web analytics

THE AMAZON WILL BE FINE

By Pete Moore On August 23rd, 2019

Today the commies are shrieking about Amazonian fires. Let me be the voice of reason. There are always fires in the Amazon. Every year, thousands of fires. A century ago, last year, next year and way into the future – thousands of fires each year. Wood burns, you see, and there’s a lot of wood in the Amazon.

Forests and jungles also renew themselves. They burn, the fires go out, the forest renews and the locals have plenty of charcoal to grill the fish. That’s nature in balance. So calm down, commies.

86 Responses to “THE AMAZON WILL BE FINE”

  1. Forests and jungles also renew themselves. They burn, the fires go out, the forest renews

    No Pete, these fires are deliberate and illegal clearances by loggers to turn rainforest into farmland. Bolsonaro has made it clear that the law will not be enforced and they have carte blanche to burn and clear as much as they wish, and of course to clear (by killing if necessary) the “primitives” who live there.

    The most immediate consequence for the Trump of the Tropics will be the refusal of the EU to ratify the Mercosaur trade deal. This could be quicly followed by a total ban on imports of Brazilian soya and Brazilian beef. How fitting that the EU should copy Trump’s tactics against his Brazilian pal:

    “France and Ireland say they will not ratify a huge trade deal with South American nations unless Brazil does more to fight fires in the Amazon. French leader Emmanuel Macron said President Jair Bolsonaro had lied to him about his stance on climate change. There are currently a record number of fires in the Amazon rainforest – a major source of oxygen for the world. Environmental groups say the fires are linked to Mr Bolsonaro’s policies, which he denies.

    European leaders have also expressed dismay over the fires. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the fires “not only heartbreaking” but “an international crisis”. “We stand ready to provide whatever help we can to bring them under control and help protect one of Earth’s greatest wonders,” he added. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called the fire an “acute emergency… shocking and threatening not only for Brazil and the other affected countries, but also for the whole world”.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49450495

  2. no these fires were set by the environmental cases because they got their money cut…..

  3. LOL

    Bolsonaro made this ludicrous lying claim, then lied by saying he didn’t say it. He reminds me of someone but I can’t remember who.

  4. when did he withdraw it ?

    and Peter if you have something to say go for it…..

  5. Unfortunately, the fiery assault on the Amazon is for real and, unlike the ‘climate change’ BS, destruction of the Amazon really shall cause climate change. How did this happen?

    https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/new-political-earthquake-in-brazil-is-it-now-time-for-media-outlets-to-call-this-a-coup/

    Brazil today awoke to stunning news of secret, genuinely shocking conversations involving a key minister in Brazil’s newly installed government, which shine a bright light on the actual motives and participants driving the impeachment of the country’s democratically elected president, Dilma Rousseff. The transcripts were published by the country’s largest newspaper, Folha de São Paulo, and reveal secret conversations that took place in March, just weeks before the impeachment vote in the lower house was held. They show explicit plotting between the new planning minister (then-senator), Romero Jucá, and former oil executive Sergio Machado — both of whom are formal targets of the “Car Wash” corruption investigation — as they agree that removing Dilma is the only means for ending the corruption investigation. The conversations also include discussions of the important role played in Dilma’s removal by the most powerful national institutions, including — most importantly — Brazil’s military leaders.

    The corporates removed the legitimate president who had no intention to play along with clearing the Amazon basin for corporate agri-business, and then put their man in place…….

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/within-hours-of-taking-office-trump-of-the-tropics-starts-assault-on-the-amazon/5664778?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

    Within hours of taking office, the Trump of the Tropics, aka the new President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, launched an all-out assault against the Amazon rainforest and its indigenous communities yesterday, potentially paving the way for large scale deforestion by agricultural, mining and oil companies.

    Startling many commentators by the speed of his action after his inauguration, Bolsonaro signed an executive order or decree, which immediately shifted responsibility for indigenous land demarcation from FUNAI, the Brazilian government’s Indigenous Affairs office, to the pro-agribusiness Ministry of Agriculture.

