Pages

Jump to bottom

12 comments

1 Romantic Heretic  Apr 10, 2015 5:35:59am

These days I take it as a given that anything coming out of a Republican’s mouth is a lie, or worse.

I’m beginning to believe that the best way to decide policy is to ask a ‘conservative’s’ opinion of what the wrong thing to do is and then do exactly that.

2 ObserverArt  Apr 10, 2015 6:19:14am

So, environmentalists are wrong on Climate Change because man cannot influence such things…Mother Nature is in control.

But when Mother Nature is in control and causes drought it is environmentalists.

Well, one thing is for sure, these denying politicians are not scientists. Or, environmentalists. Heck, it is hard to tell if they are even human.

3 sizzzzlerz  Apr 10, 2015 6:39:54am

Being a Californian by birth and an environmentalist by choice, I can say with some conviction that our current situation is the result of having no fucking rain or snow for 3 years. How I or any other enviro can be responsible for that is a mystery only the RWNJs can solve.

4 Drive By Commenter  Apr 10, 2015 7:35:13am

re: #1 Romantic Heretic

These days I take it as a given that anything coming out of a Republican’s mouth is a lie, or worse.

I’m beginning to believe that the best way to decide policy is to ask a ‘conservative’s’ opinion of what the wrong thing to do is and then do exactly that.

I just look at who is saying it, check the affiliation, links, supporters and then dismiss it as total fabrication if it has an (R) anywhere near it. That and the words “Freedom, Liberty, Patriot, American, Prosperity, and the colors Red, White and Blue with Stars or Stripes on it usually means “Bullshit Alert”.

5 lostlakehiker  Apr 10, 2015 7:56:42am

The lie is that Republicans are saying environmentalists caused the drought. The truth is that Republicans are saying that environmentalists prevented timely preparation for a drought which everybody ought to have known would come, even if it were not for the amplifying effects of climate change.

California is subject to droughts. Even in historical times, there have been droughts more severe than what California now faces. This had to have been foreseen, not as to date, but as to “at some point”.

Now, what could have been done? What ought to have been done? Look to Texas. Build reservoirs. Build enough of them that in the event of a reasonably foreseeable drought, one can pull through. It would have been expensive. It would have cut into the pet projects of liberals. It would have impacted fragile species that will now be impacted anyhow.

If that is unacceptable, then put a price on water, a price so punitive that water is conserved to whatever extent necessary. Drive out the rich who use so much [ah, but you need their taxes?] drive out the poor who out of sheer numbers use so much [ah, but you need their votes?] drive out the middle class [ah, that’s a work in progress, though not by way of water prices.]

So no, Democrats didn’t cause the drought. Nature would have caused it with or without climate change; because of climate change, it’s somewhat worse. But what Democrats did do is cause the unreadiness.

6 CriticalDragon1177  Apr 10, 2015 8:15:47am

Thanos,

Once again, the GOP shows us that they care more about ideology, than the future of our planet. The democrats need to really attack the GOP on climate change and point out just strong the science they’re denying really is.

Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists
billmoyers.com

7 Thanos  Apr 10, 2015 9:00:52am

re: #5 lostlakehiker

“Thinking that building more reservoirs will get you out of a drought is like assuming that opening more checking accounts when you’ve lost your income will help you pay your bills,” he told ThinkProgress.

So you think they can kite more water checks or something when they can’t fill existing reservoirs much less new ones?

8 Thanos  Apr 10, 2015 9:01:38am
According to Fahlund, only 50 percent of water in California flows to the coast. Fahlund said that according to the Bureau of Reclamation’s own numbers, building the reservoirs that Fiorina is referring to would have only resulted in a net increase of one percent to the state’s water supplies.
“And by this year, the fourth year of a drought, that water would have been used up just like the water in most of the rest of the state’s reservoirs,” he said. Fahlund said the real reason the state hasn’t invested in more dams or pipelines is that no one wants to pay for them, most of all not taxpayers.
9 Eclectic Cyborg  Apr 10, 2015 9:03:42am

What’s the point of building a big resevoir when there is NOTHING to put in it?

10 lostlakehiker  Apr 10, 2015 1:15:15pm

re: #7 Thanos

So you think they can kite more water checks or something when they can’t fill existing reservoirs much less new ones?

Sometimes it rains. Sometimes it doesn’t. The whole point of a reservoir is you build it when you have more rain than you can use. Does that never happen in California?

If it never happens, then you have to cut population or cut agricultural use. Permanently. If, on the other hand, droughts come and go, a reservoir can be filled with the extra water from rainy years. Right now, the thing to do would be go back in time and build reservoirs in 1990 and fill them. Failing that, you can consider that today is “back when” from the perspective of 2040, and build reservoirs in places that figure to have a lot of runoff going to the sea in normal years.

The reality of climate change makes it all the more important for California to build reservoirs. All this snow pack you’ve been relying on figures to be replaced by winter rains. These will simply run off if you haven’t built a technical replacement for what nature used to just give you.

11 lostlakehiker  Apr 10, 2015 1:16:31pm

re: #8 Thanos

Fahlund said the real reason the state hasn’t invested in more dams or pipelines is that no one wants to pay for them, most of all not taxpayers.

California voters approved water bonds. The state floated them, took the money, and spent it on other purposes.

12 Thanos  Apr 10, 2015 2:27:15pm

Can you understand 1 percent?

according to the Bureau of Reclamation’s own numbers, building the reservoirs that Fiorina is referring to would have only resulted in a net increase of one percent to the state’s water supplies.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 64 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 167 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1