SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump has been accused of deliberately obstructing research on global warming after it emerged that a critically important technique for investigating polar sea-ice extent and concentration is being blocked.
A key polar satellite used to measure the arctic ice cap failed a few days ago, leaving the US with only three others, and those have lived well beyond their shelf lives. Scientists say there is no chance a new one can be launched until 2023 or later. None of the current satellites will still be in operation then. This will put an end to nearly 40 years of uninterrupted data on polar ice.
It seems like there would be a backup satellite, right? In fact, there was a backup satellite ready to go. Then the Trump Administration destroyed it earlier this year, by order of the US Congress. They said the storage costs were too high.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Sunday November 19 2017, @08:07PM (9 children)
Our economy must be based on our long term plan for civilization and on the best data and facts we can obtain. What you call attacking the economy I think I would call bringing the economy in line with long term goals and reality as we can best perceive it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 19 2017, @09:56PM (6 children)
Long term, so that's like next quarter - right?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @04:09AM
Yes, the next 250 years is a quarter of a millenia. Hope we make it!
yes I know what you meant
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @04:28AM (4 children)
"Long term, so that's like next quarter - right?"
Unfortunately, that's exactly how they're thinking when they make actual decisions like scrapping a perfectly good satelite that they knew they were going to need.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Lester on Monday November 20 2017, @08:53AM (3 children)
Unfortunately, that's exactly how WE're thinking. FTFY
In fact, there are a lot of CEOs that think in the long term, but we fire them immediately. In fact, there are a lot of politicians that think in the long term, but we don't vote them.
With the rules of basket you have tall players, with the rules of horse racing you have short and light jockeys. With the current rules imposed by voters and shareholders with have the CEOs we have, and we have the politicians we have.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 21 2017, @12:27AM (2 children)
Who you calling "we" kemosabe?
At best in the past several decades, the executive administrations who appoint the administrators are elected by about 53% of the people. I don't feel like the companies I invest in or the appointees who "serve" me have any inkling of what I really want.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Lester on Wednesday November 22 2017, @08:39AM (1 child)
47% is less than 53% so...
And you still invest in them
Nobody knows how, they are still elected.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday November 22 2017, @01:52PM
53% has been a "landslide" in recent decades. It seems like almost 1/3 of the time the election is going to the candidate with the minority of the popular vote.
I invest out of self interest based on the system I live in, not a system I designed, not a system I can influence in meaningful ways, just a system I live in. The "theory of democracy" operating in the corporate world is "one vote per share." I have many shares, theoretically many votes, but no meaningful way to influence the behavior of these companies that, should I choose not to invest in I will be financially hurting myself and my family.
Sure, as a shareholder you are entitled to show up at stockholder meetings and make a limited amount of noise, just like as a citizen you are entitled to send messages to your representatives' staff which, if you are lucky, get tabulated into a general mood of the electorate summary that might catch a few seconds of their attention one day.
So, I see millions of Americans "making noise" about how they want the country to deal with climate change, science and research, I also see hundreds of corporations using their influence (monetary power) to influence how the country deals with climate change, science and research. Then I see policy formulated and carried out, and the connection from the individuals voices to what actually happens is tenuous, at best.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @04:10AM (1 child)
Let's assume that global warming is a real and serious problem that we can actually fix.
Being able to fix it in theory doesn't mean we will fix it. Nations do not cooperate well. If the USA stopped using oil immediately, the price of oil would drop. All sorts of countries would happily buy the cheap oil. They would even burn it for power. With the cheap energy, they would have an economic advantage. The economies would boom. If the US economy doesn't completely collapse, the trade deficit would increase. All sorts of goods would be manufactured in the places with cheap energy, then shipped across the ocean to the USA.
Then, once the seas rise and the land turns to desert, these newly rich countries build dikes to hold back the sea and desalination plants to get water. Of course these run on oil. Meanwhile, the USA has a collapsed economy and can not afford such things.
In other words, the countries best prepared to survive in a bad climate are the ones that have the strong economies that fossil fuels enable. For long-term civilization, we need to focus on the economy.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 20 2017, @04:43PM
Or,
you get together with all nations and discuss the problem and see what steps you can all take to address the problem. Maybe it's not enough, but the point here is to move forward in the right direction with steps all countries agree to. In that international treaty, no single nation would be left out as you described. Perhaps one nation benefits a bit more and another nation falls a bit behind, but nothing in the terms you are describing.
Then some backwards country elects a foolish president and steps out of that treaty. The diplomatic and economic conditions that are imposed because of that will be higher than having stayed in the treaty.