Letter: Utah leaders should support the Climate Action Now Act

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 13, 2019 3:27 p.m.

    Tater
    I have 2 bachelor degrees from the U. who is uneducated?

    Just because we don’t agree with you does not make us uneducated. Perhaps it’s more likely you don’t agree with us because YOU are uneducated or because you have been deceived.

    Thanks to you and old man for proving barfolomew’s treatise on the arrogance of the left.

    Ottocrat
    Tell me, did those who said years ago there may be a link between smoking and cancer misstate facts, “adjust” data to fit their narratives, or horribly miss predictions of gloom and doom?

    I didn’t think so.

    Actually in response to tater’s mocking of religion, it was a religious leader in 1832 who passed on God’s wisdom that the use of tobacco was not good for man.

    Frozen
    By your reasoning, pure H2O is a pollutant if you stick your face in it and leave it there. I reject such a notion, but recognize your right to hold it.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 12, 2019 9:19 a.m.

    This post has many comments which I fully disagree with. I believe the Author has a good point,
    there needs to be more focus on climate change.

    This is not the time to scoff at scientific findings, especially the findings that are supported by the national academies of science in all the major countries of world. These findings are the result of objective studies that have been conducted over many decades.

    Maybe we should ask the question of what might motivate an opposing view. In many cases it comes from those with opposing views because of financial or purely pre-conceived idealogical views.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    June 12, 2019 6:48 a.m.

    Frozen fractals. It's not safe designs that are pushing the cost and time of new plants in to the tens of billions and decades of battling before construction can even begin.

    It's the left wing environmentalists who sue at every step of the approval process. Who fight every inch of the way on every plant, every reactor, every modernization step.

    There are plenty of reactors on or near fault lines. That's never caused a problem with the current 40+ year old designs in use now. Fukushima wasn't even on the fault line, it was the Tsunami that the owners didn't adaquetly prepare for. And Modern designs have eliminated what caused the tidal wave to be a problem. Modern designs don't require pumps to keep the reactors cool. They'll keep cooling even if power is cut. And those designs are actually well over a decade old. Actual modern designs can't melt down.

    The red tape is the reason they are so expensive to build, and that red tape is caused by the leftists who sue and fight every step of the way.

    So if you are really concerned about climate change, tell the Sierra club, SUWA and the like to shut up so we can build nuclear. Get the plant on the Green river building.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    June 11, 2019 12:19 p.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" that is nice, but you don't actually refute anything.

    The little ice age was 600 years of cold weather. Why use that for a baseline? If you use the 2000 year average, we are not up to temperature yet.

    If the evidence is that clear, why do we keep seeing studies showing how it isn't so clear and how there are new discoveries being made? Things that are clear don't result in so many new things being discovered, they also don't have so many things that are unknown.

    Why can't the red-tape be cut down to allow for the designs to be made commercial products quicker? We didn't have all of that red tape when they started the US nuclear power program, and those reactors ran for decades with few problems, what does the additional red tape do other than slow the process down?

    What does the increase in CO2 have to do with accuracy of measurements prior to 1900? The rise in CO2 is what is expected since CO2 lags temperature rise. If CO2 drives, you would have CO2 leading.

    Interpolation doesn't give you more data. It is used to mask data. For example, the 1997 temperature report lists the average global temperature as 62.45 F. That has since been lowered, why?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 11:18 a.m.

    (continued to RedShirtCalTech)
    Since then we warmed more the past half century than the entire several hundred year Little Ice Age cooled.

    "Then there is the sticky point of how the data is manipulated by NASA to make adjustments. "

    NASA adjustments are based on better dialed in interpolation techniques as we get more data and certainly not all adjustments increase the warming trend, many reduce it too. In fact, NOAAs adjustments have primarily been in the form of increasing the temperature early in their record period (pre-1935 around .2 warmer) which would reduce the warming trend)

    "But lets not forget about the fact that the carbon records are not really accurate past the early 1900s."

