'Earth Hour'

[AlpineK]

hour

[StevenSeagal]

 

We have the EPA to protect us.

 

OMG! :lmao: :lmao:

 

That's the funniest thing you've written so far. You mean, you actually trust that the GOVERNMENT WILL PROTECT US from pollution?!?!? Isn't that socialism? I thought in the free market society we should rely on industries to self regulate and keep our best interests at hand?

 

What's funniest of all is that Bush has systematically restructured the EPA and the interior department and filled up those agencies with energy industry lobbyists and suck ups. Maybe that explains your faith in big daddy Gov't EPA to protect us.

 

 

Its a real question (global warming). This Global warming stuff could be a bunch of shit. I don't know if it is or isn't but I sure aint a lemmy like you.

 

It is indeed a question, but one which people like you are happy to dismiss because "experts" hired by the energy industries single handedly "debunked" decades of research and observations, and have effectively turned science into an opinion-based forum where no one's expertise counts for anything because there "must" be a political agenda behind findings that you don't like. There's still lots of questions about man made climate change, but the probabilities and evidence are pointing strongly in favor of it at this time. I think it's obvious that we are also in a natural upswing in temperatures, but there's more to the story than that, despite what "El Rushbo" spoonfeeds you each morning with your Cheerios, sunshine.

 

Back to the original point you asked starting this thread: you implicitly derided people for planning to shut off their lights for one hour- something that won't effect you one bit and in which you are not required to participate. I assume you scoff at individual efforts at conservation because in your mind, if you can't see the result in numbers or visuals, then there must obviously be no benefit in it, right? Think about that and try again, knuckle dragger.

 

[G-spotter]

 

It gets even better if you run that line back to the Permian. What do you think happened every time in the past CO2 went over 400 ppm?

 

 

A mass extinction.

 

That's not snow in the second pic by the way. It is ash.

[AlpineK]

Viking named Greenland, Greenland for a reason. Hell they even made settlements there. Hell of alot warmer that is today.

 

Um Seahawks Greenland was named that way to throw other countries and competitors for new land off to the fact that Greenland was a giant chunk of ice and glacier. They discovered Iceland which was a good place to populate and named it that to throw off competitors.

 

That's been common knowledge for a long time.... to folks with an IQ over 10.

[Matt Kidd]

So its about your Robin hood Socialist agenda to spread the wealth. Now we know what you are talking about.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html

 

Demonstrating a thorough understanding of the topic, based upon a credible source concerning climate change. Why argue?

[JayB]

 

Now if you want to say we should take care of our resources for future generations and leave global warming out of it, I beleive that.

 

Except that the same people that have you convinced that it is so preposterous that human caused pollutants could affect the climate (we've already caused proven, drastically negative effects to the quality of many air, water and ecosystems) are also fighting emissions regulations tooth and nail at every turn. They now just use global warming as an efficient stall tactic.

 

The actions being proposed that would theoretically curb global warming are largely things that we should be doing anyway and are being stifled by energy industries concerned with maximizing profits. Lie in bed with them if you like, dumbass.

 

Blaming energy companies for rising C02 emissions is like blaming Columbian druglords for increasing rates of drug addiction in the US. Not always the most savory characters, but brought into existence and sustained entirely by the underlying demand for what they produce. The idea that it's ultimately the energy companies that are "stifling" reductions in C02 emissions, and not the aggregate choices made by the consumers of their products just doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny.

 

It's also worth noting that in the absence of:

 

-New technology that reduces C02 emissions per unit-energy produced, and that does so at the same price as conventional sources; Or...

 

-Technologies that use less energy to create the same output;

 

any reduction in C02 consumption per capita will have to be gained by reducing per-capita power consumption. Some increment of this reduction can be obtained at a relatively low cost by increasing conservation, but in the end, unless you increase efficiency at the same rate you reduce consumption, the net effect is to lower global output.

