Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   The reason the Obama administration has shifted its focus from "Green Jobs" to climate change: It's a message the Republicans are finding harder and harder to attack   (motherjones.com) divider line 257
    More: Interesting, Republican, Obama, Obama administration, green jobs, climate change, Clinton White House, Kevin Trenberth, Google Trends  
•       •       •

1739 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jul 2013 at 1:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



257 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-08 08:49:01 AM  
And the fact that these "green jobs" have just been a payback to big Democrat donors.
 
2013-07-08 12:00:51 PM  
I started watching King of the Hill again on streaming, starting with the pilot (1997). Dribble makes some conspiracy laden statement about UN helicopters and global warming to which Hank even told him to shut up.

Now all the sudden, the world has become Dribble.

A Nation of Dribbles.
 
2013-07-08 12:05:41 PM  
Rest of America: Hey where are the jobs you guys both promised?
Republicans: ABORTIONS!
Democrats: CLIMATE CHANGE!
Republicans: ABORTIONS!
Democrats: CLIMATE CHANGE!
Rest of America: Jesus Christ you people suck.
Republicans: YES COME TO JESUS!
Rest of America: Go f*ck yourself!
Democrats: AND WEAR A CONDOM!
Catholics: CONDOMS ARE THE DEVIL! EVERY SPERM IS SACRED! ABORTIONS!
Rest of America: You're not helping, Catholics.
Catholics: Most of us are non-practicing atheists really.
Jews: High Five!
Republicans: HOLLYWOOD ELITE!
Jews: Closet homos.
Homosexuals: Doubtful. Have you seen their closets? Awful taste.
Blacks: Oh, COME ON. Do we seriously have to march on Birmingham again to get any attention? Voting Rights Act?
Republicans: WELFARE QUEENS!
Democrats: We would totally do something about that but our president is pretending he's white still.
Obama: Now watch this drive...
Tea Party: NEGROES! BIRF CERTIFICATE!
Obama: Can't do nothing. Have you seen the House of Representatives? A monkey could do a better job.
Tea Party: HOW COME OBUMMER CAN USE MONKEY AND WE CAN'T?
Boehner: *cries*
Cantor: Can I have your jorb yet?
Boehner: NO.
Republicans: WELL AMERICA, WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Democrats: WELL AMERICA, WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Rest of America: Umm. I forgot the question.
 
2013-07-08 12:11:27 PM  

bdub77: Rest of America: Umm. I forgot the question.


American Idol is on.
 
2013-07-08 12:13:00 PM  

Elvis_Bogart: And the fact that these "green jobs" have just been a payback to big Democrat donors.


Well, now that that's been pooped out, maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.
 
2013-07-08 12:13:14 PM  
My dog has created more shovel ready jobs.
 
2013-07-08 12:55:38 PM  
Am I in before the denialists and any mention of Solyndra?

*looks around*

Woo Hoo!
 
2013-07-08 01:38:56 PM  
Green jobs? I don't think John Deere is hiring at the moment.

And good luck with those "climate change jobs". When you get close to the sun, your space ship will melt.
 
2013-07-08 01:39:57 PM  
I wish I had the link, but wasn't there was a recent poll that had acceptance of (anthropogenic) climate change at 60-70%, but when asked what they thought the rest of the public believed, they said they thought only 30-40% accepted it.


Anyways, my take was that a majority of the people believe man is having an effect on the climate, but that majority doesn't believe it IS a majority.
 
2013-07-08 01:41:11 PM  
Evergreen headline formula:

The reason the Obama administration has shifted its focus from x to y:  It failed to make any progress with x.

N.b.:  there is no restriction on recycling values for x and y.

/Time to pivot to job growth in 3...2...1...
 
2013-07-08 01:42:12 PM  

Elvis_Bogart: And the fact that these "green jobs" have just been a payback to big Democrat donors.


And of course the 40 billion to the nuclear industry and the even more billions to the gas industry, that's just USA capitalism?

Green energy gets just a tiny bit of funding compared to Oil and Nuclear energy that supposedly doesn't need "handouts".
 