    We increased CO2 from 300 to 400ppm in under a century with no natural force known that would be responsible for a change of more than +1-2 ppm this past century (from the near peak position in the Milankovitch cycle). That's not normal.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 11:18 a.m.

    @Zabilde
    " Where do you stand on Nuclear power?"

    Support it (with appropriate location selection, like don't put it on a major fault line). My questions are more about whether it is the most affordable option (since they are quite expensive to built and it's obviously important to build them to be safe).

    "built more plants with new safer designs "

    Safer designs are more costly, requiring that is a big part of the red tape you speak of.

    @Redshirt
    "best you can say with all of the data out there is that "WE DON'T KNOW" what causes climate change."

    The evidence is overwhelming and clear. I would recommend (generally to anyone) the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine video "Climate Change: Lines of Evidence". It's pretty comprehensive for something only 26 minutes long.

    @RedShirtCalTech
    "1850 was when we starting to exit the Little Ice Age, when temperatures were abnormally low from 1300 to 1870."

    The low point was more like 1600. 1850 we were already near as high as that entire span you just noted and mid 20th century we cleared the Medieval climate anomaly. (continued)

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 11:15 a.m.

    @2bits
    "Why not be a good example and show us how to do it, instead of just insisting a law or an accord is needed first?"

    It's not that easy. Individuals have limited influence on the power grid. Plus I'm not sure people care. I spent the almost decade I've lived in SLC without a car, generally without ever turning on heat in the winter, I don't have any kids, and I have multiple degrees in meteorology, but does anyone commenting here change their minds because of that? No.

    @Barfolomew
    "Why do liberals deny the science of biology and advocate for, what is it now, 70, 80 different genders?"

    I can't think of a situation where 'I think these people are wrong about this matter of science so I'm going to be wrong about this other matter of science' makes any sense.

    @What in Tucket
    "Guess the glaciers are growing again. "

    No they're still shrinking and disappearing but the timeline for the last ones are quite later than that (and for the famous ones those are still the mid-second half of this century before they are completely gone).

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2019 11:12 a.m.

    @No One of Consequence
    "United States of America had no commitment to the Paris Climate Accord."

    We're technically still in it (lengthy pull out process).

    @lost in DC
    "Human bodies are about 18% carbon."

    Also around 2/3rd water but changing that by not much in either direction would be bad.

    Is carbon dioxide a pollutant in the traditional sense of PM2.5 and O3 pollution causing air quality problems? No. Is it a pollutant in the sense that adding it is producing harmful effects? Yes.

    @2bits
    " Some things take time. This is one of them. "

    Very few people think an energy transition can happen overnight. A wall doesn't get built overnight either. This is just calling for the start of a rapid transition.

    @Counter Intelligence
    "Climate change advocacy would have more credibility if it were not laced with blatant inaccuracy"

    Which is why I post comments correcting false assertions by climate change advocates. While how best to deal with climate change is political, I don't see why the fundamental aspects of the science behind climate change itself should be rejected just because some non-scientist liberals say incorrect things.

  • ottocrat , UT
    June 11, 2019 9:00 a.m.

    @ Zabilde:
    As a leftist; I state unequivocally that when the Generation IV reactors come into production, that I will embrace and support their construction and use wholeheartedly. I encourage my comrades and friends to educate themselves and embrace these technologies. No wars required! It doesn't have to be all or nothing; and there is and has been a tremendous effort for decades to produce safe and sustainable nuclear reactors- and we will be there soon- but not yet. Generation IV reactors are indeed an exciting energy technology and a game changer, especially when combined with storage, wind, solar and wave energy production. Love science.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    June 11, 2019 8:05 a.m.

    To "one old man" actually the alarmists are the ones that are anti-science. They have turned Climate Change into a religion. For instance, how often do the climate scientists mention that about 1850 was when we starting to exit the Little Ice Age, when temperatures were abnormally low from 1300 to 1870. That would mean that for almost 600 years the glaciers would have been accumulating EXCESSIVE amounts of snow and ice.

