Quantcast

Comments about ‘Andrew Morriss: No, Congress should not move quickly to pass comprehensive climate change legislation’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Dec. 8 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
ljeppson
Salt Lake City, UT

"We need candidates putting forward specific proposals and debating their merits on the campaign trail so voters can make an informed choice about the type of approach they want to see." Thanks for the Civics 101. American politicians are beholden to special economic interests, particularly energy companies. Pols due the bidding of those interests which have purchased them. Hence, no rational debate over climate change is possible. Unless we develop new ways of resolving these controversies we are likely doomed to the full consequences of global warming.

Mark l
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

There is the ability to produce all the energy in our own country if Harry Reid would allow it. Modern nuclear reactors are available and very safe.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

The only thing I can control is how much I use to lower the bills I pay, and Now that I'm in a dark house. The incense in charges by the suppliers, I can't win for loosing.

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

Not sure I get this guys argument...

We should do nothing,
because there are 20 times as many Chinese than Americans,
And whatever we do, won't be enough to off set them?

Lame.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

But holding hearings to discuss extraterrestrial life was a great investment of time, right?

one old man
Ogden, UT

Just plain dumb.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Look on the bright side - at least he acknowledges that Global Warming is real.

To claim that we shouldn't lead, and instead wait for others to show some leadership, is just plain dumb. Why would China or India make any effort to reduce their carbon emissions if the US isn't willing to, also?

Ever heard of the concept of "lead by example?"

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Those who believe the sky is falling need to ask themselves a simple question: If America went dark and used no power of any kind, no fuels of any kind; if we lived or died depending on the sun for our warmth and light; if we wore coats or died from the elements, would the world's climate change? Would the world be cooler? Would the world be hotter? If America ceased to exist and all the people in America ceased to exist, what would be the net effect on the world's climate?

The naysayers want us to be punished for being alive. They want horrendous taxes to be levied on those who want to use a light bulb or drive a car; yet, eliminating America from the earth WOULD NOT change the world's climate.

Foolish people tell us that our Creator is powerless but that they can change the climate. Can they stop volcanoes? Can they stop tornadoes? Can they stop hurricanes? What natural disasters can they stop?

In effect, they can do nothing except collect taxes. Their solution is to fleece the gullible public. Some people actually believe them.

embarrassed Utahn!
Salt Lake City, UT

Ignorance is bliss I guess....

but, but...what about the Chinese and the Indians is the only defense some greed-driven people have.

Let's just try cleaning this place up just in case you naysayer are right. Then we'll have a cleaner earth and more quality to our existence!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO legislating environmentalism is like legislating morality.... It won't work (unless people do it on their own, because they understand the REASON for it, not just because they fear the law).

We need to work on information, and developing better alternatives before we just go draconian (making laws and punishments for those who don't care ENOUGH about the environment).

===

Second problem is... not everybody agrees on what the punishment should be for not being radical enough on climate change... so you have a REAL hard time getting majority support for the law. The new law just ends up getting lip service (to satisfy your base) but in the end you can't find a law radical enough to actually change the climate, but the same law not be so radical it will get widespread bipartisan support needed to get majority support.

That's the problem with being radical. You can come up with lots of great ideas, but you can't get enough people to be as radical as you are to get them passed.

Maybe IF we all just did our best (regardless of climate-law)... that may work (I know... not very radical).

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Mike,

In a world of agency, we can choose to treat our planet any way we want with the accompanying consequences. Consequence is part of our world. To believe God will save us from our poor choices is not a gospel principle (as I have been taught it).

Historically we have fouled (and later cleaned) rivers and large lakes, even the oceans to a degree. Certainly we can foul or clean our atmosphere.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Twin Lights,

We are the cleanest "large" nation on earth. We have cleaned up many of those "man made" problems that you cited. If we shut off all gas, all coal, all wood-burning, all everything that causes "climate change" problems in the United States, the world would not change. If we took 100% of every person's income in America, the world would not be free of contamination. We, in the United States, are not causing world-wide problems. Our contribution to "climate change" is much less than the contribution of even one volcano. How many active volcanoes are there? Are you going to "cap" them? Are you going to spread some kind of "blanket" over Yellowstone National Park to keep the geysers from spewing fumes into the air?

Telling us that WE are causing global warming is nonsense. Government-paid "scientists" have been proved to have misrepresented "data". Their "facts" are not supported, but they keep telling us that we need to continue to fund their faulty research. Follow the money. It leads to those who tell us that the sky is falling.

Howard Beal
Provo, UT

My take, often with my LDS friends, is that Climate Change might be the mechanism to bring on the apocalypse...

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Mike,

Depends on whether we are talking "large" or "advanced". We are definitely not the cleanest of the advanced nations.

As to what other nations, do? We are still the leader of the free world. We cannot expect the world to move without our leadership.

The volcanoes and geysers have been with us always. It's our (human) output that is the issue. We cannot go to zero. But we can do better and provide leadership for the world to do so as well.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

I hate to sound cynical, but don't worry about it. Congress isn't about to do anything quickly.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Follow the money. It leads to those who tell us that the sky is falling.

6:45 p.m. Dec. 8, 2013

=======

Mike --
The Oil industry is Government subsidized 1,000 times more than government paid "scientists".

If you want to "follow the money",
you're looking in the wrong place.

You remind me of the people in Noah's time...
Let's just ignore the problem until it starts raining.

FT
salt lake city, UT

"Stupid is as stupid does." Forrest Gump

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IF Congress could fix our climate... they would have done it by now (I would hope).

The problem is, you just can't legislate the climate.

Now... if you just want people to live the way YOU want them to live... THAT you can legislate. But it's debatable that the US Congress can actually fix the worldwide climate.

===

I don't think what we need is more legislation. What we need is more people doing the best they can to use less resources and emit less pollution (on their own, not because they are FORCED to by the law).

LDS Tree-Hugger
Farmington, UT

Mike --

I re-re-read your posts.

It appears you are saying "Burn-baby-burn",
it doesn't matter what we do,
God is the only one who can change the enviroment.

Isn't that the same thing as those who say --
"Eat, Drink, and be Merry -- for tomorrow we die."?

RedShirtMIT
Cambridge, MA

To "LDS Liberal" yes, and look at what the government funded scientists all say. They had to rename "Global Warming" and now call it "climate change". That way if it is warmer they are right, and if it is cooler they are also right.

You should read the article "Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating" In the NY Post. The prophecies made by the alarmists don't seem to be coming true. They don't even have an accurate model.

The problem is that governments want AGW to be true so that they can enact more regulation and taxes on the people. It makes taxing easier because they just say that it is for the environment, and now people don't want to hurt the environment.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments