- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 50,932
- Reaction score
- 83,474
It's so much more than mere tax dollars.
Global Warming
- Thread starter no fat chicks
- Start date
It's so much more than mere tax dollars.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 12,474
- Reaction score
- 2,272
I am not all the way convinced but won't argue about it. Mostly convinced, perhaps? Just wishy washy, really.
I trust basically nobody, so that hampers things. I don't have a first hand understanding of the science. Everyone argues about the numbers, which is frustrating. CO2 makes up less than 1 percent of the atmosphere, we have bumped it up like what, 0.1%? So I don't get it, and single factor cause/effect on a global scale seems unlikely, but whatever. Not like I'm gonna be able to do jack shit about it anyways.
I work from home though so fuck ya'll gas burning neocons! It's all your fault!
I trust basically nobody, so that hampers things. I don't have a first hand understanding of the science. Everyone argues about the numbers, which is frustrating. CO2 makes up less than 1 percent of the atmosphere, we have bumped it up like what, 0.1%? So I don't get it, and single factor cause/effect on a global scale seems unlikely, but whatever. Not like I'm gonna be able to do jack shit about it anyways.
I work from home though so fuck ya'll gas burning neocons! It's all your fault!
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2011
- Messages
- 7,600
- Reaction score
- 13
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 50,932
- Reaction score
- 83,474
Nope, it's a backhanded way to promote a different form of government.
Think about it. Enviromentalism is about controlling corportations and tell them what they can and can't do, usually in the name of saving the enviroment, but that's not the real motive. It's about bottlenecking the economic prosperity of the free market to grow and flourish.
As they say, green is the new red.
Enviromentalists only seem to have a problem with the polution in western countries, and prevent energy expansion via regulations through the EPA. When was the last time you heard them cry how China and middle eastern countries are polluting at a worse rate? Very few and far between because enviromentalism isn't really about the enviroment.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2014
- Messages
- 832
- Reaction score
- 0
I already covered it upthread.
The first iteration, Kyoto, put forth by the so called conservationists (Gore and his Wall Street Bankers) eager to save the world from Global Warming was nothing of the sort.
Had it been fully enacted (and it was close) it would have precipitated the biggest wealth transfer from the 1st world economies to the 3rd world with severe implications to jobs and companies in the 1st world.
And maybe that can be justified if you are "saving the planet" or "preventing a catastrophe that will cost far more in the future" as was the spin, but that is where the lie was exposed behind the plan.
Kyoto had nothing, ZERO, built in to it to actually ensure emissions were reduced and in fact it was almost certainly going to ensure emissions increased. Factories in 1st world nations were going to be forced to cut emissions significantly or pay a significant extra tax (buy credits) from 3rd world companies who as a group pollute more to produce the same output and that would inevitably lead to more and more companies in the 1st world just outsourcing even more production to the 3rd world where they did not have the restrictions.
So a factory in the US that produced X emissions to produce Y goods, due to the emissions tax (credits) would be transferring the same Y goods production to somewhere like China where they could put out many times more X in emissions to produce the same goods.
It was madness if in fact the emissions and not the wealth transfer were at the crux of the issue.
Had they been serious about Kyoto they would have built in a requirement that any business transfer to the 3rd world could only be done if their was a net reduction in emissions for the same output. So still give them the massive advantage that would see lots of business transferred their way but by forcing the 3rd world countries to focus on building cleaner plants to handle the boon in business.
But saving the planet and cutting emissions simply was not what was important to Gore, et al...wealth transfer was.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,223
- Reaction score
- 214
Really? Because I have seem more then a few articles talking about what China is doing, however its very hard for scientist to get a country like China to change their pollution levels, but luckily (at least as is reported) they do seem to be taking some steps to clean it up.
I think the term global warming is not correct, but I do think climate change is a good term. I am mostly convinced just not 100%. That said I dont see how forcing corporations to take responsibility for proven damages is a bad thing, and taking steps to limit or prevent future issues is ok.
If you really think Green is the new Red, then you must believe also that the government should do nothing for any type of corporate control and let people vote with their dollars. The main argument I have with that is, I dont think most people care about anything beyond whats right in front of them. However if you DO believe that, then I dont have an argument with your stance, just dont agree on a moral level.
EDIT: I do think the CURRENT political landscape and Science for Money is very much an issue, but on a purely scientific sense I do not see an issue with attempting to prevent damage.
