|Mr. Purple Cat Esq. - 2011-09-16 |
I think this highlights a problem regarding climate change deniers and the like. My theory is they are not engaged enough in thinking about things to comprehend what it is people are trying to tell them.
For example, this thing... I reckon your average denier would zone out about a minute in!
|Mr. Purple Cat Esq. - 2011-09-16 |
of course some of them might just be stupid fucking idiots! :)
|Burnov - 2011-09-16 |
Nobody will be convinced that paying more taxes will save the environment, because it wont.
Being as there's absolutely no technology that can replace or help redress the imbalance that systematically removing ourselves from the petrochemical dependencies we've established over the years.
You're basically asking people to take a reduction in their quality of life.
Who arbitrates this?
To me this sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare and there are so many ways for it to be screwed up and to turn an alleged environmental problem into societal one, a potentially nasty problem.
Mr. Purple Cat Esq.
so your saying change is uncomfortable so lets not bother doing anything!
sorry to disspoint you but a change is going to come, either one of our own volition or one imposed on us by global food shortages, and the latter one will not be pretty!
also you think CO2 = quality of life?
http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_ y=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:DNK&dl=en&hl=en&q=denmark+carbon+emi ssions#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=l in&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:DNK:USA&ifdim=country&hl= en&dl=en
in 2011 Denmark ranked 11th in the world for quality of life. USA ranked 31st
I think we can all agree that what's needed is some new technology in both energy generation and CO2 emission handling. Yes? To the extent that government funding can help expedite that development, yes, our tax money can make a difference. Here in the US, that's done a lot of things, from the transcontinental railroad to this internet thing we're using right now. Tax dollars paid for these things long before they became commercially viable. In fact, our oil industry receives massive taxpayer subsidies. As does our nuclear industry ( try insuring one without the government ).
One might argue that private capital is better at this (developing tech) than public, and in theory it should be, but in practice one only has to follow the clown show in Silicon Valley to understand that money chases money and not much else. Get rich quick schemes are always easier to sell than the real thing. Precious little commitment to the long haul required to make the tech real.
I like the quick equivalency between asking people to make some sacrifices for the sake of the environment and HOLY SHIT HOW DARE YOU EVEN THINK OF SUCH A THING IT CANNOT POSSIBLY WORK.
But, it'll be fun when your type have to deal with the eventual hard truths of having not done anything about it now. Maybe not during my lifetime, but I at least get some schadenfraude knowing denier-types or "it's too hard let's not bother" types will eventually be forced into a Soylent Green-style state of living because they couldn't be bothered to separate some trash into different containers or buy a different kind of lightbulb.
|FreeOJ - 2011-09-16 |
I am just going to start calling everyone that doesn't believe what I do deniers from now on
Yeah, that usually works when it's something that the overwhelming majority of experts agree upon. So wait, what is your point?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|