave me homeless and starving.

If we spent just the US military budget on space flight and assumed no further technologic advancement due to the extra funding, we could already have 238 citizens in space on ISS platforms. It's not the stars but it's a start.

Those 238 people would be utterly and completely dependent on shipment from Earth to survive. That's not colonization. That's not a start. That's basically what we have in McMurdo Base in Antarctica and there's no pretensions that that is in any way self-supporting or a self-sustaining coloniy.

Plus, in terms of getting the needs O2, water, and substrate to grow food and live the solar system has no shortage. There's not that much stopping us from at least trying to get out there, and yet we're still only maybe going to Mars at some undefined point.

Look, I enjoy SF as much as the next geek but as I said, there is no guarantee any of that is even possible. I want it to be, I'd like it to be, but reality is not negotiable.

What's stopping us? Fuel costs. Lifting people from Earth to space is expensive. Fucking expensive. Enormous carbon footprint, enormous amount of resources required for each and every launch. Where is all that coming from? What is the cost of that?

You might not care about your life, but I very much care about mine. I want to stay alive. I want food and shelter. These are not extravagant desires. You are talking about depriving me, and billions of other people of that at a minimum, if not actually taking our lives. You are a monster.

[Broomstick]

I'm sick of the throw up your hands and say nothing can be done attitude around here.

I'm sick of people denying reality and facts.

Gun deaths and mass shootings everywhere. Suggest removing guns. Get told that the US is teh special and they need guns for 'reasons'.

If you don't live in the US why do you care about that? That, thank goodness, is NOT a disease that's spreading to other parts of the world.

Suggest people make some personal sacrifices which I am willing to or already making so we don't bake the planet. Get called a Nazi.

First, no one directly called you a Nazi (although yes, it was implied)

Second, just because YOU are willing to do something does not mean anyone else agrees with you, or would make the same sacrifice.

Third, you are not suggesting actions to save the planet, you are suggesting genocide to "save" the planet.

Suggest that US citizens should do more about their politicians because the rest of the world suffers for their inaction. Get told that there's nothing they can do.

I did what I could. Unfortunately, my candidate lost the election, as usually happens. Failure is not the same thing as lack of trying to make a difference, nor is it the same thing as inaction.

If the rest of the world really wanted to they could isolate the US - stop all trade both ways, as a start. But nobody really wants to do that, do they? Or at least most nations don't.

[Broomstick]

You only solve that by pushing past our current planet bound state.

Once we hit space resources stop being scarce. We just need to get there.

What if we can't get there.

You have no Plan B.

You are asking for the suffering and death of billions for something nothing more than a wish, something you HOPE is true but that may be impossible.

That is not acceptable.

[Jub]

Holy fucking shitballs. Jub, seriously advocating genocide is in violation of posting rule 2. Killing billions (and yes, killing billions will harm the flora and fauna of the planet) is not only off the table as solutions go, it is morally repugnant and against board rules.

Can it, or GTFO.

Sure, I'll can it on the genocide talk. Most of it was anxiety induced hyperbole anyway, but given my past posting history, it would be impossible to see that.

Sorry for the trouble.

On that note, I still feel that even with current positive trends that our current rate of action is the equivalent to genocide though, likely risking hundreds if not thousands of megadeaths. Am I allowed to make that comparison?

-----

bet any amount of money that somehow he wouldn't be on the billions killed lol

I literally said I'd go to the wall willingly and take my friends and family with me if it meant making a positive and meaningful difference. I also made it clear that, with regards to not driving, I practice what I preach.

Do I really think it's reasonable to kill billions to solve climate change? No, that was hyperbole to an absurd degree and I shouldn't have posted it. That said, if I could clone the Earth and send 50% of all humans to Earth 2 with a magic button I would probably do it. It would at least slow carbon growth.

-----

Jub, I'm going to recommend reading some of the articles posted in this thread. There are people and nations trying to make a positive influence on the environment. Advocating such practices and getting public support behind them is a more sensible route than trying to start World War III.

