[zaphod12]

I am also very unimpressed by anyone party's effort to combat it, but as this map exemplifies, we aren't even at that stage f the conversation yet with many folks. We NEED to be talking about how to combat it, but instead we're spending all of our time arguing about whether it exists. Which is insane! We're frogs sitting in a pot of water that's about to boil and arguing about whether it's getting hotter, instead of talking about how to jump out.

I'd love to be having policy conversations about solutions instead of doing that.

[noobiemcfoob]

Most proposed "solutions" to this problem directly attack multiple people's livelihoods. They can, should and must defend against these things tooth and nail. Expecting otherwise is naive.

Real solutions look like building out a renewable infrastructure. A thing that is happening everyday already, spearheaded by humanely conscious individuals and companies (Google, Apple, etc). There is literally nothing for the government to do in this situation but get out of the way and facilitate such endeavours.

Instead, we talk about carbon taxes >.>

[euyyn]

I remember a presidential candidate proposing a solution that was boosting the building of renewable infrastructure and technology, so exactly what you propose.

I think calling that a "humanely conscious" government, as you say, would have been appropriate too.

[noobiemcfoob]

I'd rather that president lower my taxes and leave the infrastructure business to companies that actually understand how it connects to everything else.

[sdflkd]

I can't tell if this is satire?

[euyyn]

By those beliefs, you'd rather NASA not had bootstrapped the commercial space business that now has SpaceX developing reusable rockets.

[noobiemcfoob]

Yes, I would be against any program developed for military reasons. NASA has produced a ton of amazing things. But they did it so we could blow people up.