NYC was crippled by Sandy, and that didn’t lead to any changes.
Let’s be honest. The only thing that will change is if the Republican party’s power reduces.
Let’s be honest. The only thing that will change is if the Republican party’s power reduces.
And would admit clearly that it is something we can change and start promoting policies that help move society in the right direction. Instead they are censoring themselves and the organization is all but toothless.
https://time.com/5075265/epa-website-climate-change-censorsh...
So yea things would be different.
It's not obvious what you want to say, but the Paris agreement would have been a piece of cake if we had taken responsibility.
- Not invent new rules designed to prop up coal power plants that would otherwise no longer be competitive
- Not delay improvements in fuel efficiency standards
- Continue to allow California to set more rigorous standards
- Not open up wast swaths of the coasts for oil drilling
- Remain in the Paris Treaty, making it harder for other countries to fall back behind their promises
- Not levy 30% import tariffs on foreign solar panels
...and so on
Trump ran on and has tried to revitalize the coal industry: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/trump-s-b...
The first step in solving our problems, political or otherwise, is being honest about them. No matter where on the political spectrum you fall, every voting American knows that one side has pushed the idea that climate change is a hoax while the other has been trying to take action.
I’m not sure what the motivation of your question is. Proving that democrats have attempted action while the republicans have chosen to ignore science, is such low hanging fruit that I’m a bit baffled.
> NYC was crippled by Sandy, and that didn’t lead to any changes.
This is what I was referring to. Would the Democrats have implemented more hurricane protections?
I don't think either party has any sort of sane carbon-reducing policy. The Republicans are obviously insane, but the Democrats seem to be focused more on attacking politically charged targets than on actually getting things done. You say they've "attempted" action - I'd say they've implemented things that are more virtue signaling than effective. (plastic bag bans, straw bans... These are not the actions of someone who cares about the environment more than political point-scoring)
While you make fair points, you're not disagreeing with general trends. Democrats have made moves to address emissions, while Republicans are struggling to admit there is even a problem. We do live in a Democracy, and politicians do have to work within the reality of what can be passed. The general public is the problem. Until the public has a strong appetite for addressing climate change, no meaningful change will happen. Any leader making bold moves prior to that is just going to be voted out. The scary conclusion at the root of this thread is that the public will lack that will until a major city is lost.
“We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there remains just a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). In addition, Landsea et al. (2010) note that the rising trend in Atlantic tropical storm counts is almost entirely due to increases in short-duration (<2 day) storms alone. Such short-lived storms were particularly likely to have been overlooked in the earlier parts of the record, as they would have had less opportunity for chance encounters with ship traffic.”