 

If global output increases at rates that fall below global population growth, that will inexorably translate into an reduction in the global standard of living - and guess who will bear the brunt of that reduction? The guy who has to cut back on the joyrides in his Hummer every now and then, or pay more for his flight from Seattle to the Vegan Yoga Retreat in Sedona to combat his S.A.D. every winter will feel it quite a bit less than the folks in remote clinic in Togo who can no longer afford to keep running the generator that powers the refrigerator housing the vaccines and anti-biotics. Ditto for anyone who's already having trouble buying enough to eat when the real cost of food increases.

 

I'm not advocating inaction, but I think that we should at least be honest about what's really driving global C02 emissions instead of engaging in unproductive populist crusades against a cliched roster of scapegoats and bogeymen. We should also take an honest assessment of the real costs associated with reducing emissions by reducing output at rates that exceed the rate at which technology can deliver increased efficiency and reduced emissions, and who will bear them. In the final analysis, it may turn out that a certain net reduction in human well being in the present is a price that has to be paid in order to avert much worse consequences for humanity in the future, but let's not pretend that these costs don't exist.

[Clavote]

I'm not worried about global warming. I do think it's real and humanity is probably a factor in the rapid changes that would otherwise take longer to occur. But I am taking the longer view of this and finding a silver lining. I'm buying property in areas likely to get warmer and that are now fairly cold. Can anyone imagine a warmer Alaska? I can and I think I am going to enjoy the warmer summers in my cabin. As far as polar bears, fuck them. They eat humans and are a damned bothersome to outdoor recreation or work. Yeah, I'll turn off the lights for an hour and I hope the city goes dark. I know it will make an impact and show how much more can be saved if everyone participates. At the very least we will save some of our devalued dollars on expensive energy for an hour. We can reduce emissions, but is it too late for the polar bear? Let's hope so.

[sexual_chocolate]

Blaming energy companies for rising C02 emissions is like blaming Columbian druglords for increasing rates of drug addiction in the US.

 

true, but would you legalize all forms of drugs, incuding crack cocaine and meth?

[kevbone]

Blaming energy companies for rising C02 emissions is like blaming Columbian druglords for increasing rates of drug addiction in the US.

 

true, but would you legalize all forms of drugs, incuding crack cocaine and meth?

 

 

Yes. Crack and meth are no different than cigarettes and beer.

[Bug]

Is turning lights off for one hour really going to make a difference?

Look at it this way. If I put you in an empty pool and peed in one end, you would just move to the other end.

If Everyone who turns off their lights for one hour also peed in the pool, you would be in deep water (or something).

 

More importantly, all those people would be aware of the fact that they are not alone in making the world a better place.

[Dechristo]

one word - "newkewlar"

 

If I turn out my lights, can I keep my computer and monitor running?

[JayB]

Blaming energy companies for rising C02 emissions is like blaming Columbian druglords for increasing rates of drug addiction in the US.

 

true, but would you legalize all forms of drugs, incuding crack cocaine and meth?

 

I think if I had to choose between the current drug policy and complete liberalization of all drugs - I'd go with complete liberalization since the aggregate social and political costs would be lower.

 

If I actually had to construct a policy to legalize all drugs that had to be both politically feasible and structured to minimize the social costs I'd start with marijuana and work from there. Decriminalize possession, change enforcement and incarceration priorities so that non-violent dealers get roughly the same treatment as white-collar criminals, and eventually work up to a situation where there are legal sales channels that yield revenue to fund education and treatment efforts. Once these pieces are in place, I'd incrementally expand the roster of substances that can be legally sold and consumed by consenting adults.

 

Addiction would still be a scourge, and it's possible that addiction would increase over current levels, but I think that society would be much better off than we are with the current "War on Drugs" model.

 

In your mind, is there an analogy between this topic and the various "anti-climate change" policy-models being tossed around?

[STP]

That seems so true about the underlying demand, that the energy companies are only filling a consumer need. However, maybe we can place a collective blame on the economists and others who engender that particular development model.