I hope this helps your view on the future.

I get that there is positive news with regards to both climate change (or at least techniques to combat said change) as well as space exploration, AI, and transhumanism. I just increasingly doubt that we have the political will to get to the breakpoints where we mostly survive at this stage. There are too many places unwilling or unable to change quickly enough and the current economy creating a larger lower class yearly only means that the changes open to us will hurt more people each year. A radical solution now may well be preferable to a less radical solution in a decade that hurts more people less deeply.

-----

I'll get to Broomstick in the next post.

[Jub]

First of all, I have no children nor will I ever, much less grandchildren. So that argument is not effective for me, although I do give a damn about humanity and large and wish to see it continue. It just doesn't have to be my close relatives that do it.

Second, no matter what drastic changes we make at this point NONE will stop climate change. None. At this point we're talking about mitigating the damage, not preventing it.

Maybe I just have this crazy notion we should try to keep as many people alive in the boat as possible until the storm is over, rather than throwing folks overboard hoping it will make the bad weather go away.

Yeah, I didn't exactly think things through. If we truly are at a stage we're going 100% carbon neutral overnight won't even offer much by way of mitigation my plan is obviously terrible. The idea of genocide basically spun off the idea that doing something big now is preferable to a current slow rate of change that probably won't have a large enough effect to avoid megadeaths in the future. I would supporta drastic change that hurts the poor, myself included, if it had a chance to help and I'll stand by that.

I guess you didn't actually read my post, did you?

You are proposing simply taking my transportation with no compensation. That is you are proposing taking my two most valuable assets with nothing in return and expecting me to go along with that, without protest. This is not how people work in the real world.

I, on the other, suggested a trade of sorts - find me something to replace that old vehicle and we can talk about a deal. I didn't even limit it to getting me another vehicle - get public transportation, relocate me to where there is public transportation, get viable bike-to-work routes, get me a job I can do from home.... What I am asking is that if you're going to ask me to sacrifice two of my most valuable items, at least one of which I need to get to and from work, for the sake of the planet then I am asking that we figure out a way for me to continue to work and thus survive. That way, you get buy in from me (and people like me) and cooperation rather than a fight.

The issue is that a trade doesn't work. Even if we could get you an 80% less polluting vehicle at a reasonable price, we can't do that for everybody. The carbon footprint needed to build the factories alone, not to mention the vehicles themselves, would make it untenable as a quick solution. The same goes for building up mass transit on a meaningful timescale, the time to build was decades ago now and people will increasingly suffer for it car or no car.

Rather than coercing people and getting into situations that require bullets to enforce, try giving people a REASON to go along with your plan. We already had a program in 2009 with the aim of getting people to ditch old, inefficient cars and purchase newer, more efficient models called the Car Allowance Rebate System, which, while not perfect, was a good first attempt in that direction. Participants got a voucher of $3000-45000 towards purchase of another vehicle, which is enough to be of substantial help, especially if you allow not just the purchase of completely new vehicles but qualifying used ones as well.

Yes, we have a similar thing here too and you know what, it hurts the poor. If you're poor and don't own a car, you basically can't find a car for less than that trade in value unless you get lucky. Most truly impoverished people can't afford a $5,000 vehicle and thus don't get one at all. So you propose a solution that will steal cars from people as well, but since it doesn't take your car you feel that it's fine. I disagree.

Guess you missed the point of the book, then.

Hey, YOU might be willing to kill yourself for the good of the planet, 99% of humanity is not. That's why your planned genocide won't work.

The point was supposed to be something humanity is human without freedom, but it was spoiled somewhat by crazy religious dude murdering himself when given the chance. I don't believe that we have free will and don't feel that paying lip service to the idea makes sense and more than praying to a sky god to fix our current situation does.

There is NO guarantee it is even possible for us to get off this planet in any meaningful way. So there's no guarantee your sacrifice will have any meaning whatsoever.

