Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Where do we go from here?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rodoheel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 24K
  • Politics 
Are you familiar with the Kyoto Protocol? I'm assuming that, if the US hadn't been a holdout because denialism, there would have been something of a possibility to nip the problem in the bud, relatively speaking.

All we would have needed was a carbon tax. Now we need far, far more.
Yes and Paris.

And neither have been particularly effective for a variety of reasons. Even if Congress had ratified Kyoto, it would not have made a hill of beans difference in this year’s hurricane season. It was all too modest and had little impact on developing nation emissions. Get China to scale back some of those new coal power plants it is commissioning and it would be 100x more important than anything Rush said.
 
Yes and Paris.

And neither have been particularly effective for a variety of reasons. Even if Congress had ratified Kyoto, it would not have made a hill of beans difference in this year’s hurricane season. It was all too modest and had little impact on developing nation emissions. Get China to scale back some of those new coal power plants it is commissioning and it would be 100x more important than anything Rush said.
With all due respect, are you sure you fully understand the issues here?

Kyoto was the first step. It was a framework, like all major treaties. GATT. Geneva Convention. Montreal Protocol. Biodiversity convention, etc. They are all amended and revised over time to more fully realize the goals. Since GATT, there have been I think six major rounds of post-treaty tariff reductions (if I'm counting right). Montreal Protocol gets updated every few years as targets are met.

The original draft of Kyoto did not include China, that's true. But at the time, China was not a major greenhouse emitter. It was on pace to become one, but it wasn't there. Had Kyoto been ratified, China's accession to the WTO would have been contingent on acceptance of Kyoto.

If Kyoto had been ratified, then it would have put pressure on countries like India to grow sustainably. Because Kyoto absolutely would have created an authority for carbon tariffs (which are already valid under GATT imo but it's not 100% clear), India could be pressured to clean up as it became wealthier. And even more directly, the cap-and-trade market would only apply to full Kyoto signatories. Under Kyoto, Brazil and Indonesia could have made money simply by protecting their rain forests. India could have been paid for regulating the inefficient auto-rickshaw engines that emit so much pollution. So on and so forth.

If you're looking at Kyoto in isolation as if it was a discrete thing, then it wouldn't have been as effective (though even getting the US and Europe on a carbon reduction path in the 1990s would be paying huge dividends today). But that's not what it was, because that's not what any big multilateral treaties are.
 
With all due respect, are you sure you fully understand the issues here?

Kyoto was the first step. It was a framework, like all major treaties. GATT. Geneva Convention. Montreal Protocol. Biodiversity convention, etc. They are all amended and revised over time to more fully realize the goals. Since GATT, there have been I think six major rounds of post-treaty tariff reductions (if I'm counting right). Montreal Protocol gets updated every few years as targets are met.

The original draft of Kyoto did not include China, that's true. But at the time, China was not a major greenhouse emitter. It was on pace to become one, but it wasn't there. Had Kyoto been ratified, China's accession to the WTO would have been contingent on acceptance of Kyoto.

If Kyoto had been ratified, then it would have put pressure on countries like India to grow sustainably. Because Kyoto absolutely would have created an authority for carbon tariffs (which are already valid under GATT imo but it's not 100% clear), India could be pressured to clean up as it became wealthier. And even more directly, the cap-and-trade market would only apply to full Kyoto signatories. Under Kyoto, Brazil and Indonesia could have made money simply by protecting their rain forests. India could have been paid for regulating the inefficient auto-rickshaw engines that emit so much pollution. So on and so forth.

If you're looking at Kyoto in isolation as if it was a discrete thing, then it wouldn't have been as effective (though even getting the US and Europe on a carbon reduction path in the 1990s would be paying huge dividends today). But that's not what it was, because that's not what any big multilateral treaties are.
Kyoto was ratified. Just not by the U.S. it was ratified by like 180 countries or so.

If you think the U.S. ratifying Kyoto in say the early 2000s would have materially impacted global temperature today, I believe you are living in a fantasy world.

Yes, it would have been better. But that is not how climate works.
 
Kyoto was ratified. Just not by the U.S. it was ratified by like 180 countries or so.

If you think the U.S. ratifying Kyoto in say the early 2000s would have materially impacted global temperature today, I believe you are living in a fantasy world.

Yes, it would have been better. But that is not how climate works.
Without the US it had no chance of accomplishing anything. Kyoto was signed in 98. Not sure why you are saying early 2000s but details. I thought it was obvious that I was using Limbaugh as synecdoche for the rise of right wing media, but if it wasn't, that's what I meant.