    Then there is the sticky point of how the data is manipulated by NASA to make adjustments. But lets not forget about the fact that the carbon records are not really accurate past the early 1900s. Then there is are the discrepancies when comparing ice core data and biotic CO2 sources.

    The truly anti-science people are the ones that claim a consensus. Science was never based on consensus, only politics is settled on consensus.

  • Gretschman Draper, UT
    June 11, 2019 7:12 a.m.

    Wow. One old man saw some ice back in the 60s and that means what exactly? If you were around prior to 1300AD, you would have seen Vikings raising barley, wheat, and cattle on Greenland. It’s too cold to do that today. What is the perfect temperature, and will we know it when we get there?

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    June 11, 2019 6:02 a.m.

    Okay all science knowing and loving leftists. Where do you stand on Nuclear power? You want to cut carbon production, the by far the cleanest and safest source of power is nuclear. We should be commissioning new plants right and left. New plants built on 21st Century designs that cannot melt-down, that reuse the existing waste until it's a fraction of it's former mass and has a half life in hundreds of years versus tens of thousands of years.

    Where are the democrat leaders calling to cut the red tape that makes it take a decade and Billions before construction on a nuclear plant can even begin? I'll admit I'm disappointed the GOP politicians aren't really pushing this either.

    Nuclear is safe and clean and if we built more plants with new safer designs we could shutter older plants that can suffer melt-downs which would make nuclear even cleaner and safer and more carbon free.

    If cutting carbon output is so critical, why are there not dozens or even hundreds of nuclear plants under construction right now? Replace every coal and NG power plant in the nation with safe and clean Nuclear for a reliable baseload not reliant on the sun or the wind.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    June 10, 2019 4:10 p.m.

    ""Who pays the subsidies for your healthcare coverage?"
    My employer."

    And right there is just one more example of the kind of ignorance that drives so many on the conservative side of so many subjects.

    Stop and think of that statement.

    Really?

    Or are YOU paying for your healthcare coverage with money your employer might once have paid to you instead of the insurance scammers?

    It's little details like that make all the difference between fact and fiction.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    June 10, 2019 4:05 p.m.

    "RE: "Did anyone notice that Glacier National Park removed its "see the glaciers before they are gone in 2020 signs?"...
    ---
    Yah. Trump took them down. Just kidding."

    ==

    Actually, the signs said 2050. But no kidding, trump's new Secretary of the Interior did order the Park Service to remove the signs and reprint literature that mentioned the FACT that geologists estimate the park's glaciers will be gone by then.

    When I was in college in the early 1960's, I took part in a study surveying the Blackfoot Glacier. At the time, it was a T-shaped mass of ice about six miles long with the top of the T spanning nearly 4 miles. We estimated it to be at least 800 feet thick at its head. Today, Blackfoot is no longer a glacier. It is two small "permanent snow fields."

    trump's anti-science stupidity is beyond belief. And it's all driven by trying to placate those who have found ways to suck dollars out of their fellow Americans.

    But what the heck, don't we all know that the most important things in life are dollars?

    Nothing else matters.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 10, 2019 3:40 p.m.

    @Tucket.
    RE: "Did anyone notice that Glacier National Park removed its "see the glaciers before they are gone in 2020 signs?"...
    ---
    Yah. Trump took them down. Just kidding.

    But that's about how juvenile it's becoming on so many topics.

    ===

    Warming is a real trend. What exactly causes it, and What we can do to fix it (and will actually fix it) is less clear. But it seems clear we are part of the problem, and need to change our lifestyle if we want to change the climate (though I'm not sure how much one person changing will change the global climate). But if a LOT of people changed... then it could.

    And a lot of people should be changing (because a lot of people believe). So... is their changing fixing it?

    It doesn't seem like its working. And they just blame Republicans, or people-of-faith for some reason (as if that has something to do with it).

    I really don't know if blaming Rs, or even blaming religious people fixes anything.

