- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A climate for change: A solution conservatives could accept
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:40 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:40 am to Ace Midnight
life expectancy continues to increase
0
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:49 am to a want
Also, you're not fooling anyone if you talk about "a solution conservatives could accept" and "even if you don't believe in climate change" when you put forward a solution advocated by... a liberal who believes in climate change.
If you want to make a convincing case, put something forward advocated by actual conservatives who actually make arguments independent of climate change. LINK
If you want to make a convincing case, put something forward advocated by actual conservatives who actually make arguments independent of climate change. LINK
Posted on 8/28/14 at 10:50 am to LSUnKaty
quote:prompta a question for the OP... Are folks who are harmed by government practices due recourse and compensation for damages?
Folks who are harmed by such practices should have some recourse to compensation for damages.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:12 am to wickowick
Breathing is carbon neutral. Unless you are a robot (they drink oil).
I pray for the day thermonuclear power becomes a reality. It would render the "debate" on climate change moot.
I pray for the day thermonuclear power becomes a reality. It would render the "debate" on climate change moot.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:13 am to doubleb
quote:
Those that believe we can regulate the climate are either fools or opportunists.
They are mostly fools (see OP) that are influenced heavily by the opportunists.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:15 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
It's a picture of a sandstorm hitting Beijing.
Aw shite. Now global climate change is even screwing with the sand.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:17 am to a want
I think we should ship you and all your ilk to China to see what real polution looks like, then I suggest that you and your ilk protest the Chinese government in Tiananmen Square. And please disregard the oncoming tanks, they are being brought forward by the government to show their appeasment to your protest, just close your eyes and repeat this over and over:
There's no place like home
There's no place like home
There's no place like home
There's no place like home
There's no place like home
There's no place like home
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:20 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:Agreed, but if not noticed then what damages would be due?
But these external harms may be very subtle and/or deferred, and therefore not be noticed by the harmed party (that's the reason I said imperfect info in addition to the negative externality). So in that case the availability of recourse for damages may not solve the whole problem
If noticed but untraceable or uncertain causes are involved then they could be handled in the same way as natural disasters.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:20 am to GumboPot
quote:
GOP president signs sensible legislation to address a problem/issue.
Legislation solves problem/issue 90-95%.
Liberal complains that legislation alone is not enough and we need MOAR and uses GOP enacted legislation for social engineering and wealth redistribution schemes.
Public complains about additional liberal legislation being too costly in terms of taxes and infringing on the public's liberties.
Liberal uses the excuse that this is GOP legislation anyway, so it's okay.
Gets it!!
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:44 am to LSUnKaty
quote:
Agreed, but if not noticed then what damages would be due?
Exactly. The damages mechanism at that point isn't working to fully correct the externality effectively. Even if it is undetectable or nearly undetectable, that doesn't mean it's not there.
And in a case like this, where the harm can be spread thinly over a large number of people while the benefit accrues to only one producer (say, a single factory who doesn't have to compensate people for imposing a slight cost upon them), it could have a large effect on how much they produce and therefore pollute.
So all I'm saying is we need to solve the information problem in addition to having the opportunity to be compensated.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 11:47 am to a want
1. Carbon is not a pollutant.
2. CO2 and warming is not a cause/effect relationship. Throughout earth's history, it can be seen time and time again in ice core data where CO2 levels were much higher than they are today while the earth was much colder. It is at best a lagging indicator of warming.
3. The entire climate change debate is a red herring. It tries to use taxes and destroy industry when what we should be focused on is the only thing that would actually have any kind of effect on the environment if AGW were real: resource conservation.
What we need to be focussed on is efficiency. More efficient means of getting the resources we use, electrical grids with less line loss, more efficient appliances, ect. We need to find ways to use less water while getting more use out of every drop. We need to find ways to harvest more wood without destroying old growth forests, more steel without increased strip-mining, more energy from the same fuel, more beef without cutting down more rain forests, more fish without depleting fisheries, ect. This is where technology comes in, where innovation, imagination, vision, ingenuity, and the quest for the almighty dollar can come together to fuel the quest for the future of our economy. We have done this before, we are doing this now, and we MUST continue to do so in the future for the survival of our species and the betterment of human kind.
I leave you all with this quote from Theodore Roosevelt:
2. CO2 and warming is not a cause/effect relationship. Throughout earth's history, it can be seen time and time again in ice core data where CO2 levels were much higher than they are today while the earth was much colder. It is at best a lagging indicator of warming.
3. The entire climate change debate is a red herring. It tries to use taxes and destroy industry when what we should be focused on is the only thing that would actually have any kind of effect on the environment if AGW were real: resource conservation.
What we need to be focussed on is efficiency. More efficient means of getting the resources we use, electrical grids with less line loss, more efficient appliances, ect. We need to find ways to use less water while getting more use out of every drop. We need to find ways to harvest more wood without destroying old growth forests, more steel without increased strip-mining, more energy from the same fuel, more beef without cutting down more rain forests, more fish without depleting fisheries, ect. This is where technology comes in, where innovation, imagination, vision, ingenuity, and the quest for the almighty dollar can come together to fuel the quest for the future of our economy. We have done this before, we are doing this now, and we MUST continue to do so in the future for the survival of our species and the betterment of human kind.
