The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Convincing people that global warming is a real thing

13567

Posts

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    But really what does it matter. The world is better off as it stands with an increase in temperature then a decrease. Its also horribly dangerous to start treating the out put of gas that every living being in this world outputs is a dangerous pollutant. Ever think as plant life is allowed to grow for longer periods of time during the year that an "increase" in C02 output might actually be advantageous. If this isn't even a problem that can't be "stopped" on a global level and comes down to external force. Isn't it a horribly destructive action to be trying to limit the output of the very materials that plant life need to survive.

    The body makes methane. We should probably delist that as a pollutant. We piss out ammonia. Yeah, that must be okay in large quantities too.

    No, I am saying that it isn't a pollutant because its retarded to make the name one most generated substance by animals and the number one substance used by plants into a pollutant. If thats the case we should kill all of the physically or mentally incapable people because of the lifelong CO2 production capabilities. Its a necessary part of life and regulating is a dangerous and slippery slope.

    Topweasel on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    It's a pollutant for legal purposes.

    Politics does not allow for very precise language due to the small vocabulary of the population and many of its leaders.

    Incenjucar on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    One has scientific evidence, the other doesn't. Like I said, take it to whatever conclusion you want, but to pretend they are the same is just intellectually stupid.

    Except we're ignoring the scientific evidence to get past the "is Global Warming caused by man" question and rather are looking at the larger consequences of action independent of what is, in fact, the case.

    And this is exactly what Pascal does.

    So if we're fully engaged with the argument as it is presented (ignore evidence and simply base decisions upon understood consequences of action) then would we not have to think Pascal's Wager a sensible argument?

    Because, again, we're talking about consequences of action rather than proof of what is the case.

    _J_ on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Topweasel wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    But really what does it matter. The world is better off as it stands with an increase in temperature then a decrease. Its also horribly dangerous to start treating the out put of gas that every living being in this world outputs is a dangerous pollutant. Ever think as plant life is allowed to grow for longer periods of time during the year that an "increase" in C02 output might actually be advantageous. If this isn't even a problem that can't be "stopped" on a global level and comes down to external force. Isn't it a horribly destructive action to be trying to limit the output of the very materials that plant life need to survive.

    The body makes methane. We should probably delist that as a pollutant. We piss out ammonia. Yeah, that must be okay in large quantities too.

    No, I am saying that it isn't a pollutant because its retarded to make the name one most generated substance by animals and the number one substance used by plants into a pollutant. If thats the case we should kill all of the physically or mentally incapable people because of the lifelong CO2 production capabilities. Its a necessary part of life and regulating is a dangerous and slippery slope.

    Your "arguments" hurt my brain. It's like you have no idea about how carbon taxes or a cap and trade system work, or what their goals are.

    Plus, you completely ditched your sunspot argument. Care to revisit it? Or can we safely ignore you?

    sanstodo on
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Topweasel wrote: »
    No, I am saying that it isn't a pollutant because its retarded to make the name one most generated substance by animals and the number one substance used by plants into a pollutant. If thats the case we should kill all of the physically or mentally incapable people because of the lifelong CO2 production capabilities. Its a necessary part of life and regulating is a dangerous and slippery slope.

    I think the problem with methane comes from factory farms where you have thousands of cows crammed together eating things that cows probably shouldn't be eating, releasing the methane kraken. At that point it becomes a pollutant.

    Richard_Dastardly on
    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Won't a carbon tax/cap and trade system obliterate striving businesses? If Mom&Pop's construction co. has to bid against a known full-sized company for an allotment of carbon credits... what chance do they have?

    GPIA7R on
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Sentry wrote: »

    Yeah, I really don't have a strong opinion on global warming since I haven't really looked at the evidence in depth or anything - but this argument, and the sentiment behind it actively harms the 'global warming exists' side. The idea of 'regardless of evidence we should do something' is an insidious stereotype which has been grafted onto the environmentalist side, and this video just keeps it going. It should never be posted. Anywhere.

    SageinaRage on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Won't a carbon tax/cap and trade system obliterate striving businesses? If Mom&Pop's construction co. has to bid against a known full-sized company for an allotment of carbon credits... what chance do they have?

    Small businesses or fleets* have historically been given fairly reasonable breaks in this regard, at least in California. Hopefully they would be considered here as well.


