Yeah agreed, why do they think taxing us and making everyone poorer, reducing our quality of life further would be a good fix for something thats actually questionably real or our fault, how that will really help us i don't know, how about governments and business stop wasting trillions through greedy practices and poor management etc and they collectedly work together to provide the world with abundance producing technologies (if they don't already have some hidden away already!?), clean cheap energy, reusable long lasting stuff, nano fabrication (eventually!), upgraded infrastructure and better ways of living so we get a new better standard of living and quality of life for ever human on earth which would result in lower population eventually, why not bring our civilisation up to a proper fair level for all, it can be done, it needs to be done and the world can be motivated if this goal was set out, we need to make the world a cleaner better place for all its inhabitants, not just us!
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
- Thread starter Housey
- Start date
Yeah agreed, why do they think taxing us and making everyone poorer, reducing our quality of life further would be a good fix for something thats actually questionably real or our fault, how that will really help us i don't know, how about governments and business stop wasting trillions through greedy practices and poor management etc and they collectedly work together to provide the world with abundance producing technologies (if they don't already have some hidden away already!?), clean cheap energy, reusable long lasting stuff, nano fabrication (eventually!), upgraded infrastructure and better ways of living so we get a new better standard of living and quality of life for ever human on earth which would result in lower population eventually, why not bring our civilisation up to a proper fair level for all, it can be done, it needs to be done and the world can be motivated if this goal was set out, we need to make the world a cleaner better place for all its inhabitants, not just us!
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
There is an inherent contradiction between your admission that you are selfish and your claimed concern for your world.
Your selfish reluctance to rein in your consumption and contamination of the environment is damaging the world about which you claim to be so concerned just as is the case with any other capitalist-fascist.
And do please give over with this incessant bleating about taxes, it has absolutely nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with your short-sighted selfishness and greed.
I think its quite possible for us to start leading a far more efficient life, if for instance abundance creating technologies are too hard or slow to come then i would opt for a change of lifestyle, one which would be slower paced but still taking care of all needs, we could start making products that are long lasting and reusable, augmented reality could take care of loads of things that we currently have physical devices for, no more tv's needed if you have a pair of glasses or contacts which display stuff in your full vision, all youd need is one central computer per home, office etc, less travel to work if your job can be done from home, the possibilities are great, we could have energy efficient homes with only the basics that can't be virtual, far less product packaging and waste that goes into design as that can all be virtual, basic transport that is electric and so simple it rarely breaks down, everyone should provide at least half the food and water they consume, this could go on and on but you get the idea!
One important question in all of this is what we are actually trying to do with our lives? It's been shown over and over again that the conspicuous material consumption prevalent in the west doesn't make us happy. What's the point of life if not to be happy?
America is one of the richest nations on an average, per capita basis... but certainly don't have the happiest, healthiest population. Not by a long shot.
There is little point in trying to protect, let along continue down the current trajectory. It just isn't working.
America is one of the richest nations on an average, per capita basis... but certainly don't have the happiest, healthiest population. Not by a long shot.
There is little point in trying to protect, let along continue down the current trajectory. It just isn't working.
- Joined
- 3 May 2004
- Posts
- 17,742
- Location
- Kapitalist Republik of Surrey
Global CO2 levels fluctuate and follow an almost identical curve to the variation in temperature. Currently the CO2 levels are artificially about 90ppm higher than they should be, which is also higher than any historical CO2 level in a temperate period. There is a slight lag as the world is a big place and takes a long time to heat up which it is doing now. To put it into perspective the global mean temperature in an ice age is 2-3 degrees lower than it is now, so no, 0.5C is not an insignificant amount.
Yes there are natural CO2 contributions which balance themselves out with increases plant growth but the human contribution pushes the amounts over what the globe can naturally absorb itself and humans are depleting the rainforests. The increased acidity due to the raised CO2 acidifies the sea which in turn kills the phytoplankton which is the other largest absorber of CO2. It's a bit of a runaway effect.
The fact is that in this country the car is a significant contributor, some 20% overall, so it too has to play its part. You just see it most because you have to fill it up each week. Tax on petrol hasn't changed much for a long time, what you're seeing is the increase in price of a resource that's becoming harder and harder to find and pull out the ground.
