08 Jun 15
Originally posted by jimmacCap and trade is nothing but yet another scheme for a "big pot of money" that no one seems to be able to get a handle on in terms of where all the money goes.
sorry, I will try again, there is a massive movement with massive funding based upon climate change being caused ( or at least overly assisted ) by humans.All the momentum of this funding relies upon that self belief. If the belief was to stop, so would the funding. They panic when they are challenged.
That scenario, where one "creates" the need for fundin ...[text shortened]... fruit of the falsehood, is ( loosely described ) referred to as a gravy train. i.e, a free ride.
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by whodeyVery much agree. I tend to feel that it is designed to slow down advanced economies ( which in there mind is ok) and leg up slower ( third world) economies. I am ok with some of that in theory, the leg up bit at least, but I fear that it is using a falsehood and those that benefit most, proportionately,are those on the gravy train.
Cap and trade is nothing but yet another scheme for a "big pot of money" that no one seems to be able to get a handle on in terms of where all the money goes.
08 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessThat is because of your worldview. You are indoctrinated to believe the lies. So when you here truth you can't understand it. 😏
This must be a cultural difference thing, because I understand every single word you typed there, but I have absolutely no idea what you're writing about. 🙄
09 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by jimmacIt's fine to question the integrity of cap and trade and indeed the extent to which vested interests seek to gain through climate change politics. My opinion is that there is going to be a huge element of fraud in any cap and trade system and I would prefer different remedies. I see investment in alternative energy and prevention of new extraction of fossil fuels as entirely beneficial. We should have the collective intelligence to devise solutions.
sorry, I will try again, there is a massive movement with massive funding based upon climate change being caused ( or at least overly assisted ) by humans.All the momentum of this funding relies upon that self belief. If the belief was to stop, so would the funding. They panic when they are challenged.
That scenario, where one "creates" the need for fundin ...[text shortened]... fruit of the falsehood, is ( loosely described ) referred to as a gravy train. i.e, a free ride.
You may like to add to your list the extent to which our pension funds, insurances and collective savings are being sunk into fossil fuel investments that we know, through well supported and credible climate change research, are destined to realise only a fraction of their supposed valuations. If we succeed in keeping the known and still expanding reserves in the ground, thus contributing to our survival as a species, then those reserves will have no economic value at all and the untold wealth enjoyed by people like the Koch family will be reduced to dust. If the vested interests succeed in continuing to open up and exploit more and more fossil fuel reserves, then the damage they do to our lives will be incalculable and deeply negative.
Let us say you are not convinced about climate change. Consider even so the scale of risk that confronts us and then tell us what, in your mind, would be a responsible and indeed intelligent response. Burn the stuff or keep it underground?
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by finneganConsider even so the scale of risk that you might get struck by lightening tomorrow.
It's fine to question the integrity of cap and trade and indeed the extent to which vested interests seek to gain through climate change politics.
You may like to add to your list the extent to which our pension funds, insurances and collective savings are being sunk into fossil fuel investments that we know, through well supported and credible climate ...[text shortened]... would be a responsible and indeed intelligent response. Burn the stuff or keep it underground?
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by finneganI am actually convinced about climate change. I am also convinced that we should do whatever we can to be " clean". I am less sure about the direct link. I am not convinced that we "need" to establish a link as looking after this planet is simple common sense. If doing that helps climate change, so be it. if not, we will have done what we can. But I am convinced that vested interests are milking the system, and not for my good, or yours. Where I work they openly advocate wind power, but we sell massive amounts of paint for those wind towers, so why wouldn't they. I believe that incentives to invest in alternate energies will reduce the need for oil. we should stop the massive subsidies to oil companies and assist new technologies. though not through subsidies per-say but through tax breaks in the event that they succeed for x number of years, for example. I prefer not to use oil but not with intent, if you know what i mean. alternate energies would reduce demand, that should be the focus.
It's fine to question the integrity of cap and trade and indeed the extent to which vested interests seek to gain through climate change politics. My opinion is that there is going to be a huge element of fraud in any cap and trade system and I would prefer different remedies. I see investment in alternative energy and prevention of new extraction of fossi ...[text shortened]... would be a responsible and indeed intelligent response. Burn the stuff or keep it underground?