    If we are the problem... we are ALL the problem (not just Rs or Christians).
    And if we can fix it... we ALL need to fix it (not just Rs or Christians).

    The people who believe need to lead the way. And not just in blaming others.

  • ottocrat , UT
    June 10, 2019 3:02 p.m.

    @Conservative Common Tater:
    "Why do liberals deny the science of biology and advocate for, what is it now, 70, 80 different genders?"

    It would be neat if you could find a scientist that uses the term "gender" when describing sex differences. Sex; it's different than gender. Because science.

  • ottocrat , UT
    June 10, 2019 2:56 p.m.

    @What In Tucket: I did look that up. The USGS statement is that:

    “Glacier retreat in Glacier National Park speeds up and slows down with fluctuations in the local climate,” the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which monitors Glacier National Park, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    “Those signs were based on the observation prior to 2010 that glaciers were shrinking more quickly than a computer model predicted they would,” USGS said. “Subsequently, larger than average snowfall over several winters slowed down that retreat rate and the 2020 date used in the NPS display does not apply anymore.”

    The ONE Greenland glacier that is growing is also due to understandable, documented and verifiable changes in conditions that are scientifically explained. By science.

    So, if the Daily Caller, Rush Limbaugh, Strange Sounds, Legal Insurrection, Electroverse, YouTube, Red State and Lysander Spooner University say that based on this evidence, that climate change is a fraud; then it's a fraud, right? Myself, I'm holding out to see what Breitbart says.

  • ottocrat , UT
    June 10, 2019 2:23 p.m.

    Years ago, there was no definitive causal link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. There were plenty of scientists and doctors who claimed there was a link, even a vast majority if them. There were also doctors and scientists who claimed that there was no link, that smoking cigarettes even brought health benefits. There were large corporations who, although they knew different as it turned out- paid these doctors and scientists to say that there was no link. There were politicians who, owing to these corporations and the, let's call it financial support of the tobacco industry, refused to legislate against tobacco use. There were some folks who would relate a story of a grandmother, smoked five packs a day and lived to be 108 years old with no lung cancer, so there's your proof.
    The effects of climate change will likely be way worse than lung cancer. It's reasonable to take common sense steps to reduce what would be our impact on it- whether it be causal or contributory. If Senator Lee wants to be a clown about it? So be it. If Senator Romney hopes that it's not human caused then I guess there's that. Proof's in the pudding, but eating this pudding isn't a viable option.

  • What in Tucket Provo, UT
    June 10, 2019 2:09 p.m.

    Did anyone notice that Glacier National Park removed its "see the glaciers before they are gone in 2020 signs?" Guess the glaciers are growing again. The largest glacier on Greenland has reversed course and is also growing. Maybe it is only a temporary delay.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    June 10, 2019 1:20 p.m.

    @ ConservativeCommonTater

    "You believe because you have been indoctrinated your entire life."

    Now, that's funny. I am not a religious man. I've denounced organized religion when I was young. I don't know what is out there or how we came to be - and neither do you. But no one can tell me that this was all a random accident. If you do, I'd have to say it's you who are sticking to some unverifiable dogma.

    "It is Republicans that are science deniers. Remember, that is the topic, not gay rights."

    No, the topic is the left's hypocrisy about science. You're the one who makes it about "gay rights."

    "Who pays the subsidies for your healthcare coverage?"

    My employer.

    ""Liberals" (do you spit when you say that?)"

    No, but I do throw up in my mouth a little.

  • Count Rushmore Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 12:04 p.m.

    "why try to make it into a partisan bickering match?"

    You hit the nail on the head. To leftists, everything is political, including science. Painting anyone who disagrees with them, even on the basis of the science, as a "science denier" is just part of their schtick. Mature seekers of truth see right through that ploy.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 10, 2019 12:04 p.m.

    TO "Maurena Grossman" something that would be easier to do, and actually be more effective, would be to for Congress to pass a bill that would ban environmental groups from trying to stop or slow down the construction of new nuclear power plants, and to fast-track some new nuclear power plants using designs that have already been built once.

    Another thing would be to dump a bunch of money into researching how to manufacture batteries for electric cars that can charge quickly and last a long time.

    To "ConservativeCommonTater" it is Democrats that deny science. Just ask them how many genders there are. This isn't off topic because it shows how liberals deny basic biology.

    They also deny science when it comes to Climate Change because the best you can say with all of the data out there is that "WE DON'T KNOW" what causes climate change.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 10, 2019 11:24 a.m.

    @ConservativeCommonTater
    RE: "Why do Republicans deny science but believe in a mythical being?"...
    ---
    This isn't about God, or a mythical being. Don't try to make it about that.

    This is about Global Warming, not religion. Unless... Global Warming has become religion to you?

    Truth is... Believing in God does not preclude one from believing in GW. And believing in GW does not preclude one from believing in God. Not related.

    ===

    RE: "Why do Republicans hate the environment so much?"...
    ---
    It's not really about politics either. So why try to make it into a partisan bickering match?

    That doesn't help. It actually hinders making progress.

    ===

    RE: "Why do Republicans reject education?"...
    ---
    Why do you always need to be so insulting? Does it make you feel better about yourself?

    It doesn't help the debate at all.

    ===

    RE: "Your uneducated leaders"...
    ---
    As long as you're pointing the finger at both party's with that one... I'm with you.

    If you're just pointing at one, and pretending one is all good, and the other is all bad... Then you're just regurgitating partisan coolaid.

    GW is not about division or partisan insults. Is it?

    If it is... how do we make progress?

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 11:19 a.m.

    continued response to Barfolomew

    Why do liberals deny the science of biology and advocate for, what is it now, 70, 80 different genders?

    Again, you are off topic by hyperbole and attacking the LGBT folks, based on your religious biases. It is the "liberals" that believe in science. It is Republicans that are science deniers. Remember, that is the topic, not gay rights.

    "Why do liberals deny the science of economics and think stealing money from those who have and giving it to those who don't will make us prosper? "

    It's obvious that you know nothing about economics or "liberals," and are just name calling as if it's a fact.

    Who pays the subsidies for your healthcare coverage? You know, your socialist benefits?

    "Liberals" ( do you spit when you say that?) are the ones that believe in facts, not Republicans. example: Science deniers and believers in mythical beings, being the Republicans.

    "You should ponder those questions, too."

    YOU shouldn't pose "questions" when you don't know what you're talking about and trying to sell fiction as facts.

    Republicans are the ones that deny science. Just look at yourself, our local politicians and then ask your leader; TRUMP.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 11:18 a.m.

    barfolomew - Tooele, UT

    @ One Old Man, ConservativeCommonTater, et.al:

    "You guys just can't get off the "you're not educated or as smart as we are" shtick. That we don't understand because we're just not as smart as you. Give me a break."

    Sorry, but you guys prove, on a daily basis, that you're science deniers, which makes you not as smart of some of us.

    @ ConservativeCommonTater

    "Why do Republicans deny science but believe in a mythical being?"

    "I would think you're a little naive yourself if you believe that our world's existence and everything in it was just some sort of random accident."

    It is you that is a lot naÏve if you believe in something that has no proof. You believe because you have been indoctrinated your entire life. You believe in whatever you want, all of the gods that you want, but don't try to sell it as fact.

    "And why do liberals encourage the killing of the unborn but advocate for the lives of child rapists and murderers on death row?"

    You're off topic there and just waving the only flag Republicans have to sucker people like you into believing all things Republican.

    continued...

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 10, 2019 11:10 a.m.

    So... if we don't have the Paris Accord... we can't do these things? Why?

    We can't make the needed changes in our lives, without "Climate Action Now Act"? Why?

    What is stopping you folks?

    Just do it. Make the needed changes. Now!

    I am. What's stopping you?

    Just focus on telling others what to do, and pushing for laws to pass, and the legislature to do something, but still driving your gas powered car to work?

    Still using electricity not generated by solar in your home...

    Heating your home with natural gas...

    Etc...

    Why not be a good example and show us how to do it, instead of just insisting a law or an accord is needed first?

    If you do it... and it works... I bet a lot of people will follow you and your example.

    If you just put a sign on your lawn (next to your gas powered SUV and home with no solar panels)... probably not.

    I don't think the lack of Paris Accord, or this law is the problem.

    We can make almost all the changes needed with or without the Paris Accord.

    And even if this passes... the people need to change. You need to change. So why not just do it?

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    June 10, 2019 10:58 a.m.

    @ one old man
    Do they teach science in school? Well, sort of.

    Austin Ruse wrote a book called, "Fake Science." It's a pretty good read. The problem with science today is that research is motivated by grant money from groups who want studies that make their point. A dairy group wants a study that shows margarine is bad for you. And so on.

    And, as Gregg Easterbrook famously said, "Torture numbers and they'll confess to anything,."

    That's where science is today.

    While you're at the bookstore, Oren Cass wrote the book, "The Once and Future Worker." He writes a lot about worker training and jobs in the USA, but he devotes a chapter to environmental impact data. He makes the case that they falsely create a high hurdle when it comes to pollution, which makes US jobs too expensive to create.

    Love him or hate him, he makes his point.

    That's where "science" in schools is these days; one-sided, with fuzzy math.

  • Count Rushmore Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 10:50 a.m.

    @ConservativeCommonTater: "Everyone thus far, except for "one old man" chose to follow the right wing, uneducated, uninformed climate change denials."

    Respectfully, Mr. Tater, calling CO2 "dirty" is typical left wing, uneducated, uninformed science denial. Let me guess: CO2 wasn't born dirty, but identifies that way.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    June 10, 2019 10:34 a.m.

    @ One Old Man, ConservativeCommonTater, et.al:

    You guys just can't get off the "you're not educated or as smart as we are" shtick. That we don't understand because we're just not as smart as you. Give me a break.

    @ ConservativeCommonTater

    "Why do Republicans deny science but believe in a mythical being?"

    I would think you're a little naive yourself if you believe that our world's existence and everything in it was just some sort of random accident.

    And why do liberals encourage the killing of the unborn but advocate for the lives of child rapists and murderers on death row?

    Why do liberals deny the science of biology and advocate for, what is it now, 70, 80 different genders?

    Why do liberals deny the science of economics and think stealing money from those who have and giving it to those who don't will make us prosper?

    You should ponder those questions, too.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 10:29 a.m.

    @ConservativeCommonTater

    "Why do Republicans deny science but believe in a mythical being? "

    Better question: why do leftist equate hysteria, bullying, shame, intolerance with science?

    The inconvenient truth is: Climate change advocacy would have more credibility if it were not laced with blatant inaccuracy, delirium, condescension and outright lies.

    There are a great many people who ARE concerned about the environment - who can also see that rabid environmentalism tends to the extreme - therefore they rightfully question the zeal: because questioning IS a scientific process .

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 10:16 a.m.

    Before reading the comments here, I knew what to expect and was not disappointed in my projection.

    Greatly disappointed in the comments though. Everyone thus far, except for "one old man" chose to follow the right wing, uneducated, uninformed climate change denials.

    Why do Republicans deny science but believe in a mythical being?

    Why do Republicans hate the environment so much?

    Why do Republicans reject education?

    Your uneducated leaders, that accept bribes from the extraction industries feed you lies and you believe them, because of..."Party First."

  • one old man MSC, UT
    June 10, 2019 9:48 a.m.

    Do schools actually teach science any more?

    It would seem not, given the abysmal ignorance of scientific facts and procedures on display here.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    June 10, 2019 9:34 a.m.

    "Many of our local leaders are creating bold changes to honor the commitments the United States made through the Paris Climate Agreement."