I'm not a climate scientist and neither are you. Nor are we climate economists. Trying to argue about the hypothetical effect of a treaty that could have been ratified almost 30 years ago but wasn't seems silly to me. We should be able to agree that, whatever the global temperature would be today, the prognosis would be far better. We wouldn't be staring down the barrel of a loaded gun. There would still be a lot of work to do, but we'd also be 25 years ahead of where we are. Remember also that the US accounted for like 30% of global CO2 emissions in the mid 90s. If we had cut our emissions even by 5%, it would have made a considerable difference.

Also remember that it's cumulative. If our emissions decreased by 1% per year compared to actual, our current emissions would be almost 1/3 less, and there would be less CO2 in the atmosphere. Global temperatures today might be at 2015 levels, which would be about .25 degrees C below what it is today. That's considerable.
 
I will say one thing, IF things go about as bad as everyone expects with concentration camps and crippling recession/ depression from tariffs etc AND we manage to have an election in two years AND it happens to be a blue tsunami that gives undeniable control to the Democrats in the Legislative branch, then it is time to go scorched Earth.

impeach Trump. Inform Vance that here are the rules you abide by or you're next, then impeach Thomas & Alito for corruption. Get the shit head judges out of Amarillo and wherever etc. Get rid of the filibuster. Make PR and DC states. Just do whatever it takes to codify norms into laws and don't care about the 2028 blowback. just get shit done. If the country is angry because it was all burnt down, then freaking build it back the right way.

Of course they won't but...
 
1. Biden didn't take action until May 2023 because that's when the pandemic authority expired. Literally, up until that point, Biden's policy was exactly teh same as Trump's. He didn't change the Title 42 policy (and wouldn't have been allowed to anyway by the 5th Circuit). I mean, the policies were exactly the same. Biden's people started working on a replacement in 2022 because the pandemic authority was going to run out.

2. As for the vaccine, the law is different there. Trump's initial fast tracking was more about funding than law, and the money was committed by Congress, and there are no complex procedures to follow for doling out research grants, basically. Up until the vaccine was fully developed, there was no law involved at all (except perhaps on the very edges).

Then, once the vaccine was developed, you're right that it required rapid approval. But the FDA law has long provided a mechanism to do just that. It's called a "fast track designation." That's literally where the term "fast track" comes from in the pharma context. That's been the law of the land for at least 25 years. And Trump didn't have anything to do with that. The vaccine makers submitted their applications to the FDA under a fast track designation. The FDA evaluated the applications and approved. That's the way the system is supposed to operate.

3. The responsibility of educated people is to educate those who didn't have our same opportunities. It is not to parrot admittedly uninformed views of "average" people and thus head down a path of ignorance.

Hopefully, you have learned something from this discussion. I've explained the facts and the law, with evidence and links as appropriate. You've asked questions. I've answered them. You can ask more if you want, and I will answer them too assuming they aren't simply combative. I've learned things from people on this board who know more than me about certain topics. I just don't understand the unwillingness of others to do the same.

And then, hopefully, you will then explain this stuff to other people you know. And that's how public discourse is supposed to work, and why it has always been the cornerstone of ordered society. We talk to each other; we learn from each other; we consider people's arguments and perspectives; and then we hopefully form informed views.

MAGA especially (and the Tea Party before it) has obliterated this process in many corners of our society. "Do your own research" is such a regrettable attitude to have. At some point, Tea Party people got it in their heads that they knew more about how things work than the people who do the work professionally. I think a lot of this started with Rush Limbaugh, and a lot of it was in response to global warming. Because, on global warming, in the 1990s we really needed to trust the experts. It wasn't something we were going to be able to observe. And you had Rush getting rich off telling people not to trust the scientists because they were bad people.

Well, now we have ultra destructive hurricanes and wildfires and the Amazon is in danger of disappearing and the ice caps are melting and all of this is actually accelerating and we can't do anything about it because a) in large measure it's too late; and b) the idiots who believed Rush Limbaugh about science are still doing their thing.

4. So what I ask of you, which is the only thing I ask of everyone on the board: stop being part of the problem. Don't read weird ideological websites that are full of misinformation about, say, the climate. Basically all scientists agree about climate change. It's not a controversy. And it has deadly real world consequences. It's impossible for 100,000 PhDs to be so stupid as to believe a load of bullshit. The reason that all scientists agree is the same reason that all doctors agree about vaccines: the evidence is incontrovertible. And if you can't assess the evidence -- which none of us on this board really can, except for one erstwhile poster -- then believe the consensus because there's no reason to think that all of those people are part of some misanthropic conspiracy.