There's nothing physically stopping us from diverting resources into space stations and launch platforms. There are a host of technical issues with long term space habitation (the very long term effects of low/no gravity on humans especially human reproduction, the suitability of space rocks as a substrate for growing crops, the radiation issue, etc.) but none feel as if they should be insurmountable with actual resources poured into working on the idea.

I didn't say "Nazi Germany", I said the "Axis Powers", all of which were fine with mass murder to further their polices, give their own people resources and "living space", or for any other reason said not-them people were inconvenient. Rather like you're advocating.

The living space is literally unlimited; conditionally false but objectively true for an infinite universe. That's a difference between stealing land from others/

No, "just" leave me homeless and starving.

Is that not an issue of current and past policy, both personal and political, which you've had more of a chance to influence than I have? I don't know your exact age, but based on things you've said you were of voting age in the 80's and 90's when it was easy to see these issue coming, did you vote against these changes and support green initiatives when we had the chance to stop them? Regardless of your answer I never had that choice.

I have very little sympathy for your generation and the future you've stolen from me. I'm sorry for that, but I didn't cause this mess.

Those 238 people would be utterly and completely dependent on shipment from Earth to survive. That's not colonization. That's not a start. That's basically what we have in McMurdo Base in Antarctica and there's no pretensions that that is in any way self-supporting or a self-sustaining coloniy.

But it could be if we wanted and/or needed it to be. Obviously it would support fewer people, but if the budget was that massive and the mandate was get 100 people living on the moon sustainably I believe that we would have done so by now with room to spare. I understand that you may think otherwise.

What's stopping us? Fuel costs. Lifting people from Earth to space is expensive. Fucking expensive. Enormous carbon footprint, enormous amount of resources required for each and every launch. Where is all that coming from? What is the cost of that?

https://www.quora.com/When-Elon-Musk-la ... ctric-cars

The carbon footprint of space launches, even massively upscaled is literally a drop in the bucket and costs would come down with an economy of scale and increased competition to get costs down. We could downrate safety standards to an 80% launch success rate if we grew properly desperate if the cost was a huge issue.

You might not care about your life, but I very much care about mine. I want to stay alive. I want food and shelter. These are not extravagant desires. You are talking about depriving me, and billions of other people of that at a minimum, if not actually taking our lives. You are a monster.

I'd love to live forever but we're all going to die and outside of a handful of lives we won't be missed.

Your nation, by its pollution and policy, has already killed, maimed, and doomed more people than I'm suggesting killing and you seem fine with it because you live there. I know it sucks Broomstick, but some percentage of that butcher's bill is on all of us. We're not innocent so why should the punishment spare us?

I'm sick of people denying reality and facts.

T3h US is t3h special. The solutions that work for the rest of t3h west can't work here. Muh liberty trumps all social contracts cuz consititution!

If you don't live in the US why do you care about that? That, thank goodness, is NOT a disease that's spreading to other parts of the world.

Gun deaths influence American worldviews. America is still the most powerful nation on the planet and exports its worldview globally. We have no choice except to care.

I did what I could. Unfortunately, my candidate lost the election, as usually happens. Failure is not the same thing as lack of trying to make a difference, nor is it the same thing as inaction.

If the rest of the world really wanted to they could isolate the US - stop all trade both ways, as a start. But nobody really wants to do that, do they? Or at least most nations don't.

We very likely fear that it would lead to a violent reaction from the US. If we tried that do you honestly believe that it wouldn't end in nuclear war?

I might feel that would be a fitting end to things, but you yourself seem keen to point out that most people wouldn't accept that.

What if we can't get there.

Then we all die anyway.

Failing to leave Earth is an unavoidable extinction event. Do you deny this as fact?

[Broomstick]

In that case, how about we just cull the 10 worst nations by greenhouse emissions wholesale while the rest of us get to live.

Once you set the precedent of murdering entire nations no one will be safe and nation will slaughter nation for the sake of convenience and resources. And that is what you are advocating - murder on a scale that dwarfs all prior atrocties.

Why should we have to go down with the USS Coal Guzzler?