    More worryingly, it could eventually pave the way for the dismantling of the indigenous reserve system, which would allow mining and oil interests to move in unchallenged

    Leading Brazilian researchers, from the National Institute of Space Research (INPE), have calculated that Bolsonaro’s policies could triple deforestation in the Amazon from present levels of 6,900 square kilometers (2,664 square miles) annually, to 25,600 square kilometres (9,884 square miles) per year by 2020.

    And if that happens, the so-called lungs of the world, will collapse. And that will affect us all.

  6. Peter –

    There we go – “Bolsonaro”.

    The Amazon had thousands of fires each year when fat, corrupt socialists were in power, but no-one was interested then. The headlines and protests and bed-wetting is only because Bolsonaro is the chief.

  7. the wackos lit it….

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics-idUSKCN1VB1BY

  8. Every sane person should be very worried about this deforestation

  9. Interesting post Allan. I think the plan is to burn as much of the rainforest as possible while Bolsonaro is in power. He is in the pocket of the loggers and agri-business cartels just as much as his North American equivalent is in the pocket of the fossil fuel cartels and the NRA. Both are bought and paid for.

  10. The reason why the Amazon is being cleared is that agri-business has markets in Europe and north America for beef and coffee. If the consumers of these products have a Gillette-moment and boycott the products, then there’s no market. Boycotts have been shown to work

  11. The headlines and protests and bed-wetting is only because Bolsonaro is the chief.

    LOL. It’s touching to see Rightworld rush to defend one of their own.

  12. Allan

    I think there should be a total ban on all imports from Brazil, end of.

  13. what’s the matter Peter….. you called me a liar, but you have yet to produce Bellisario’s withdraw statement about the NGOs….

    still waiting for it…..

  14. “The Amazon had thousands of fires each year when fat, corrupt socialists were in power, but no-one was interested then. The headlines and protests and bed-wetting is only because Bolsonaro is the chief.”

    Of because the fires are larger and more numerous than normal. They are apparently 85% bigger than normal.

  15. No Seamus. The fires are an excuse to attack Bolsonaro. No Bolsonaro, no interest.

  16. So the fires aren’t 85% larger than normal? Bolsonaro’s own National Institute for Space Research is lying?

  17. So the fires aren’t 85% larger than normal?

    I didn’t say that. No-one cares how relatively large they are. The bed-wetting is simply anti-Bolsonaro theatre.

  18. “I didn’t say that. No-one cares how relatively large they are. The bed-wetting is simply anti-Bolsonaro theatre.”

    So you accept that they are 85% larger? And that people’s concern is not that they are happening on Bolsonaro’s watch but that they are substantially larger than they were last year? And that you don’t want that to be the conversation because Bolsonaro is another wannabe dictator that you have an erection for?

  19. //They burn, the fires go out, the forest renews and the locals have plenty of charcoal to grill the fish.//

    Well, that certainly didn’t work in Ireland at least. At the time of the Elizabethan conquest, about 60 percent of Ireland was still covered in forests, mostly deciduous trees. By the time the English were kicked out, that cover had fallen to only 1.5% of the land under forestry. No other country in Europe had experienced such near total deforestation.

    Since Independence, the rate has risen to 10 pc, especially due to large plantings in recent years, but still only a quarter of this cover is broadleaf.

    The deforestation in Brazil has similar causes, greed, ignorance and the need for grazing areas. It has nothing to do with natural change.

  20. No Bolsonaro, no interest.

    But Pete, I’ve heard concern about fires and deforestation in the Amazon for decades.

  21. The northeast US had big time deforestation in colonial and later times, and has very largely recovered in recent times. Some interesting detail here

    https://www.businessinsider.com/northeastern-us-forest-transformation-2013-9

  22. you called me a liar

    No Patrick, I called [Trump of the Tropics] Bolsonaro a liar. Just like his buddy Trump is a liar, that was my point.

  23. sorry thought you meant me… but where is the link to his retraction ?

  24. The fires are an excuse to attack Bolsonaro. No Bolsonaro, no interest.

    Bullshit Pete, there have been concerns about the Amazon for at least 40 years. As you must know.

