UK warns: Climate change could cause a worldwide recession

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

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.

Ok, so you agree that man-made effects of climate change are at least in part caused by people acting on their "self interests".

Now, would you agree with this statement:

"Any self-interested human being wants to continue living"

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

Raising taxes is hardly on a par to threatening to kill somebody :rolleyes:

I never said anything about killing someone. You need only consider this question -- what happens if someone doesn't pay your tax?

farfromglorified

Obi Once wrote:

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.

And the people who are "driving cars" and not "recycling" and not "saving energy" and not "using condoms" -- what do they care mainly about?

U'r a bit of an extreme aren't you?

No, because I would never hold a gun to someone's head and demand they comply with my terms. Apparently you would.

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.

Ok. The biggest polluter in the United States is the US Government. I propose a $1 trillion / year tax paid directly to American citizens.

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.

If it's "not about the tax", why not try "raising awareness" and getting "results" through a different method?

sonicreducer

ffg for president,...

we need an idealist running the show.

melodious

Obi Once wrote:

How about $50 for a bottle of clean water?

sorry, i came back on late notice; but where i live in california, there is the Crystal Geyser plant that pulls it's water out of St. Helena Creek or underground springs. As you drive down Hiway 29 towards Napa VAlley, any1 traveling down this mountain road in on an auto trip can pull over alongside the road and fill up water jugs for free. The water itself is filtered by nature within the ground. People from all around use the "watering" hole as a reason for Sunday drive through this picturesque and historical site...I simply wonder how long this little site will be available for weary travelors before it becomes a fee-based commodity....

sometimes it's really hard for others to understand the concept of lack of..

take care

farfromglorified

sonicreducer wrote:

we need an idealist running the show.

The only "show" I'm qualified to run is my own life. Thankfully, it's the only show I'm interested in running

melodious

farfromglorified wrote:

The only "show" I'm qualified to run is my own life. Thankfully, it's the only show I'm interested in running

it would be wise for all to understand that being human, doesn't mean to exist in the material world that society has created; more like being human is trying to attain a symbiotic relationship with the planet and species that live on it...this "show" is far more complex than any of us are capable to understand because we, as humans, have evolved beyond a basic understanding of existence.....great post you made; if we would only tend to our own gardens, we might have a better chance....


io, io, so off to work i go....

sonicreducer

farfromglorified wrote:

The only "show" I'm qualified to run is my own life. Thankfully, it's the only show I'm interested in running

well, i do appreciate your views when expressed.

polaris

surferdude wrote:

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?

who says they aren't being counted?? ... the emissions we are getting charged with is not in the oil product - it is in the extraction process ... it takes 3 times the amount of energy to extract oil from the oil sands then conventional means ...

as for the fear mongering ... your definition can basically be attributed to every article from the journal of medicine that talks about the impacts of x and y ...

Obi Once

farfromglorified wrote:

And the people who are "driving cars" and not "recycling" and not "saving energy" and not "using condoms" -- what do they care mainly about?

Ask 'm, how would I know?

No, because I would never hold a gun to someone's head and demand they comply with my terms. Apparently you would.

You my friend are a bit off, my gun is for sport shooting, my money comes solely from hard work.

Ok. The biggest polluter in the United States is the US Government. I propose a $1 trillion / year tax paid directly to American citizens.

I won't stop you, but I'd rather see the poluting stop.

If it's "not about the tax", why not try "raising awareness" and getting "results" through a different method?

Sure, if that works, I'm perfectly fine with not taxing, but too many people in the world don't see any need too change anything because: "Look how cold our winters are!"

farfromglorified wrote:

I never said anything about killing someone. You need only consider this question -- what happens if someone doesn't pay your tax?

If they don't pay the tax, they don't buy the car or fuel.

surferdude wrote:

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.

Sure, why don't u start doing research on the positive parts of climate change?

Obi Once

surferdude wrote:

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?

How do you know the oil mainly goes to Europe? My sources say it goes south.

Green house emissions are acounted to the country who produce the emission.

fyi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands
For every barrel of synthetic oil produced in Alberta, more than 80 kg of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. About 5-10% of the two to four barrels of water used for processing is considered as wastewater. The forecast growth in synthetic oil production in Alberta threatens Canada's international commitments. In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce, by 2012, its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% with respect to the reference year (1990). In 2002, Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 24% since 1990.

Heineken Helen

surferdude wrote:

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?

good point... but isn't Canada making money from exporting it?

farfromglorified

Obi Once wrote:

If they don't pay the tax, they don't buy the car or fuel.

Stop making it sound like choice -- it isn't choice. Tell me, what happens if I choose to "buy the car or fuel" and choose not to pay your tax?

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

I never said anything about killing someone. You need only consider this question -- what happens if someone doesn't pay your tax?

If somebody is holding a gun to my head... I am in fear of my life, the mere mention of a gun pointed at someones head is indicated as a threat of USING the gun, if it's a toy gun, well why mention it?

If a car is more expensive because of environmental taxes, I can either a. afford it or b. not afford it or c. consider why it's more expensive than the others and consider buying one of those instead... simple as that. The two situations are FAR from comparable. If I don't pay the tax I don't get the car.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Ok, so you agree that man-made effects of climate change are at least in part caused by people acting on their "self interests".

Now, would you agree with this statement:

"Any self-interested human being wants to continue living"

I think 'selfishness' is a more appropriate term than 'acting out of self interests'. Yes, the two may be the same but the former is probably a bit more suitable to the situation.

As for your statement, I would say: anyone who doesn't take their own life wants to keep living

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Stop making it sound like choice -- it isn't choice. Tell me, what happens if I choose to "buy the car or fuel" and choose not to pay your tax?

