What kinda suggestion is that then? Do you think we should do nothing at all?
Of course I don't think we should "do nothing at all". I think, if we value the health of our environment, we should simply support that which helps the environment and reject that which does not.
I guess, around here, it would appear that someone supports "doing nothing" when they refuse to call for a lynching. But I have no interest in lynching nor do I think any amount of lynching is going to address the problem.
If you don't like excess carbon emissions, stop creating them. How hard is that?
We all have a moral high ground when it comes to the environment... to say otherwise is incomprehensible (putting it nicely)
Ok. If "we all have a moral high ground", what crime has been committed? If climate change is "bad", and if climate change is "man-made", then some bad man or men must not have a moral high ground, right?
I'm not upset. I simply take issue with the implication of statements like this:
"this conversation is about whether we leave it up to business to solve it"
That implies that you have some kind of high ground (be it moral or otherwise) from which you may rule "business" or anything else for that matter. Furthermore, it implies rather foolishly that business could or would ever deal with these issues without our influence: businesses cannot exist without our influence and they are at the mercy of such influence.
Climate change is not a singular problem. Climate change is a diverse set of circumstances both positive and negative that affect individuals, nations, and regions differently. It is not a world-wide issue to be managed. You nor I have any right to dictate to this world how it should run itself in order to prevent our sea waters from rising or our storms from stengthening. Rather, we have an obligation to deal with our own individual circumstances and our contributions to our own problems.
The solutions to man-made contributions to climate change largely already exist in technologies for transportation, power generation, and agriculture. And the vast majority of those solutions were provided by the great minds of human industry. The ball is not in their court. The ball is in ours.
i don't see how that statement shows any moral high ground whatsoever ... we are a collective ... you, me and everyone else ... we're in this sordid thing together ... at the end of the day - "we" elect gov't representatives to make decisions for the good of everyone - if they do not set standards by which "business" should operate - then there is no hope ...
the same ingeniuty that created our existing solutions also spawned much of our problems ... yes, you guys are right in saying it is up to consumers to make changes - it is simply an idealistic notion that people will make decision based on the interests of everyone ... all it takes is a small % who choose only in their own self-interests to ruin it for everyone else ...
take energy for exampel ... we subsidize the costs of conventional energy sources all for the sake of business - yet, similar subsidies do not exist for alternative energy sources ...
i don't see how that statement shows any moral high ground whatsoever ... we are a collective ... you, me and everyone else ... we're in this sordid thing together ... at the end of the day - "we" elect gov't representatives to make decisions for the good of everyone - if they do not set standards by which "business" should operate - then there is no hope ...
See, that's the thing. We aren't a collective. You may want us to be, and that's fine, but we aren't. Our minds are not as one. Our fates are not linked. We all have our self-interests and that's a good thing. In the context of environmental growth and sustainability, we're not a collective for very good reasons.
the same ingeniuty that created our existing solutions also spawned much of our problems ...
Certainly! Not suggesting that much of this problem is not industry-made.
yes, you guys are right in saying it is up to consumers to make changes - it is simply an idealistic notion that people will make decision based on the interests of everyone ... all it takes is a small % who choose only in their own self-interests to ruin it for everyone else ...
Certainly a small % who choose only in their own self-interests can ruin it for everyone, but the reverse is also true, and to a greater extent. It took millions upon millions of people to produce enough CO2 to arguably modify the climate. But it only took a few people to invent a car without any CO2 emissions.
take energy for exampel ... we subsidize the costs of conventional energy sources all for the sake of business - yet, similar subsidies do not exist for alternative energy sources ...
Sure. Yet another reason why subsidization is wrong. But do you know why those subsidies are happening? Because of the "collective" mindset adopted by politicians who decided that it was in someone's "collective" interests to maintain jobs or business interests in a community.
Of course I don't think we should "do nothing at all". I think, if we value the health of our environment, we should simply support that which helps the environment and reject that which does not.
I guess, around here, it would appear that someone supports "doing nothing" when they refuse to call for a lynching. But I have no interest in lynching nor do I think any amount of lynching is going to address the problem.
If you don't like excess carbon emissions, stop creating them. How hard is that?
well that's a lovely idea but should we not try and stop others from creating them too... we all breathe the same air after all.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
The answer to the former lies is the latter: we all breathe the same air.
If I wanted a riddle, I'd buy a puzzle book.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
The answer to the former lies is the latter: we all breathe the same air.
but i thought we aren't a collective? ... in the context of the environment - i clearly think the exact opposite ... we must be a collective or else there is no chance of success ... of course, i mean it in a very symbolic way ...
really it could only be a few people but if those few people happen to be the ones who have most influence in the world - then that collective could be as small as needed ...