This goes both ways. I'm not interested in left wing quackery any more than right wing quackery. Like, RFK Jr was a Dem, right? I never supported him, not one bit. Never. He's been full of shit for 20 years, and that hasn't varied with his political alliances. I have never had any time for his bullshit. I quickly got tired of the bullshit from Ibram X Kendi, and I don't defend him either. They are part of the problem.

Stop being part of the problem. That's all I ask.
I'm going to stick mostly to the topic of the border and not complicate things with the much bigger question of trust in government (or lack thereof), what we should/shouldn't believe and what is/isn't normal because we both know that the public facing operations of the government, the documented procedures, policies etc are largely a facade. Behind the scenes is what happens in "politics", so when you say "that's how things work", I have to believe you are talking about the procedural facade of government. "Well, in order to implement border policy changes, the procedure is to take this step, the next step, that step...and this step takes x amount of time, the next step takes x amount of time...".

So, when you say "Biden didn't change any of Trump's policies", on its face that may be true. Did he not change them because he thought they were good policies? Maybe. Or did he not change them because he saw the writing on the wall as it relates to the border and the reality of the world's perception that Democrats are much friendlier to immigrants than Republicans or at least Trump? Did he see the crisis, which was forming in early 2021, not 2023 as you stated previously, and decide to leave Trump's policies in place with the hopes of stopping the crisis. If Biden only started trying to address the crisis in 2023, as I believe you also stated, that is a problem. We'll probably never know for sure, but this issue stretches far beyond the procedural timeframes you referenced, which I'm confident could be shortened if there was a true desire to address the border crisis.

According to CBP data, 3 of Trump's 4 years in office had total CBP encounters under 700k. In FY 2021 - CBP enforcements were 1.9 million. In FY2022 - 2.7 million. FY 2023 - 3.2 million.
 
I'm going to stick mostly to the topic of the border and not complicate things with the much bigger question of trust in government (or lack thereof), what we should/shouldn't believe and what is/isn't normal because we both know that the public facing operations of the government, the documented procedures, policies etc are largely a facade.
You have no idea what you're talking about. There will be zero lawyers here or anywhere endorsing your conclusion that the Administrative Procedure Act is a facade. You don't even know what that statute is or does.

I mean, this is a case where you know nothing, and then conclude there's nothing to know. I'm not wasting any more time on you. You literally don't know the first thing about the topic you're ostensibly discussing.
 
I can’t believe we’re still discussing, in the Year of our Lord 2024, why migration increased precipitously from 2020 to 2021.
Only because, according to exit polls, it was a big issue for some voters. One that was viewed to have been ignored for a significant amount of time by the Biden admin.
 
Is it worth trying to discuss exactly what this immigrant crisis is? What trouble has it caused and how much has the illegal population grown due to border crossings? Iirc, most illegals, or at least a large number of them, are legals who over stayed their visas.
 
You have no idea what you're talking about. There will be zero lawyers here or anywhere endorsing your conclusion that the Administrative Procedure Act is a facade. You don't even know what that statute is or does.

I mean, this is a case where you know nothing, and then conclude there's nothing to know. I'm not wasting any more time on you. You literally don't know the first thing about the topic you're ostensibly discussing.
Here's what I am talking about...

You have a very partisan view of your political party. You look at the fact that some kind of action was taken in regards to the border in June of 2024, when the crisis started in early-mid 2021, and the thought never seems to cross your mind that the timing wasn't a coincidence. In your mind, you can work backwards and completely explain away the possibility that the timing was actually due to the election and the fact that the border was a big issue for voters.

No, I am not calling any specific act or law a facade. Your view of the situation, in my opinion, is not only seeing just the facade, but likely creating the facade in your mind.
 
Last edited:
Is it worth trying to discuss exactly what this immigrant crisis is? What trouble has it caused and how much has the illegal population grown due to border crossings? Iirc, most illegals, or at least a large number of them, are legals who over stayed their visas.
96% of it is hysteria/xenophobia. 3% is actual deleterious effects on social infrastructure, largely limited to relatively small areas in border states. 1% is undercooked fish tacos.

The Shane Gillis bit about his Dad being irate about immigrants coming for our jobs - his Dad being a salesman in the middle of Pennsylvania - is priceless. Immigration adversely affects virtually no one in this country in the grand scheme of things, and indirectly benefits virtually everyone w/r/t economic growth.
 
