41 1 min 14 yrs

Interesting to study this hierarchy of priorities for the new US President as seen by the American people. Shall I leave it to you to break the bad news to the Environ-mentalists?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

41 thoughts on “A QUESTION OF PRIORITIES…

  1. What? Assuring an adequate supply of beer at my local pub didn’t even chart? Those rascals at the Pew Research Center never call me to find out my concerns!

  2. That list shows a real sophistication on the part of the American people. The top issues are all real things, while catastrophic Global Warming is a theory. I’d have hoped that the larger issue of the environment was higher on the list, but I’m going to blame Al Gore and his followers for that – they’ve hijacked the environmental movement with the GW thing, to the detriment of all other environmental causes.

    It is noted that if you add the GW and Environmental totals you get 71%, which would be Four on the list.

  3. Phantom,

    "It is noted that if you add the GW and Environmental totals you get 71%, which would be Four on the list."

    Don’t think you can just add them as there will be overlap, probably almost total overlap (i.e. anyone who considers GW a priority probably also considers the environment a priority).

  4. I know that either the Global warming or Abortion thread would bring our Frank on here πŸ˜‰

  5. Colm

    True enough. Although I’m in the ha’penny place next to Terry who posts nothing for months and then appears as if summoned when the thread is anything to do with homosexuality. πŸ™‚

  6. Ah, but I think that there are lots of guys like me who are skeptics on GW but who are very strong on most or all other environmental issues.

  7. Phantom,

    Maybe so but there is significant overlap anyway.

    The issues also overlap as even if one doesn’t accept GW, Co2 emissions are also acidifying the oceans, for example. This is probably a more immediate concern than GW, too.

  8. CO2 and other emissions continue to be an immense problem for oceans and forests, including in the NE USA where acid rain has caused immense damage to the vast and beautiful Adirondack Mountains….agreed.

    There needs to be radical change in emissions and in the technology used to transport people and goods and to generate electricity.

  9. Phantom

    "Ah, but I think that there are lots of guys like me who are skeptics on GW but who are very strong on most or all other environmental issues.
    "

    But there probably not that many ho are concerned about GW who aren’t also big on environment in general.

  10. Barack Obama has been quite clever in tying his policies on Global Warming to his policies on the economy, jobs and energy. So investment in renewables in presented as being to stimulate the economy and energy independence etc.

  11. Now that Obama has apparently ordered missles attacks in Pakistan, the left will have many problems I supposed. 20 killed I think. How many innocents? Obama lied, people died.

    The right understands thinks like that may happen in war, now the left will too!

  12. Phantom calls it right. Man made GW is irrelevant to the pressing need to preserve and clean up the world and making it a better place for eveyone

  13. Shall I leave it to you to break the bad news to the Environ-mentalists?

    Well, it’s not great news for tax cuts either. It gets just 43%, barely ahead of the environment. So not much comfort for the "taxes are theft" brigade.

    Phantom, I agree with you that it is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions anyway, whether or not AGW is correct.

  14. Overpopulation is, by far, the most serious environmental problem. It is driven by Western food exports and occurs mainly in the second and third world. Global fish stocks are down at least 90%; The amazon is being destroyed and replaced by Soya bean production. We are losing at least 200 species every day. Australia’s main agricultural land – near Perth – is being destroyed by soil salination; the same thing is happening in the US mid-west. The Dust-bowel problem is a bad as ever; it is also practically irreversible. We continue to sell more and more food to Africa and encourage overproduction.

    Global warming will lead to long-term changes in climate, leading to a reduction in the output from serials and livestock which evolved in a temperate climate.

    We are facing a die-off situation. We are biological entities and, whether we like it or not, are subject to the same ecological rules as other animals.

  15. Turn that ‘issues’ list upside down and leave the percentages the same, and you would have, (very roughly) the UK response.

  16. Guba

    I agree 100% with paragraphs 1 and 3.

    The population of ethiopia grew from 33 million to 75 million between 1983 and 2006, despite endemic war and famine.

    And the population of the planet doubled bewtween 1950 and 2000 from 3 billion to 6 billion and will probably hit 9 billion by 2050.

