- 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
A climate for change: A solution conservatives could accept
Posted on 8/28/14 at 7:53 am
Posted on 8/28/14 at 7:53 am
Washington Post
Let's say you don't believe in climate change. That's fine, but you do believe in pollution, right? Shouldn't industry have to pay for the air they are fouling? Should industry be free to dump waste/chemicals in local waterways? It seems like the same thing to me.
Thoughts?
quote:
A PROMINENT member of Congress has proposed a comprehensive national climate-change plan. It’s only 28 pages long, it’s market-based, and it would put money into the pockets of most Americans.
This is not the first time that Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), a House Democratic leader, has made the point that the best climate-change policy is not complicated. He introduced a similar plan in 2009. The underlying logic is older still: Since the beginning of the climate debate, 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.
As economists see it, the nation is giving a massive implicit subsidy to the users of fossil fuels, who fill the air with carbon dioxide, imposing real costs on society, without paying for the privilege. Make users pay for the carbon dioxide they emit and they will waste less energy, while investment will flow into low-carbon technologies. The nation would obtain emissions cuts at a minimum cost to the economy.
Let's say you don't believe in climate change. That's fine, but you do believe in pollution, right? Shouldn't industry have to pay for the air they are fouling? Should industry be free to dump waste/chemicals in local waterways? It seems like the same thing to me.
Thoughts?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 7:56 am to a want
Shouldn't people have to pay for breathing...
Posted on 8/28/14 at 7:57 am to a want
I'm skeptical that increasing taxes or penalties would lead to this:
quote:
it would put money into the pockets of most Americans.
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 7:59 am
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:04 am to a want
quote:
Thoughts?
I mean, all these manufactured goods are demanded by our society. We want them, buy them, etc. We, as a society, have chosen to have automobiles and air conditioning, almost 100%. Therefore, things are going to be dirty.
Industry in the U.S. is cleaner now than at any point since the industrial revolution.
Nobody is for dirty air or dirty water. But they are unavoidable in modern society. The questions should be: "How clean is clean enough?" and "At what cost, is being cleaner not worth it?"
ETA: And - Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It's a naturally occurring gas REQUIRED for life to exist on this planet.
This post was edited on 8/28/14 at 8:06 am
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:08 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
But they are unavoidable in modern society.
But it is avoidable. Nuclear, for example....and this guy's point is to improve it through innovation.
You also have the question of how many people are sick b/c of pollution ...or cases where it is a contributing factor.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:13 am to a want
Get china on board and we'll talk
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:16 am to a want
quote:
Let's say you don't believe in climate change. That's fine
Did you just fall off the the smart truck and land in a puddle of stupid?
You know this is BS. They moved the goal post from "man made climate change" to f@cking "climate change".
There is not one person who doesn't believe in climate change as we all see it every day.
I am very sorry to see you falling in with this Orwellian tactic.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:17 am to a want
CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
/thread
/climate change debate
/thread
/climate change debate
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:20 am to GumboPot
What about sulfur dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter like ash & soot?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:22 am to a want
quote:
putting a price on emissions that reflects the environmental damage they cause.
Who would determine this? Seems like just another case of proposed bullshite.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:23 am to a want
Is forcing people to buy emissions credits a market based solution like forcing people to buy health insurance is a market based solution?
I think the problem is a misunderstanding of the term market.
I think the problem is a misunderstanding of the term market.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:24 am to a want
quote:you have no idea what the permitting and inspection process is like by the likes of the EPA do you?
Let's say you don't believe in climate change. That's fine, but you do believe in pollution, right? Shouldn't industry have to pay for the air they are fouling? Should industry be free to dump waste/chemicals in local waterways? It seems like the same thing to me.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:26 am to a want
quote:
What about sulfur dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter like ash & soot?
What about them? Those molecules are potentially damaging to the surrounding environment and they are regulated today, as they should be.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:27 am to a want
Have you found that one person yet who doesn't believe in climate change?
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:29 am to goatmilker
Goldman Sachs and the federal government are just dying to get this carbon credit scheme off the ground. There are billions to be made.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:31 am to a want
By all accounts the US has done a great job of cleaning up the environment, regulating pollutants, and things have improved greatly.
will there ever be NO pollution? Impossible.
Man always leaves some kind of footprint.
As for climate change, I know its real. It's been a natural event for centuries and it can not be prevented.
The thing to do is to stay the course, limit pollution, and to adapt to the climate as it changes over time.
Those that believe we can regulate the climate are either fools or opportunists.
will there ever be NO pollution? Impossible.
Man always leaves some kind of footprint.
As for climate change, I know its real. It's been a natural event for centuries and it can not be prevented.
The thing to do is to stay the course, limit pollution, and to adapt to the climate as it changes over time.
Those that believe we can regulate the climate are either fools or opportunists.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:31 am to GumboPot
In most cases to find a answer always follow the money.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:33 am to a want
So basically taxing air now? The only kind of climate law
I would accept is a reinstituion of the hybrid
tax cedit that expired in 2011(IIRC) and other yac credits for
living "green."
I would accept is a reinstituion of the hybrid
tax cedit that expired in 2011(IIRC) and other yac credits for
living "green."
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:34 am to a want
quote:Not all economists.
As economists see it
quote:
The same is true of oil and coal when brought into a position in which they can be used to heat and light homes and provide power for man’s tools and machines. The same is true of the relationship between all chemical elements that have come to constitute the material stuff of products compared with those elements lying in the ground.
Insofar as the essential nature of production and economic activity is to improve the relationship between the chemical elements constituting the earth and man’s life and well-being, it is also necessarily to improve man’s environment, which is nothing other than those very same chemical elements and their associated energy forces. The notion that production and economic activity are harmful to the environment rests on the abandonment of man and his life as the source of value in the world and its replacement by a non-human standard of value—i.e., the belief that nature is intrinsically valuable.
With man and his life as the standard of value, the environment is improved when it is filled with houses, farms, factories, and roads, all of which serve directly or indirectly to make his life easier. When nature in and of itself is seen as valuable, then the environment is harmed whenever man creates any of these things or does anything whatever that changes the existing state of nature, for he is then destroying alleged intrinsic values.
A final inference that may be drawn is that a leading problem of our time is not environmental pollution but philosophical corruption. It is this that underlies the belief that improvement precisely in the external material conditions of human life is somehow environmentally harmful.
quote:
Preventing government imposed reductions in the use of fossil fuels is not something that is merely in the narrow self-interest of the oil and coal industries. Rather it is in the self-interest of the hundreds of millions of average people who vitally depend on the products of these industries.
Perhaps there will someday be economical substitutes for fossil fuels. Until then, substantially reducing the use of fossil fuels means imposing the certainty of a drastic decline in the standard of living of the average person in order to avoid what is at most the possibility of some seriously bad weather.
And if we need such things as massive sea walls to avoid such effects of that bad weather as the flooding of coastal areas, we had better be sure that we have the largest possible modern industrial base available to construct them.
It’s equally remarkable that those who fear global warming have given virtually no consideration to non-destructive ways of dealing with it, assuming that the threat is real in the first place. Why aren’t major prizes being offered for the development of low-cost, effective methods of removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere? For example, is it beyond us to develop plant species that will absorb vast multiples of the CO2 that plants normally absorb? Why is the only possible solution thought to be the destruction of modern economic life?
quote:
If global warming is a real threat, why haven’t politicians the world over made the negotiation of treaties for free immigration a top priority? If it’s a serious threat, and people will not willingly deal with it by committing economic suicide in the form of depriving themselves of the massive amounts of energy that would be lost through such measures as imposing a 70 percent reduction in CO2 emissions, then preparations should be starting now to allow for the future migration of hundreds of millions of Indians and Chinese into what will then be an inhabitable Siberia. The United States, Mexico, and the countries of Central America, should likewise be negotiating for free immigration into what will then be an inhabitable central Canada. Greenland should be declared open to all comers. Whatever the problems it may cause, global warming, if it really comes, will also be accompanied by vast new economic opportunities if not blocked by government migration barriers.
Posted on 8/28/14 at 8:36 am to doubleb
quote:
As for climate change, I know its real. It's been a natural event for centuries and it can not be prevented.
The thing to do is to stay the course, limit pollution, and to adapt to the climate as it changes over time.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News