does anybody else know the truth about global warming

PB Forum :: Social / Political Issues
does anybody else know the truth about global warming
Author Message
flag harriieee
Posted: Aug 29, 2010 at 16:16 Quote
marty660 wrote:
No.

Being environmental would actually cost governments billions of dollars (especially in the short term).

Thank you Marty.

By the way I think I dreamt past night that you died and everyone was sad. Weird, I know.
flag ajsngklsagkjsdag
Posted: Aug 29, 2010 at 16:52 Quote
Every major energy conversion has created huge amounts of money.
flag AMBikerJJ8
Posted: Aug 29, 2010 at 18:50 Quote
Look, bottom line: it doesn't matter if it will make them or lose them money.


THEY ARE MAKING MONEY NOW OFF OF OIL. They don't want to risk losing that profit until it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (i.e. when there's no more oil left).
flag marty660
Posted: Aug 29, 2010 at 19:34 Quote
AMBikerJJ8 wrote:
Look, bottom line: it doesn't matter if it will make them or lose them money.


THEY ARE MAKING MONEY NOW OFF OF OIL. They don't want to risk losing that profit until it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY (i.e. when there's no more oil left).

Yeah pretty much.

ps Hariee that sucks because I'm going driving like 2000km in a few days...
flag AMBikerJJ8
Posted: Aug 30, 2010 at 17:08 Quote
harriieee wrote:
O hai there Bjorn Lumborg

L O L. The US spends 10x (literally, 'defense' budget for 2010 is projected at over $1,000,000,000,000,000. That's a trillion for those who don't know.) that much each year on killing brown people ALONE.
flag gibson19
Posted: Aug 30, 2010 at 17:20 Quote
Interesting shit. I was with him. Most bang for our buck was to fight other issues. He's the one doing the research though and if he's saying its more cost effective to work on global warming than so be it. I'll be honest, didn't read the whole article but I don't think he thinks its all human caused though. My main issue with "fixing" climate change is many of the proposed solutions could end up making things worse. Its such a wide scope problem that they could easily be fueling a fire by trying to fix it. Obviously the best way to do it is to reduce emissions and stuff like that. HOWEVER, taxes suck ass. All we need is a little social manipulation. Make it a game to reduce emissions, it is incredible what a little achievement badge or status bar can do to change peoples behavior.

One obvious one that still pisses me off is malaria. SOOOO easy and cheap to fix.

Goodness that was scatter brained
flag AMBikerJJ8
Posted: Aug 31, 2010 at 18:50 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
Interesting shit. I was with him. Most bang for our buck was to fight other issues. He's the one doing the research though and if he's saying its more cost effective to work on global warming than so be it. I'll be honest, didn't read the whole article but I don't think he thinks its all human caused though. My main issue with "fixing" climate change is many of the proposed solutions could end up making things worse. Its such a wide scope problem that they could easily be fueling a fire by trying to fix it. Obviously the best way to do it is to reduce emissions and stuff like that. HOWEVER, taxes suck ass. All we need is a little social manipulation. Make it a game to reduce emissions, it is incredible what a little achievement badge or status bar can do to change peoples behavior.

One obvious one that still pisses me off is malaria. SOOOO easy and cheap to fix.

Goodness that was scatter brained

I agree, it will be hard to clean up our shit, so the FIRST STEP should be to STOP SHITTING EVERYWHERE. I mean ZERO emissions goal by, maybe, 2050. Not impossible, or even challenging in terms of work, etc (just on some bureaucratic pockets). THEN we can focus on cleaning stuff up and what that will take. (I mean, you don't take a shower after every drop of sweat, you wait until you're done working).

I agree in a way about the taxes, but without them you know, there wouldn't be money for ANYTHING. What I agree with is less taxes...on the poor and middle classes. Make the goddam rich people pay the same PERCENTAGE of their income as poor people, not like practically the same AMOUNT of money. YOU DON'T NEED THAT 7TH SPEEDBOAT!!!!
flag gibson19
Posted: Aug 31, 2010 at 18:55 Quote
I don't agree with you on taxes. I personally believe charitable giving should be the standard over taxes. Unfortunately I haven't yet thought of or heard a way to get those who are fairly greedy to give more

Zero emissions is too much if you ask me. Number one rule in economics is that there are always trade offs. If we spend all our time and resources trying to reach a zero emissions goal than we will be seriously lacking in other areas. Think of it like a video game. You earn money and can buy stats but if you spend all your cash upgrading your players strength you'll have none left for his endurance and whatever else

I do see promising strides within academia though. There are many resource management courses being introduced and hell I'm even looking in an environmental/resource management economics masters
flag marty660
Posted: Aug 31, 2010 at 19:59 Quote
all they need to do is tax the upper 1% by 1% extra and that will pay it off pretty much.

See to get extra money all they ever do is like raise cigarette taxes, which is just an excuse to tax the poor in my books. Or they make an issue of something stupid like ATV safety and introduce ATV licencing etc...



