Further rebuting paranoid propagandistic 'climate change' rhetoric:

#76
#76
PJ and KB. You sound level headed on the issue. Q- What is the "conservatives" answer to the issue? (Meaning our elected officials)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#77
#77
I am a free market with sensible and efficient oversight type guy. I don't really think I can speak for the conservatives or republicans on this issue though as I'm simply not sure where they stand on their principles anymore (another issue for another day).

I guess if you're asking me what I think then I would start by saying from the beginning that I'm torn about the issue, on the fence more or less. I believe we are having an impact for sure, just not sure we are responsible for as much of the warming, both realized and projected as many seem to believe.

I'm not a huge fan of cap and trade for reasons I've stated before but as far as solutions go I would like to see some green initiatives that were economically sound (cost competitive and effective), I would also like to see reasoned debate on all sides instead of the alarmist crap we've been exposed too for too long now. The outlandish rhetoric does a disservice to both sides of the debate. The green products must be reasonably priced and durable, these have been the two stumbling blocks the green movement has been up against. Get the cost and quality at the right levels and people will start to buy in.

Even if you don't believe in MMGW green products make sense because at the very least pollution is a real problem, making sure we are good stewards of the land is the right thing to do. JMO.
 
#79
#79
IPorange said:
Their official line right now is that there is no issue.
Click to expand...

For me that is not true. I am not sure the issue is as serious as those driving cap and trade are suggesting. There is most certainly an issue as far as pollution goes and we have an obligation to try and reduce as much negative effect on the environment as possible by using reasonable means. I realize reasonable is a relative term and if you tried to nail me down on it I would tell you that any means short of seriously crippling our economy.
 
#80
#80
Understandable. I think crippling our economy now would lead to pollution issues later, as there would be a backlash to the entire environmental movement. Also, poverty in developing/modern nations often equates to more pollution and even more carbon emissions. Not less.
 
#81
#81
Orangekush423 said:
PJ and KB. You sound level headed on the issue. Q- What is the "conservatives" answer to the issue? (Meaning our elected officials)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I truly have no idea. When it comes to the environment I'm pretty much a tree-hugger too (of course much of my hugging is done while climbing one with a rifle or bow looking for Bambi). I want clean air/water/etc for my kids but just not sure what I'm willing to pay to get it.
 
#82
#82
KB5252 said:
Even if you don't believe in MMGW green products make sense because at the very least pollution is a real problem, making sure we are good stewards of the land is the right thing to do. JMO.
Click to expand...

I always have been (came from my dad) and I worked with a good group out in AZ that tried to do that kind of work. Of course we weren't as big as the no deodorant wearing, no armpit shaving crowd and got pretty much shut out on our bigger projects. Of course they looked pretty bad when the fires in AZ a few years ago would have been much smaller without their interference. That's why much of the green movement turns me off so much
 
#83
#83
IPorange said:
Understandable. I think crippling our economy now would lead to pollution issues later, as there would be a backlash to the entire environmental movement. Also, poverty in developing/modern nations often equates to more pollution and even more carbon emissions. Not less.
Click to expand...

IP - your last sentence puzzles me a bit. Do you mean more carbon emissions per GDP, or actually more emissions per capita? I could easily see poor/developing nations having higher carbon emissions per GDP due to their inefficiencies. However, overall carbon emissions magnitude of developed nations tracks fairly well with GDP, except for the US which is high off the charts, no?
 
#84
#84
utvolpj said:
I always have been (came from my dad) and I worked with a good group out in AZ that tried to do that kind of work. Of course we weren't as big as the no deodorant wearing, no armpit shaving crowd and got pretty much shut out on our bigger projects. Of course they looked pretty bad when the fires in AZ a few years ago would have been much smaller without their interference. That's why much of the green movement turns me off so much
Click to expand...

Right, some have too much emotion and not enough facts. Prescribed burns are just returning the natural fire regime of the West in a that is compatible with modern human habitation. Most the West's ecosystem is built around fire, and regular fire is necessary for that ecosystem to maintain itself.
 
#85
#85
TennTradition said:
IP - your last sentence puzzles me a bit. Do you mean more carbon emissions per GDP, or actually more emissions per capita? I could easily see poor/developing nations having higher carbon emissions per GDP due to their inefficiencies. However, overall carbon emissions magnitude of developed nations tracks fairly well with GDP, except for the US which is high off the charts, no?
Click to expand...

GDP. But China is misleading, due to the socioeconomic disparity in that country.
 
#86
#86
utvolpj said:
I always have been (came from my dad) and I worked with a good group out in AZ that tried to do that kind of work. Of course we weren't as big as the no deodorant wearing, no armpit shaving crowd and got pretty much shut out on our bigger projects. Of course they looked pretty bad when the fires in AZ a few years ago would have been much smaller without their interference. That's why much of the green movement turns me off so much
Click to expand...

