Back in the 90s when the Clintons were working on this I asked the question of some of the brain trusts who were for it if they could afford an additional 25% or so in taxes coming out of their pay checks. This would be another program to decimate the middle class and working poor. The only other way to do it would be to DRASTICALLY lower medical costs with the attendant drop in quality of care. Then only the rich could afford good medical care. And all these studies and assessments are pure crap if you forget about "impact on the government " and look at impact on the working individual.

Se you only care about your own ass you care not for those generations. It's just hurray for me I won't be around when when the fit hits the shan so screw my grand children or great great grans. We are burning in California the fire season used to be Sept and Oct but each t=year for the last 30 years it gets longer until lit is year round now. The winters are n longer cold enough to k**l the Pine bettlev larva in winter so hords of beatles have k**led over 20 million trees in the last 8 10 years and is providing fuel for the fires. Right no there are 16 major fires blazing in our forest and burned over 500 homes and a hundred million acres

Boodhead, in case youare interested in what is really going on in regards to c*****e c****e and the implications, I saw this, thought of you, and decided to post it for your edification.

The Arctic is melting. Here’s why cooperation and diplomacy get so complicated.

A path remains after the Finnish icebreaker MSV Nordica traversed the Northwest Passage through the Franklin Strait in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago in July 2017. (AP)
By Kelly M. McFarland and Vanessa Lide
July 30 at 7:00 AM
Heat waves from Greece to Siberia — and fires north of the Arctic Circle — are the latest signs this summer that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. This once-inhospitable corner of the globe is becoming the next global commons as the polar ice cap melts.

This will have broad implications for the Arctic as well as non-Arctic nations, and for local and global ecosystems. But the changing environment, new sea lanes and potential new commercial opportunities also open up global security and diplomacy questions.

Here’s what’s happening. Scientists project that the Arctic Ocean will be largely open water during the summer months, a change that will occur within the next two decades. This means new polar routes and shorter maritime t***sit times than ever before, but also new potential areas of conflict.

The Arctic now sees shorter periods of crushingly cold weather and, in some areas, longer stretches of warmer weather. In mid-February 2018, temperatures at the world’s northernmost weather station were above freezing — some 45 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. Meanwhile, the thickness of Arctic Ocean sea ice declined by more than 65 percent over the past 30 years, according to a 2017 Arctic Council report. And open water will absorb the sun’s glare, rather than reflect it. This will probably lead to warmer temperatures and further melting.

Here’s why these changes matter

To look at this issue in depth, the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University convened a working group on the New Arctic and its geopolitical implications. ISD’s July 2018 report, “The New Arctic: Navigating the Realities, Possibilities, and Problems,” brings together analysis from experts on the Arctic, c*****e c****e, foreign policy and national security, as well as government and nongovernmental-organization policymakers.

The group concluded that three topics will be of particular importance in the coming years. These are by no means mutually exclusive.

1. Resource extraction. The Arctic has huge energy and mineral potential. The Eurasia Group estimates that “$100 billion could be invested in Arctic resource exploration and extraction over the next decade,” as the Arctic contains perhaps one-third of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 percent of its oil. The Arctic also has huge potential for renewable energy and rare earth minerals.

Exploration and extraction raise environmental red f**gs, including the need for comprehensive plans to address potential oil spills, but will also require enhanced search and rescue (SAR) capabilities. To some Arctic researchers, there are concerns about the Trump administration’s move to allow oil and gas exploration within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in particular, because of the threat to native species and the indigenous communities that depend on them.


2. Expanded sea lanes. Melting ice means new polar routes, shortened t***sit times and significant commercial advantages, which will prove attractive to trade-focused nations such as China. By one estimate, ships taking the polar route from Shanghai to Hamburg, instead of the traditional Indian Ocean route, could shave 2,800 nautical miles off the journey.

Russia, along with China, is keenly aware of the benefits of an increasingly navigable Arctic. What Moscow calls the Northern Sea Route (NSR) stretches across 3,000 miles and seven time zones and links the country’s vast Arctic resources. As these waters grow increasingly navigable, Russia will no doubt seek business and technical partners to develop the NSR infrastructure.

The anticipated rise in commercial shipping — and tourist cruises — raises other concerns, particularly for the United States. Many of these routes will pass through the Bering Strait, an environmentally sensitive marine area. And the region does not have the SAR or environmental remediation capabilities to cope with the anticipated uptick in maritime traffic.


3. National security and geopolitics. The new Arctic — and its potential — has spurred interest in the region from longtime and new players alike. To date, there has been significant cooperation on all sides through the consensus-based approach of the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum that has been leading this effort since 1996. The Arctic Council also has 13 non-Arctic nations as observers, as well as a number of intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations.

What happens now, with a more open and accessible Arctic? Following the end of the Cold War, the United States withdrew much of its Arctic forces and capabilities, while Russia neglected much of its infrastructure. And in a twist of fate, Arctic melting is exposing a former Cold War U.S. ballistic missile testing site and the nuclear waste that goes with it, representing “an entirely new pathway of political dispute resulting from c*****e c****e.”

Over the past few years, Western allies have grown concerned about Russia’s renewed interest in the region and military expansion, including new Arctic airfields, deep-water ports and a fleet of icebreakers, in addition to a new Arctic command. Russia has a 40-to-2 advantage in icebreakers over the United States.

China, too, has a plan for the Arctic, as detailed in a January 2018 white paper linking the “Polar Silk Road” to Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative. There is clear Chinese interest in new and shorter shipping options, but Beijing has also invested in mining in Greenland and seeks to negotiate a free-trade agreement with Iceland, build more icebreakers and extend its fishing fleets, according to a Council on Foreign Relations study.

