30 May 08
I think the best and first step to combat CO2 emissions is government policy - which doesn't cost a cent. This includes:
1. Building standards for more energy efficient buildings. The same goes for new lighting, geysers etc.
2. Standards for fuel efficiency in cars.
3. Rules and regulations for the emissions of power stations.
4. Tax on dirty fuel to be used to subsidize the development of clean technology.
One of the biggest problems is that Oil companies have a lot of political power.
The other major problem is that 'the market' only thinks about 'the markets' interests not humans interests.
30 May 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterSpecifically, how do you suggest that the market should sort out this problem?
This is a terrible idea: The solution to government-created problems is not more government. Clearly, the government carbon-rationing scheme is unnecessary as the market is perfectly capable of sorting this out.
30 May 08
Originally posted by Dace AceGlobal warming is an urgent crisis and I largely approve the scheme in principle, but there are many issues with how to implement it. I suggest it should be phased in, and there are other things that should be targetted first, like increasing mileage for cars and investing in alternative fuel sources.
Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs
Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.
The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissio ...[text shortened]... wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies.
The bottom line is that we need to create cars (and other commodities) that don't pollute the environment, and then sell them to countries around the world including China and India. Several decades from now, Republicans in the US will no longer be raising partisan opposition to environmentalism but I predict that China and India will become a growing problem until we can create the technology to reduce their emissions. Rather than contemplating having to use force against two nuclear powers, one of which already has ICBMs (nuclear war isn't exactly good for the environment, either), it would be better if we can persuade them with technology.
Just look at the nationalism in China over the Tibet protests; there's a very real risk that China will kick up even more of a fuss over being asked to do the right thing environmentally than the US has. Over 1/3 of the world's population is concentrated in China and India, and these two countries are rapidly increasing the amount of pollution that they cause per person. It's likely to be an exponential growth curve, I fear.
Anyway, back to this particular scheme. I think some commodities should be excluded (food and electricity, for example) whereas petrol is fair game because driving a car is not an absolute necessity.
30 May 08
Originally posted by FMFYes, you stated it better than me. What I was trying to say was indeed cronyism.
What's communist about that? What you're describing sounds like Bush cronyism, Cheneyism, Halliburtonism...
Lets look at some of the potential impacts of this carbon credit idea.
- Motorsports. What would a race car driver have to do to support his sport? Motorcycle, rallye, formula...these sports use a lot of our resources, just to entertain us.
- Film industry. Speaking of entertaining, the boat load of electricity is required to make a movie. How will the film studios be able to support this usage?
- Football night games. Would you have to pay some of your carbon credits to attend a night game?
- Vacations. Money may be a small part of being able to take that trip to Spain. The limiting factor may be the number of carbon credits it will take to get there, UNLESS you plan on walking or riding a mule.
Is this how it could pan out? To the extreme, would we be driven to live without electricity, living in cottages, a couple cows, and a garden? Would this be the goal of a zero carbon footprint society?
30 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Dace AceEvery MP in Britain should be forced to carry a brain and stop talking out of their a......... or the natives really will be revolting 😉
Every adult in Britain should be forced to carry 'carbon ration cards', say MPs
Every adult should be forced to use a 'carbon ration card' when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say.
The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain's CO2 emissio wants more credits. Trading would be done through specialist companies.
30 May 08
This is a very typical response from effete intellectuals: government rationing. Unfortunately, we all can't be heads of U.N. programs or other government bureaucrats and flown or chaffeured around in taxpayer financed private jets or limousines. This program will adversely affect working class people, especially those who drive for a living. Why is it that petty government bureaucrats can only come up with schemes that increase taxes and government control through rationing? Is this real leadership? We deserve better.
30 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Dace AceYou could have said capitalism and substituted equal opportunity for equal treatment, or you could also easily have said democracy and substituted equal voice for equal treatment. Capitalism and democracy are no less flawed if considered within the context of the lofty goals of an open and equally accessible market for both goods and representations that are also clearly biased in favor of being in the know.
Would this system just be the new form of communism? You know, everybody is supposed to get equal treatment, but it ends up really on who you know, or what position in the government you hold. If you have a friend in the right place, you'll end up with more credits then is fair owned to you.
30 May 08
Originally posted by FMFGovernment intrusion in the market will only insure that there are further shortages. Also, you're arguing from the point of view that the Earth is bigger than all of us and everyone's wants and needs must be sacrificed. Perhaps you should propose something sensible?
Propose something.
Not: "the market is perfectly capable of sorting this out".
Something sensible.
30 May 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterKind of like the Social Security system. People could not plan for their own future, so now we have the government helping. And now that system is about to crumble.
Government intrusion in the market will only insure that there are further shortages. Also, you're arguing from the point of view that the Earth is bigger than all of us and everyone's wants and needs must be sacrificed. Perhaps you should propose something sensible?
30 May 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterShortages of what? CO2 emissions?
Government intrusion in the market will only insure that there are further shortages.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Also, you're arguing from the point of view that the Earth is bigger than all of us and everyone's wants and needs must be sacrificed.
Am I? Where am I arguing this?
30 May 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterGlobal warming is an urgent crisis. Surely resolving the crisis is more important than pandering to either side of an ideological argument about the extent to which the government should be regulating.
This is a very typical response from effete intellectuals: government rationing. Unfortunately, we all can't be heads of U.N. programs or other government bureaucrats and flown or chaffeured around in taxpayer financed private jets or limousines. This program will adversely affect working class people, especially those who drive for a living. Why ...[text shortened]... ase taxes and government control through rationing? Is this real leadership? We deserve better.
If you have a better scheme than the one proposed, then let's hear it. Until you can actually articulate a scheme of your own, you're just being an "effete intellectual" yourself by raising partisan ideology without substantiating it.
Let's hear your scheme, then we can compare and contrast the different suggestions that have been provided.
31 May 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI quite agree. Also, if a larger tax is put on all fossil fuels to artificially increase their cost to make their cost really expensive then that would be a big economic incentive to use less fossil fuels and to develop and use alternatives and then there would be no need for introducing ‘carbon ration cards’ and there would then be no need for people to have to be educated to use them.
Does sound like a total bureaucratic nightmare. Maybe they should work on fixing the education system first, or nobody will be smart enough to figure out how personal carbon trading works...
Why wouldn’t this obviously simpler alternative to ‘carbon ration cards’ be better? It certainly would be much less bureaucratic.
What am I missing here?
The only argument against this I have so far heard is the flimsy argument that it would hit the poor because they would have to pay greater fuel costs -so why not just give them extra state benefits to exactly counteract this so that they, on average, are made no better or worse off than before? -the money for this increase in benefits would simply come from the fuel tax itself!