 

It's kind of like placing the blame on the cows who are fouling the surface water with their wastes. Shouldn't the blame be put on the farmer who concentrated the cows in one field in order to maximize his profit rather than, say, pasture his cows in open range?

 

[sobo]

Or howz'bout placing the blame on the the consumers who have such a high demand for low-cost milk that the farmer has to concentrate his cows on less pasture land in order for him to make enough profit to stay in business? He's only responding to your demands for more milk at a lower price.

 

When cows are pastured on more land, like in say, organic milk farms, it costs more, because there's less cows per acre. It also costs more for the milk, because most people won't pay twice the cost of a gallon of gas for a gallon of organic milk (yeah, that's what I said - organic milk is running about $7/gallon right now). So the price remains "artificially" high in order to cover those costs of products not purchased and thrown away (exceeded shelf life, etc.). If more people would partake of organicially produced foods, the price would drop substantially.

 

It all comes back to the consumer. No demand, no supply. Simple enough.

[STP]

So, the subprime mess is attributable to those who bought houses? No demand, no supply, no mess.

 

BTW, I wasn't talking about the products derived fromcows. Rather I was making the comparison that the consumer does what comes naturally given his choices. Who decides what choices the consumer has available? Is it actually the consumer? Besides, are we to assume that the majority of consumers are rational decision making beings? If you knew otherwise, then aren't you guilty by implication if you are complicit in abetting the consumer's mischoice?

 

What about corporate responsibility and ethics, whether it's global warming, environmental pollution, or what have you?

 

So, with regard to the subprime example,should the financial institutions be held up to scrutiny and if some are insolvent, allowed to fail rather than have the American taxpayer bail their asses out? The Fed basically came to the rescue of Wall Street at the expense of higher inflation to consumers.

 

I can't say I understand all this economic stuff. I did read somewhere that the economic reprecussions of letting Bear Stearns fail would have been greater than what we will experience presently.

 

Anyway I don't think I responsed to your interpretation of the analogy. It has more to do with JayB's comment about the illegal drug trade.

 

 

[AlpineK]

We as a society noticed the bad effects of alcohol and chose to make it illegal. After a period of time people decided to still purchase alcohol legal or illegal. After further thought everybody decided that making alcohol illegal was a bad idea and we should make it legal to folks over a certain age.

 

As things now stand alcohol is legal, but it can be placed at the roots of many bad accidents and deaths.

 

In my view pot/marijuana followed in this same tradition with the slight exception that pot was made illegal because it was perceived popular with blacks and Mexicans. Thus it was easy to make rules making the substance illegal.

 

In a lot of countries today pot is legal to own, but it's still viewed as a possible medical problem. The countries I'm talking about still spend tax money to help folks eliminate or reduce their use of pot, but they don't throw you in the slammer.

 

We could save a lot of tax dollars by taking the same approach. There are a lot of people in jail in the US merely for having a joint on them. If we spent tax money on educating people about negative consequences we would both help folks and save money.

 

As for other substances I'm not sure. It seems like coca leaves are ok talking to climbers who've been to Peru, but cocaine is much worse. Crank and meth sound all around bad. Taking a drug by injecting it without a doctors supervision is another bad idea.

[sobo]

So, the subprime mess is attributable to those who bought houses? No demand, no supply, no mess.

They are half to blame, yes. They created a demand for home ownership. A demand that they could not afford in their current financial postion but, in their entitlement mindset, wanted nonetheless. So people on the supply side dreamed up a loan package that would get the consumer what he wanted - in the short run. And of course the folks on the supply side were not about to do this without some financial reward to themselves. But any fool who couldn't read the details of their loan package and figure out that he was gonna get screwed when the rates went up after the stated period of time is an idiot. The word "sub-prime" should have been an immediate clue and cause for caution.

 

BTW, I wasn't talking about the products derived fromcows. Rather I was making the comparison that the consumer does what comes naturally given his choices.

And I wasn't responding to products derived from cows in particular, either. I was merely carrying on your cow analogy, and provided a specific example within a cow scenario.