    There is one word to describe this and that word is unsustainable.

  17. Yes very roghly indeed Bernard. I think we would put Crime and immigration higher and terrorism lower, but with the exception of medicare I don;t think it would be hugely different.

  18. Peter:

    Yes, and the problem is food production. The only way to stop population growth is to stop increasing food production. Condoms and family planning will, in the short-term, make very little difference. It is this increase in food production is causing much of the environmental degradation.

    Africa is not the only continent that is overpopulated. Britain, Holland, parts of America are also heavily overpopulated. The ill effects may not be harming them now, but the changing climate will make Northern Europe’s agriculture less productive. Also, of course, when Gas production peaks -probably in 15-20 years, fertilizer production will plummet and there really will be famine in the west.

    Ireland, Canada, Scandinavia may be in a better position than most, in this regard.

  19. A case for a mixture of more birth control, abstinence, and terminations.’

    This is the traditional response to overpopulation; it has proven to be a complete failure. It will likely take decades for African country to reach the societal development that we posse which inhibits unsustainable population growth. It is also dependent on them reaching a parity of economic development with the west; this is very unlikely to happen at all, let alone in the long-term.

    The only way to stop the growth is to stop increasing food production and, yes, stop sending food aid to Africa.

  20. that list is a joke to the list that will be in place after 2yrs of this administration, and using franks math there is a hell of a lot more than a hundred % there so you cant add it that way.

    but I will say working on the last of that list will further destroy the first one

  21. Guba, that is simply not right. Africa is not over-populated. In fact it is rapidly de-populating, what with AIDS, war & famine.
    The rest of your comment was wrong too.

  22. Troll

    There won’t be a list needed in 2 years time because Obama will have dealt with all problems πŸ™‚

  23. In fact it is rapidly de-populating, what with AIDS, war & famine.

    LOL!

    Did you read my post about Ethiopia? Its population has more than DOUBLED in 23 years, despite aids, war and famine in spades.

  24. ‘Africa is not over-populated. In fact it is rapidly de-populating’

    I take it you are joking?

    ‘You mean starve them to death ?’

    They are starving to death as we speak; more and more every year. Africa’s population is not sustainable. The more food we send, the higher it will go. One day, very soon, we will not be able to continue this. Then, many more will die.

  25. Troll,

    "using franks math there is a hell of a lot more than a hundred % there so you cant add it that way."

    That was Phantom’s math.

    Good point though.

  26. Actually, its the math that’s behind the entire question that misleads, like a Judge Roberts. You can only have so many " top priorities".

    And some of these priorities – Medicare, Health Care, Health Insurance – are really the same issue.

    And again, though I ain’t buying GW just yet, me ( and more like me ) are for significant environmental restoration ( water cleanup, restoration of Everglades, elimination of acid rain, restoration of fisheries / salmon runs etc. Many things which could aid the economy. )

    You can be an environmentalist without being a Global Warming follower, but I suppose not the reverse.

    And it is noted that the number stating the environment is a priority exceeds by 11% the number that say Global Warming is a top priority.

    The public may be a lot smarter than some of these guys think.– but I’d like to see this "poll" done with a bit more thought / organization behind it.

  27. A simple and convincing argument.

    Where I can be given a set of possible data for say 20 years from now where if we have x I’ll concede that GW is probably true, and if its y the GW guys say it they were somewhat wrong.

    The GW guys never give want to answer questions like this.

    It’s largely a "gut" thing with me. And my gut tells me that the GW arguments, which are every bit as elegant and irrefutable as those that scared so many about Y2K, are incomplete and taking insufficient notice or no notice of some factors.

  28. Phantom,

    "Where I can be given a set of possible data for say 20 years from now where if we have x I’ll concede that GW is probably true, and if its y the GW guys say it they were somewhat wrong."

    20 years is a long time to wait and we’ve already waited 30 or more – though there seems little doubt that if we continue as we are (indeed possibly even if we take action) it will be obvious one way or the other by then. Though plenty of other things will probably blindside us in the meantime, too.