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
FORCING people to do almost anything is very difficult and can be counter-productive. Just like prohibition, the drug war, abortions (or if they were made illegal), etc.....
So, for an issue liek the environment, while I would certainly support some 'forcing'...it would be far more beneficial to convince people to care...then it would take care of itself.
That is the good part of the study...it shows that the $ impact could be greater if we do nothing. Now, using that simply to scare th episs out of people and impose governmental demands is not the most effective use of that information though. Think about it, we have companies right now that knowlingly violate environmental laws...so, you have to find a way to make them WANT to stop polluting, etc as much. Positive rewards are always more effective then negative punishments.
How do you do that? You have to educate the public and make them WANT it. It has to be pushed bottom up. Takes more time that way, but the effects are far more lasting. Part of that process can include demands on companies...but really only so that they are providing all the necessary information for the public to go out and actually start CHOOSING the products that are more enviro friendly.
but i thought we aren't a collective? ... in the context of the environment - i clearly think the exact opposite ... we must be a collective or else there is no chance of success ... of course, i mean it in a very symbolic way ...
We breathe the same air as chipmunks too. Does that mean we're "collective" with chipmunks????
Look, let's go worst-case here. Climate change goes undeterred for another century....does everyone die??? No. Many die. Many continue on. We're not some collective organisim, and that's precisely why some people can act in such a way to harm you and/or help you.
really it could only be a few people but if those few people happen to be the ones who have most influence in the world - then that collective could be as small as needed ...
By "influence" do you mean guns? Or do you mean actual influence wherein people look to those few for guidance?
You have two choices: you may either influence people in such a way where they realize it is in their self interest to live sustainable lives or you may simply force them to do so. The former is known as growth, the latter is known as war. Which would you prefer?
FORCING people to do almost anything is very difficult and can be counter-productive. Just like prohibition, the drug war, abortions (or if they were made illegal), etc.....
So, for an issue liek the environment, while I would certainly support some 'forcing'...it would be far more beneficial to convince people to care...then it would take care of itself.
That is the good part of the study...it shows that the $ impact could be greater if we do nothing. Now, using that simply to scare th episs out of people and impose governmental demands is not the most effective use of that information though. Think about it, we have companies right now that knowlingly violate environmental laws...so, you have to find a way to make them WANT to stop polluting, etc as much. Positive rewards are always more effective then negative punishments.
How do you do that? You have to educate the public and make them WANT it. It has to be pushed bottom up. Takes more time that way, but the effects are far more lasting. Part of that process can include demands on companies...but really only so that they are providing all the necessary information for the public to go out and actually start CHOOSING the products that are more enviro friendly.
Right, we can argue til the fuckin cows come home but I think most of us are in agreement that something MAY be happening... FFG, instead of arguing everything and saying why it WON'T work, what do YOU suggest that we (as a collective or as individuals) should do?
- Tax poluting companies more (see last point) so they come up with cleaner and better production
- Drive less in cars and bike more or take public transportation
- If you must drive, drive a car with low fuel consumption
- Recycle
- Look around your house and see what can save energy (isolation, light, other washer, etc)
- Choose politicians who have a better world and climate on their agenda
- Hand out free condoms in India and China
FORCING people to do almost anything is very difficult and can be counter-productive. Just like prohibition, the drug war, abortions (or if they were made illegal), etc.....
I see no connection at all between what u list above and green taxing. It doenst get illegal to drive a SUV, just financially unattractive.
- Tax poluting companies more (see last point) so they come up with cleaner and better production
Hmm....
- Drive less in cars and bike more or take public transportation
- If you must drive, drive a car with low fuel consumption
- Recycle
- Look around your house and see what can save energy (isolation, light, other washer, etc)
- Choose politicians who have a better world and climate on their agenda
- Hand out free condoms in India and China
Let me ask you -- why is the first one forced but the latter ones optional?
I see no connection at all between what u list above and green taxing. It doenst get illegal to drive a SUV, just financially unattractive.
If I hold a gun to your head, I'm not necessarily going to shoot you. I'm just trying to make not giving me your wallet more "financially unattractive".
