Draginol Draginol

Do you REALLY want to do something about CO2 emissions?

▼

Do you REALLY want to do something about CO2 emissions?

Or do you just want to feel good about yourself?

from JoeUser Forums

One of the things that I find maddening about the American left is its penchant for saying something is bad or that something should be done and then sitting back and doing nothing themselves about it.

Whether the case be health care (where they simply expect other people to pay for their "compassion") or more notoriously, global warming.

The United States produces (for now) the most CO2 on the planet.  Eventually China will catch up (who isn't govered by Kyoto incidentally - and people wonder why the US rejected it) and far surpass the US in CO2 emmissions because environmentalism is just a catch phrase there.

So do you believe CO2 from humans is primary causing global warming? And if so, do you think it is a life threatening thing?

Then morally, aren't you obligated to do something about it? Right now?

  1. Commuting to work more than 10 miles one way.  One third of our CO2 emissions come from driving.  It's not the gas mileage that's the problem. Nobody likes to talk about our dirty little secret: Americans drive too much.  If you're driving more than 20 miles a day, you're part of the problem. Quit it. Move closer to your job. Don't say you can't. You can. You just don't want to.   If CO2 generated global warming is really a global crisis, how can you sit back and do nothing?
  2. Get rid of your air conditioner. Electrical Power for homes represents nearly 40% of our CO2 emissions. Eliminate that second refrigerator. Get rid of the outdoor lights. Get rid of that dryer. Don't take baths, shower instead.  Don't say you can't. You can. If it's the difference between life and death, you certainly can. Quit watching TV. A typical TV uses far more power than a typical computer.  You may not want to but if global warming is the end of the world, it's the least you can do.
  3. No more long distance vacations. Whether you're driving (which is worse) or flying, there's no justification for driving or flying to a vacation destination. Not if lives are on the line.

If you truly believe that human produced CO2 is the root cause of global warming and that it will result in the deaths of millions, then how can you possibly not do the above 3 things?

politics
39,816 views 105 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think we could also call "carbon credits" indulgences. And if I remember my history correctly (I graduated from public school before they started revising history) - Martin Luther had an issue with the prelates in Germany selling these indulgences to get into heaven. He was correct in saying that it was allowing the wealthy to buy their way into heaven (which you can't do, regardless of what a piece of paper says) and part of his complaint to the Church was that they stop this practice as it was demoralizing to those who could not afford the indulgences and cruel to those who were buying them because they were worthless.

So here we have Mr. Gore buying indulgences (and I would love to see someone follow the money to see how much of it goes back into his pocket) to get to "heaven" - meaning a world free of guilt in using as much energy and leaving as large a CO2 footprint on the world as he wishes. Why - because he could afford the "get out of jail free" card.

Maybe someone should nail 99 complaints the front door of all "eco-friendly do-gooders". And start the list with carbon offsets.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think we could also call "carbon credits" indulgences. And if I remember my history correctly (I graduated from public school before they started revising history) - Martin Luther had an issue with the prelates in Germany selling these indulgences to get into heaven. He was correct in saying that it was allowing the wealthy to buy their way into heaven (which you can't do, regardless of what a piece of paper says) and part of his complaint to the Church was that they stop this practice as it was demoralizing to those who could not afford the indulgences and cruel to those who were buying them because they were worthless.

So here we have Mr. Gore buying indulgences (and I would love to see someone follow the money to see how much of it goes back into his pocket) to get to "heaven" - meaning a world free of guilt in using as much energy and leaving as large a CO2 footprint on the world as he wishes. Why - because he could afford the "get out of jail free" card.

Maybe someone should nail 99 complaints the front door of all "eco-friendly do-gooders". And start the list with carbon offsets.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is, I'm sorry to say, the most idiotic explanation (excuse) I have ever read. I can not believe someone actually excuses creating more pollution. Maybe we should come up with a murder credit too, then we can shift the murder resposability to the sellers.


s it wrong to pollute the environment, or not? If it is wrong, it makes no difference whether someone has purchased a billion carbon credits, or none; the damage has been done. What you are suggesting is that the wealthy and the privileged have a right to live as wasteful gluttons while the poor need to live like crap because we can't afford the carbon credits. Ironic, considering your position as "championing the poor".


Actually, I would have no problem allowing someone who pollutes 1000 more than anyone else buying a hundred time his pollution productivity in carbon credit.

Since carbon credit are limited in availability, their price are going to rise is someone is buying them a lot (market rule #1). If their price are going to rise, companies that would usually buy carbon credit to compensate for their over-production of carbon emmission would find it more profitable to simple overhaul their engine and become more pollution-free.

Or, on the other hand, companies that have the technology to de-pollute would develop more, since they CREATE carbon-credit by de-polluting. What's the economical advantage of a company, right now, in the U.S. for DE-polluting? Almost nada (outside whatever fund the governement want to subvention them) (and outside whatever carbon credit they could sell to European country).