    *Primary carbon production is often due not to the size of the company itself but the amount of equipment they use.

    Incenjucar on
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    Topweasel wrote: »
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    But really what does it matter. The world is better off as it stands with an increase in temperature then a decrease. Its also horribly dangerous to start treating the out put of gas that every living being in this world outputs is a dangerous pollutant. Ever think as plant life is allowed to grow for longer periods of time during the year that an "increase" in C02 output might actually be advantageous. If this isn't even a problem that can't be "stopped" on a global level and comes down to external force. Isn't it a horribly destructive action to be trying to limit the output of the very materials that plant life need to survive.

    The body makes methane. We should probably delist that as a pollutant. We piss out ammonia. Yeah, that must be okay in large quantities too.

    No, I am saying that it isn't a pollutant because its retarded to make the name one most generated substance by animals and the number one substance used by plants into a pollutant. If thats the case we should kill all of the physically or mentally incapable people because of the lifelong CO2 production capabilities. Its a necessary part of life and regulating is a dangerous and slippery slope.
    The status 'pollutant' is not conferred by the utility or ubiquity of a substance. It is context and effects based. Water and oxygen are 'pollutants' in some (restricted) contexts. Can you maybe come back when you understand basic environmental management terms? Maybe then we'll be able to have a proper discussion about whether the 'pollutant' response to CO2 is the most appropriate.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Won't a carbon tax/cap and trade system obliterate striving businesses? If Mom&Pop's construction co. has to bid against a known full-sized company for an allotment of carbon credits... what chance do they have?

    Directly from the Heritage Foundation (yay for conservative think tanks):

    "The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site."

    sanstodo on
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Sentry wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »

    This is Pascal's Wager applied to Global Climate Change as opposed to God.


    I'm wondering if the people who find this argument compelling believe in God.

    One has scientific evidence, the other doesn't. Like I said, take it to whatever conclusion you want, but to pretend they are the same is just intellectually stupid.

    The second video gives a much better argument. i agree, I found the argument in the first video annoyingly similar to Pascal's wager. When making any decision, you HAVE to have at least SOME estimate about the probabilities of each side. People who blindly ignore probabilities, and focus only on the possible outcomes, are people who lose a lot of money at poker, not to mention lotteries, religion, etc.

    Pi-r8 on
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Cap & Trade is supposed to end up like a stock market for CO2 emmissions. In effect, the goal is to let the market decide how much it's worth to produce pollution. The government just says "X is the acceptable level," and monitors if people are keeping to their allotment. This should have no great economic effect on the internal market, though it does create a disadvantage to outside markets, who do not have to pay such a fee.

    I also don't really see which "Mom & Pop" businesses are grand polluters.

    SanderJK on
    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    but this argument, and the sentiment behind it actively harms the 'global warming exists' side. The idea of 'regardless of evidence we should do something' is an insidious stereotype which has been grafted onto the environmentalist side

    That's my problem with the video. It's just Pascal's Wager and engaging with consequences of hypothetical situations. There are any number of hypothetical situations which could be approached in this way

    - What if a giant meteorite is headed to earth?
    - What if the next hitler is being born right now in Germany?
    - What if this thread is going to be locked and everyone in it banned?


    You could make the same chart, the same table, for all of these hypothetical situations and arrive conclusions similar to those put forth in this video and pascal's wager.

    _J_ on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Won't a carbon tax/cap and trade system obliterate striving businesses? If Mom&Pop's construction co. has to bid against a known full-sized company for an allotment of carbon credits... what chance do they have?

    Directly from the Heritage Foundation (yay for conservative think tanks):

    "The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site."
    ..."the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about"...

    How is that a fair thing to do? Isn't that a passive-aggressive way of approaching said 'problem'?

    GPIA7R on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    No?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    accept your death, and become dangerous
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    SanderJK wrote: »
    Cap & Trade is supposed to end up like a stock market for CO2 emmissions. In effect, the goal is to let the market decide how much it's worth to produce pollution. The government just says "X is the acceptable level," and monitors if people are keeping to their allotment. This should have no great economic effect on the internal market, though it does create a disadvantage to outside markets, who do not have to pay such a fee.

    I also don't really see which "Mom & Pop" businesses are grand polluters.