What do you think your 'green taxes' go on? I work on 'green technologies' for want of a better phrase, funded by green taxes. It's just that most people militantly fight against any actual action happening, so implementation becomes nigh on impossible
Ok you've got a few good points there. Technology isn't the whole answer though. For a start we're overpopulated which won't change over night. Ethics, well it's not a very fair place this world and unfortunately it's the greed of the west that has resulted in where we are now.
Mostly social protection, much like all of our taxes.
Which I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't for the fact that the vast majority of green tax increases (such as fuel duty, VED, passenger flight duty etc) just go in to the general tax pot and massively outweigh any green initiatives that are funded. Not to mention they are happy to tax things that there is little real alternative to.
It's just that most people militantly fight against any actual action happening, so implementation becomes nigh on impossible
Like Greenpeace and their activism against Nuclear power for example?
- Joined
- 3 May 2004
- Posts
- 17,742
- Location
- Kapitalist Republik of Surrey
Greenpeace are fundamentalists and are more tied up in the area of pollution control, ethics and wildlife rather than looking at the bigger picture.
As it goes I'd quite like to find out what revenue is generated from 'green taxes' and how much is spent on sustainable development. Anyone able to get this information from a creditable source? By that I mean not from some random internet site or a newspaper.
As it goes I'd quite like to find out what revenue is generated from 'green taxes' and how much is spent on sustainable development. Anyone able to get this information from a creditable source? By that I mean not from some random internet site or a newspaper.
What do you think your 'green taxes' go on? I work on 'green technologies' for want of a better phrase, funded by green taxes. It's just that most people militantly fight against any actual action happening, so implementation becomes nigh on impossible
So why do we not have hydrogen fuel cell powered cars out and ready?
They are there, just something is holding it back.
Because they're not cost-effective yet? They've come on leaps and bounds in recent years but they're still not good enough to completely shift contemporary carbon-based economy.
'cos their energy economics is hopeless... Teki187, seriously if your understanding is that climate change is a con and hydrogen fuel cell powered cars are good your overall grasp of how the world works is pretty weak.
Well please enlighten me as to why hydrogen fuel cells don't work? Because I've seen cars and buildings powered by them, surely that is enough?
And regards to climate change, i never said it wasn't happening, i just don't agree that we are the overall contributing factor.
Then clearly you're living in dream-world if you don't think that this is the way the world is run.
Take a look around this very subject - people are more concerned with their immediate taxes than what will become of their grandchildren.
They should but they don't. I've explained this time and time again: it comes down to a lack of control, a lack of social-responsibility, cognitive dissonance and delegation, personal ethics and education. People - when all is taken into account - are stupid, selfish [in the immediate sense], irrational beings.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,377
- Location
- Norwich
Hydrogen fuel cells are still very immature technology wise. The method of containing it in a vehicle is a big problem.
Also you seem to be missing the point that the energy still needs to come from somewhere. We don't just pluck hydrogen from anywhere. it has to be refined, and costs energy, and a hell of a lot of it. And as we are so damned oil and coal happy still, it comes from fossil fuels. Hydrogen is just a carrier of energy, not a source.
I agree, but its the ball rolling thing.
You use bad energy to make clean energy, then use the clean to make the clean.
In the end it works out, but the immediate its less green then it will be.
Also since this seems to be the best method for the immediate, why are we just not pouring money into this to fix the problem, rather then research Algae and bio fuels?
Because the money to invest is with the very people who've got most to lose.
What happens to all the big oil companies and their lifestyles if a new industry grows to replace them?
The big oil companies are the ones who need to take the steps - and many of them are - but there are politics at play to make this a lot more difficult; oil in today's world is power. If clean energy suddenly became a non-finite resource, then what happens to the influence of those who could previously control finite resources?
I am concerned because there is no irrefutable proof to convince me why we are taxed extra and being forced/blackmailed into living a certain way of life on the back of evidence which is ropey at best, ropey when it has been doctored to help give it some iota of credence, imagine if it had not been doctored at all!
Give me the proof, the hard facts that global warming is our fault and that there is something we can do to prevent it then I will start listening and caring. Until then I will continue to laugh at mugs who believe all the hype and drive round in their green cars (if they drive at all) dont eat meat and all the other complete **** we are told will save the world.