I leave you all with this quote from Theodore Roosevelt:
quote:
But as you all know your rights and priveleges so well, I hope you will excuse me if I take a moment to say a few words about your duties. Much has been given to us, and we must take heed to use aright the gifts entrusted to our care. It is not what we have that will make us a great nation, but the manner in which we use it. I do not undervalue for a moment our material prosperity. Like all Americans, I like big things: big forests and mountains, big wheat fields and railroads, big factories, steamboats, and everything else. But we must keep steadfastly in mind that no people were ever yet benefited by riches if their prosperity corrupted their virtue.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:10 pm to goatmilker
quote:
They moved the goal post from "man made climate change" to f@cking "climate change".
You do realize that it was President George W. Bush that was the one to start using the "Climate Change" moniker, right?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:10 pm to a want
quote:
mainstream economists, left and right, have argued that the best way to cut greenhouse gases is to use simple market economics, putting a price on emissions that reflects the environmental damage they cause.
The government setting a price for something is anything but market economics.
quote:
You do realize that it was President George W. Bush that was the one to start using the "Climate Change" moniker, right?
And? Bush did a lot of things that I disagree with.
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:25 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It's a naturally occurring gas REQUIRED for life to exist on this planet.
How people continue to trot out this absolutely brain-dead grade school argument is just mindblowing.
There are quite a few naturally occurring gases on this planet 'whose concentration you would NOT want to increase. Being "natural" does not mean concentration levels don't matter. Get a fricking clue guys, Jesus Christ.
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:37 pm to AUbused
quote:
There are quite a few naturally occurring gases on this planet 'whose concentration you would NOT want to increase. Being "natural" does not mean concentration levels don't matter. Get a fricking clue guys, Jesus Christ.
What should CO2 concentrations be?
What should the optimum temperature of this planet be?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:38 pm to AUbused
Somewhere in an alternate bizarro universe, there's a peer-reviewed study released by plant life on the dangers of emitting oxygen.
"Okay guys, I'm super cereal. Oxygen will burn you up."
"Okay guys, I'm super cereal. Oxygen will burn you up."
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:50 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
What should CO2 concentrations be?
I made zero claims as to what CO2 levels should be. This is a strawman, I merely addressed the asinine and often used argument that sinc C02 is "natural" that is fine to emit as much as we want to. Its such a juvenile and lazy argument. I guess since cyanide is naturally occuring in our atmosphere its just fine to emit a bunch of that too amirite????
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:52 pm to kingbob
quote:Hello, let me introduce you to the Jevons Paradox, a 150-year old law of economics that says that increased efficiency almost always leads to more resource consumption due to price drops than it saves from resource usage.
3. The entire climate change debate is a red herring. It tries to use taxes and destroy industry when what we should be focused on is the only thing that would actually have any kind of effect on the environment if AGW were real: resource conservation.
What we need to be focussed on is efficiency. More efficient means of getting the resources we use, electrical grids with less line loss, more efficient appliances, ect. We need to find ways to use less water while getting more use out of every drop. We need to find ways to harvest more wood without destroying old growth forests, more steel without increased strip-mining, more energy from the same fuel, more beef without cutting down more rain forests, more fish without depleting fisheries, ect. This is where technology comes in, where innovation, imagination, vision, ingenuity, and the quest for the almighty dollar can come together to fuel the quest for the future of our economy. We have done this before, we are doing this now, and we MUST continue to do so in the future for the survival of our species and the betterment of human kind.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:54 pm to son of arlo
Let me try to be as lazy as denier.
"HUR HURDY DUR!!!! WE BREATHES OXYJUN!!! SO.....DURS NO SUCH THANG AS TOO MUCH OXYJUN HURRRHURDYDURY DUR!!!!"
....ohh yeah.......breathing pure oxygen for prolonged periods will kill you. BUT IS SO NATURAL!!!
"HUR HURDY DUR!!!! WE BREATHES OXYJUN!!! SO.....DURS NO SUCH THANG AS TOO MUCH OXYJUN HURRRHURDYDURY DUR!!!!"
....ohh yeah.......breathing pure oxygen for prolonged periods will kill you. BUT IS SO NATURAL!!!
Posted on 8/28/14 at 12:56 pm to AUbused
quote:
I merely addressed the asinine and often used argument that sinc C02 is "natural" that is fine to emit as much as we want to.
Where did I say that? I was simply countering the OP's assertion that CO2 is a pollutant - it is, of course, not a pollutant.
quote:
I guess since cyanide is naturally occuring in our atmosphere its just fine to emit a bunch of that too amirite?
I do not believe that cyanide is required to support life on this planet is it not? So, therefore, we don't need any of it. While not strictly a pollutant, it is toxic to mammalian life.
CO2 is neither a pollutant nor toxic to life - at current or reasonably expected future levels. Very high concentrations of CO2 are toxic - on the other hand, a minimum level of CO2 is required to sustain life on this planet.
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News