    Bolded section is why we need to have penalties for developed nations that do not comply. Paul Krugman argues for "border adjustments" here.

    sanstodo on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    No?

    Well god damn I never thought of it that way. Your contribution to the conversation is a prize I will cherish always.

    GPIA7R on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    How is that a fair thing to do? Isn't that a passive-aggressive way of approaching said 'problem'?

    This is part of the problem: If we're trying to remain beholden to Mother Culture and our idiotic notion that human beings are somehow estranged from the planet then we cannot genuinely engage the problem. So we get stuck half-assing any attempt to change how things are and, at best, put off the extinction of the species.

    _J_ on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Won't a carbon tax/cap and trade system obliterate striving businesses? If Mom&Pop's construction co. has to bid against a known full-sized company for an allotment of carbon credits... what chance do they have?

    Directly from the Heritage Foundation (yay for conservative think tanks):

    "The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site."
    ..."the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about"...

    How is that a fair thing to do? Isn't that a passive-aggressive way of approaching said 'problem'?

    No, not really. People are already paying for the environmental damage we're causing. It may be indirectly (for example, altered weather patterns including flooding and drought) or in poor areas (i.e. not the country's causing the pollution). So we're actually CORRECTING the price of consumption and production to reflect this reality by including these costs in the price of a good or service.

    I quoted from that particular article to avoid claims of bias on the reading of Waxmen-Markey, not to suggest that I agree with the rest of its text.

    sanstodo on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    No?

    Well god damn I never thought of it that way. Your contribution to the conversation is a prize I will cherish always.

    You asked a yes or no question, what kind of answer did you want?

    It's "fair" in that we will decide what amount of emission is acceptable, and use a market mechanism to assign that ability to pollute in the way society would like it assigned.

    What the fuck does "isn't it passive-aggressive" even mean?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    accept your death, and become dangerous
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Won't a carbon tax/cap and trade system obliterate striving businesses? If Mom&Pop's construction co. has to bid against a known full-sized company for an allotment of carbon credits... what chance do they have?

    Directly from the Heritage Foundation (yay for conservative think tanks):

    "The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site."
    ..."the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about"...

    How is that a fair thing to do? Isn't that a passive-aggressive way of approaching said 'problem'?
    No, it's a direct and focused attempt to disincentivize or regulate practices that can have negative effects on the environment. Where in the world are you getting "passive-aggressive"?

    Grid System on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Won't a carbon tax/cap and trade system obliterate striving businesses? If Mom&Pop's construction co. has to bid against a known full-sized company for an allotment of carbon credits... what chance do they have?

    Directly from the Heritage Foundation (yay for conservative think tanks):

    "The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site."
    ..."the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about"...

    How is that a fair thing to do? Isn't that a passive-aggressive way of approaching said 'problem'?
    No, it's a direct and focused attempt to disincentivize or regulate practices that can have negative effects on the environment. Where in the world are you getting "passive-aggressive"?

    Yeah, that too :) Said more succinctly than I put it.

    sanstodo on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Because it's purely made about money. "Sure, go ahead and pollute... just give us more money." Why not fix something, rather than try and punish practices that have been going on for years? Maybe I worded it wrong.

    It's not like our "slowing down" of polluting will offset the new factories and industries that go up in China or anywhere else.

    GPIA7R on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    It's not like our "slowing down" of polluting will offset the new factories and industries that go up in China or anywhere else.
    Well he's got a point, boys. Let's start crankin' out those emissions!

    Bama on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Because it's purely made about money. "Sure, go ahead and pollute... just give us more money." Why not fix something, rather than try and punish practices that have been going on for years? Maybe I worded it wrong.

    It's not like our "slowing down" of polluting will offset the new factories and industries that go up in China or anywhere else.

    If your sentiment is "We need to stop all industry" then I agree with you.

    _J_ on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Because it's purely made about money. "Sure, go ahead and pollute... just give us more money." Why not fix something, rather than try and punish practices that have been going on for years? Maybe I worded it wrong.

    It's not like our "slowing down" of polluting will offset the new factories and industries that go up in China or anywhere else.

    If your sentiment is "We need to stop all industry" then I agree with you.

    Nah... just... work toward progression. Fuel-cells for cars or some shit, rather than turning it into a financial thing. America is so far in debt right now so I'm sure it's nice, and I wish I could tax the hell out of my neighborhood when I went out and spent too much on my new TV.