    Anyway, as you totally reject AGW you should have no concerns about this, it’s just economic development which was held back by the corrupt socialists. The sooner the whole lot is gone the better, it will mean a big increase in red meat production. And that’s what matters.

  25. Don’t call the chosen one a liar.

  26. To give an idea of his changing rhetoric on it:

    https://news.sky.com/story/amazon-wildfires-president-jair-bolsonaro-says-brazil-has-just-40-men-to-fight-widespread-chaos-11791386

    Maybe – I am not affirming it – these [NGO people] are carrying out some criminal actions to draw attention against me, against the government of Brazil

    to

    For God’s sake – there is not proof of that [NGOs causing the fires], nobody writes ‘I will set fire to that’. It does not exist. If you don’t catch someone red-handed while setting the fire then look for those responsible for ordering it – it’s a crime.

  27. No link Patrick, maybe he is sticking to the main lie and I was misinformed.

  28. that’s not a withdraw…. he doesn’t take the statement back he just says he can’t prove it…

    Just like nobody can disprove it.

  29. I think he’s sticking with it…. proof or not.

  30. Does that strike you as adult-like?

  31. No one can disprove anything by that standard. Trump is a rapist. Prove me wrong.

  32. If a right wing politician said it, it must be true.

  33. I see you’ve missed the point completely as usual Pete.
    This isn’t so much about the fires as it is about the deforestation of the Amazon.
    Which is something that any sane person, with the most basic knowledge of the planet and it’s ecosystem, should be worried about.

  34. Which is something that any sane person, with the most basic knowledge of the planet and it’s ecosystem, should be worried about.

    Good luck with that Dave. Rightworld is cheering on the burning:

    “Commie lies, AGW Hoax, Brazil has the right to burn its forests if it wants to, neo-colonialism to criticise it, “Primitives” deserve electricity and big macs
    , more cattle farming needed, more soya beans needed, let’s get red meat to everyone on the planet asap, yada yada yada”

  35. no one is cheering the burning…..

  36. Mahons, on August 23rd, 2019 at 9:44 PM Said:
    Does that strike you as adult-like?

    nope

  37. You wanna bet?

    “Why shouldn’t Brazilians burn down trees?”
    https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/08/23/why-shouldnt-brazilians-burn-down-trees/

  38. Patrick Van Roy,

    that’s not a withdraw…. he doesn’t take the statement back he just says he can’t prove it…

    Just like nobody can disprove it.

    As has been pointed out dozens of times before on here when somebody makes a claim it’s up to them to prove it, it’s not up to other people to disprove it.

    To quote the late, great Christopher hitchens:
    “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

  39. Cheers Peter. And as usual, you’re right.
    I think one answer to the fermi paradox, is that most intelligent life advances to a level where it ends up destroying itself.

  40. Every now and then the environmentalist mask slips. And we get a glimpse of the elitist and authoritarian movement that lurks beneath the hippyish green facade. The hysteria over the rainforest fires in Brazil is one of those moments. As well-off, privileged Westerners rage against Brazil for having the temerity to use its resources as it sees fit, and as they even flirt with the idea of sending outside forces to take charge of the Amazon, we can see the borderline imperialist mindset that motors so much green thinking. In the space of a few days, greens have gone from saying ‘We care about the planet!’ to ‘How dare these spics defy our diktats?’. And it is a truly clarifying moment.

    You don’t have to be a fan of Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, and spiked certainly isn’t, to feel deeply uncomfortable with the Western outrage over his policy on the rainforest. Observers claim the Amazon is experiencing its highest number of fires since records began. That those records only began in 2013 should give the Western hysterics pause for thought – this isn’t the historically unprecedented End of Days event they claim it is. There are always fires in the Amazon, some started by nature, others by human beings logging or clearing land for farming. Some of the current fires were started by people who need wood or land – how dare they! – while others are just part of the natural cycle.

    More tellingly, NASA has attempted to counter the hysteria. Its data suggests that, while the number of fires might be larger than in the past few years, ‘overall fire activity’ in the Amazon is ‘slightly below average this year’. How striking that the people who wave around NASA reports when making their case that mankind has had a terrible impact on the planet are ignoring NASA’s reports that there is less fire in the Amazon this year in comparison with the past 15 years.

    from Peters link…. I’ll keep reading and looking for cheering but it seems to me you just don’t like his attitude.