Your anti-US bias is showing.

Why don't you harp on the other CO2 producing nations, like China?

[Jub]

Your anti-US bias is showing.

Why don't you harp on the other CO2 producing nations, like China?

Because China is actively cutting their output and is working very hard to go green now that they have a manufacturing base setup and ready to go. They're attacking climate change in a way that the US simply isn't. For a 'world leader,' the US isn't leading much these days when it comes to actually implementing green technology while, arguably, the US is a nation that could easily afford to do so.

You have a better time asking why I don't attack India for their output, and the honest answer is that they're stuck in the middle of trying to industrialize after the west spent years fucking them. I also expect that India will follow China's model of building quick and dirty and then very rapidly cutting dirty energy sources once they can meet demand and have a moment to breathe and reflect. I frankly expect more of the west than I do of developing nations and the US lags behind most of the west and, sadly, due to proximity and trade are dragging Canada down somewhat as well.

Is it wrong to expect the self-professed leader of the free world to actually lead the pack for once? Is it wrong to expect the nation that benefited the most from unchecked growth and lax environmental standards to give back now that they're comfortably on top? Is it wrong to ask those with the most to invest in sustainability?

[Broomstick]

Yeah, I didn't exactly think things through. If we truly are at a stage we're going 100% carbon neutral overnight won't even offer much by way of mitigation my plan is obviously terrible. The idea of genocide basically spun off the idea that doing something big now is preferable to a current slow rate of change that probably won't have a large enough effect to avoid megadeaths in the future.

Right. I get the notion that you want to fix stuff - my generation did, too - but going all HULK SMASH! is not going to work.

The issue is that a trade doesn't work.

Neither does mass murder but that didn't stop you suggesting it.

Even if we could get you an 80% less polluting vehicle at a reasonable price, we can't do that for everybody.

I made it quite clear that it doesn't have to be another vehicle - if I had a safe means to bike to work I could, at least a good part of the year. I already have a bike, and I'm healthy enough to do it. Except winter is an issue... hey, I'm open to relocation. Or work-from-home and maybe use a taxi or uber or something when I need to go somewhere. I have already lived like that - for the fifteen years I lived in Chicago I didn't own a car, didn't drive one, didn't want one.

No, we can't do it for everyone. Murdering everyone isn't a solution, either.

The carbon footprint needed to build the factories alone, not to mention the vehicles themselves, would make it untenable as a quick solution.

The carbon footprint for murdering 10 or 12 nations is untenable, too.

Rather than coercing people and getting into situations that require bullets to enforce, try giving people a REASON to go along with your plan. We already had a program in 2009 with the aim of getting people to ditch old, inefficient cars and purchase newer, more efficient models called the Car Allowance Rebate System, which, while not perfect, was a good first attempt in that direction. Participants got a voucher of $3000-45000 towards purchase of another vehicle, which is enough to be of substantial help, especially if you allow not just the purchase of completely new vehicles but qualifying used ones as well.

Yes, we have a similar thing here too and you know what, it hurts the poor. If you're poor and don't own a car, you basically can't find a car for less than that trade in value unless you get lucky. Most truly impoverished people can't afford a $5,000 vehicle and thus don't get one at all. So you propose a solution that will steal cars from people as well, but since it doesn't take your car you feel that it's fine. I disagree.

Maybe car ownership is much more common here than where you are. No, a trade-a-vehicle-for-something-else scheme isn't going to benefit those with no car - that's why a car is an asset, it has value. That objection is ridiculous - a buy-back scheme for diamond rings "hurts" people who don't own diamond rings. No, it doesn't. It doesn't take anything from people who don't own a particular object. They don't lose anything.

Nations where vehicle ownership among the poor is rare often have jitneys or share taxis to fill that gap. First world nations have taxis and ride share services like Uber. If that would actually work out for me I'd go for it, because saving the expense of owning, maintaining, and insuring a car while still being able to get around would be a net benefit for me.

You, on the other hand, advocate simply taking without compensation and murder.