The Arctic is quickly developing into a complicated problem on multiple levels

For policymakers, these developments suggest that keeping the Arctic a conflict-free zone may become more important and perhaps more difficult. A more open Arctic means the eight Arctic nations — Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States — will face regional issues such as coastal erosion, loss of traditional livelihoods and the need to monitor the environmental changes.


And there will be new challenges to manage increased shipping traffic and other commercial activities safely — as well as juggle the concerns and activities of the growing numbers of non-Arctic players who are fast becoming more interested in the new Arctic.

[Why do we need new rules on shipping emissions? Well, 90 percent of global trade depends on ships.]

The melting Arctic introduces a number of global concerns. How will the warmer polar temperatures change global w*****r p*****ns, for instance? Scientific research and collaboration among Arctic nations are on the rise, but the ongoing, drastic climatic change means this research will take on an even deeper importance, as policymakers discuss environmental resilience, mitigation or adaptation measures — both in the region and elsewhere in the world.

Kelly M. McFarland is director of programs and research at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy and an adjunct professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

Vanessa Lide is associate editor with the Monkey Cage, based at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. She also edits diplomacy cases for the Institute’s online Case Studies Library.



Here's what you wrote, Bonehead:

You say I confuse weather with climate yet you claim that there have been record highs in a few locations in the last few months. Who is confused?
If you say 97 percent of climate scientists agree you are not up-to-date with studies that show perhaps the opposite is true. To continue to base your case on lies or fallacies is more a sign of religious fervor than anything I have posted.
Repeating the falsehoods and rabid opinions as you do almost on a daily basis must have a reason and it is logical to assume that attracting followers is precisely what you are doing.

Good. Skepticism is at least a sign of an open mind. The data is in, and there are numerous locations across the globe where record highs have been reached in the last few months. Try examining information from places you are not personally acquainted with. If you want to confuse weather with climate, fine. I'm not preaching. I am just putting out the facts that about 97% of scientists specializing in the study of climate and c*****e c****e agree with. And I am certainly NOT hunting for "followers." Any hysteria you see in my posts comes not from me, but from your own inner feelings.

'Historically unprecedented summer heat' will no longer be unprecedented.



Writing in the most recent issue of Nature C*****e C****e, lead author Andrew King and colleagues inform us that the data tell us a grim story of rising temperatures, even if we somehow avoid the worst case scenarios for carbon combustion induced heating of the planet:

On average, in the simulated 1.5oC [increase over current] world, 90 million people (or 11% of the estimated 2010 population of the continent) are exposed to hot summers beyond the observed record (that is, half of the summers would have more than 90 million people exposed to historically unprecedented summer average temperatures). (pg. 550)

The exposure of populations to historically unprecedented summer heat increases dramatically even at the relatively low g****l w*****g levels of the Paris Agreement. (pg. 550)

Few of us realize the scope of the public health effects caused by these extreme heat events, but they are dramatic. As Scientific American reports:

Researchers believe that g****l w*****g is already responsible for some 150,000 deaths each year around the world, and fear that the number may well double by 2030 even if we start getting serious about emissions reductions today.

A team of health and climate scientists from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the University of Wisconsin at Madison published these findings last year in the prestigious, peer-reviewed science journal Nature. Besides k*****g people, g****l w*****g also contributes to some five million human illnesses every year, the researchers found. Some of the ways g****l w*****g negatively affects human health—especially in developing nations—include: speeding the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever; creating conditions that lead to potentially fatal malnutrition and diarrhea; and increasing the frequency and severity of heat waves, floods and other weather-related disasters.

How bad will this get? According to the World Health Organization:

Between 2030 and 2050, c*****e c****e is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.

The only rational response is to discontinue the use of carbon combustion, and begin massive mitigation efforts globally.

Of course, no one would accuse the GOP (currently in control of the federal government of two-thirds of the states) of being rational:

After receiving billions in tax cuts at the end of last year, oil and gas companies can expect another year of record-breaking profits. While Exxon alone received $5.9 billion in tax breaks, companies that do oil exploration can expect an additional $190 billion in profits. And yesterday, the second-largest coal company in the country, Arch Coal, announced the new tax plan would lower their tax rate to “effectively zero.” To pay for these giveaways, the Trump budget proposes cutting several programs that enforce pollution laws, fund clean energy innovation, and protect outdoor places. Trump’s cuts effectively subsidize oil, gas, and coal companies, severely hamper renewable energy growth, all while weakening protections for public health and the outdoors.

Snip>>>All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

Someone born of a American Mother would in turn be a Citizen with no need to go through the naturalization process ergo they would be "Natural Born Citizens" no matter how much it would upset the agenda of conservatives in this once great country. President Obama, based on the constitution, was a natural born citizen of this country irrespective of whether he was born in Kenya or here in the United States. You guys are welcome to run around in as many circles as you like but Obama was a l********e p*******t of these United States much to the chagrin of conservatives in this once great county....

You are talking about a mere technicality of a few months in age. You would be welcome to file a challenge but I doubt even your conservative supreme court would deny citizenship to a child who's mother was without question rightly an American. As for the natural born clause what if Trumps mother had been visiting Ireland when she gave birth to Donald--what is the basis of the argument that he isn't an American citizen naturally born--that that isn't the case because by accident he was born in Ireland? This is the reason Ted Cruse was confident he had a right to run for office even though he was born in Canada by an American mother and a foreign father--according to you, unnaturally born...

As for the worthlessness of the Constitution what makes it worthless is when the laws it provides are relative whether they apply to your man or only to the opposition. That's what would make it worthless nothing more...