    GPIA7R on
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Because it's purely made about money. "Sure, go ahead and pollute... just give us more money." Why not fix something, rather than try and punish practices that have been going on for years? Maybe I worded it wrong.
    Fix... how? A significant part of any solution to the climate change issue is polluting less.
    It's not like our "slowing down" of polluting will offset the new factories and industries that go up in China or anywhere else.
    It's better than doing nothing.

    Grid System on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Because it's purely made about money. "Sure, go ahead and pollute... just give us more money." Why not fix something, rather than try and punish practices that have been going on for years? Maybe I worded it wrong.

    It's not like our "slowing down" of polluting will offset the new factories and industries that go up in China or anywhere else.

    The idea is that government fixes things much more slowly and expensively and less creatively than thousands of independant industries thinking about how to save money.

    Incenjucar on
  • FeralFeral That's what I do. I drink, and I know things. Location: ByakkoyaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    but this argument, and the sentiment behind it actively harms the 'global warming exists' side. The idea of 'regardless of evidence we should do something' is an insidious stereotype which has been grafted onto the environmentalist side

    That's my problem with the video. It's just Pascal's Wager and engaging with consequences of hypothetical situations. There are any number of hypothetical situations which could be approached in this way

    - What if a giant meteorite is headed to earth?
    - What if the next hitler is being born right now in Germany?
    - What if this thread is going to be locked and everyone in it banned?


    You could make the same chart, the same table, for all of these hypothetical situations and arrive conclusions similar to those put forth in this video and pascal's wager.

    I agree with all of this. That video is awful.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Nah... just... work toward progression. Fuel-cells for cars or some shit, rather than turning it into a financial thing. America is so far in debt right now so I'm sure it's nice, and I wish I could tax the hell out of my neighborhood when I went out and spent too much on my new TV.

    I do not like "solutions" which are simply "let's take what we have...and change it...so that we still have it...but it doesn't fuck us over."

    That's not engaging with the problem. That's continuing to live in the magical fairy land in which humans are somehow seperate and distinct from the planet.

    We cannot have industry, agriculture, and technology AND not fuck over the planet. Industry, agriculture, and technology (on the scale that humankind utilizes them) are fundamentally destructive to the planet.

    So instead of trying to magic them into not harming the planet let's just stop doing them.

    _J_ on
  • Grid SystemGrid System Registered User
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Nah... just... work toward progression. Fuel-cells for cars or some shit, rather than turning it into a financial thing. America is so far in debt right now so I'm sure it's nice, and I wish I could tax the hell out of my neighborhood when I went out and spent too much on my new TV.
    It has to be a money thing. Businesses won't give a shit if it's not a money thing. And R&D for fuel-cell cars or whatever costs money. That money has to come from somewhere. If we can at once punish the worst offenders, and increase support for clean technologies, why shouldn't we?

    Grid System on
  • GPIA7RGPIA7R Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Because it's purely made about money. "Sure, go ahead and pollute... just give us more money." Why not fix something, rather than try and punish practices that have been going on for years? Maybe I worded it wrong.

    It's not like our "slowing down" of polluting will offset the new factories and industries that go up in China or anywhere else.

    The idea is that government fixes things much more slowly and expensively and less creatively than thousands of independant industries thinking about how to save money.

    Like the control of banks/cars/insurance/health/housing/unemployment/etc in a matter of 6 months? They haven't fixed anything, and already they're wanting another stimulus? This climate change seems like it could take a back-seat while all that other stuff gets fixed first, and it doesn't look like this is the kind of administration that's going to do that responsibly. Hell, the entire attitude of "lol these are Bush's problems" is over, and I get pretty pissed off every time he says that. No one has spent as much as he has... and now Cap/Trade is here to fix more? That's why I'm skeptical/doubting of it.

    GPIA7R on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    ...

    Did you just confuse "The government will give you money until you stop screwing up" with "The government will take more and more of your money until you stop screwing up?"

    Incenjucar on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    We cannot have industry, agriculture, and technology AND not fuck over the planet. Industry, agriculture, and technology (on the scale that humankind utilizes them) are fundamentally destructive to the planet.
    [citation required]?