There is NO guarantee it is even possible for us to get off this planet in any meaningful way. So there's no guarantee your sacrifice will have any meaning whatsoever.

There's nothing physically stopping us from diverting resources into space stations and launch platforms. There are a host of technical issues with long term space habitation (the very long term effects of low/no gravity on humans especially human reproduction, the suitability of space rocks as a substrate for growing crops, the radiation issue, etc.) but none feel as if they should be insurmountable with actual resources poured into working on the idea.

That's what you "feel". How warm and fuzzy for you. That's not science and it's not technology. It's a pipe dream.

"Diverting resources" does not automatically make a self-sufficient colony in space.

It's all very well to build dream castles in the clouds but unless there is a real foundation underneath they all fall down.

I didn't say "Nazi Germany", I said the "Axis Powers", all of which were fine with mass murder to further their polices, give their own people resources and "living space", or for any other reason said not-them people were inconvenient. Rather like you're advocating.

The living space is literally unlimited; conditionally false but objectively true for an infinite universe. That's a difference between stealing land from others

A bare, airless rock in space is not "living space". There is one and only one rock in space that can be said to have living space in this solar system and that's the one you're standing on. There is no guarantee we can make any other rock in this system liveable.\

Sure, I'd love to see independent space colonies but reality is a motherfucker. We don't actually know if that is possible.

Is that not an issue of current and past policy, both personal and political, which you've had more of a chance to influence than I have? I don't know your exact age, but based on things you've said you were of voting age in the 80's and 90's when it was easy to see these issue coming, did you vote against these changes and support green initiatives when we had the chance to stop them?

Sure did - for all the good it did.

You are mistaking lack of desired results for lack of effort. It's like prosecuting someone for murder because two hours of CPR didn't revive the heart attack victim.

Hell, it's not like I've stopped trying, either - just yesterday instead of throwing 70+ kilos of crap out I took it for recycling. Especially for aluminium, the recycling footprint is smaller than the refining from virgin ore. I replaced the weather-stripping on my new apartment at my own expense to reduce the energy costs of heating it in the winter. And so on.

Regardless of your answer I never had that choice.

Oh, like having your best efforts fail is such a fucking good time, right?

Wa-wa-wa - my generation said the exact same thing, blaming our parents for the "hell" our life was. Fact is, you're a First Worlder, too. Tough shit. When my parents were your age WWII was raging and there was no guarantee how that would turn out. It's that reality thing again - you have to play the hand you're dealt, fair or unfair, because there isn't any hand to play.

I have very little sympathy for your generation and the future you've stolen from me. I'm sorry for that, but I didn't cause this mess.

No, but you're proposing making it a hell of a lot worse.

And there's that collective guilt thing again - wa-wa-wa - your generation is so mean! You all conspired against me! I'm going to hurt you all back! Stop acting like a toddler.

Those 238 people would be utterly and completely dependent on shipment from Earth to survive. That's not colonization. That's not a start. That's basically what we have in McMurdo Base in Antarctica and there's no pretensions that that is in any way self-supporting or a self-sustaining coloniy.

But it could be if we wanted and/or needed it to be. Obviously it would support fewer people, but if the budget was that massive and the mandate was get 100 people living on the moon sustainably I believe that we would have done so by now with room to spare. I understand that you may think otherwise.

No, it couldn't. Just wanting hard enough won't make it work. It won't work any more than clicking your heels three times and saying "There's no place like home" is going to take you to Kansas.

Space is hard. It's also far more hazardous than any environment on Earth other than, say, trying to swim in lava. We can't "want" McMurdo base into being self-sufficient at this point, even with free air and gravity and potentially a source of water via melting ice much less make anything in space self-sufficient.

[The carbon footprint of space launches, even massively upscaled is literally a drop in the bucket and costs would come down with an economy of scale and increased competition to get costs down. We could downrate safety standards to an 80% launch success rate if we grew properly desperate if the cost was a huge issue.

Blowing up 20% of the highly-trained people you need to make anything in space work is not exactly getting the job done.

