There is no Planet B

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Mahayana

our children and their children, etc. will pay the price for our sins.

I curse you with extra long life (and arthritis) so you can be around to explain yourselves to our grandchildren.

Notice if you will the continued religious nature of the MMGWC

Sins and guilt.
buy an indulgence from the Church that makes it OK to emit CO2.
Confession of sin and believing in MMGW and buying of off sets/credits gets you salvation and your guilt is cleansed. Guilt for driving an SUV, having central air and heat, living the western lifestyle of ecosin and Gia oppression. You don't have to change YOUR life...all you have to do is confess that you believe.

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is no government revenue and no corporate profit.

There is just such a system in place in British Columbia.

and you wonder why your southern neighbors call you commies :P

[Juho]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Bingo...
And that is their goal in using the term Denier. Label anyone who disagrees with the MMGW Cult as akin to Denying the Holocost and you shut them up. But remember that thread about the Cult of Likability? Conforming to groupthink is powerfull, except I dont play that game.

If "Denier" and "MMGW Cult" are considered offending, what non-offending terms do you recommend us to use when referring to these two groups?

I have often used terms "Denialist" and "Alarmist", knowing that they both can be read as exaggerating a bit. I'd be happy to use some more neutral terms if you have good proposals. If not, then I guess we must use the best names we have. So far I have not considered these two names not to be too offending since it is obvious that alarming of a risk and denying the need to alarm are so obvious short characterizations of those two groups.

[ryon]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The money collected via this fee would be distributed to the public as a monthly “dividend” or “green check.” Distributing all of the revenue equitably to households will ensure that families can afford the energy they need during the transition to a clean energy future, . .

A clean energy future and FREE MONEY!!! Are they being sarcastic, or am I?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

and you wonder why your southern neighbors call you commies :P

Actually I do not wonder. I am familiar with the level of political awareness among some Americans.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by ryon

A clean energy future and FREE MONEY!!! Are they being sarcastic, or am I?

The tax paid by producers would be passed on to consumers. Theere is no free money. A carbon tax would serve as a market based incentive for clean energy.

++++++++++++++++++++

Advocates of capitalism understand that it cannot account for waste by-products - please note I did not say pollutant.

A home construction company cannot simply dump the excess biodegradable lumber into a ditch.

The fossil fuel industry seems to get a free ride because its waste is odorless and invisible.
___________________________
Garret Hardin, a strong advocate of private property, in his landmark essay The Tragedy of the Commons (1968)

In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream--whose property extends to the middle of the stream, often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.

+++++++++++++++++++++
Milton Friedman, the grand daddy of capitalism, in 1979

Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?

Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other.The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

[heron237]

what's your point?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by heron237

what's your point?

Point is the Government needs more power...must grow...must increase taxes. It's the only way to save the earth.

[heron237]

The idea that there are no replacements for conventional fuels is just plain wrong, and is a trope promoted by the oil industry. Wind, Solar, geothermal, conservation, tidal, etc. etc. Exxon Mobil internal documents have demonstrated the concerted effort by the the oil industrty to subvert, question, undermine the OVERWHELMING evidence that carbon from the burning of ancient stored carbons will eventually render the planet unlivable. This is on par with the tobacco industries decades-long campaign against the medical evidence that smoking greatly increased your risk for various diseased of the cardio-vascular system-- and various cancers.

The temperature rise we have seen of over one degree in a century is simply unprecedented in the geologic time-line. Of course at fifty I can say IBG YBG but if you've got any kids or no humanity in you say f--k it. The balance that has given us all of your civilization is extremely delicate, and any rise, will have devastating results.
THE DEBATE IS OVER IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

[heron237]

Anyone notice the timeline of that graph? ridiculous

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by heron237

The idea that there are no replacements for conventional fuels is just plain wrong, and is a trope promoted by the oil industry. Wind, Solar, geothermal, conservation, tidal, etc. etc. Exxon Mobil internal documents have demonstrated the concerted effort by the the oil industrty to subvert, question, undermine the OVERWHELMING evidence that carbon from the burning of ancient stored carbons will eventually render the planet unlivable. This is on par with the tobacco industries decades-long campaign against the medical evidence that smoking greatly increased your risk for various diseased of the cardio-vascular system-- and various cancers.

The temperature rise we have seen of over one degree in a century is simply unprecedented in the geologic time-line. Of course at fifty I can say IBG YBG but if you've got any kids or no humanity in you say f--k it. The balance that has given us all of your civilization is extremely delicate, and any rise, will have devastating results.
THE DEBATE IS OVER IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

First debate is never over in true science or we would still think the disproven big bang theory or smoking was good for you was true.

Second it is simply not true that A) the warning is unprecedented and B) that it is even warming in the last 18yrs with out faked data.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

First debate is never over in true science or we would still think the disproven big bang theory or smoking was good for you was true.

Scientific truth is determined as consensus of the scientific community (based on continuous discussion using the scientific method). We have a quite clear consensus on the health risks of smoking. I guess you know also what the opinion of the scientific community in on climate change.

[ZULU40]

despite how people may feel about one side of the argument or the other, what we will get out of it is a higher dependence on renewable energy, its pretty clear that once the investment stage is through, energy itself will be cheaper and purer.

Many of you will remember what it was like in the 70s before smog controls on cars, it seemed like yellow dirty skies and the associated effects on the air we breathe that were quite bad for us were to be permanent. Now with laws and investments cars are cleaner, with substantial benefits in air quality in cities.

Now we have smog problems due to emissions from power stations, factories and industry, where for instance we can clean them up by putting scrubbers on chimneys. Industry isnt interested in spending the money to do this so governments are devising plans to persuade or force them to do it. Its true that some of these schemes are poorly devised and clumsy, but the intent is for good and even bad schemes will work to some degree.

Whether you accept climate change or not, there will be tangible benefits in air quality that will benefit us all, that much you can believe in.

So do I believe in climate change? well it seems to me the weather is changing and not in a good way. Do I know the cause? no I dont but I have seen and witnessed improvements in air quality in my lifetime, so Im ok with making changes in industry and doing my bit to move to renewables for power on that basis.

Must confess Im also somewhat persuaded by the ever rising costs of electricity and fuel too, and a well sized solar panel system will cut my bills forever into the future. In a way a kind of an extension of choosing to have a big powerboat, or a simple sailboat.

[senormechanico]

Just think of all the evil CO2 being produced by all the electricity being wasted from all the computers being used on this useless thread !


------
From the Bill Bonner Newsletter:

PARIS – The big news over the weekend was that the Paris meeting of climate foxes produced an agreement...

They will spend $16.5 trillion of other people’s money to raise more chickens.

“Forget ‘Big Oil,’” proclaimed a Bloomberg headline, “Get Ready for ‘Big Solar.’”

We don’t have any knowledge or prejudice on the subject. But it sounds like the fix is in.

Like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and the War on Terror, we predict that the War on Carbon Emissions will prove successful – but only for the warriors. "

[newhaul]

OK now I am a nonconformist and personally dont care what will happen in a hundred years but here is some satire to think about
MERLE HAGGARD LYRICS - Rainbow Stew