Discussion in 'General Nonsense' started by SK-1, May 7, 2008.
What is an animater power plant? I've never heard of that.
I am all for doing everything we can to clean up our environment.
Not to defend against a theoretical disaster, but because keeping our planet and atmosphere clean is the right thing to do.
The fear-mongering about climate change just draws lines in the sand and people take sides.
Instead we should just all try to not trash where we live.
People are becoming more eco-aware and I think you will see manufacturers responding to this as it will make them money through increased sales.
But if someone needs a big-ass truck to haul stuff around, I think they should be able to get one.
We have to look at it realistically, and not through "green-tinted" glasses.
It's the people who need to realistally assess their needs and make their purchases accordingly. Not by government regulation.
Just my 2 cents.
The most important point to make is that temperature readings even 60 years ago were not accurate to less than a degree. Therefore, all data before that time should be taken with a grain of salt. Plus, countries in Africa and places like China and Mongolia didn't even take regular temperature readings! How can we accurately trace the temperature of the entire earth back 200 years?
"Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S."
"Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo."
David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
i did not said there is 1 i asked my self why dont we make 1 we can make antimater and mater
I agree almost completely. I do think government intervention is needed to some degree to check the top dogs who only worry about their own pockets (not all of them obviously). And those big-ass trucks to not need to be powered by petroleum, although it is unlikely that will change for quite some time.
Good point. I also read an article on how people in colder areas prefer 2900XTs over other video cards. Turn the computer around and you have a nice handwarmer.
Global economy is indeed a part of saving the globe. A handful of countries may recycle and limit themselves in certain ways to be more enviro-friendly and all that, but if other countries don't do the same, it is all of limited value. Not worthless value, but limited. And then on top of that the enviro-friendly countries are now economically competing with their hands tied.
The top dogs are driven by the bottom line. Money.
If the consumers show (by purchasing decisions) that what the manufacturers are doing is not to their liking, they will change so as not to effect their profit margins.
In a free market economy (like the US), these thing will work themselves out without government regulation.
Those do have some interesting points, however they seem to take extremes also. CO2 is not pollutant they say because plants require it. Well, it is not a pollutant in levels natural to the Earth's needs. It is a pollutant to humans of course (sit in a garage w/ co2?), and at extreme levels it is harmful to all animals.
soon earth wil be pruducing more co2 and other accid gases then venus does XD
The free market is great when things are equal, however, it does not work so well when things are on different playing fields. People will not just go out and buy green products without some personal incentive to do so, and the good feeling just doesn't cut it. If somebody has a choice to buy a green product that costs more than a regular one, they will buy the less economically friendly product as it holds more benefit for them. Then it will hold more benefit for the distributor to continue production of the harmful products.
The government already does have incentives in place, to stimulate growth in this respect, and it is a step in the right direction. More penalties will need to be implemented, and more incentives as well, if the change is to be an effective one.
A free market works fine, except too often the invariable human trait of greed influences it for the worse of all (and no, this doesn't make me a socialist).
It's not just greed, it is economic reality. If I have X dollars to spend and a "green" product is out of my price range, then I have little choice.
I would love to power my home with solar power, but it is financially unviable for me at the moment.
This is were the free economy comes into play. When companies develop low cost, efficient solar panels that the average home owner can afford without a 30 year return on investment, you will see a huge surge in the market. It does not need government regulation.
But why would companies develop low cost efficient solar panels if it does not hold as much advantage for them as other sources of power? Things like that don't just get cheaper b/c they are better for the enviornment. Without incentives or penalties, there would be no reason for companies to develop such panels. The market needs to be adjusted a tad for this to become a feasible possibility.
I think that you don't understand economics.
Adam Smith, who pioneered the concept of a free market said "Greed is good". The free market operates off of the concept that everyone is greedy. Therefore, people will always buy what is best for them. That is why that unless the government turns into a dictatorship, people will not purchase "green" products just because they're supposed to be good for the environment. Eventually technology will progress so that very little byproduct like carbon dioxide is produced but for now people who still have a choice will buy the cheapest, highest quality goods available. "Greenness" will never factor into the equation unless it provides something tangible for consumers.
By the way, this isn't kindergarten! I'm not going to pay penalties because I'm participating in the free market and buying what's best for me. :shadedshu
actully Corbon Dioxide buildup is normal, ice sheets confirm that the planet does this, it leads to an ice age, the thing is thats still thousands of years off, sure it may not be here in 100 thousand years but honestly is 50,000 years sooner a problem? The chances of man kind still being here that long are nill
I personally have no interest in green cars, i love Old school muscle, give me a hybrid thats affordable that can give me 500HP or electric and ill care. When i get the money saved im fixing my Challanger and its 318 while i look for a 440. Thats just how i feel, its personal taste.
People lack the foresight to do what is good for the future of humanity. Sure, you could say that you get and do what you want b/c it benefits you and thats the proper way to go. You would not be alone. However, I tend to think the big picture is more important, but perhaps I am a foolish idealist.
You prove my point, '"Greeness" will never factor into the equation unless it provides something tangible for consumers.' Indeed, which is why we need regulations, otherwise, future generations will be screwed. But hey, it doesn't affect you, so what do you care? (it might, you never know....)
Also, I don't claim to know much about economics, however, you have already stated a few things as fact that I have found immidiately to be false. Please don't resort to insults. And the penalties are implemented at the distributor level usually, so you need not worry.