    It’s a bit like saying you’ll believe that Iran having nukes poses a threat to Israel if we wait for 20 years or so, by which time there’d be nothing anyone can do about it.

    Also there should be no need to wait 20 years…the contrast between the denialist predictions and those of the climate scientists is pretty stark right now – the denialists say it’s cooling, and the scientists say we can likely expect records to be broken after 2009. So that should be settled in 3-4 years and possibly in as few as 2.

    In any case since you concede that CO2 also threatens oceans, there is no need to wait before doing something about it.

  29. Bernard:

    A Rastafarian forum post is not a good source of information!

    ‘Africa could feed itself easily’

    Definitely not, the rapid southern movement of desertification is having a serious effect. Lake Tchad disappearance will also have serious effects on Africa’s agricultural production.

    Phanthom:

    That reminds me of something Penn Gillete said. He said that his ‘gut’ told him that it was a lie, he disliked Al Gore, the green movement and anti-capitalist measures. He said, however, that his brain told him it was true. He could not see how the top scientists in the world could all be lying and part of one great conspiracy.

  30. Frank

    I’ve felt all my life that that these and things like this are big problems. And would absolutely be willing to pay a significant cost to address them. Its a screaming no brainer.

    I’d minimize the GW aspect of it when presenting a case for action on CO2, Acid Rain, all of it. Because even if there was no possibility of GW being true ( which I also do not say ) there is a compelling argument for action.

  31. The top scientists of Russia all professed believe in Lysenko’s agricultural theories

    And many of the top technology guys said that the Y2K fears might be true, and that theory was 100% bullshit.

    I didn’t believe in Y2K for reasons that I could not prove obviously, but I was correct. I very much have the same feeling about this.

    Some things are unknowable. And groupthink is a dangerous thing, exp on this matter where denialists are shouted down and where adopting a skeptic position probably ruins a career.

  32. Phantom,

    "Some things are unknowable."

    Yes but this clearly isn’t one of them.

    And you might address your criticism to some of the ‘sceptics’ who act like they ‘know’ it’s all false, even though their arguments are devoid of logic and facts.

    "The top scientists of Russia all professed believe in Lysenko’s agricultural theories"

    But the scientists of the world did not. Neither did the data.

    Neither of which are true in this case.

    "I’d minimize the GW aspect of it when presenting a case for action on CO2, Acid Rain, all of it. Because even if there was no possibility of GW being true ( which I also do not say ) there is a compelling argument for action."

    I’d agree with that but don’t see the need to minimise the GW aspect, though I understand the pragmatic point you’re making. But aside from anything else, these are problems that require all of our intelligence to solve, and it is important that the noise from those who know nothing is not allowed to distract from the voices of those who do. Otherwise, why should we not listen to the HIV denialists also, and try to come up some other reason why HIV might be a problem, aside from the obvious?

    In this case, we really need to understand what the impacts of CO2 are. One of them is ocean acidification, that’s clear enough, though the impacts are not. But another is global warming, and we need to understand that too – for the simple reason that some or all of it may be inevitable, so we need to know what we’re dealing with.

  33. After the Indonesian tsunami, a professor was walking the newly "cleaned" shores, and made a comment that he was glad that the beach "had beed returned to nature." I wish I had a link.

    Fear not lefties, if bird flu hits, a good 100 million of us will be gone!

  34. any so called action on co2 which is actually one of the prime food gasses in nature not a pollutant is nothing but a ponzi scheme to transfer wealth and ad additional monies to the governments to control

    co2 provides the perfect item to keep everyone paying tribute just for the right to exhale.

    Only the arrogance of man deludes himself that we can rffrct the climate by changing less than 1% of the atmosphere

    I know if we stomp our feet real hard maybe we can stop the eartgs rotatiom…lol

  35. Bernard:

    Overpopulation is the most serious problem facing the human species; it is also completely ignored. The hypocrisy of those on the right is astounding. They whinge about Mexicans and other foreigners coming into their countries, taking their jobs, (give me Mexicans over them any day) yet they completely ignore the root causes of the problem. it is our policies and our food that is driving this problem.

Comments are closed.