2013-07-08 01:44:48 PM  

Elvis_Bogart: And the fact that these "green jobs" have just been a payback to big Democrat donors.


ecopolitology.org

Yes you can really see the "Favoritism"
 
2013-07-08 01:47:14 PM  

Elvis_Bogart: And the fact that these "green jobs" have just been a payback to big Democrat donors.


www.window.state.tx.us

Look at all that favoritism. You might need to get a magnifying glass out to see it.
 
2013-07-08 01:47:53 PM  
Pfft. It snowed somewhere today. And it was hot somewhere else. Check and mate, libs.
 
2013-07-08 01:53:13 PM  

Corvus: Elvis_Bogart: And the fact that these "green jobs" have just been a payback to big Democrat donors.

[ecopolitology.org image 600x580]

Yes you can really see the "Favoritism"


"Climate protecting?"  Oh, no bias there.  I'm sure Mother Nature is happy that we're building solar fields and windfarms in order to protect the climate, which didn't stand a chance otherwise.

And your charts might make a little more sense if they reflected that even with the ridiculous subsidization of select alternative energy sources, fossil fuels account for 86% of the U.S.'s energy consumption.

And just so we're clear on where the money's going, could you update your charts to show how much, for instance, the oil and gas industry pay in taxes?  Versus the amount "paid" by the solar power folks?  Shouldn't we be talking net, after all?
 
2013-07-08 01:53:54 PM  

bdub77: Rest of America: Hey where are the jobs you guys both promised?
Republicans: ABORTIONS!
Democrats: CLIMATE CHANGE!
Republicans: ABORTIONS!
Democrats: CLIMATE CHANGE!
Rest of America: Jesus Christ you people suck.
Republicans: YES COME TO JESUS!
Rest of America: Go f*ck yourself!
Democrats: AND WEAR A CONDOM!
Catholics: CONDOMS ARE THE DEVIL! EVERY SPERM IS SACRED! ABORTIONS!
Rest of America: You're not helping, Catholics.
Catholics: Most of us are non-practicing atheists really.
Jews: High Five!
Republicans: HOLLYWOOD ELITE!
Jews: Closet homos.
Homosexuals: Doubtful. Have you seen their closets? Awful taste.
Blacks: Oh, COME ON. Do we seriously have to march on Birmingham again to get any attention? Voting Rights Act?
Republicans: WELFARE QUEENS!
Democrats: We would totally do something about that but our president is pretending he's white still.
Obama: Now watch this drive...
Tea Party: NEGROES! BIRF CERTIFICATE!
Obama: Can't do nothing. Have you seen the House of Representatives? A monkey could do a better job.
Tea Party: HOW COME OBUMMER CAN USE MONKEY AND WE CAN'T?
Boehner: *cries*
Cantor: Can I have your jorb yet?
Boehner: NO.
Republicans: WELL AMERICA, WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Democrats: WELL AMERICA, WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Rest of America: Umm. I forgot the question.


Vote libertarian and end this nonsense
 
2013-07-08 01:55:42 PM  

Elvis_Bogart: And the fact that these "green jobs" have just been a payback to big Democrat donors.


hah a republitard making a comment about special interest money. that's rich.
 
2013-07-08 01:56:00 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Vote libertarian and end this nonsense


hahaohwaityoureserious.jpg

Yes, clearly ultra-capitalism will solve a problem caused by capitalism.
 
2013-07-08 01:56:02 PM  
Corvus here in Ontario Canada we know what happens when you spend $10 billion on "green" energy. You go bankrupt and the taxpayer is stuck with the bill.
 
2013-07-08 01:57:35 PM  
img809.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-08 01:58:32 PM  

Elvis_Bogart: And the fact that these "green jobs" have just been a payback to big Democrat donors.


Man, your facts are awesome. Do you have any more facts? Or maybe some facts to back up the facts?


Garet Garrett: Evergreen headline formula:

The reason the Obama administration has shifted its focus from x to y:  It failed to make any progress with x.

N.b.:  there is no restriction on recycling values for x and y.

/Time to pivot to job growth in 3...2...1...


You're right, bro. The economy is the same as it was in 2009. FACT.

Hope you guys get your unemployment checks soon so you can get away from the computer.
 
2013-07-08 02:01:38 PM  
Let's also not forget:

Any further progress on jobs, green or otherwise, requires the House Republicans to pass a bill, and they'd sooner slit their own throats than do anything good that Obama might be able to claim any credit for. Whereas there's a lot of EPA and other regulatory power already granted to the executive branch that Obama can use to address climate change without Congressional action.

