UK warns: Climate change could cause a worldwide recession

farfromglorified wrote:

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:

Obi Once wrote:

Yet the extra cash could help gov'ments sponsor carbon filters, build windparks etc.

You sure that's how they'd spend that $.

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.

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?

Obi Once wrote:

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.

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"

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?

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 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....

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 ...