I agree we need many, many more nuclear power plants, but otherwise this is crap.
What happens if we cut carbon emissions by half?
Who is going to cut by half?
Not Central America, not India, not Africa and not China...I can guarantee you that...
So, with our new President, we will be forces to destroy our economy, lose jobs and lower the quality of life for everyone so a few countries can fight the cartoon villain "global warming."
Even if you believe man has caused it and can control it, you can not stop it unless all countries comply.
Friday, June 06, 2008
$45 trillion needed to combat warming
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
As many countries as possible should be involved in cutting emissions, but the fact is we're creating most of the carbon. Thus, we should be the ones to cut our emissions.
Agreed that all countries should participate. But, we are the biggest contributors for so many years. So, we have bigger responsibilities. You can't screw around for so many years and suddenly expect others to take up the equal blame.
That is flat out flawed logic...
Here is why:
First of all, you have to agree that global warming is caused by humans and not the natural change in climate that may or may not be happening right now.
I believe that a VAST majority of any climate change is natural or caused by the sun.
Anyway, I'll pretend I believe humans caused it.
It doesn't matter who committed the sin in the past...
Lets say we cut our pollution by 100 tons (I'm just making up a number for my point) but China INCREASES it by 10000 tons...how does that help?
Well, that is what is going on with Africa, India, China and Central and South America...
They are doing right now what we did in the early 1900's...
So you SHOULD be going after them...if you REALLY want to help climate change
"we're creating most of the carbon."
This is empirically false; right now China is the world's leading CO2 emitter. They overtook us in 2007.
Having us try to engineer the climate of 2108 is like people in 1908 trying to fight breast cancer for those in 2008. The science and tech that developed could not be planned nor predicted in advance.
The irony of all of this is that the free market will encourage innovation on its own. Slower economic growth will only delay the development of new technologies. Watermelon socialism (green on the outside, red on the inside) is not the answer.
The best plan is to have no plan. Good luck convincing journalists and politicians of that, including Comrade McCain.
the best plan is to have no plan? yeah, well that worked for bush in iraq, huh?
Well, China has almost four times more population than us. So is India. So, it's not a flawed logic. You can't conviniently ignore the facts.
Having said that, I believe all countries should participate in cutting down the pollution. At the end of the day, we all share the same planet. And, with all the outsourcing crap, what happens in those countries very much affect what we eat and use here!
wow,you guys show such great leadership, no wonder people are flocking to you.
Jason, your lazzie-faire capitolism is what got us into this and why we haven't solved the problem yet. It's old thinking and proven not efficent by what we DONT have and HAVENT solved. Companies will not go forward until their survival is at stake. That is too slow for me.
It is my understanding that we have cut emissions more than any of the countries that have signed the Kyoto agreement. We did it witout having to commit to anything that is unfairly slanted against us. What the lefty environmentalist blame-America people will do is simply burden us needlessly without any way to enforce their fantasy international covenants. There is no way to make China, for example, comply with any agreement onto which they might sign.
But more importantly, simply because the looney left has made such a big deal out of this unproven and likely BS man-made global warming, changes in products have already begun to take place to capture the market that includes the silly believers. Light bulbs are different. Hybrid cars are all the rage. Enterprising people and businesses always jump out to provide for the demands of the consumers. Government dictates only serve to muck up a perfectly good system and overburden everyone.
"hybrid cars are all the rage". yep. with my hybrid camry, at $4.50 a gallon i'm saving $1,161 per year over the sedan i was driving.
What's your point, anon?
you said, "to capture the market that includes the silly believers". i don't believe $1200 a year is silly.
oh, and the $45 trillion? wouldn't that cost be going to primarily private corporations that will employ hundreds of thousands of people to produce the goods, services, and solutions that will combat global warning? what would be more capitalistic and trickle-down than that?
So you and I are on the same page then. We DON'T need Kyoto style agreements. The market DOES respond to demands in an efficient manner. I'm cool with that, even if the silly believers gain as well. But in short, it's still silly to believe that our species, as insignificant as it is, can affect the freakin' global climate!
Ron--
Laissez-faire capitalism is why much of humanity now lives in comfort. There was no Garden of Eden-- misery, suffering, squalor, and despair have been the lot of mankind for centuries.
Secondly, if you think we'd be better off living in primal conditions instead of industrial conditions, the world would look like rural Bangladesh. Burning oil is much better than burning wood.
"That is too slow for me."
You can do what you please to save the planet -- I'm not stopping the Earth Worshipers from spending money on any fad of their choosing.
This doesn't change the empirical reality that raising taxes, along with attacking existing technology, will lower productivity and prolong existing conditions. A draconian solution will lock millions in the 3rd world into poverty.
I'd rather let gas prices rise and let the consumers dictate what gets produced. We didn't switch to coal because we ran out of wood, and we didn't switch to gas because we ran out of coal. We won't switch from oil to a new alternative because we ran out of it.
"it's still silly to believe that our species, as insignificant as it is, can affect the freakin' global climate!"
silly me and thousands of scientists and thousands of businesses and millions of the world's citizens.
btw, ever hear of nuclear winter?
Post a Comment