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by jimmacI am convinced of climate change too. It has changed with the seasons of the year for as long as I have been alive and there is nothing any of us can do about it. I make the prediction that it will keep on changing with the seasons of the year for as long as you live. 😏
I am actually convinced about climate change. I am also convinced that we should do whatever we can to be " clean". I am less sure about the direct link. I am not convinced that we "need" to establish a link as looking after this planet is simple common sense. If doing that helps climate change, so be it. if not, we will have done what we can. But I am convin ...[text shortened]... tent, if you know what i mean. alternate energies would reduce demand, that should be the focus.
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by jimmacAfter driving I-10 near El Paso I am convinced that air pollution laws in the US doesn't prevent Mexican pollution from crossing the border.
I am actually convinced about climate change. I am also convinced that we should do whatever we can to be " clean". I am less sure about the direct link. I am not convinced that we "need" to establish a link as looking after this planet is simple common sense. If doing that helps climate change, so be it. if not, we will have done what we can. But I am convin ...[text shortened]... tent, if you know what i mean. alternate energies would reduce demand, that should be the focus.
I got to experience the same thing in Washington when it comes to Canadian water pollution entering the US.
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by finneganThe usual response to climate change in the past was migration. What's wrong with that? If it is too hot or too cold, move to where you like it more.
It's fine to question the integrity of cap and trade and indeed the extent to which vested interests seek to gain through climate change politics. My opinion is that there is going to be a huge element of fraud in any cap and trade system and I would prefer different remedies. I see investment in alternative energy and prevention of new extraction of fossi ...[text shortened]... would be a responsible and indeed intelligent response. Burn the stuff or keep it underground?
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by jimmacWhat to do about it, if anything, is the question.
I am actually convinced about climate change. I am also convinced that we should do whatever we can to be " clean". I am less sure about the direct link. I am not convinced that we "need" to establish a link as looking after this planet is simple common sense. If doing that helps climate change, so be it. if not, we will have done what we can. But I am convin ...[text shortened]... tent, if you know what i mean. alternate energies would reduce demand, that should be the focus.
09 Jun 15
Finnegan's starting to sound like the god botherers. It's commonly one of their last arguments when trying to convince others to get on their knees before their imaginary friend in the sky.
"What if we're right." they say.
"What if when you die you find yourself on the way downstairs to meet the devil"
"Isn't it safer to just not take the chance that there is no heaven and hell."
"Just beliiiieeeeeveeee, just belliiieevveeee."
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by WajomaFor the time being, it appears that investing in fossil fuels is a good idea, as we will almost certainly rely on them into the foreseeable future.
Consider even so the scale of risk that you might get struck by lightening tomorrow.
As you well illustrate, there are risks we can only avoid by not living.
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by normbenigninvesting?? fine.massive subsidies?? NO. reducing our reliance on oil companies is great on many fronts. I think ( as per my previous post) encouraging a natural reduction is the best way to go.
For the time being, it appears that investing in fossil fuels is a good idea, as we will almost certainly rely on them into the foreseeable future.
As you well illustrate, there are risks we can only avoid by not living.
09 Jun 15
Originally posted by Wajomawhereas I am of no faith, I believe that good for good sake is best, even if the rational is "what if the sky was to fall). if there is no justifiable reason to do something, other than for ones own self, then a collective " what if", can and should apply. The damage that oil exploration and recovery has, and will continue to cause, is massive. No buts or maybes. Trust me,bad things will continue to happen. ( statistically at least). alternate energy sources MUST be found, and the sooner the better. Negating a seemingly benign" what if" with an attack on the "what if" rather than its content, could be seen as irrelevant as the "what if" is being made out to be in the 1st place.
Finnegan's starting to sound like the god botherers. It's commonly one of their last arguments when trying to convince others to get on their knees before their imaginary friend in the sky.
"What if we're right." they say.
"What if when you die you find yourself on the way downstairs to meet the devil"
"Isn't it safer to just not take the chance that there is no heaven and hell."
"Just beliiiieeeeeveeee, just belliiieevveeee."
FYI i find finnegans post well thought out, well researched, and I enjoy reading them. They are more caring than many on this site. I might not agree with everything he writes( I do most) but he is inclusive in his outlook not me me me.