So, if carbon credit are getting more expensive, more companies will be create to de-pollute, since it's more profitable for them. Technology will improve out of experience, and on the whole, the person who polluted at first but bought a lot of Carbon Credit contributed a lot more than Joe Bloe who simply bought a new car.

Ironic, considering your position as "championing the poor".


It's because you don't understand the basis of my positions. I usually go on the side that I think will help the society the most. I think that a good social-net (for healthcare, etc...) (which you call "championing the poor") is better on the society than a simple economic free-for-all that America is in actually (whatever social program you may have, it's peanut compared with European countries and Canada, so it completely qualifies as "free for all")

On this side, I really think that the best way for the Earth to be saved is if there a buck to make to save it. I just hate the tree-hugger's side that peoples and companies should make sacrifices to stop polluting. It's inneficient. Simple cap the Carbon Emmission in every country would provide a business and market-friendly way to MAKE A BUCK saving the planet. You can attract WAY more people on your side if there is something to earn, rather than doing a "noble sacrifice".
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since carbon credit are limited in availability, their price are going to rise is someone is buying them a lot (market rule #1). If their price are going to rise, companies that would usually buy carbon credit to compensate for their over-production of carbon emmission would find it more profitable to simple overhaul their engine and become more pollution-free.


Yes, and rural Americans will be impoverished because they won't be able to afford carbon credits, nor will they be able to afford hybrid cars. But that doesn't matter, I guess.

It's because you don't understand the basis of my positions.


OK, at least you're honest. We can give the poor health care, but leave them stranded 15 miles from the nearest town because they can't afford carbon credits. Sounds like a workable solution to me.

(whatever social program you may have, it's peanut compared with European countries and Canada, so it completely qualifies as "free for all")


You know NOTHING of the programs we have other than what you have heard from the media, cikomyr, and you are in NO POSITION to make a judgment on the efficacy of those programs. I'm tired of foreign armchair bureaucrats decrying our system when they know absolutely nothing about how it operates.
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, and rural Americans will be impoverished because they won't be able to afford carbon credits, nor will they be able to afford hybrid cars. But that doesn't matter, I guess.


well.. since Carbon emmission cap would mostly affect car manufacturers & transport companies, it would only affect the consumer's choice when they want to buy a new car.

For example, if there WAS a carbon cap, the gov could give a carbon emmission cap to the new car put in production. If a company finds it more suiting for itself to simply buy carbon credits rather than change it's standard, fin with me. The pollution emmited by their production will be balanced by the contribution they make. On the other hand, if a company find it more appealing to change it's standard, and make more carbon-free card, more fuel-efficient, they could, on the other hand, SELL carbon credit for every car sold, and make a supplemental buck out of it.

Because the system doesn't actually give any benefit to companies (except publicity & good reputation) who actually do something good about their product or governance, I don't see why they should change their ways.

You know NOTHING of the programs we have other than what you have heard from the media, cikomyr, and you are in NO POSITION to make a judgment on the efficacy of those programs. I'm tired of foreign armchair bureaucrats decrying our system when they know absolutely nothing about how it operates.


I am no bureaucrat, nor even Union-member. In my country, I am considered a conservative (about economical matters). Study Actuariat Mathematics.
I despise Unions in Quebec, for they have big mouths and create way more injustice than they create (but I do think unions are sometime necessary). I find our healthcare system inneficient, for it does not allow private funding from someone who wants to be treated quicker (but I am not against universal system. Just allow people who wants more and/or quicker to pay for it). I think my governement's bureaucracy is way too big, that my people have no ambition.

However, since we *are* quite liberals in our politics, I would find it healthy to be a little more conservative. On the other hand, I know that America is by far one of the most conservative (economicly) country in the world, and I think it would be healthy for it to be a little more liberal. It is not the opinion of a union leader, nor a liberal who simply studied politics in our education-almost-free system. I try to know a lot, and for what I've seen in diverse papers, the U.S.A. could use a little more equality.
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cikomyr


well.. since Carbon emmission cap would mostly affect car manufacturers & transport companies, it would only affect the consumer's choice when they want to buy a new car.


Umm, you know I can not afford a new car right? I drive a 94 Ford Explorer, not the most gas economical vehicle, but it's mine. I paid $2500 for it and that was with my tax return. I can not afford a new car right now, what makes you think I could afford any car that would be eco-friendly?