You're assuming that global warming even exists. How can you know what's good for the future of humanity if there's little to back your arguments? For all you know, I might be correct. I also concede that we might have global warming. It will take thousands of years to accurately determine that though.
Penalties also get transferred to the consumer. If businesses have to pay another 20% in penalties, the consumer will eventually have to pay another 20% for the end product because the businesses still have to make a profit. That's part of the reason why gas is so expensive. Gas tax in the US was 47 cents per gallon in 2007 when gas cost $2.50
Its true penalties can hurt the consumer, unless they are used properly. If a company is penalized for producing say a petroleum using car as opposed to being rewarded for producing an electric car, that electric car will end up being cheaper than the petroleum car (this is highly simplified of course). This allows the consumer to purchase the electric car at cheaper prices, and everybody wins. Of course, this is merely a simplified example and could not work currently with all the money that is in petroleum, and electric cars are not very efficient, but it is what I'm talking about when I say government intervention.
And I'm not assuming global warming is the end all be all, or for the sake of argument that it even exists. I am assuming that if we as humans do not act conservatively with the planet we live on we will surely drastically affect the way we live on it, if we can live on it at all.
One thing to remember is that economics is about unlimited wants and limited resources. Where does the money for the rewards come from? Increasing taxes only hurts the consumer. According to the laffer curve, a 17% flat tax on everything is the ideal solution because people will be able to make more for themselves and therefore pay more into the government in total. Income taxes alone are already 25%+ for the upper middle class citizen. When there are no more petroleum cars, is the government going to continue to subsidize the car manufacturers who produce electric cars? Also, maybe electric cars aren't the way of the future? What if we get fusion-powered vehicles and the government continues to subsidize people who produce electric cars?
On the subject of cars though, people will switch to another energy source once gas gets more expensive than other competing resources. Electric cars are currently more expensive than gas-powered cars even at the sky-high oil prices due not only to their electric power requirements but to the simple raw cost of the parts. Biodeisel and hydrogen are much more expensive than petroleum. If the government then subsidizes parts, it will have to raise taxes which will hurt the economy.
Well, that all sounds good. I will say that I am arguing for only the government to get involved to invoke change, once the move is made to cleaner industry, the need for government intervention will not be there.
And I agree, raising taxes is not necessarily the answer. I don't have the answer. I've gotten too deep into the argument and I'm afraid I no longer have anything worthwhile to add to it. You make some good points in that last post flashstar, but I don't think unregulated free market is the answer right now. Maybe I'm right, or maybe I'm an idealist without enough understanding of economics to propose a good solution. Maybe there isn't a good solution. At least for the time being, I will have to leave it at that, I got to go sustain myself (eat).
Sorry you must be utterly blind to say global warming does not exist. Read whats going on in Antarctica, with many of the ice sheets breaking up well before scientists predicted-sometimes more than a few decades off. Moreover, a lot of the glaciers that existed now don't. 1*C difference in temperatures in those regions means a lot. It means a reduction of the strength in ice; that difference could easily cause glaciers/icebergs/icesheets to break up.
Global flooding anyone?
Sky-high oil prices, yes, but thats going off topic, its not a valid argument against global warming. It is indeed good in a way that we will rely less on petrol. You only care about the economies of the world now. You only care about how much money you have...its greedy.
A Buddhist saying (i think) is greed is suffering. This can be interpreted in many ways. Either: 1. You want more money. 2. You will suffer due to ignoring the environment due to greed in the future.
Alright damn it, I wasn't going to way in on this with my opinion, but here goes:
1) I am not convinced that scientists are correct that global warming is "man made" entirely. I surmise that the warming is part of a planetary evolution that occurs regardless of mankind. Looking at the composite make up of other planets, it seems planets go through changes due to their make up. The Ice age, global warming, etc.
With that said, mankind certainly isn't helping things. Hell, we're like a cancer on the planet robbing every vital component we possibly can, all in the name of greed and self indulgence.
2) No government will force changes because the people in power are mostly corrupt and have ties to oil. Look at Chavez. Say what you want about Chavez, he rules a country that produces oil, yet he to date has instituted one of the most aggressive energy policies in the world that does not include oil. Chavez has rapidly fallen from grace with the world powers, wonder why?
3) While capitalism and free markets are healthy, I as an American who has served his country in some capacity now for over 24 years am repulsed by the blatant arrogance of the general American population to embracing reality. We have an important situation globally with energy and global warming, and yet as the price of petrol rises the "haves" continue to buy their monstrous over sized SUV's that consume massive amounts of petrol, and to hell with the rest of us. Supply and demand is at the core of all products and they are essentially saying screw the facts, I'll do what I want. I personally am not sure their is a fix unless there is a fair mixture of government regulation along with a healthy dose of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. A lot of municipalities are discontinuing their recycling programs because they cost too much. I live in one of those cities that no longer recycles due to the costs.
So what is the answer? Who the hell knows, but at least we're all talking about it, and that is a healthy start.
Rant over, sorry.
Don't be sorry, that is a more condensed version of the things I have tried to point out, along with some points from tk. I was doing it by myself for a while, and I don't have enough knowledge in certain areas to sustain the argument, so please, chime in with some input. The answer is there, but it will take change, and many simply say that is not realistic, but I am not convinced.......
Nor am I, thanks.
I was saying that its important not to feel like we don't have the ability to turn it around(we shouldn't lose hope in cleaning up our practices). You just twisted my words.
Separate names with a comma.