  41. It does appear to be rather confusing……

    https://www.science20.com/robert_walker/nasa_say_the_amazon_is_burning_at_below_average_rates_yet_many_news_stories_say_record_rates-240959

    For me, now that attention has been brought to the Amazon basin and its importance to the world’s ecosystem, why don’t the moneyed nations put in place an agreement with Brazil which conserves the rainforest whilst allowing sustainable farming and export markets? It cannot be too difficult, surely?

  42. From my link at 12.23am:

    To my mind this politicization of science is quite shocking. To take the INPE DETER observations which are known not to be reliable for this and released with a big warning and publishing their figures and not even mentioning the NASA figures.

    This is clearly not done because of any concern about the science behind the NASA figures. It is just because the NASA ones don’t fit the political objective of getting Bolsorano to do something about deforestation. This is especially clear when e.g. the BBC reporters show that they know about the NASA figures having published them with one or two line mentions in some of the articles.

    Political leaders are all responding to this, apparently totally unaware that the NASA figures do not support the INPE ones. They are threatening to withdraw from the Mercosur-EU trade deal if he doesn’t do something about this.

    European leaders have also expressed dismay over the fires, with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying he is “deeply concerned” about “the impact of the tragic loss of these precious habitats”.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called the fire an “acute emergency… shocking and threatening not only for Brazil and the other affected countries, but also for the whole world”.

    Amazon fires: Brazil threatened over EU trade deal

    It is great to see more pressure on Brazil to preserve the rainforests. Also it’s good to see Bolsonaro responding to the pressure.

    He is contemplating deploying the military to fight the fires. Since the fires are often started in order to do illegal deforestation, this could well reduce the levels of illegal deforestation if he does do this.

    Bolsonaro mulls deploying army to combat Amazon fires

    Amazon fires: Brazil sends army to help tackle blazes

    I am of course no fan of Boslorano and care deeply about the Amazon rainforest. I will be glad of the outcome if he fights the fires and acts to stop illegal deforestation. But I also care a lot for truth and I don’t like to see bad science being used for a “good” political objective.

  43. Allan@Aberdeen,

    For me, now that attention has been brought to the Amazon basin and its importance to the world’s ecosystem, why don’t the moneyed nations put in place an agreement with Brazil which conserves the rainforest whilst allowing sustainable farming and export markets? It cannot be too difficult, surely?

    Well said.

  44. Thanks Dave – two clocks stuck at the same time, perhaps?

  45. Spookily Allan, I thought exactly the same thing when I was writing my response.

  46. I’m amazed that you know who has so far refrained from tweeting about this. In favour of burning the forest of course. “We need more soya and more cattle! Say NO to the eco-commies! Let it burn!”

  47. Allan

    That seems like a good idea but the only thing that Bolsonaro respects is brute force. So trade boycotts will be much more likely to succeed:

    “The best weapon against a Bolsonaro administration is to hurt the Brazilian economy. Countries such as Norway have tried the gentler approach of financial incentives, which were rejected. It is now time to be aggressive. Boycott Brazilian products. Make association with Brazil an ugly stain for international companies, and demand they pull their business. Push your government to take an extremely hard line on Bolsonaro. If it is necessary to discuss the possibility of sanctions, so be it. The mere notion will shake people in important places to their core, and what they lack in morals, they exceed in cowardice when it comes to losing money.”

    https://www.newstatesman.com/world/south-america/2019/08/world-has-power-make-brazil-s-bolsonaro-pay-his-destruction-amazon

  48. I love the forest all of them.

    There are few joys greater than disappearing into the hardwood or the jungle. Over logging almost destroyed the northwest. The earth abundance on it’s surface must be preserved.

    Preservation takes balance between industry and the ecosystem. My state has agriculture, cattle, steel, oil, LNG, and coal industries. We also have immense forests. 58.60% of Pa is forest and the state is 46,055 square miles, that’s 27,644 sq miles of woods filled with Bear, Lynx, Elk, and the largest whitetail population in the country. We have a reestablished Bald Eagle population that’s been brought back from zero to thriving, and we’ve started reintroducing wolves not to mention all the critters in between all this in the 5th most populace state in the union. and one that was settled in the first 13.

