Skip to main content

View Diary: NY Times reporter asks President question that NY Times deems not newsworthy (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The trick is getting a very large majority willin (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, A Siegel

    to do what needs to be done. One person may have a voice but if the number agreeing and listening and acting is too small then in the end the ones who refuse will pull us all down.

    Can the government simply make certain behaviors and policies mandatory?.. AH, YEP but then drugs have been illegal for a long time and have pretty hefty punishments and we still have a flourishing drug underculture. I admire, on the other hand, the movements to cut smoking and drunk driving... they appear to be far more effective then the war on drugs. Though there are still holdouts.

    What framing would be more effective to get people to back it enough to disempower those on the right who oppose any effort to control thier naughty greedy ways  and ameliorate the damage that has already accumulated? Willing cooperation is what we need and yet the rhetoric between the right and left has heated up with many looking outside themselves for rescue. We need a ground swell movement NOT a once a year show for the earth. We need people to come together to be an army to back politicians who will do something as soon as they know they will not be tossed out of power and kept down for long generations. What can we do that does not rely on petitioning those who hold office to rescue us? The threat we live under is not just about business and government, it is about how we choose to live our lives and what we can not live without.

    To actually fight global warming is going to require a sustainability movement and a radical change in our economies...  We are constantly trying to sustain what we have by growing our economy which requires an ever growing level of resources and energy. Yet somehow we expect that we can do this without substantially changing how we live....We can't! And we need to get a grip on population growth from all aspects including improving the lives of the disposable peoples of the world.

    I think there are ways to overcome many problems but I think we are going to have to rachet back on what THINGS we feel we have to have. Personally I would not want PBO s job but he is admirably struggling against incredible oppostion as well as freaking out people, who I believe in some secret part of thier mind,s know what has to be done.. And then you have those who feel we should let it all fall away and die back as one doc I watched said ... to about 2000 humans after a long  long long drought. Which makes me wonder if we have done this repeatedly before. Maybe humans are incapable of using intelligence for anything but self-gratification. I hope we can make it this time around but we have to have a strong majority to be effective at deliberately terra forming our own planet from a run away downward spiral to our demise.

    How can you tell when Rmoney is lying? His lips are moving. Fear is the Mind Killer

    by boophus on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 09:16:00 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I think the argument (0+ / 0-)

      has to be made not enivormental but economically

      For example encourage rail that runs on electricicity (or even better mag lev), encouraging a transition to hybrids or all electric by higher fuel standards. Things like that which make sense and save people money

      The fact is that too many americans live pay check to pay check and big money and the gop use that against them. To me the solution is a bunch of small victories proving that government does work for them not against them

      Also make no mistake, humanity will survive there's little we can do short of total nuclear war to make this planet uninhabitable the question is how many and what kind of life will they have.

      •  Nothing will change (0+ / 0-)

        Ultimately humans are biological creatures subject to the laws of nature and physics. Compress geologic history to a calendar year and industrial civilization exists for the last seven seconds. In that time we have managed to trigger species extinction rates that rival past occurrences caused by catastrophic natural events.

        Humans beings could check themselves, but because we as a whole completely lack any environmental ethic, that's not going to happen. Ergo nature will do it eventually - and nature has no mercy.

      •  Argument shouldn't be 'either / or' (0+ / 0-)

        The environmental risks / challenges should be discussed as supportive of moves that will pay off even if the environmental weren't part of the equation. But, how can you talk about solutions if you don't talk about the problem to be solved?

        Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

        by A Siegel on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 04:08:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not saying either or (0+ / 0-)

          I'm just saying the most efficient means likely will be economical arguments

          •  Reacted to 'not ... but ..." (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            duhban

            The combination is absolutely acceptable / preferred on multiple grounds.  I see it quite possible to create strong climate policy that creates huge economic benefits compared to BAU.  See here for why.

            Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

            by A Siegel on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 04:56:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site