Congress would have to act to stop Obama's planned actions on climate change, and that would either need a two-thirds majority in both chambers (and there aren't that many coal-state Dem Senators) or be able to shame Obama into not vetoing.
 
2013-07-08 02:01:47 PM  

Garet Garrett: And your charts might make a little more sense if they reflected that even with the ridiculous subsidization of select alternative energy sources, fossil fuels account for 86% of the U.S.'s energy consumption.


So you are saying a companies with record profits (and are the most profitable companies on the planet) and that have been getting subsidizes for decades needs them even more then some energy sources that are new and need just need a push to get going?
 
2013-07-08 02:03:26 PM  

Garet Garrett: fossil fuels account for 86% of the U.S.'s energy consumption.


THEN WHY THE fark DO THEY NEED ANY SUBSIDIZES?

Subsidizes should only be for when something needs a little push that then can be self sufficient. It shouldn't be a government handout for the most profitable companies on the planet that are number one sellers of energy.
 
2013-07-08 02:05:08 PM  

Elzar: [img809.imageshack.us image 400x400]


Precisely.  Not wanting climate change is the conservative position, at least as "conservative" was defined before Republican plutocrats got a hold of the word..  We like the climate the way it is.  We know modern civilization can thrive in the climate the way it is.  Why mess with a good thing?
 
2013-07-08 02:07:32 PM  

Garet Garrett: And just so we're clear on where the money's going, could you update your charts to show how much, for instance, the oil and gas industry pay in taxes? Versus the amount "paid" by the solar power folks? Shouldn't we be talking net, after all?



Ok lets look at some of that:

Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.
 
2013-07-08 02:10:55 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Smeggy Smurf: Vote libertarian and end this nonsense

hahaohwaityoureserious.jpg

Yes, clearly ultra-capitalism will solve a problem caused by capitalism.


You do need to manage the extreme cases with judicious amounts of hanging when they start hurting people's life, liberty or property through fraud or force.
 
2013-07-08 02:11:00 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Elzar: [img809.imageshack.us image 400x400]

Precisely.  Not wanting climate change is the conservative position, at least as "conservative" was defined before Republican plutocrats got a hold of the word..  We like the climate the way it is.  We know modern civilization can thrive in the climate the way it is.  Why mess with a good thing?


The sad thing is that the United States will suffer worse than anyone else from climate change.  When the climate changes some places will get "better" (more productive and easy to live in) and some places will get "worse".  On a global scale, more places will get "worse" due to increased atmospheric energy, but still, some places will get better.  The US will get the short end of that stick.  We have the best and most productive land on Earth.  We also have the most invested infrastructure.  We have by far the most to lose of any country.  Is it going to be any consolation to the US if the Sahara becomes more productive and Timbuktu can easily move north 100 miles if that also means that the US Midwest becomes a desert and NYC has to move inland?

And the country with the second most to lose (China) is also dragging its feet on this issue.

People are farking retarded. (For examples, there are several in this thread)
 
2013-07-08 02:11:15 PM  

Mithiwithi: Let's also not forget:

Any further progress on jobs, green or otherwise, requires the House Republicans to pass a bill, . . .


You think a lack of new laws is the problem?
 
2013-07-08 02:13:16 PM  
The GOP is having a real tough time attacking the idea of dismantling the coal industry.
 
2013-07-08 02:16:21 PM  

Hollie Maea: And the country with the second most to lose (China) is also dragging its feet on this issue.


China is ahead of us. Cap and trade is up and running.

Seven pilot carbon-trading programs are scheduled to start this year, with the first opening today in Shenzhen, followed by Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Tianjin, Chongqing and Hubei. They are set to regulate 800 million to 1 billion tons of emissions by 2015 in the world's biggest cap-and-trade program after Europe's, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Link
 
2013-07-08 02:18:11 PM  
Does anyone else think it was weird that they put a chart at the top of TFA showing web search interest on, apparently, a single search term "green jobs" followed by an article that didn't mention a single statistic about actual jobs in those industries over the past, say, 5 years?
 
2013-07-08 02:18:16 PM  

Garet Garrett: And just so we're clear on where the money's going, could you update your charts to show how much, for instance, the oil and gas industry pay in taxes?