    You people in the rest of the world talk conservation we’ve done it. The US has some of the cleanest air water and pristine ecosystems in the world. We don’t fantasize about fixes that will never happen we do what needs to be done now.

    The US is not part of the ipcc scam, but we are the only nation I believe that has not only met it’s reduction levels but surpassed them something none of yours have done.

    remove the log from your own eyes….. ours are crystal clear and 20/20

  49. I don’t know of any confirmed wolf population in PA or in any neighboring state

    There are rumors of wolves in upstate New York, who may have migrated from Quebec

    The eradication of the wolf in most of the US was a major error

  50. no I wasn’t clear phantom sorry the debate going on right now within pa fish an game is the reintroduction of the wolves. The deer population in pa can’t be kept in line with hunting. The heard has no natural predators in the state.

    There is a heavy push by some to introduce a few in Forest county Pa it’s like 450 square miles of just woods and only around 7000 people.

  51. Wow

    I’d agree with that reintroduction in PA ( and in upstate NY, Which has massive wooded areas )

    But there would be opponents – including cattle and sheep farmers, who hate wolves

  52. those are he groups objecting here, but thats what makes Forest county perfect there is nothing there except woods and a few people in 450 sqmi yet they’re still debating.

  53. //The US is not part of the ipcc scam, but we are the only nation I believe that has not only met it’s reduction levels but surpassed them something none of yours have done.//

    Patrick, what are you talking about here? What “reduction levels” did the US and only the US meet?

  54. CO2 and other emissions Noel the goals set in your treaty the US emissions have been falling since 2004, and continue to fall.

  55. And I believe a lot of that reduction has been caused by the decreasing use of coal

    So the coal freaks can’t exactly take credit for any of this

  56. Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions
    https://www.forbes.com/…/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions
    Oct 24, 2017 · Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions. That’s when they began to fall. Between 2005 and 2017, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions fell by 12.4% on an absolute basis and by 19.9% on a per capita basis. The per capita number is certainly consistent with …

    Author: Robert Rapier

  57. a large transfer from coal to LNG is and has taken place and is increasing exponentially.

  58. //CO2 and other emissions Noel the goals set in your treaty the US emissions have been falling since 2004, and continue to fall.//

    You have to be more specific. What is “your treaty”?

    If you mean the Kyoto agreement (and what else?), then it is not true that ” I believe that has not only met it’s reduction levels but surpassed them something none of yours have done.”

    The EU as a whole has met its Kyoto targets, including Ireland, the UK, Germany etc.

    The US Congress didn’t ratify the Kyoto treaty, and I don’t know how it fared in relation to the rates the President had agreed to.

    Patrick, your link doesn’t lead to the article (at least for me)

    But it does show an article ..

    “A Sharp Decline In The U.S. Rig Count Is Yet Another Sign Of An Economic Slowdown”

    You see, Trump is destroying the economic recovery that Obama started.

  59. the paris climate accords Noel and your all not making it

  60. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#3e51d1113535

  61. “A Sharp Decline In The U.S. Rig Count Is Yet Another Sign Of An Economic Slowdown”

    You see, Trump is destroying the economic recovery that Obama started.

    lmao…. yeah that’s the new spin…. we’re going into a recession. They’re smoking crack. The economy is booming. The trade war is causing massive fluctuations in the market but even the dramatic drop this week the economy blows away anything Obama had going.

    As for rig count I find that really funny by the end of next year the US will be exporting more Oil than we import, we are the worlds largest producer of fuel, Oil, LNG, and Coal. The rig count has dropped because we are producing more than we can process and move. There are 4 major pipelines that are still under construction.

    They will be online by the end of next year then we can start increasing drilling again.

  62. //the paris climate accords Noel and your all not making it//

    But, Patrick, the US is currently projected to fall far short of its pledges at the Paris agreement.
    This will make it much harder for future, sane, administrations in the US to get back on track.