I agree, I wouldn't consider myself a tree hugger but I have always been taught to respect nature. I do not enjoy hunting but I have no problems with others who choose to do so because of the benefits hunters bring to the table in population control as well as information on game numbers, distribution and health.

I have no idea what the answer is much as you do but I do have a basic frame that constitutes the foundation on which a good policy as I see it should be constructed on. This is such a large issue with so many facets that I simply don't trust anyone who claims to have the answers and policy all figured out.

As far as this cap trade deal goes I'm afraid it boils down to another case of doing something instead of addressing the problems and doing what makes the most sense with the most effect while minimizing the negatives. I know it sounds kind of wishy washy but at this time it's the best I can do.
 
#88
#88
Orangekush423 said:
So are we all in agreement that CT is a BAD idea??
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'm in between bad idea and good idea :). It would probably fail, and thus is likely a bad idea. I'm not like some here that think the entire idea of credits for trading under some cap is a horrible concept in principle, but practice is often a tougher test.
 
#89
#89
Orangekush423 said:
So are we all in agreement that CT is a BAD idea??
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I just hate the rhetoric I hear against C and T, because most of the rhetoric is wrong. In other words, people are against it for the wrong reasons often. Just like the ones for it often haven't sat down and really thought about the long-term consequences, and competitive disadvantages of the CT.
 
#90
#90
TennTradition said:
I'm in between bad idea and good idea :). It would probably fail, and thus is likely a bad idea. I'm not like some here that think the entire idea of credits for trading under some cap is a horrible concept in principle, but practice is often a tougher test.
Click to expand...

Thats enough for me.
 
#91
#91
BeecherVol said:
Thats enough for me.
Click to expand...

The allocation of the carbon credits would end up being politically corrupted. Not only straight up corruption, but just playing to certain voting bases. As soon as every special interest gets their say, the credits flood the market and the carbon price is worthless.

In this way, a carbon tax might be more effective, but setting the 'right' price is difficult and the idea of an actual tax in even more politically distasteful.
 
#92
#92
TennTradition said:
The allocation of the carbon credits would end up being politically corrupted. Not only straight up corruption, but just playing to certain voting bases. As soon as every special interest gets their say, the credits flood the market and the carbon price is worthless.

In this way, a carbon tax might be more effective, but setting the 'right' price is difficult and the idea of an actual tax in even more politically distasteful.
Click to expand...

I haven't been convinced that it will actually decrease emissions, rather just move them around.
 
#93
#93
IPorange said:
I haven't been convinced that it will actually decrease emissions, rather just move them around.
Click to expand...

It certainly can if you set the right cap and don't give in to special interests / corrupt politicians when it comes to initial credits. However, because that is bound to happen, I tend to agree that you might not see a drop in emissions.

The sulfur emissions trading scheme was successful in reducing emissions IIRC, but there is bigger money in this.
 
#94
#94
TennTradition said:
The allocation of the carbon credits would end up being politically corrupted. Not only straight up corruption, but just playing to certain voting bases. As soon as every special interest gets their say, the credits flood the market and the carbon price is worthless.

In this way, a carbon tax might be more effective, but setting the 'right' price is difficult and the idea of an actual tax in even more politically distasteful.
Click to expand...

The lone "dog in the hunt" for the politicians is extra revenue to play with. The world catching on fire due to MMGW is of little concern to them.
 
#95
#95
BeecherVol said:
The lone "dog in the hunt" for the politicians is extra revenue to play with. The world catching on fire due to MMGW is of little concern to them.
Click to expand...

Ya, that's what I figure too. It is a mechanism of control and a new stream of revenue-- which is how they see everything else as well, so I don't hold that against GCC in general.
 
#96
#96
Be interesting to know how many of them even believe that man emissions is the problem.

If you believe that there is a problem to this extent.
 
#98
#98
There are many things that would be good if it were possible to eliminate corruption and grred from the equation. Unfortunately, that's why there is only 1 government that will ever work perfectly, a Theocracy. God as ruler. Then, and only then, will their be absolute power paralell to absolute choice.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#99
#99
^^@ the idea of politicians and "no corruption" being mentioned as an possible reality.(I know you were using the example to show this wouldn't happen, I was jus adding)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#100
#100
Thanks for highjacking the thread guys, you know OB2 started a thread focused on crap and tax.

Bottom line on that is that it is highway robbery of the American people and needless because the reasons stated for passing any such legislation doesn't exist except in the minds of the ignorant.

The US Report - The US Report - The climate change conference green barons could dowithout

•“Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2.

•Climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years.

•Strong correlation between solar changes, the PDO [Pacific Decadel Oscillation], glacier advance and retreat, and global climate allow us to project a consistent pattern into the future.

•Projected cooling for the next several decades is based on past PDO patterns for the past century and temperature patterns for the past 500 years. Three possible scenarios are shown: (1) global cooling similar to the global cooling of 1945 to 1977, (2) global cooling similar to the cool period from 1880 to 1915, and (3) global cooling similar to the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1820.

Expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.”
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top