Severe weather alert!!!!

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Aug 12, 2018.

  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, mitigation is not about polluting more. It's about lessening the damage we are doing to the environment. Second, mitigation is about placing the burden of cleanup upon those who do the most damage. You pay in proportion to the amount of damage you cause. The wealthy typically have larger carbon footprints so they should bear the burden of mitigation in proportion to how much carbon they emit. And third, our current climate policy in the United States (which is effectively a do-nothing-about-it policy) is a huge wealth redistribution scheme. We are stealing wealth from future generations to raise it for the current generation. And we're damaging the environment in the process.

    Well, the fuel source for solar and wind are free so what's the big deal?

    Absolutely. The sh** in my yard is my responsibility to cleanup. However, I am not altruistic. I will not carry my burden AND yours. I will not be forced to cleanup my sh** and then walk over to your yard and cleanup your sh** too so that you and your family get financial advantages that my family and I are denied. That's why we should all work together and under the same set of rules that are fair to everyone. You take responsibility for the damage you cause and I'll take care of mine. If you want to do more damage then you should be free to do so, but you'll have to pony up more money to fix it as well. That's your choice. I won't begrudge you either way.
     
  2. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don’t know where your from but it is clear to me, you are one of those who are very prepared to defer the responsibility to others for something you want to demonstrate your sacrifice. Mitigation is not about polluting more it just gives the gullible the feel good ideal that they are actually reducing pollution while they continue to pollute. Mitigation is a feel good ideal. AS STATED all current policy includes mitigation as the basis for reduction while DOUBLING output. Simply stating it is not about increasing or decreasing pollution is a delusional aspect of what mitigation is.


    Secondly, again you have an idealistic view that mitigation forces one group to pay for a false belief of reduction. Now, Australia and Europe introduced a policy that saw a real decrease of 8% CO2 emissions without mitigation and I am not sure of the reduction in the US because there was considerable variance in achievable outcomes. This was achieving by simply mandating emission measures in heavy vehicles and cars with realistic methods. NOW what does that have to do with mitigation you might ask, first you’re not mandating reductions your just claiming them as you do here.

    Also, as stated it is nothing more than a feel good way of making those who least can afford it. You suggest the wealthy pay except that assumes that they will do nothing to minimise their costs. One way is to defer the cost to somebody else. This occurs by passing costs onto customers. Those they defer cost too are the people who can least afford those added costs. Now another way to defer your costs is to become a mitigator who gets paid to allow you to keep polluting. Now that is just nationally. Should we look at the demands your mitigation ideal puts on those nations who pollute more??? India China???


    Seriously, I am really beginning to wonder if you’re a realist or an idealist

    Oh I see, the fuel source is free so we can just ignore ALL other costs because it is free…

    The question I asked in the first place you wanted to defer back to me, where are you going to grow your food when you fill your land with panels and propellers because you locked the world into a source that is free, without considering the cost in reality.

    BUT that is what you advocate by ignoring the people you are ignorant of being affected by your ideal of how the world should run.

    Honestly, you live in a world were energy is taken for granted, were you have a bed every night and meal three times a day. There are many who live in abject poverty who will never see energy you take for granted, who this very minute are wondering where their next meal is coming from and who will sleep on the dirt under the stars. YOUR ideal of policy might cost you $20 a week and by god that is inconvenient for those who see no energy that $20 is life and death just to buy a tree he gets no benefit from because somebody in another nation thought it is a great way to pretend you’re actually reducing pollution… Before you claim that this is not how it works, your ideal that the wealthy will pay because they are the biggest polluters, well that is actually incorrect. You have solar panels you so proudly told us about. How many poor people can just slip down to the market and pay the thousands to put solar panels on the roof??? Oh no they poor don’t pay more yet when you introduce the clean energy policy that actually artificially increases energy cost to subsidise a higher price method the poor don’t pay because, that’s right it is the wealthy who pay… unfortunately I could roll out the examples all night but simple to say, while your happy enough to make everybody answer to your ideal of what should happen you seem totally oblivious to the reality of what does happen.
    Seriously, just how many people have to die to placate the feel good movement???
     
  3. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    All people know how fossil fuels were formed.

    Because they were told how.

    6th grade earth science.

    And they have learned not to think but repeat what they are told.

    99% of people and geologists believe in the ancient fairytale that fuels are fossils.

    99% are very unsuccessful in finding oil wells.


    Only a dozen geologists laugh at this fairytale, and they find oil times more often.

    Whom should a normal level headed person believe more, 99% of the scientific community which believes in fairytales but does not find oil, or the minuscular and insignificant few who are successful in finding oil?



    Carbonates a plentiful and there is no reason to believe that there is a possibility to run out of them.

    Coal is dirt, and it is dirt cheap.

    Oil looks renewable.


    If for any reason one day we will be running out of carbonates, the prices will go up beyond a reach and oil companies, provided international government panels are not on their way, will immediately come up with price efficient reachable alternatives.

    Governments imposing more costly and more polluting sources and wasteful handling of energy ( like electric cars) today are imposing nothing but slavery on illiterate and ignorant population, which of course deserves that.

    Because the population would be scared to death at the idea that they have to think on their own but not to repeat what they are told.

    Think.

    There are no fossil fuels, there are carbonates.
     

Share This Page