    The EU is at the moment only slightly below schedule, so to speak, for its 2030 targets. But experts believe that will soon change and the EU will soon get back on target.

    So, if you are talking about Paris, the true situation is exactly the opposite of what you wrote.

  63. I know two companies that got out of the fracking chemical business because of the sustained low prices for the gas and resulting squeeze on their prices. Their customers Couldn’t afford to pay for the chemicals.

    Low prices have a big downside.

    In Texas and other places, they’re burning off ( flaring ) a lot of gas due to low prices, inefficient operations, etc

    https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/in-depth/2018/10/09/307086/drillers-burn-off-record-amounts-of-gas-as-focus-remains-on-oil/

  64. sorry Noel as usual you’re wrong. You can play with your “projections” all you want the reality is we have lowered our emissions greater that any other country and they are continuing to drop add to that the massive transfer to LNG that is taking place our drop in emissions is expanding not decreasing.

  65. US CO₂ increased in 2018. They went from 5014.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2017 to 5145.2 million tonnes in 2018. The European Union went from 3549.5 in 2017 to 3479.3 in 2018. So US emissions increased by 2.6% while EU emissions reduced by 2.0%.

  66. The US was leading the way under Barack Obama. But, like in many different areas, it has abdicated its leadership position under The Donald.

  67. bull

  68. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf

    The 2017 source that your link raves about Patrick. The 2019 report tells a different story.

  69. Seamus the US is the cleanest industrial nation in the world we saw an uptict because our industrial base is coming back on line and since Obama blocked all the LPG and Oil pipelines while he was president they started back up with coal power….. they are in the process of transferring over.

  70. “Seamus the US is the cleanest industrial nation in the world we saw an uptict because our industrial base is coming back on line and since Obama blocked all the LPG and Oil pipelines while he was president they started back up with coal power….. they are in the process of transferring over.”

    Under Obama US CO₂ consistently dropped. Something you have been raving about on this thread. Under Trump US CO₂ have gone up. You can’t have it both ways.

  71. “Seamus the US is the cleanest industrial nation in the world”

    That is also utter, utter nonsense. Let’s look at the G8, the major industrialised nations. If you look at the 8 (excluding the remainder of the EU not accounted for by France, Germany, Italy, and the UK) then the US accounts for 51% of all CO₂ emissions (including the entire EU and it drops to 43%). The US is the largest country in the G8 so lets look at per capita. On average the G8 pump out 11.1 tonnes of CO₂ per person. The US pumps out 15.7 tonnes of CO₂ per person. That ranks the most. All other G8 members pump out less CO₂ per person than the US.

    The US is far, far from the cleanest industrial nation in the world. The opposite is far closer to the truth.

  72. Patrick has fought environmental regulations tooth and nail since forever

    Now he wishes to take credit for the results of previous agreements

    Very funny

  73. I haven’t fought protection for our environment, I’ve fought the fantasy of AGW and the politicization of environmental standards to match a fraud.

  74. Seamus, on August 25th, 2019 at 4:42 PM Said:
    “Seamus the US is the cleanest industrial nation in the world we saw an uptict because our industrial base is coming back on line and since Obama blocked all the LPG and Oil pipelines while he was president they started back up with coal power….. they are in the process of transferring over.”

    Under Obama US CO₂ consistently dropped. Something you have been raving about on this thread. Under Trump US CO₂ have gone up. You can’t have it both ways.

    We started lowering CO2 levels in 2004…. who was President…. The EPA was created under what President….

    The US IS the cleanest industrial nation in the world and we’ve been working on it long before AGW was a Gleam in Michael Mabbs jaundiced eye… While you whine about your fantasy our rivers, lakes, and air have been reborn by good honest regulation.

    Even getting CO2 a necessary factor in creating oxygen and a key ingredient to the health of the planet falsely labeled a pollutant to use as a weapon against us we just adapted and overcame that phoney obstacle.

  75. Michael E. Mann… not Michael Mabbs

  76. You wanted to disband the EPA and replace it with nothing

    Since it was founded in 1970, it is the EPA that has led the way to sharp improvement in US air and water quality

    Without the EPA, there would be no effective national executive effort on this. Without the EPA, the air and water would be much dirtier

    You opposed it and still do. Environmental rules are “ burdensome regulation “.