Nissan Altima Hybrid $30,700

Toyota Camry Hybrid $30,500

Toyota Prius $25,666

Honda Civic Hybrid $21,641

Mercury Mariner Hybrid $27,055

I can not afford to get any of these cars at the moment. Will I have to pay the price because I can not afford to save my planet?
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Umm, you know I can not afford a new car right? I drive a 94 Ford Explorer, not the most gas economical vehicle, but it's mine. I paid $2500 for it and that was with my tax return. I can not afford a new car right now, what makes you think I could afford any car that would be eco-friendly?


as I said, it would not affect the consumers until they will want to buy a new (really NEW) car. The only affected party - when it comes to car - would be the car manufacturers/sellers, and they would have to pay a carbon tax proportionnal to the excess pollution emmited by their car, while company who makes more fuel-efficient car will have higher income because of it.

You, as a simple citizen, would not have to pay anything in surplus because of such cap. Same thing about your personnal energy use, you would not be charged for your habits. On the other hand, if you want to buy new equipment (electro-menager in french.. damn, I don't know the word in english. You know, microwave, fridge, water-heater, etc...), there would be an inneficience-tax on energy, while efficient products would raise more profit.
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
You, as a simple citizen, would not have to pay anything in surplus because of such cap. Same thing about your personnal energy use, you would not be charged for your habits. On the other hand, if you want to buy new equipment (electro-menager in french.. damn, I don't know the word in english. You know, microwave, fridge, water-heater, etc...), there would be an inneficience-tax on energy, while efficient products would raise more profit.


Interesting concept, actually, cikomyr. While I don't agree as to the cause of global warming, you and I can definitely agree that green living is in all of our best interests.

I think this may be oversimplifying things a bit, but this is an idea I would definitely welcome to the debate, because it doesn't rely on nanny state, big government regulation, but rather on making greener choices more commercially viable.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think my governement's bureaucracy is way too big, that my people have no ambition.


And this is part of the problem in implementing your country's system.

The truth is, cikomyr, we DON'T have masses dying in the street because of poor health care. Our system is imperfect, yes, and there's a lot of corruption in it the way it stands, but the truth is, the vast majority of Americans enjoy decent health care. One of the biggest problems we have in providing for the poor is the HUGE numbers of illegal immigrants we have in this country (about HALF of the number of uninsured "Americans" you see bandied about so frequently, are illegal aliens, NOT Americans). Anything we do to help the poor winds up enabling the illegals and encouraging further illegal immigration. It is not unlike masses of seagulls that will descend on you in the park when they discover you're tossing out free bread.

I'm currently at work studying my position on addressing the health care issues (read: NOT crisis!) in America and developing a personal platform position (which I intend to take with me to the LP national convention). I believe there are workable solutions that don't rely so heavily on the nanny state.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's a luxury you have of being single, noumenon. Try living in a small house or apartment if you have children, and I assure you, the children will be removed.


That's what's nice about being single. I can live my values by turning my air conditioning off in the summer without imposing them on anybody else.

Anyway, sure I could do more. That was my point -- when I was a Christian, even if I tithed and had daily devotions and didn't swear, I still wasn't doing mission work or feeding the homeless. It didn't mean I didn't "truly believe" in God. You act on your beliefs not just because you believe them, but because of how much utility you get out of following them. I feel good about myself when I bike to work, but I hate washing dishes. So I eat off styrofoam plates, even though I believe they're wasteful. The line from belief to action passes through a laziness threshold. That speaks to my character, not to the intensity of my beliefs.

I can always compare myself to the other single guys working at my job. They'll have an eight-room house for a single person, or a trailer with two bedrooms. Trailers are really nice these days, by the way. Better furnished than the house I grew up in, and not that expensive. I could afford it, but I'd rather use less energy.
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top

as I said, it would not affect the consumers until they will want to buy a new (really NEW) car. The only affected party - when it comes to car - would be the car manufacturers/sellers, and they would have to pay a carbon tax proportionnal to the excess pollution emmited by their car, while company who makes more fuel-efficient car will have higher income because of it.


Yes, but the downside is those of us who stay behind not being able to afford an ecco-friendly car will be seen as the ones damaging the planet and I would think that would not be fair.

Look at it this way, I pay a high electrical bill as it is; I can't afford to set up a solar powered home, but if the electrical company decideds to try alternative fuels for electricity, who do you think is gonna pay the conversion bill?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for doing the right thing, eating healthy, driving ecco-friendly cars, getting rid of oil all together and stuff, but lets be realistic here. This would cost an arm and a leg and those of us still at the bottom of the food chain will be the ones most affected.
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can not afford to get any of these cars at the moment. Will I have to pay the price because I can not afford to save my planet?


Perhaps you could afford a Honda Fit, though, better gas mileage than the hybrids (as I recall, better check this), and under 15,000 new.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
Perhaps you could afford a Honda Fit, though, better gas mileage than the hybrids (as I recall, better check this), and under 15,000 new.