Why do you pretend to be a lawyer on the internet?
 
2013-07-08 02:18:23 PM  
Cue Dr. Ian Malcolm:

"I'm...I'm simply saying that derp, uh... finds a way."
 
2013-07-08 02:18:48 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Mithiwithi: Let's also not forget:

Any further progress on jobs, green or otherwise, requires the House Republicans to pass a bill, . . .

You think a lack of new laws is the problem?


shiatty deflection from a real point. The Congress can do more than make NEW laws, they can also improve old. They are not doing that either.
 
2013-07-08 02:22:14 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Mithiwithi: Let's also not forget:

Any further progress on jobs, green or otherwise, requires the House Republicans to pass a bill, . . .

You think a lack of new laws is the problem?


Uh, yes?  This idea that you can't benefit from good new laws as long as there are lots of crummy ones on the books is particularly small minded.  Sometimes a new "law" is an appropriation of resources.  You'd better believe that it's a problem if you stop doing that.
 
2013-07-08 02:22:36 PM  

LasersHurt: Zeb Hesselgresser: Mithiwithi: Let's also not forget:

Any further progress on jobs, green or otherwise, requires the House Republicans to pass a bill, . . .

You think a lack of new laws is the problem?

shiatty deflection from a real point. The Congress can do more than make NEW laws, they can also improve old. They are not doing that either.


No new, fix old
 
2013-07-08 02:23:26 PM  

Corvus: Garet Garrett: fossil fuels account for 86% of the U.S.'s energy consumption.

THEN WHY THE fark DO THEY NEED ANY SUBSIDIZES?

Subsidizes should only be for when something needs a little push that then can be self sufficient. It shouldn't be a government handout for the most profitable companies on the planet that are number one sellers of energy.


If that were our tax policy, those of us on the right would be doing back flips of joy.  But more seriously, you do realize that anti-fossil fuel groups count as "subsidies" ordinary tax deductions for business operations, right?  So just as your company (assuming you're employed by someone else) doesn't pay tax on the income they spend paying your wages, neither do the oil and gas industries.  But that doesn't make your company "subsidized," it just means it's being taxed on net income.

The oil and gas industry pay enormous amounts of money into the federal coffers, around $30 billion per year in taxes and rents.  And that's before we start looking at the payroll and income taxes paid by the industry's employees (whose salaries are very good, resulting in beaucoup bucks for Uncle Sam).

Seriously, just look at the net.  You won't like where the discussion goes.
 
2013-07-08 02:23:43 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Hollie Maea: And the country with the second most to lose (China) is also dragging its feet on this issue.

China is ahead of us. Cap and trade is up and running.

Seven pilot carbon-trading programs are scheduled to start this year, with the first opening today in Shenzhen, followed by Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, Tianjin, Chongqing and Hubei. They are set to regulate 800 million to 1 billion tons of emissions by 2015 in the world's biggest cap-and-trade program after Europe's, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Link


That's true.  I wish they would chill out a bit with all the new coal plants though.  But yeah at least they acknowledge the issue and are willing to take some steps towards a solution.
 
2013-07-08 02:25:54 PM  
Capt. Kirk was big on "green jobs".

/threadshatner
 
2013-07-08 02:27:00 PM  

Corvus: Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.


Wow, quoting Bernie Sanders for a proposition giving a full "False" rating by PolitiFact.
 
2013-07-08 02:27:49 PM  

Hollie Maea: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Elzar: [img809.imageshack.us image 400x400]

Precisely.  Not wanting climate change is the conservative position, at least as "conservative" was defined before Republican plutocrats got a hold of the word..  We like the climate the way it is.  We know modern civilization can thrive in the climate the way it is.  Why mess with a good thing?

The sad thing is that the United States will suffer worse than anyone else from climate change.  When the climate changes some places will get "better" (more productive and easy to live in) and some places will get "worse".  On a global scale, more places will get "worse" due to increased atmospheric energy, but still, some places will get better.  The US will get the short end of that stick.  We have the best and most productive land on Earth.  We also have the most invested infrastructure.  We have by far the most to lose of any country.  Is it going to be any consolation to the US if the Sahara becomes more productive and Timbuktu can easily move north 100 miles if that also means that the US Midwest becomes a desert and NYC has to move inland?