 

Who decides what choices the consumer has available? Is it actually the consumer?

Yes. A demand is created; it's created by the consumer. Many times, a supplier provides something for which a demand must be created. But over time, the consumer demands refinements of the original product, to which the supplier/manufacturer must respond. So yes, eventually, it is driven by the consumer. If the supplier(s) does not respond, the demand eventually fades. Or the consumer will find a supplier that will respond to the consumer's desires and revise the product/service in accordance with the consumer's needs.

 

Do you remember JFK fiscal policy and later, Reaganomics? The old supply-side economics thing? Let's take hula hoops for example. Have you seen many hula hoops in stores lately? If we give hula hoop manufacturers a tax credit/incentive and flood the market with hula hoops, do you think that will increase the demand for them? No, I don't think so. I think it is the consumer that must create the demand for goods and services in almost every case.

 

Besides, are we to assume that the majority of consumers are rational decision making beings?

Clearly, as applied to those desiring home ownership and exampled by the sub-prime mortgage mess, the answer to your question is an emphatic "No."

If you knew otherwise, then aren't you guilty by implication if you are complicit in abetting the consumer's mischoice? What about corporate responsibility and ethics, whether it's global warming, environmental pollution, or what have you?

I'm not quite sure I follow your question here. If I knew "what" otherwise? That consumers are not rational decision making beings? Or how am I somehow complicit in helping a consumer make a bad choice? Or I am somehow responsible for the ethics of large corporations? Please elaborate/clarify your question.

 

So, with regard to the subprime example, should the financial institutions be held up to scrutiny and if some are insolvent, allowed to fail rather than have the American taxpayer bail their asses out? The Fed basically came to the rescue of Wall Street at the expense of higher inflation to consumers.

I think so, yes. I do not support the bail-out of Bear Stearns, nor any other player in the sub-prime mess, any more than I supported any player in the Savings and Loan Bail-out 20 years ago. Nobody learned a damn thing from that mess back then, as evidenced by the situation today. It's just the same game being played out on a different ball field. And I don't think the Fed "rescued Wall Street" as much as they rescued Bear Stearns and ended up setting it up for Morgan Stanley to make a steal purchase.

 

I can't say I understand all this economic stuff. I did read somewhere that the economic reprecussions of letting Bear Stearns fail would have been greater than what we will experience presently.

And I can't say I do either. What you read may well be true. But I will say that I am a believer in personal responsibility, and by extension, corporate responsibility. Bear Stearns made their own bed; they should lie in it.

[Dechristo]

I want a hula hoop

[sobo]

trendsetter...

[billcoe]

JaYb. Good post, however, it seems to me - that even if there was a slight chance the global warming issue is caused by man, we should have already taken the many low or no cost baby steps in that direction to reduce our carbon footprint. The recent increase in the CAFE standards, for instance, should have happened under the Clinton administration years and years ago. That the Bush admin signed it into law is admirable, yet it doesn't get enacted until 2020!

 

I can buy a Smart car, yet watching other folks still driving a 5 ton suv to commute still gags me knowing that many of those asswipes support the war to pump gas for us in Iraq, which is needed to keep those pricks in cheap gas.

 

It's a needless pisser.

 

 

Opps: citation for CAFE standards - Link

[hafilax]

Earth hour was a good reminder that we have artificially lengthened our winter days with the invention of the light bulb at the expense of increased power consumption. DST has really become a meaningless inconvenience to the urbanite.

 

The utopian consumer model is all great but marketing has become too powerful. They convince millions to do crazy things. Bottled water comes to mind. How did they convince us that our tap water is so bad? How many resources are wasted basically selling us our own tap water with a little filtering? Plastic bottle waste is totally out of hand. Dosani by Coca-Cola is the same water as is in Coke and it costs the same?!

 

A change in thinking is needed and things like Earth Day force people to face what they take for granted.