You can't. If you want a car, you pay for the work that has gone into making that car, right, and you also pay for any work which is needed as a result of YOU DRIVING THAT CAR... it's like paying road tax.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

I think 'selfishness' is a more appropriate term than 'acting out of self interests'. Yes, the two may be the same but the former is probably a bit more suitable to the situation.

They are the same. But you think the former is more applicable because selfish is a dirty word around here.

As for your statement, I would say: anyone who doesn't take their own life wants to keep living

Good. So if people act in their own interests and those interests dictate that they want to keep living, don't you think those self interests can be utilized to motivate people on climate change???

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

They are the same. But you think the former is more applicable because selfish is a dirty word around here.



Good. So if people act in their own interests and those interests dictate that they want to keep living, don't you think those self interests can be utilized to motivate people on climate change???

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You remind me of a school teacher who ties to prompt ME to give the answers to the questions I've asked... but really, I'm just asking a question.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

If somebody is holding a gun to my head... I am in fear of my life, the mere mention of a gun pointed at someones head is indicated as a threat of USING the gun, if it's a toy gun, well why mention it?

Because you automatically assume physical harm when a gun is pointed at you.

If a car is more expensive because of environmental taxes, I can either a. afford it or b. not afford it or c. consider why it's more expensive than the others and consider buying one of those instead... simple as that. The two situations are FAR from comparable. If I don't pay the tax I don't get the car.

See, that's the thing. The car isn't yours. You didn't make it. You didn't buy it.

If I wandered into the only car dealership in a small town and stood over each sales person and demanded that they raise their prices by 10% and give me that money from each sale, how long would it take until I was tossed out of there? Now, imagine I did the same but was armed to the teeth without any possible recourse provided to the dealership. I'd probably get my 10%, huh? And would you say that my actions were just because, well, no one had to buy or sell a car???

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You remind me of a school teacher who ties to prompt ME to give the answers to the questions I've asked... but really, I'm just asking a question.

Then why are there no question marks in your post? If you have a question, ask it.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Because you automatically assume physical harm when a gun is pointed at you.



See, that's the thing. The car isn't yours. You didn't make it. You didn't buy it.

If I wandered into the only car dealership in a small town and stood over each sales person and demanded that they raise their prices by 10% and give me that money from each sale, how long would it take until I was tossed out of there? Now, imagine I did the same but was armed to the teeth without any possible recourse provided to the dealership. I'd probably get my 10%, huh? And would you say that my actions were just because, well, no one had to buy or sell a car???

But nobody is holding a gun to anybodys head, but since we use the gun rhetoric :rolleyes: if you buy a gun and use it to kill somebody, you are responsible for your actions? Yes??? If you steal something from somebody, you are responsible for your actions? Yes??? If you break somebody's window, you are responsible for your actions? Yes??? If you harm the planet in which we all live, should you not also be responsible for your actions???

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

But nobody is holding a gun to anybodys head, but since we use the gun rhetoric :rolleyes:

I'll ask it again: what happens if I don't pay your tax?

if you buy a gun and use it to kill somebody, you are responsible for your actions? Yes??? If you steal something from somebody, you are responsible for your actions? Yes??? If you break somebody's window, you are responsible for your actions? Yes??? If you harm the planet in which we all live, should you not also be responsible for your actions???

Yes, yes, yes! Everyone is responsible for their actions. And if the best response you have to those who harm the planet is to rob them, or to harm them, or to kill them, you have no moral high ground. Get it now?

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

I'll ask it again: what happens if I don't pay your tax??

You don't get the car I've answered that one before.

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes, yes, yes! Everyone is responsible for their actions. And if the best response you have to those who harm the planet is to rob them, or to harm them, or to kill them, you have no moral high ground. Get it now?

Nope!

I'm not robbing or harming or killing anyone and haven't suggested that... but rather THEY are! The tax would be an advance payment for the damage they cause by buying the car, if they don't want to pay the extra money, they don't get the car, but they can buy another one... it's really not that difficult.

Obi Once

ffg you present it like there is no choice, there is a choice: buy a low consuming car. Nobody is forcing you to buy the 5.0

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

You don't get the car I've answered that one before.

No, you don't understand. What if I do buy the car and don't pay your tax?

farfromglorified

Obi Once wrote:

ffg you present it like there is no choice, there is a choice: buy a low consuming car. Nobody is forcing you to buy the 5.0

Again, this is the logic of the mafia. If I hold you up at the ATM, you still have lots of "choices". However, you cannot erase the fact that I'm threatening you with force if you make the "wrong" choice.

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

No, you don't understand. What if I do buy the car and don't pay your tax?

You don't get the car! You already pay a tax on cars when you buy them, right? Have you ever tried telling them you want the car without paying the tax???

Heineken Helen

farfromglorified wrote:

Again, this is the logic of the mafia. If I hold you up at the ATM, you still have lots of "choices". However, you cannot erase the fact that I'm threatening you with force if you make the "wrong" choice.

Seriously... putting tax on a car is NOT akin to holding somebody up at an ATM... where the ultimate 'choice' is death . You pay the tax/don't pay the tax... whatever choice you make, you don't die.

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

You don't get the car! You already pay a tax on cars when you buy them, right? Have you ever tried telling them you want the car without paying the tax???

Ah...and why don't I get the car HH??? Why would they not sell it to me???

farfromglorified

Heineken Helen wrote:

Seriously... putting tax on a car is NOT akin to holding somebody up at an ATM... where the ultimate 'choice' is death . You pay the tax/don't pay the tax... whatever choice you make, you don't die.

Well that's nice of you not to kill me off. But, again, just because I hold you up at the ATM doesn't mean I'm going to kill you either.