Again, in my current financial condition I can barely maintain the vehicle I have. Any trip to the mechanic means a hole in my budget. I can not afford, with my credit score, the payments I would get on any car, or the insurance or the deposit for that matter. I'm sorry but people who sell these cars are more interested in making money than saving the planet and this makes it hard for people like me to make a difference when money is what really can save this planet.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

On the other hand, I know that America is by far one of the most conservative (economicly) country in the world, and I think it would be healthy for it to be a little more liberal.

That's like saying it would be healthy for it to be a little poorer.

Quebec, sorry to say, had the per capita GDP of a third world country. It's impoverished relative to the United States. No thanks.

Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top

as I said, it would not affect the consumers until they will want to buy a new (really NEW) car. The only affected party - when it comes to car - would be the car manufacturers/sellers, and they would have to pay a carbon tax proportionnal to the excess pollution emmited by their car, while company who makes more fuel-efficient car will have higher income because of it.

Wow. What a profound lack of understanding of markets and economics.

Companies pass on their costs by raising prices.  All cars would cost more.

A pretty significant luxury tax for something that has little scientific evidence to support it.

Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top

I can live my values by turning my air conditioning off in the summer without imposing them on anybody else.

This is why I like you.  You have your beliefs and you live by them.

Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, but the downside is those of us who stay behind not being able to afford an ecco-friendly car will be seen as the ones damaging the planet and I would think that would not be fair.


I.. god.. damn.. AS I SAID, IF you buy an non-ecco-friendly car, the carbon tax imposed on the manufacturer would balance out for the ecological bad side produced by your car. So you would not have to feel in any way guilty about it, since it's bit would have been paid.

On the other hand, it would become less "selfless" to drive a eco-friendly car, since there is more profit in making them. So people who drive eco-friendly car would stop being smug about them.

I'm sorry but people who sell these cars are more interested in making money than saving the planet and this makes it hard for people like me to make a difference when money is what really can save this planet.


Than again, if there is money to make saving the planet, they would start saving it!

All cars would cost more.


No. Only eco-unfriendly ones, while the eco-friendly would cost less

That's like saying it would be healthy for it to be a little poorer.


Liberal does not equal poorer

Quebec, sorry to say, had the per capita GDP of a third world country. It's impoverished relative to the United States. No thanks.


Since we have been handicaped by anglophone economic domination until the 60s, and lost many business in 1976, I say we are slowing improving since. Liberal-oriented politics have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, the mentality of some of my people may have.
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top

Liberal does not equal poorer

Most certainly does.  The more left-wing the society, the poorer the people are.

That is because the left-wing deplores income inequality.  The only way to solve that is to bring the top earners down. It's a lot easier to get people to not work as much than it is to get the dregs of society to produce.

Quebec GDP per capita is $29k. USA GDP per capita is $44k.  That's a massive difference.

Rest of Canada is $35k which is still pretty awful.  I mean, as others have pointed out, the US has a huge illegal immigration problem which dramatically lowers our GDP per capita.  Canada does not.

What is Canada's excuse for having such a poor GDP per capita compared to the United States?

Here's other left-leaning countries per capita GDP:

  • France $31k
  • Germany $32k
  • Sweden $32k
  • Denmark $37k
  • Finland $33k

And consider how poor the exchange rate has been between the US dollar and native currencies.  This should make the gap a lot less.

The fact of the matter is that European countries and Canada are become second-tier economies and the grap is growing worse.

 

Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
how many of these countries would be able to stand up if we cut off our aid.
Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top
I personally love income disparity. It gives me something to work for. If everyone got the same income, you would not get a raise every year, unless everyone else got the same raise. The new hire with no experience would get the same pay as you. Is that fair? Sure is.
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
I personally love income disparity. It gives me something to work for. If everyone got the same income, you would not get a raise every year, unless everyone else got the same raise. The new hire with no experience would get the same pay as you. Is that fair? Sure is.


Good thesis statement for perhaps a longer article.
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh no, I've been called out.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top

Probably not luck -- he bought the ranch as a campaign prop before his first run for Texas governor

Please post where we can read on this.  This sounds like more liberal bs.

Maybe all these people bought their houses in an era when people didn't look at politicians' houses, or when it was a big grand house instead of a green house that got you respect?

So, people's persception on your house is what should dictate what you buy?  If they had the money to buy a grand house, why wouldn't htey have the money to install eco friendly additions?  Are solar panels or on-demand water heaters not available to install after the fact?

 

Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe all these people bought their houses in an era when people didn't look at politicians' houses, or when it was a big grand house instead of a green house that got you respect?


So, people's persception on your house is what should dictate what you buy?  If they had the money to buy a grand house, why wouldn't htey have the money to install eco friendly additions?  Are solar panels or on-demand water heaters not available to install after the fact?


 



Something for the apologists to consider is the house that Warren Buffet lives in (the 2nd richest man in the world). And how that compares to these brown mansions that the priests of global warming are wallowing in.