    Ummmm.....we never signed the Paris Agreement. We never committed to anything and, therefore, have nothing to honor.

    "Sen. Mike Lee should stop wasting his constituents time by presenting ridiculous cartoons and spend his days in office educating himself about climate change."

    This is just another arrogant statement by the left. They are so wise and intelligent beyond our understanding. So much so, that the only way we can see the light is if they lift us up out of the ignorance that is the American citizen and "educate" us.

    You see, the Democrats have all the answers. They're waaaaaaay smarter than us. Obama constantly told us that we'd be behind them if we only understood; if we could only be educated. I remember him telling us the reason we weren't all on board with obamacare was because we simply didn't understand it.

    Now they use that tactic with global warming.

    Seriously, it doesn't take a PhD to see through the deceit and political tactics of the left.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 10, 2019 9:27 a.m.

    When I read these lawn signs and bill titles like "Climate Action Now!" and "Clean Air Now!"... I can't help seeing the image of a petulant child stomping their foot and folding their arms with big pout and saying "I Want it Now!"...

    Everything doesn't happen fast, or now. Some things take time. This is one of them. Global Warming is real, but it can't be fixed quickly, with a silver-bullet, or passing a law.

    Of course passing the law is important (heaven knows these people won't do anything until the law passes). But that can only be the start. For something to change large numbers of us need to change. Change how we live. Change where we get the energy for our house, and our car, and our work, our everything.

    Until large numbers of us change... nothing's going to change (even if they pass a law).

    So why don't we just change. Today?

    Why wait for the law (which may or may not pass)?

    If these "I want it Now" people are the majority. If they changed (be and example)... there would be an improvement we could see. But are they changing their lives? Or just waiting and insisting others to change theirs?

    Do as I do, not as I say.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 8:45 a.m.

    Of course we should but with the following requirements.
    -First and foremost, effective plans with no political window dressing.
    -Anticipate who will be affected by the plan's effect on the world economy.
    -Make realistic cost projections.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    June 10, 2019 8:42 a.m.

    No, it’s just a poorly disguised wealth redistribution scheme. In some places where it’s been tried, carbon emissions have gone up.

    Carbon and CO2 are not pollutants. Human bodies are about 18% carbon. Any “scientist” who calls them pollutants should have their credentials revoked.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    June 10, 2019 8:20 a.m.

    A dirty little secret: When we buy foreign goods, it is immoral. Sneakers, TVs, clothes, toys...

    We are eating up their natural resources and they often use cheap, even child labor.

    And, their pollution controls are far less sophisticated than ours. solids, liquids and gasses pollute their countries...so we can have cheaper stuff.

    Then, theirs the shipping.

    As we found out last week, we've been exporting our trash to such countries.

    Buy American. Save the planet.

    While I'm at it, the carbon footprint of an immigrant grows when they live here. Chew on that notion.

    Forget Kyoto and Paris. They are just redistribution schemes. Innovation, not politics, will help us. In fact, politics actually HINDERS technological progress.

  • No One Of Consequence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 8:01 a.m.

    Last I heard the United States of America had no commitment to the Paris Climate Accord.

  • Count Rushmore Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2019 7:41 a.m.

    "Join me in supporting a clean future for our children and future generations by contacting your Senator and ask them to honor our commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement and to support the Climate Action Now Act."

    Did you catch the clever deception? The implication that CO2 is "dirty" is a lie, intended to deceive those (and there are a lot) who are ignorant of basic chemistry. Perhaps Ms. Grossman should stop wasting our time by presenting ridiculous distortions about CO2 and climate and educate herself about the "dirty" temperature record, polluted as it is with estimates and adjustments instead of thermometer readings.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    June 10, 2019 7:26 a.m.

    Where does so-called “clean energy” come from and exactly how does it get to its final destination? Is there a second set of power poles out there? Don’t think so. Clean energy and dirty energy are transported together and as far as the power lines are concerned there is just electricity going over those lines, no discriminating existing.