...or the US government can put some of those trillions spent on researching next-gen jet fighters that don't do anything special because we're already a generation ahead towards investing in hydrogen fuel better batteries what ever floats your boat.
flag AMBikerJJ8
Posted: Aug 31, 2010 at 22:02 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
I don't agree with you on taxes. I personally believe charitable giving should be the standard over taxes. Unfortunately I haven't yet thought of or heard a way to get those who are fairly greedy to give more

Zero emissions is too much if you ask me. Number one rule in economics is that there are always trade offs. If we spend all our time and resources trying to reach a zero emissions goal than we will be seriously lacking in other areas. Think of it like a video game. You earn money and can buy stats but if you spend all your cash upgrading your players strength you'll have none left for his endurance and whatever else

I do see promising strides within academia though. There are many resource management courses being introduced and hell I'm even looking in an environmental/resource management economics masters


The way to get those who are 'fairly' greedy to give more is through taxes. Duh. MAKE them pay instead of asking them. So you ask your kids to stop doing something instead of making them stop (under threat of penalty obviously)?

Pessimism already. We spend TRILLIONS of dollars each year on superfluous things (wars, propping up big businesses who should be let fall to their deaths, etc.), and even more on importing foreign oil (naturally, making our 'defense' budget even bigger). The USA is a really large country, and superrich in terms of 'green' energy (hydroelectric, wind, solar), so we COULD be EXPORTING our energy, but no...

"Resource Management" is just a fancy way of saying "leave the resources to the rich and the corporations while f*cking the middle and lower classes". Otherwise they'd call it socialism. Anything that makes money off of giving people basic living needs is incredibly immoral (water, electricity, housing, basic food needs, etc.). These are the things that should be nationalized just so that we're not 'accidentally' killing our fellow countrymen by starvation, etc. because they can't find a job.
flag thecolonnadekid
Posted: Aug 31, 2010 at 23:15 Quote
Yes.
[Quoten]We've arrived from every corner of the planet to this nation to seek the fulfillment of a promise of America. We were promised a better life in our home countries, where we were told that privatizing, war and electricity would make things run more efficiently. Instead, the quality remained almost the same and the price was increased until it became an unaffordable luxury.
Some corporations are more efficient than government, but their motivation is not to help the well-being of the people; it's only about profit. Everything else - their image, their human resources, their public relations - only exist to protect the reality behind them.
Once upon a time, we were told that nationalization would prevent growth by limiting competition, that our countries were nothing without the companies that invested in us, and so they privatized everything. Everything in our country was owned by people that had no connection to our culture, by those who never had our interest at heart. They didn't care about our survival or our well-being, they just wanted to turn a profit by raping the land, by exploiting our people, our industry, and our resources.[/Quoten]
-Immortal Technique
heres the song
flag gibson19
Posted: Sep 1, 2010 at 6:51 Quote
AMBikerJJ8 wrote:


The way to get those who are 'fairly' greedy to give more is through taxes. Duh. MAKE them pay instead of asking them. So you ask your kids to stop doing something instead of making them stop (under threat of penalty obviously)?

Pessimism already. We spend TRILLIONS of dollars each year on superfluous things (wars, propping up big businesses who should be let fall to their deaths, etc.), and even more on importing foreign oil (naturally, making our 'defense' budget even bigger). The USA is a really large country, and superrich in terms of 'green' energy (hydroelectric, wind, solar), so we COULD be EXPORTING our energy, but no...

"Resource Management" is just a fancy way of saying "leave the resources to the rich and the corporations while f*cking the middle and lower classes". Otherwise they'd call it socialism. Anything that makes money off of giving people basic living needs is incredibly immoral (water, electricity, housing, basic food needs, etc.). These are the things that should be nationalized just so that we're not 'accidentally' killing our fellow countrymen by starvation, etc. because they can't find a job.

Ya of course you can make people pay with taxes but their are consequences to that. Ie rich people leaving our country in favor of a country with less taxes. Rich people typically create jobs as well. As a grown adult its not fun to have someone tell you what to do, I feel the same way with taxes.

I agree with the waste of spending, as I always have. The government is a terrible entity when it comes to delegating money. A corporation with profit in mind would do a much better job. You say profit is evil but profit makes people work hard and not waste their resources as much. You give a million dollars to the government and I bet more than half of it will not end up helping anyone. You give a million dollars to corporation and they'll find a way to make a profit by providing a good service or good that people need.

and your completely wrong about resource management. Heres one course they offer at my school
bigquotesECO 3620. Environmental and Resource Economics (3).F. The course explores the efficient allocation of environmental and natural resources and examines the continuing conflict between economic activity and environmental quality and the conservation of natural resources. The course applies economic theory to local, regional, national, and international environmental issues.