  77. yeah because under Obama it wasn’t working on the environment just like every other branch of government Obama weaponized it to attack his political enemies.

    try telling the truth

  78. Good work, Seamus.

  79. Cheers Noel.

    “We started lowering CO2 levels in 2004…. who was President…. The EPA was created under what President….”

    And started raising them again in 2018. Who was that President?

    “The US IS the cleanest industrial nation in the world”

    You can keep saying it that doesn’t make it true. The US pumps out far more carbon than any other nation in the G8 and pumps out more carbon per person than any other nation in the G8. So either way it is simply bollocks to make the claim that you have made.

    “Even getting CO2 a necessary factor in creating oxygen and a key ingredient to the health of the planet falsely labeled a pollutant to use as a weapon against us we just adapted and overcame that phoney obstacle.”

    It is a pollutant in the sense that we are generating too much of it. Oxygen, for example, is essential for life on this planet. If, due to human action, we produced far too much of it then we would all die.

    Carbon Dioxide is essential for life on this planet. However the levels that we are producing it at is dangerous due to the greenhouse effect it has on global temperatures. You can keep pretending otherwise, you can keep ignoring the science but that doesn’t change the facts. It just makes you a moron.

  80. It’s hard to make exact comparisons of the US with more compact nations like Japan and the UK

    The US is vast, and a lot of it is rural, necessitating driving Considerable distances

    The US is both an energy producing and agricultural superpower, And producing energy, and driving tractors uses a lot of carbon

    All the above is true of Canada as well, one reason Canada appears high also.

  81. You can keep pretending otherwise, you can keep ignoring the science but that doesn’t change the facts. It just makes you a moron.

    Ain’t that the truth. But Patrick is merely echoing Trump and the GOP in general. Climate change denialism in the face of all the ever-growing evidence is an article of faith for these guys. It fits the definition of a cult.

  82. I don’t disagree. However a) it is worse than Canada where all of that applies (even more so because Canada is even more sparsely populated) b) it still means Patrick is wrong (the US pollutes more than any other G8 country – it may have reasons why that is the case, like you’ve said, but it still pollutes).

  83. “It fits the definition of a cult.”

    Indeed. For all the attempts by Patrick to accuse those who listen to science of being cult like the fact is that climate change skeptics are the true cult. And as the Dalai Lama said “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change”. If science disproves your beliefs then change your beliefs. Changing or ignoring the science to fit your beliefs is beyond stupid.

  84. It’s easy to get depressed by the enormity of the climate crisis challenge, especially with corrupt politicians like Trump refusing to act to solve it. But many US states like California are acting on their own and ignoring the fossil fuel groupie in the White House. It was amusing to see the jerk ranting against Ford this week because it accepted California’s lower emission standards. But there is **** all he can do about it.

    “President Donald Trump raged against the auto industry Wednesday, as car manufacturers continue to balk at his administration’s planned rollback of Obama-era fuel emission standards. The Trump administration has long planned to stop Obama’s policy, but California, which receives a waiver to enact its own fuel policies, responded by enacting tougher emission standards of its own. Now, automakers are caught in the middle between the two competing standards—but more are taking California’s side, including four of the world’s largest automakers. And, predictably, Trump isn’t thrilled.”

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/trump-auto-industry-fuel-emission-standards-california

  85. Ultimately I see many of the car makers are also taking a look towards international markets, especially Europe. Sticking with and designing cars to Trump’s “standards” would largely lock them out of the European market. Starting next year European cars have to make 57 mpg in 2021, and 90 mpg in 2030. If US manufacturers want to sell in Europe then so will they. They also imagine that if there is a new President in 18 months time will they likely reverse a lot of Trump’s damaging policies. So by sticking with the better standards they keep open European markets while also not risking a shock coming to their industry in 18 months.

  86. Yes the US automakers don’t support Trumps moves to gut emission standards

    The Trump supporters here haven’t criticized those moves either. Wonder why, since they’re such friends of clean air