You might not care about your life, but I very much care about mine. I want to stay alive. I want food and shelter. These are not extravagant desires. You are talking about depriving me, and billions of other people of that at a minimum, if not actually taking our lives. You are a monster.

I'd love to live forever but we're all going to die and outside of a handful of lives we won't be missed.

I want as much life as I can get, and I don't give a fuck if I'd be "missed" or not - I want to be here. You're sacrificing the good in search of the perfect, which is stupid because you'll never get that perfect and you'll meanwhile miss out on the good.

Your nation, by its pollution and policy, has already killed, maimed, and doomed more people than I'm suggesting killing and you seem fine with it because you live there.

But you ignore China, which is currently doing more to kill the planet than anyone else.

And there's that collective guilt thing again, which is almost as bad a religion for causing death and misery. Or, another word for it: bigotry. You were born into X group so you need to suffer for it regardless of your own personal actions. Wow, you're a mass-murdering bigot, why the hell should anyone listen to you?

No, I'm not fine with what bad things my country has done but there you go again - I was born here so I must be guilty. And I can not leave - no other country on the planet is interested in taking me. So... you're guilty if you don't move somewhere else, but we won't let you move somewhere else! bwa-ha-HA!

Rather like the droves of people fleeing war in the Middle East are bad for "starting" the war, bad for not staying home and fighting to end the war, bad for trying to go elsewhere where war isn't happening - basically, they're intrinsicly bad and deserve whatever horrible fate Europe helps facilitate for them, right? Likewise, Americans are bad, they're bad if they stay there, and we won't let them go anywhere else so they deserve for us to advocate murdering them all, right?

I know it sucks Broomstick, but some percentage of that butcher's bill is on all of us. We're not innocent so why should the punishment spare us?

If you kill everyone there will be no one left to fix anything, and leave the planet even worse off than it is.

I reject your notion of inherited guilt and collective guilt - it's nothing more than Christian original sin with a new coat of paint. We are NOT all equally guilty.

I'm sick of people denying reality and facts.

T3h US is t3h special. The solutions that work for the rest of t3h west can't work here. Muh liberty trumps all social contracts cuz consititution!

No, I'm taking about your ridiculous fan-boy wanking about space colonies. It's bullshit at this point, and might well always be bullshit. "Space will save us!" is unproven and little more than click-your-heels-and-think-of-home. Not to mention your genocide scheme, as pointed out, will eliminate all the nations with space travel technology. Your "solution" actually negates your "solution". If you kill off those high-tech players what makes you think that those remaining will have the resources, knowledge, or even desire to try to get into space?

It's not about "America is special", it's about China and Russia and India being the only other space-players around and your plan to murder greenhouse gas producers takes them all off the table.

It's an unrealistic view of how feasible getting to space is.

Grow the fuck up. Stop making wishes and come up with a real plan that doesn't involve (literal) pie in the sky fantasies or murdering half the planet. Or at least crack a textbook on real science.

I did what I could. Unfortunately, my candidate lost the election, as usually happens. Failure is not the same thing as lack of trying to make a difference, nor is it the same thing as inaction.

If the rest of the world really wanted to they could isolate the US - stop all trade both ways, as a start. But nobody really wants to do that, do they? Or at least most nations don't.

We very likely fear that it would lead to a violent reaction from the US. If we tried that do you honestly believe that it wouldn't end in nuclear war?

Do you think YOUR solution wouldn't?

Truth is, the American Hegemony is fading. Probably not fast enough for you, but it is. Our time as a superpower is winding down. You'll be worrying about China (and possibly others) before you hit middle age.

What if we can't get there.

Then we all die anyway.

Failing to leave Earth is an unavoidable extinction event. Do you deny this as fact?

Whether we leave Earth or not our species will inevitably go extinct. Judging by other hominid species, we'll get maybe a million years at most, perhaps as few as half that. Either we all die, or we all evolve into something else. All species end just as all individuals end. So... what can we do to make our time as good as possible?