[STP]

There's a few people here who I respect for how they think though I don't necessarily agree. You're one (Sobo), JayB, MattP, others

 

I'm going off of a hunch but I don't believe that market forces alone will take us out of the global warming mess (It may be already too late.). I'm not sure I'm using the right terminology but the market (one side being the mass aggregates of our consumer decisions) is not some omniscient being who sees the big picture.

 

Earth Hour? Sure, recognition of a problem is the first step to solution followed by action. The question is what is the appropriate action? Is it simply, every little bit helps or are we talking more radical things such as a carbon tax on energy consumption?

 

 

 

[JayB]

There's a few people here who I respect for how they think though I don't necessarily agree. You're one (Sobo), JayB, MattP, others

 

I'm going off of a hunch but I don't believe that market forces alone will take us out of the global warming mess (It may be already too late.). I'm not sure I'm using the right terminology but the market (one side being the mass aggregates of our consumer decisions) is not some omniscient being who sees the big picture.

 

Earth Hour? Sure, recognition of a problem is the first step to solution followed by action. The question is what is the appropriate action? Is it simply, every little bit helps or are we talking more radical things such as a carbon tax on energy consumption?

 

 

 

Seems like there's a pretty big spectrum between doing nothing and empowering the state to enforce a centralized emissions rationing scheme.

 

Returning to the drug analogy, I think it's possible to develop a set of policies that discourages addiction and minimizes the harm that addicts inflict on themselves and others without criminalizing the consumption of particular substances and funding a vast enforcement bureaucracy to monitor what people consume, seize their assets, and imprison them when they decide to ingest something that the rest of society has good reason to believe will be harmful to them and those around them. The analogy is a bit forced, but I'm personally much more comfortable with climate change policies that use liberal ends to accomplish the same means that might be obtained via coercive, enforcement heavy methods.

 

I think it's possible to envision using liberal means to create a state of affairs where cranking up the heater to 82 degrees in the winter is seen as being as foolish as stoking a chimney with a stack of 20s, or as socially acceptable as taking a dump on your neighbor's lawn.

[Dechristo]

... as socially acceptable as taking a dump on your neighbor's lawn.

 

that's just my carbon footprint

[murraysovereign]

Is it simply, every little bit helps or are we talking more radical things such as a carbon tax on energy consumption?

 

Seems like there's a pretty big spectrum between doing nothing and empowering the state to enforce a centralized emissions rationing scheme... I think it's possible to envision using liberal means to create a state of affairs where cranking up the heater to 82 degrees in the winter is seen as being as foolish as stoking a chimney with a stack of 20s, or as socially acceptable as taking a dump on your neighbor's lawn.

 

Any thoughts on our pending steps down that road? As of July 1 the BC government will be collecting a carbon tax at various rates on different forms of energy. But they've designed it to be revenue-neutral, so the projected revenues from the carbon tax will be off-set by cuts to personal and corporate income taxes. I think it's an interesting approach. Taken to its extreme, the carbon tax or energy tax could be increased annually and income taxes reduced by an equivalent amount until income taxes are completely eliminated. The economic drag caused by the high energy tax would be offset by the stimulus of eliminating personal and corporate income taxes. I don't know if anyone has studied the net economic impact of taking it all the way to that point. At first glance it intuitively looks like it should be about a wash, but it's possible that such a policy could be positive for the provincial economy.

 

If you view taxation as a deliberate disincentive to engage in certain behaviours, or as a punishment for same, I'd rather be punished for burning gas than for earning a living, particularly if I could minimize the punishment by the simple expedient of not wasting energy.

 

There's a fair bit of opposition to the scheme, particularly in the interior where heating and transportation costs are already higher and the income tax cut likely will not make up for the added energy costs. Snoboy driving around the Kootenays in a big orange Unimog comes to mind.

 

I'm more inclined to approve, in part simply because I think it's an intriguing approach to taxation policy. In theory, it's a good way to go. Of course, my income tax savings will more than offset my increased energy costs, so if it turns out to be a mistake I'll at least pocket a little $$$ before it all gets overturned.