Makes sense to me

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ps104_33, Apr 14, 2007.

  1. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Reducing the output of carbon dioxide and other substances that trap the Earth's heat is not cheap. But there are expensive solutions, and there are astronomical ones. Any new policy should aim at getting the greatest reductions for the least money.
    That may sound like a hugely complex task for the government, but it's not. The free market is the best system ever created for providing what we want at the lowest possible cost. The way to get affordable amelioration of climate change is to put the market to work finding solutions. To achieve that, we merely need to make energy prices reflect the potential harm done by greenhouse gases.
    How? With a carbon tax that assesses fuels according to how much they pollute. Coal, having the highest carbon content, would be taxed the most, followed by oil and natural gas. The higher prices for the most damaging fuels would encourage people and companies to use less of them and more of other types of energy, including nuclear, solar, wind and biofuels. This approach would also affect all sources -- not just cars, which account for only one-fifth of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions."









    http://www.reason.com/news/show/119610.html
     
  2. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about taxing exhalations?
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh no :( We musn't engage in POLITICS by trying to
    decide who gets which of Earth's resources.
    Instead, we must engage in stupidity,
    deny a Carbon Dioxde problem :(,
    and LOSE OUR SHARE :(

    Politics - the art of determening who gets what stuff.
     
  4. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    We're the ONLY country that hasn't signed the Kyoto treaty. How can you talk sensihbly about losing "our share." Besides, we already use a disproportionate amount of the world's resources. Why is that appropriate for a "Christian nation?"
     
  5. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    You might want to recheck India and China when it comes to pollution, and according to a NASA satellite, the largest area of CO2 emissions is in South America.

    If I can find the link on my other computer tomorrow to the video from the satellite, I will post it.
     
  6. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    the Kyoto protocol punishes the United States for being the United States. Other countries (especially India and China) would be held to a lower standard than us...even though per captita they pollute much worse (and may even surpass us straight up by now).

    • Kyoto would wreck our economy...which come to think of it, would make this blatantly anti-American organization happy.
    • I'm not defending wanton destruction of the environment...but where in Scripture does it suggest proper quotas regarding resource use?
    • Last time I checked, UN legislation was irrelevant when it came to our law. I get nervous when we start allowing the UN to tell us what laws to pass.
     
  7. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Before anyone tries the "emerging nation" argument concerning India and China, I have one question: How long have they been around?

    OK, two questions:

    How long has the US been around?
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Man is not contributing one iota to the warming of the planet Earth.

    Climate happens.

    Man does cause pollution but that does not cause global warming. It fouls the air, the water, and the dirt. I do think we need to reduce pollution, especially in developing countries where pollution is worse than in western Europe and the United States.
     
    #8 KenH, Apr 18, 2007
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2007
  9. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well yeah. We can afford far more of the luxurious amminities driven by this amazing free enterprise system. So we have leave a large carbon track. Ain't it great. :thumbs: ''

    The fact that we are a "Christian Nation" as you put it, is largely responsible for our wealth. Neato.:thumbs:
     
  10. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well Ken I agree with this, wow. The sun is hotter. But don't tell the Algore types.
     
  11. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Show me how man is causing warming on Mars, and I might believe that we're causing it here.
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. This nation is not a Christian nation.
    2. 2/3 of the nation's Chrisitians are in the
    discussion of the body politic, maybe 3/4
    3. By 'we' I mean conservative Christians

    Again, if WE (Conservative Christians) bow OUT of the
    're-alignment of resources when the earth gets warmer' political
    conversation (political wheeling & dealing) cause 'there
    is no global warming
    '; then we won't be getting thier
    share of resources. Now if one (Conservative Chrisitian) is
    willing for their children & grandchildren to starve to death
    IF THE LORD TARIES, be my guest. But please don't say
    I'm not "sensihbly" talking - perchance you aren't "sensihbly"
    listening?

    Please count the cost of denying man caused Global Warming
    before saying "tain't so"

    Luk 14:2830 (KJV1611 Edition) (words of Jesus in red/purple):
    For which of you intending to build a towre,
    sitteth not downe first, and
    counteth the cost,
    whether he haue sufficient to finish it?
    29 Lest haply after hee hath laide
    the foundation, and is not able to finish it,
    all that behold it, begin to mock him
    ,
    30 Saying, This man beganne to build,
    and was not able to finish.
     
    #12 Ed Edwards, Apr 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2007
  13. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0

    Sorry, that is not exactly true. While 166 countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. That is not all the countries of the world.

    Technically the United States did sign the accord, (Then Vice President Al Gore signed it on Nov 12, 1998). The treaty has never been presented to the Senate for ratification but the Senate has indicated that they will not ratify if that ever happens. (95-0 vote by the U.S. Senate on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution).

    Australia, Croatia, and Kazakhstan also signed but have not ratified the proposal. Australia has indicated that they have no intention of ratifying it.

    And that leaves a number of countries who have not signed it including Turkey, Serbia, Taiwan, and several others listed by Wikepdia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories

    Also, several signers have pulled out or announced that they will not try to meet the Kyoto standards. Germany announced this last year. Don’t forget China and India are not required to reduce emissions and China is on track to surpass the United States and become the world's largest polluter by 2009.
     
  14. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    God said He will destroy the earth by fire. Mankind will not cheat God of what He has said He will do.

    The "evidence" of an impending disaster can not be accurately predicted from a change in global mean surface temperature of only 1 degree in 150 years. This is an extreme extrapolation of relatively little data. It might be a long term trend but it might not be.

    The conclusion of the "cause" for the predicted change is even more lacking because it does not rule out many possible causes other than mankind's activities. That big ball of fire in the sky has a lot to do with the earth's temperature according to God's creation.

    It can be considered a theory worth further study and continued evaluation but there's still too much debate among technical experts - forget the politicians - to consider it proved fact. It could turn out to be true, partly true, or completely false. If you leave out all the politicians they're doesn't seem to be that many real technical experts in the public view. Most new theories enjoy a lot of technical debate and withstand it all until accepted as fact.

    The "facts" being presented have been hijacked by various supporters to spread panic so we will grant a free hand to a political "solution" by government. Yet there is virtually no explanation of what that "solution" would actually involve. We are, once again, screaming "Save Us Oh Great Government in Washington from Which All Blessings Flow" without examining carefully the consequences of worshipping that god.

    The political response to this prediction will very likely not result in any meaningful change in that trend. It will however further penalize citizens and nations who are the most productive by meddling in the free market place and extort money to fund a vaster assortment of follies.

    Clues from the past should alert us that the political solution would involve more taxes to fund more agencies that will generate more regulations that will spawn an industry of lawyers and consultants who will contribute nothing to the exchange of tangible goods or services of any value to ordinary consumers.

    The "solutions" will more likely make things more expensive - especially things made in the USA - which will work to the advantage of some at the expense of others. We will likely suffer economically as we continue to experience and endure hot summers and cold winters.
     
    #14 Dragoon68, Apr 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2007
  15. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to this article I was off by a couple years.

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OMPHM80&show_article=1

     
  16. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO: If the CO2 percentage of the atmosphere rises, plants that depend on it, process it and grow at a faster rate. In that growing spurt, they throw off more oxygen, which so far hasn't been labeled an environmental downer. This ebb and flow of CO2 would seem to be self regulated in the growth rate of plants.
     
  17. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    God knew what He was doing when He created the earth.
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Members of the Flat Earth Society have no votes
    in the 'realignment of earth's resources due to Global
    Warming' debate.
     

Share This Page

Loading...