That is the good part of the study...it shows that the $ impact could be greater if we do nothing. Now, using that simply to scare th episs out of people and impose governmental demands is not the most effective use of that information though. Think about it, we have companies right now that knowlingly violate environmental laws...so, you have to find a way to make them WANT to stop polluting, etc as much. Positive rewards are always more effective then negative punishments.
but i thought this report was "fear mongering"??
anyhoo - i don't disagree with this nor do i think i've ever disagreed with that notion ... however, imagine the world if gov't did not ban the use of certain toxic elements? ... or regulated lead out of gasoline? ...
this is the collective i speak of ... (although i do believe we are a collective with chipmunks) ... gov't legislation working in conjunction with business and the public to achieve common goals ... no one sector can do it alone ...
"All it takes is a small % who choose only in their own self-interests to ruin it for everyone else"
Yes, in many cases, i.e. the US being only 5% of the worlds population and yet emitting 66% of its pollution. I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
If I hold a gun to your head, I'm not necessarily going to shoot you. I'm just trying to make not giving me your wallet more "financially unattractive".
Raising taxes is hardly on a par to threatening to kill somebody :rolleyes:
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
How it's being used...including by you is...not the report itself. Well, to be honest I'd have to read how th ereport is written exactly, maybe it is itself fear-mongering. But usually information isn't fera-mongering...it's all in how you use it...or abuse it.
Let me ask you -- why is the first one forced but the latter ones optional?
Because companies care mainly about 1 thing: making profit. Waste isn't something you can read on the package. And the Q answered was what can we do, so that explains it.
If I hold a gun to your head, I'm not necessarily going to shoot you. I'm just trying to make not giving me your wallet more "financially unattractive".
A tax doesn not provide an environmental benefit. It's about getting at the root cause. A tax is arbitrary.
Well if the gas comapnies and car producers would line up to stop the problem I see no problem but as long as they don't other meassures should be taken. Taxing poluters is a way of making evident to the poluter the way is financially unattractive, hopefullt resulting in e.g. buying a cleaner car, resulting in companies doing more research etc in creating them. It's not about the tax, but more about the result and awareness. Yet the extra cash could help gov'ments sponsor carbon filters, build windparks etc.
Fear mongering? It's the result of research projected on trhe economy. It's not like Cheney telling you another terrorist attack will happen if you don't vote for his bitch.
Fear mongering? It's the result of research projected on trhe economy. It's not like Cheney telling you another terrorist attack will happen if you don't vote for his bitch.
It's exactly the same. The world will die if you don't vote for my environmentalist bitch.
Yes, in many cases, i.e. the US being only 5% of the worlds population and yet emitting 66% of its pollution. I still don't understand what point you're trying to make.
So what. China has a small portion of land mass and significant portion of the population. That's a meaningless stat.
Right now Canada has oil exploration going on contributing quite a bit to Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. But that oil is being bought for consumption in Europe (and other countries). So shouldn't those greenhouse gas emissions be counted towards the country that uses the product and not the producing country?
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
So what. China has a small portion of land mass and significant portion of the population. That's a meaningless stat.
Right Canada has oil exploration going on contributing quite a bit to Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. But that oil is being bought for consumption in Europe (and other countries). So shouldn't those greenhouse gas emissions be counted towards the country that uses the product and not the producing country?
Fear mongering? It's the result of research projected on trhe economy. It's not like Cheney telling you another terrorist attack will happen if you don't vote for his bitch.
It's fear-mongering because it starts with the premise "could cause", and then only goes onto explore possible negative impacts. It doesn't touch on "could cause" positive impacts. It is an entirely biased report. meant to produce fear in hopes of driving one particular desired action.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Why tax corporations for dirtying the air...let's just tax everyone that uses up the good clean air...then they will demand more clean air to be available to lower the cost, so they willthen support more enviro friendly products and companies...
There ya go, problem solved, tax clean air and water. If you can't afford it...oh well.
Comments
Of course I don't think we should "do nothing at all". I think, if we value the health of our environment, we should simply support that which helps the environment and reject that which does not.
I guess, around here, it would appear that someone supports "doing nothing" when they refuse to call for a lynching. But I have no interest in lynching nor do I think any amount of lynching is going to address the problem.
If you don't like excess carbon emissions, stop creating them. How hard is that?
Ok. If "we all have a moral high ground", what crime has been committed? If climate change is "bad", and if climate change is "man-made", then some bad man or men must not have a moral high ground, right?
i don't see how that statement shows any moral high ground whatsoever ... we are a collective ... you, me and everyone else ... we're in this sordid thing together ... at the end of the day - "we" elect gov't representatives to make decisions for the good of everyone - if they do not set standards by which "business" should operate - then there is no hope ...
the same ingeniuty that created our existing solutions also spawned much of our problems ... yes, you guys are right in saying it is up to consumers to make changes - it is simply an idealistic notion that people will make decision based on the interests of everyone ... all it takes is a small % who choose only in their own self-interests to ruin it for everyone else ...
take energy for exampel ... we subsidize the costs of conventional energy sources all for the sake of business - yet, similar subsidies do not exist for alternative energy sources ...