And the country with the second most to lose (China) is also dragging its feet on this issue.

People are farking retarded. (For examples, there are several in this thread)


China (and potentially Australia) has it much worse, population migration wise.  It's a much shorter distance from Indonesia to China than Indonesia to America.

China is also on the verge of a Dust Bowl event that will make America's look like a minor incident.

Besides, is there any indication whatsoever that the Sahara is shrinking?  If anything, it's growing.

Now, I'm not saying it's going to be fun here in the States, but the doom and gloom has been always been more directed towards the countries that do not have the resources to deal with the impacts of a changing climate.
 
2013-07-08 02:27:54 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Mithiwithi: Let's also not forget:

Any further progress on jobs, green or otherwise, requires the House Republicans to pass a bill, . . .

You think a lack of new laws is the problem?


Yes. As it stands, there's next to no incentive for big business to hire Americans when they could use a Chinese sweatshop instead. And for jobs they CAN'T outsource, they hire the absolute bare minimum, pile more work onto fewer workers without raising wages.

If the USA is ever going to prosper again, the ability of corporations to fark workers needs to be seriously reined in. They're not gonna do it on their own. Thus, new laws are required.
 
2013-07-08 02:28:02 PM  

Garet Garrett: giving


given, dammit.
 
2013-07-08 02:28:51 PM  
Maybe if it wasnt for the libs spending all their time and effort pushing gay marriage on to us, we might have solved 

Garet Garrett: Corvus: Garet Garrett: fossil fuels account for 86% of the U.S.'s energy consumption.

THEN WHY THE fark DO THEY NEED ANY SUBSIDIZES?

Subsidizes should only be for when something needs a little push that then can be self sufficient. It shouldn't be a government handout for the most profitable companies on the planet that are number one sellers of energy.

If that were our tax policy, those of us on the right would be doing back flips of joy.  But more seriously, you do realize that anti-fossil fuel groups count as "subsidies" ordinary tax deductions for business operations, right?  So just as your company (assuming you're employed by someone else) doesn't pay tax on the income they spend paying your wages, neither do the oil and gas industries.  But that doesn't make your company "subsidized," it just means it's being taxed on net income.

The oil and gas industry pay enormous amounts of money into the federal coffers, around $30 billion per year in taxes and rents.  And that's before we start looking at the payroll and income taxes paid by the industry's employees (whose salaries are very good, resulting in beaucoup bucks for Uncle Sam).

Seriously, just look at the net.  You won't like where the discussion goes.


Also, remember that payroll and income taxes paid by employees by oils and gas are worth their weight in gold. Payroll and income tax paid by solar employees probably support gay marriage crap.
 
2013-07-08 02:29:23 PM  

Cletus C.: The GOP is having a real tough time attacking the idea of dismantling the coal industry.


Is removing unnecessary subsidies on the most profitable business on the planet the same thing as dismantling nowadays?
 
2013-07-08 02:30:41 PM  

meat0918: Besides, is there any indication whatsoever that the Sahara is shrinking?  If anything, it's growing


That was meant to be an example,. not an actual prediction.  One thing we can be sure of is that the US won't get better.
 
2013-07-08 02:31:16 PM  

LordJiro: Thus, new laws are required.


Here's a crazy thought:  Ever consider that out of control, sprawling corporations that answer to no one, write their own regulations to keep others from competing with them, and pay themselves with "capital" contributions from "investors" who buy and sell stock based upon microfluctuations in daily values, might themselves be the result of all the laws we've written to try to control the economy?  Maybe "new laws" are the problem.

Just food for thought.
 
2013-07-08 02:32:29 PM  

Garet Garrett: Corvus: Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits in 2009. Exxon not only paid no federal income taxes, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

Wow, quoting Bernie Sanders for a proposition giving a full "False" rating by PolitiFact.


Jeffers told PolitiFact that the "U.S. income tax expense for 2009 activities was approximately $500 million." The company declined to provide documentation for this number, however.

Just trust him, amiright?
 
2013-07-08 02:32:38 PM  

snowshovel: Also, remember that payroll and income taxes paid by employees by oils and gas are worth their weight in gold. Payroll and income tax paid by solar employees probably support gay marriage crap.


The key difference is that there ARE payrolls and income in the oil and gas industry.
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report