Doesn't sound like greedy fat cat business as usual


ps. God help us all if housing becomes nationalized. Nationalization just brings everyone to an equal play field which is great for those who are below average but terrible for those above average. Name one thing the government does well with the exception of killing other people. Then imagine them in control of what you eat, what you drive, what kind of house you live in etc...
flag thecolonnadekid
Posted: Sep 2, 2010 at 22:54 Quote
gibson19 wrote:
AMBikerJJ8 wrote:


The way to get those who are 'fairly' greedy to give more is through taxes. Duh. MAKE them pay instead of asking them. So you ask your kids to stop doing something instead of making them stop (under threat of penalty obviously)?

Pessimism already. We spend TRILLIONS of dollars each year on superfluous things (wars, propping up big businesses who should be let fall to their deaths, etc.), and even more on importing foreign oil (naturally, making our 'defense' budget even bigger). The USA is a really large country, and superrich in terms of 'green' energy (hydroelectric, wind, solar), so we COULD be EXPORTING our energy, but no...

"Resource Management" is just a fancy way of saying "leave the resources to the rich and the corporations while f*cking the middle and lower classes". Otherwise they'd call it socialism. Anything that makes money off of giving people basic living needs is incredibly immoral (water, electricity, housing, basic food needs, etc.). These are the things that should be nationalized just so that we're not 'accidentally' killing our fellow countrymen by starvation, etc. because they can't find a job.

Ya of course you can make people pay with taxes but their are consequences to that. Ie rich people leaving our country in favor of a country with less taxes. Rich people typically create jobs as well. As a grown adult its not fun to have someone tell you what to do, I feel the same way with taxes.

I agree with the waste of spending, as I always have. The government is a terrible entity when it comes to delegating money. A corporation with profit in mind would do a much better job. You say profit is evil but profit makes people work hard and not waste their resources as much. You give a million dollars to the government and I bet more than half of it will not end up helping anyone. You give a million dollars to corporation and they'll find a way to make a profit by providing a good service or good that people need.

and your completely wrong about resource management. Heres one course they offer at my school
bigquotesECO 3620. Environmental and Resource Economics (3).F. The course explores the efficient allocation of environmental and natural resources and examines the continuing conflict between economic activity and environmental quality and the conservation of natural resources. The course applies economic theory to local, regional, national, and international environmental issues.

Doesn't sound like greedy fat cat business as usual


ps. God help us all if housing becomes nationalized. Nationalization just brings everyone to an equal play field which is great for those who are below average but terrible for those above average. Name one thing the government does well with the exception of killing other people. Then imagine them in control of what you eat, what you drive, what kind of house you live in etc...
First off, I don't need help from an imaginary friend. Secondly, How much do you make a year? Do you realize that people that make less than average need help while people that make more than average don't? You need to stop thinking of this as "we" and "them." There is no Them, There is only us. There are people that have nothing to rely on and no way to make ends meet and we need to help them. You are so busy sticking up for the "hard working" that you fail to realize that there are people that need help. And the rich aren't the hardest working, the hardest working don't make anything. The rich need to be taxed more because they have more.
flag gibson19
Posted: Sep 3, 2010 at 8:02 Quote
I'm not sure what you mean by an imaginary friend

Anyways. I make a couple thousand dollars a year working part time as I am a full time student. I am fortunate to have parents and grandparents that have invested in my college education so I can go without any loans. HOWEVER, one issue I am very passionate about is that EVERYONE should have post secondary school paid for if they want it. Have the government cut spending somewhere else like say defense and instead send people to school who can't afford it. That is money well spent

I'm not saying screw the homeless needy. Ask any liberal, libertarian or republic and they aren't gonna say those people don't need help. I think the system by which we give people help is very very flawed. I'm sure I've belabored this example several times but at a grocery store I've checked out people buying a hundred dollars worth of crab. I don't think that is a luxury you should have when your aren't paying for yourself. Again my point is that the government does a terrible job or resource allocation. I mean dead people can vote in federal elections. Do you want the same people who allow that to happen to be handing out your money? Ultimately its not the fact that they give out money to people who need it (and sometimes to people who don't). Its that combined with so much frivolous spending. My taxes could remain exactly the same and we could help so many more people if the government stopped its wasteful spending and didn't bail out the banks and GM and blah blah the list goes on. Hell I'd even be ok if taxes went up if I knew it was actually helping. The sad part is I've seen studies that are showing that welfare and other government programs are raising generations dependent on the government.


Another misconception you seem to have is that rich people just make money and no one else benefits. Look at microsoft or any large business. They have a stupid wealthy CEO or owner but they hire thousands and thousands of people. Without them those jobs wouldn't exist. We need rich people in our country or else we'd have no jobs so my point is lets not piss them off so they leave. I'd much rather see social "manipulation" techniques pursued before we go and hike up taxes. Or how bout this revolutionary thought, cut back wasteful spending. Then the government wouldn't have to tax so much

Sidenote... I hate how business are always portrayed to be all greedy. Well have you seen our government?


ps. Just looked it up. Microsoft employs 89,000 people.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.023932
Mobile Version of Website