    Yar on
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2009
    Yar wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    We cannot have industry, agriculture, and technology AND not fuck over the planet. Industry, agriculture, and technology (on the scale that humankind utilizes them) are fundamentally destructive to the planet.
    [citation required]?

    Ishmael

    While the book has a few flaws I think the core message of "human beings think they are somehow seperate and distinct from the planet...but that is a stupid fucking thing for a species which resulted from common evolution to think" is pretty damned on the ball.

    And if you can think that we can pave half the world and still maintain the atmospheric conditions which occurred prior to paving half the world...i'd be interested in your source.

    _J_ on
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    One has scientific evidence, the other doesn't. Like I said, take it to whatever conclusion you want, but to pretend they are the same is just intellectually stupid.

    Except we're ignoring the scientific evidence to get past the "is Global Warming caused by man" question and rather are looking at the larger consequences of action independent of what is, in fact, the case.

    And this is exactly what Pascal does.

    So if we're fully engaged with the argument as it is presented (ignore evidence and simply base decisions upon understood consequences of action) then would we not have to think Pascal's Wager a sensible argument?

    Because, again, we're talking about consequences of action rather than proof of what is the case.

    I've heard his second video is better, but haven't seen it yet. I posted the video back when this was in Help/Advice, I wouldn't have posted it in a D and D thread.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    GPIA7R wrote: »
    Because it's purely made about money. "Sure, go ahead and pollute... just give us more money." Why not fix something, rather than try and punish practices that have been going on for years? Maybe I worded it wrong.

    It's not like our "slowing down" of polluting will offset the new factories and industries that go up in China or anywhere else.

    The idea is that government fixes things much more slowly and expensively and less creatively than thousands of independant industries thinking about how to save money.

    Like the control of banks/cars/insurance/health/housing/unemployment/etc in a matter of 6 months? They haven't fixed anything, and already they're wanting another stimulus? This climate change seems like it could take a back-seat while all that other stuff gets fixed first, and it doesn't look like this is the kind of administration that's going to do that responsibly. Hell, the entire attitude of "lol these are Bush's problems" is over, and I get pretty pissed off every time he says that. No one has spent as much as he has... and now Cap/Trade is here to fix more? That's why I'm skeptical/doubting of it.

    The idea that our government, which is huge, complicated and employs tens of thousands of people, can somehow only address one problem at a time is one of the biggest things that needs to get the fuck out of our public consciousness.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    accept your death, and become dangerous
  • WestfordeWestforde Registered User regular
    edited July 2009

    Like the control of banks/cars/insurance/health/housing/unemployment/etc in a matter of 6 months? They haven't fixed anything, and already they're wanting another stimulus? This climate change seems like it could take a back-seat while all that other stuff gets fixed first, and it doesn't look like this is the kind of administration that's going to do that responsibly. Hell, the entire attitude of "lol these are Bush's problems" is over, and I get pretty pissed off every time he says that. No one has spent as much as he has... and now Cap/Trade is here to fix more? That's why I'm skeptical/doubting of it.

    So you are against cap and trade or Carbon-tax because of Obama?

    You do know that these not actions that are being considered or taken only by the U.S right.

    For instance my home country(Sweden) have been reducing its output of CO2 with a combination of laws and various taxes without noticeably hurting the economy

    Westforde on
  • EchoEcho Where da waaagh at? Moderator mod
    edited July 2009
    The Swedish Green Party is demanding that the EU reduces its emission footprint by 80% before 2020.

    ...yeah. Don't see that happening.

    Sure, we can improve efficiency, make stuff produce the same output with fewer resources. But 80%? This is a figure out of goddamn fairy land. We'd have to dismantle the industrialized society to even begin to approach that.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • WestfordeWestforde Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Echo wrote: »
    The Swedish Green Party is demanding that the EU reduces its emission footprint by 80% before 2020.

    ...yeah. Don't see that happening.

    Sure, we can improve efficiency, make stuff produce the same output with fewer resources. But 80%? This is a figure out of goddamn fairy land. We'd have to dismantle the industrialized society to even begin to approach that.

    Well 80% would require a economically crippling remodelling of society to achieve in roughly 10 years, but hey are not known for being realists . However it will be interesting to see how the current EU goals will handle and what effect they will have on the economy

    Westforde on
Sign In or Register to comment.