They will all be back by next election. Some people are taking the election extremely hard. Joy Reid had a pretty dark social media post along the same lines.
 
You look at the fact that some kind of action was taken in regards to the border in June of 2024, when the crisis started in early-mid 2021, and the thought never seems to cross your mind that the timing wasn't a coincidence. In your mind, you can work backwards and completely explain away the possibility that the timing was actually due to the election and the fact that the border was a big issue for voters.
I pointed you to a regulation promulgated in early 2023. That's why I think that the action started in 2023. Because that's when the regulation was passed. Why is this hard for you to understand?

Are you so desperate for self-affirmation that you are going to deny reality? I guess so. But that doesn't change the fact that Biden passed regulations addressing the border was set out for rulemaking in early 2023 and adopted in mid 2023. No amount of your bullshit can change that.

If you want to have zero self-respect, that's your choice I suppose. I have educated you. You can either learn or you can be stupid. Just don't wonder why people think you are stupid. Because literally you are choosing it right now.

And, again, there were no regulations promulgated in 2021 and 2022 because the pandemic policy was still in force. Again, either you can deny that and be stupid, or you can learn something.
 
Obviously some of the sentiments expressed in the article are hot takes that we shouldn't expect to be useful going forward. Elie Mystal, in particular, is both a bomb thrower and susceptible to emotional volatility. But then there's this:

Never mind that extensive polling consistently flagged the seriousness of inflation to voters struggling to afford groceries, housing, or gas; to this Princeton professor, that’s just a made-up story. As for the “evil racism at the heart of America” narrative, well, that’s hard to square with the numbers. As sociologist Musa al-Gharbi has pointed out, Harris did better even with white voters than Biden did in 2020 (a year in which white male voters’ move away from Trump led to his defeat); the problem was that this year, Trump increased his vote share among nonwhite voters.

So first, we've been through this issue about the polls and we don't necessarily need to rehash that. I guess what caught my eye was the utter dismissal of views expressed by well respected people. Like, if Nikole Hannah-Jones says, "that's just a rationalization," then it is really not an answer to say, "but the polls, stupid." Her name doesn't make her right, but the dismissiveness is off-putting. And maybe you will say, "oh, you don't like it when your side is dismissed," which is not completely unfair but in my experience, leftists have been dismissive of liberals far longer than the other way around. That's neither here nor there.

Second, I just don't understand why "vote share among minorities" is being considered a data point that addresses the claim being made. There are several problems. Did Trump actually get more minority votes, or did minorities just not turn out for Kamala? Those different scenarios don't matter for this election, but they do matter a lot going forward. Also, if you try to look at race without looking at sex, then you will never get the right answer. It's a common fallacy to view the result of a multivariate regression as a linear sum of two single variable regressions; that just isn't true. Finally, that isn't telling us much about the white working class -- nor, for that matter, the working class as a whole given the prevalence of racism among nonwhite voters to other nonwhite voters.

Note: the bit about regression is technical but that's in essence what that article is doing. It's implying a single variable regression on vote share and race.
 
I pointed you to a regulation promulgated in early 2023. That's why I think that the action started in 2023. Because that's when the regulation was passed. Why is this hard for you to understand?

Are you so desperate for self-affirmation that you are going to deny reality? I guess so. But that doesn't change the fact that Biden passed regulations addressing the border was set out for rulemaking in early 2023 and adopted in mid 2023. No amount of your bullshit can change that.

If you want to have zero self-respect, that's your choice I suppose. I have educated you. You can either learn or you can be stupid. Just don't wonder why people think you are stupid. Because literally you are choosing it right now.

And, again, there were no regulations promulgated in 2021 and 2022 because the pandemic policy was still in force. Again, either you can deny that and be stupid, or you can learn something.
"And, again, there were no regulations promulgated in 2021 and 2022 because the pandemic policy was still in force. "

Which obviously wasn't having an impact hence the 15 year high set in March of 2021.

I'm not disputing the existence of the 2023 regulation. I'm saying that it appears like the Biden admin ignored an issue until it was getting close to being politically damaging for the re-election bid, then started the process of creating regulations that just happen to hit 5 months before the election.

You see nothing out of the ordinary. Just BAU which, to me, is likely a facade based on the link of an article calling out the border crisis in March 2021.

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that you consistently take a very partisan view of your preferred political party's actions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top