See, that's the thing. We aren't a collective. You may want us to be, and that's fine, but we aren't. Our minds are not as one. Our fates are not linked. We all have our self-interests and that's a good thing. In the context of environmental growth and sustainability, we're not a collective for very good reasons.
Certainly! Not suggesting that much of this problem is not industry-made.
Certainly a small % who choose only in their own self-interests can ruin it for everyone, but the reverse is also true, and to a greater extent. It took millions upon millions of people to produce enough CO2 to arguably modify the climate. But it only took a few people to invent a car without any CO2 emissions.
Sure. Yet another reason why subsidization is wrong. But do you know why those subsidies are happening? Because of the "collective" mindset adopted by politicians who decided that it was in someone's "collective" interests to maintain jobs or business interests in a community.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
The answer to the former lies is the latter: we all breathe the same air.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
but i thought we aren't a collective? ... in the context of the environment - i clearly think the exact opposite ... we must be a collective or else there is no chance of success ... of course, i mean it in a very symbolic way ...
really it could only be a few people but if those few people happen to be the ones who have most influence in the world - then that collective could be as small as needed ...
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
FORCING people to do almost anything is very difficult and can be counter-productive. Just like prohibition, the drug war, abortions (or if they were made illegal), etc.....
So, for an issue liek the environment, while I would certainly support some 'forcing'...it would be far more beneficial to convince people to care...then it would take care of itself.
That is the good part of the study...it shows that the $ impact could be greater if we do nothing. Now, using that simply to scare th episs out of people and impose governmental demands is not the most effective use of that information though. Think about it, we have companies right now that knowlingly violate environmental laws...so, you have to find a way to make them WANT to stop polluting, etc as much. Positive rewards are always more effective then negative punishments.
How do you do that? You have to educate the public and make them WANT it. It has to be pushed bottom up. Takes more time that way, but the effects are far more lasting. Part of that process can include demands on companies...but really only so that they are providing all the necessary information for the public to go out and actually start CHOOSING the products that are more enviro friendly.
.....
Would you agree with this statement:
"All it takes is a small % who choose only in their own self-interests to ruin it for everyone else"
We breathe the same air as chipmunks too. Does that mean we're "collective" with chipmunks????
Look, let's go worst-case here. Climate change goes undeterred for another century....does everyone die??? No. Many die. Many continue on. We're not some collective organisim, and that's precisely why some people can act in such a way to harm you and/or help you.
By "influence" do you mean guns? Or do you mean actual influence wherein people look to those few for guidance?
You have two choices: you may either influence people in such a way where they realize it is in their self interest to live sustainable lives or you may simply force them to do so. The former is known as growth, the latter is known as war. Which would you prefer?
Gracias.
- Drive less in cars and bike more or take public transportation
- If you must drive, drive a car with low fuel consumption
- Recycle
- Look around your house and see what can save energy (isolation, light, other washer, etc)
- Choose politicians who have a better world and climate on their agenda
- Hand out free condoms in India and China
Hmm....
Let me ask you -- why is the first one forced but the latter ones optional?
If I hold a gun to your head, I'm not necessarily going to shoot you. I'm just trying to make not giving me your wallet more "financially unattractive".
A tax doesn not provide an environmental benefit. It's about getting ot the root cause. A tax is arbitrary.
but i thought this report was "fear mongering"??
anyhoo - i don't disagree with this nor do i think i've ever disagreed with that notion ... however, imagine the world if gov't did not ban the use of certain toxic elements? ... or regulated lead out of gasoline? ...
this is the collective i speak of ... (although i do believe we are a collective with chipmunks) ... gov't legislation working in conjunction with business and the public to achieve common goals ... no one sector can do it alone ...
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
How it's being used...including by you is...not the report itself. Well, to be honest I'd have to read how th ereport is written exactly, maybe it is itself fear-mongering. But usually information isn't fera-mongering...it's all in how you use it...or abuse it.
You sure that's how they'd spend that $.
It's exactly the same. The world will die if you don't vote for my environmentalist bitch.
Right now Canada has oil exploration going on contributing quite a bit to Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. But that oil is being bought for consumption in Europe (and other countries). So shouldn't those greenhouse gas emissions be counted towards the country that uses the product and not the producing country?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Interesting point...
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
There ya go, problem solved, tax clean air and water. If you can't afford it...oh well.