OK you convinced me, now what?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Jul 10, 2018.

  1. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually you might note (though I highly doubt it) that each of the issues you list were recognized and championed by the people of the United States and Dems dealt with them because they listened and reacted to citizen demands. Republicans tend to ignore or dismiss "We the People" unless we have money they want or scream very loud. The "Monsters" you mention are better defined as problems.
     
  2. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well let's start with the big logging scare when Clinton was running for president. Apparently we were cutting down all the trees in the Pacific Northwest and it had to be stopped. The situation was dire and only a democrat would and could stop it. Clinton got elected had his timber summit and by executive order stopped logging on 70% of PNW federal land. Sawmills shut down and logging companies went broke. Then bush was elected and started getting the cut out again. Slowly but surely we started logging again and are back up to near pre Clinton levels. The world didn't end and now nobody cares. In fact as fires ravage the west even leftist are grudgingly admitting our forest are over stocked and need thinned. The end of world logging boogeyman died and Democrats needed a new monster.enter big scary global warming.

    "The future outlook for Oregon’s forest sector is bright. The Great Recession, between 2007 and 2012, reduced U.S. forest product consumption, there’s good news ahead for Oregon’s forest industry. It appears the worst is over. Given improving market conditions and a dependable timber supply, Oregon’s forest sector is poised to rebound. The sector can create thousands of new, well-paying forest sector jobs as the domestic economy accelerates and global appetite for wood products rebounds.

    Oregon’s Abundant and Renewable Forests

    [​IMG]Forests cover about half of Oregon and are fundamental to the livelihood of many Oregonians. Forests remain Oregon’s most abundant natural resource and they are a crucial part of the state’s economy. Statewide the 30 million acres of forestland are among America’s best and most productive commercial tree-growing land. Forests—and their renewable growth—are a competitive asset for Oregon’s economy, and these forests have helped assure that the state’s forest sector has remained a nation leading producer of structural wood products for more than a half century.

    And, the outlook for future prosperity and increased future Oregon forest production are extremely bright! Oregon’s forest industry for two decades has harvested significantly less timber volume than has been growing in Oregon’s vast forestlands. Oregon’s private forestlands are growing more than ever before, and private forest harvest volumes remain below annual growth volume. Public forestlands harvest just a fraction of their annual growth. Oregon forests now have an abundant inventory of available mature timber volume, as well as continuous productive forest growth maturing in the coming years."

    http://www.oregonloggers.org/Forest_Sustainability_Economic.aspx
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2018
  3. RedDirtWalker

    RedDirtWalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well less humans means just that...less humans. The real question is how is that goal accomplished. Do we go back to eugenics, pay people to not have kids, refuse to give money to people that have more kids, only allow 2 kids per marriage or person, start a war to kill off several million, sterilize millions, someone determines one group of people are not value added so they are expendable?

    There is no good outcome to less humans. Humans are designed to breed and make more humans and a sad fact is that the less educated breed more than the educated that are thinking up these theories, and the more educated as a whole have always felt like they knew better than the less educated to the less educated peoples hindrance.
     
  4. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Feynman did not truly understand what happens in electron/photon interaction, but in terms of predictive power, comparing QED to climatology is like comparing Wynton Marsalis to a tone-deaf third grader playing a toy bugle.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2018
  5. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Earth will Cull the herd soon enough.
     
  6. RedDirtWalker

    RedDirtWalker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If it is done through a natural happenstance......it is what it is. If it is done due to human intervention......that is wrong.
     
  7. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bet you're the life of the party LOL
     
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm a realist.
     
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I found your response reasonable. I will say that less humans isn't necessarily a bad thing if it means everyone's quality of life is better and if the sustainable of humans long term is improved. I do agree that some of those methods you mentioned of lessening humans is offensive. However, that wasn't what I immediately thought of. I guess my mind went straight to indirect means of population control like educating people. We know there is a correlation between education and birth rates. And no one suggest that education is a bad thing.
     
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are a true believer the single most effective thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is don't procreate.

    "A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences looked at the link between policies that help women plan pregnancies and family size and global emissions (the study also looked at aging and urbanization trends). The researchers predicted that lower population growth could provide benefits equivalent to between 16 and 29 percent of the emissions reduction needed to avoid a 2 degrees Celsius warming by 2050, the warning line set by international scientists.

    But the benefits also come through easing the reduced resources that could result from climate change. The U.N. IPCC report notes the potential for climate-related food shortages, with fish catches falling anywhere from 40 to 60 percent and wheat and maize taking a hit, as well as extreme droughts. With resources already stretched in some areas, the IPCC laid out the potential for famine, water shortages and pestilence."

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...hange-solution-no-one-will-talk-about/382197/
     
  11. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. That's certainly effective. I wonder what kind of policies could be enacted that would be ethical and humane while also reducing birth rates?

    By the way, population control has benefits beyond climate change as well. So this is a topic that effects many aspects of civilization.
     
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually I have a perfect policy that would greatly help the "global warming crisis" but it's a subject that deserves it's own thread. Thanks for the idea.
     
  13. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I already proved you wrong. Remember, a large part of the cost of energy is natural resource rent, a residual. So if use of the resource is taxed, the burden of the tax moves to the least elastic factor: the resource. A carbon tax is actually a way to force the Saudis -- and the owners of other fossil fuels, like coal -- effectively to pay taxes to Uncle Sam.
     
  14. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Crikey that is ignorant! Amusing you use elasticity in that mind you.
     
  15. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They don't anywhere.
     
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One of your comments that made sense. No content mind you. But well done in the sense. Georgism isn't needed!
     
  17. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is of course indisputable fact. Tax burdens tend to be shifted to the least elastic factor, and natural resources are perfectly inelastic. You just don't know enough economics to understand how that works.
    Tiresome that you bray your ignorance of the relevant facts of economics again.
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I love how, despite being a "I'm not Georgist", you're reliant on neoclassical understanding of elasticity.

    Hardcore!
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The non-contributory character of your posts continues to impress. Kudos!

    Of course, even the physiocrats were aware that tax burdens tend to be shifted onto inelastic factors, so calling that fact "neoclassical understanding" only confirms your ignorance of the discipline.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True! We need common ground. I think we can both agree Georgism is idiotic.
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,396
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Though not by comparison with Marxism.
     
  22. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Increase energy efficiency and conservation.

    As much as possible, move away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy sources like solar, wind and nuclear.

    Use market mechanisms as much as possible for efficiency, with things like carbon taxes.

    Indeed, the IPCC has done estimates on what it would take to rein in global warming, and the estimated cost is quite reasonable:
    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf

    Go to page 15 (17th page of the PDF), and you'll see that the median estimated cost of limiting atmospheric CO2 to 450ppm or less is about 0.6% of global GDP per year. It gets more expensive if we delay mitigation efforts or opt not to fully pursue certain strategies.
     
    iamanonman likes this.
  23. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you don't believe in market forces, then?
     
  24. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    America gives its poor good paying jobs drilling for oil pollution, canada gives its poor welfare with no cars or single family homes.

    the poor in America have cars and single family homes because we imposed tariffs on canada for good paying manufacturing jobs to unskilled and uneducated Americans as well.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2018
  25. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These unnatural market forces would do as they were designed to do, destroy the middle class, creating a captive work force with no upward mobility.

    The wealthy would have the road all to themselves, literally and figuratively.

    y
     

Share This Page