-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
How does a political movement that attempts to silence opposing views expect to attract rational people to its POV?
Well in the first place I didn't say anything about mental illness I said "How can a political movement that has as its current darling a mentally disturbed 16 year old girl expect to attract rational people to its POV?"
Asbergers is in the DSM. It is a mental disturbance. I can change it to "How can a political movement that has as its current darling a 16 year old girl with Asperger's expect to attract rational people to its POV?" or even further to
"How can a political movement that has as its current darling a 16 year old girl expect to attract rational people to its POV?"
If you don't understand why rational people would be put off I can't help you.
So I see people disagreeing with No. 6637. That brings up another question: How does one disagree with a question?
And the question remains unanswered. How does one get rational people to accept an irrational proposition? While I suppose the original question was meant to be rhetorical I suppose the answer to it is "Hire a PR firm" which I guess what this poor child's handlers have done. And that leads to another rhetorical question: Have they no shame?
And the question remains unanswered. How does one get rational people to accept an irrational proposition? While I suppose the original question was meant to be rhetorical I suppose the answer to it is "Hire a PR firm" which I guess what this poor child's handlers have done. And that leads to another rhetorical question: Have they no shame?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
mspohr
Well-Known Member
If we help poor countries install renewables they won't have to buy expensive fossil fuels.
Russia and SA have miniscule economies compared to the world. They'll fold.
That works for those on either end of the import/export stream where at least one side of the equation abides by these rules, but what if both sides of this equation are rogue nations?
Russia and SA are two of the top oil exporters and producers and their oligarchies depend on petroleum to protect their control of power. One of them has nuclear weapons and the other may have them in 10-20 years, so insisting on political compliance won’t be easy.
If they fold it’s because renewables are cheaper and versatile enough. They won’t stop or slow down extraction for environmental reasons.
The U.S. is the other of the top 3 oil producers. They may stop for ethical reasons. But their shale oil will likely run dry by then anyway.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
That is a theoretical concern that can be dealt with if it ever happens. A bilateral, exclusive commercial relationship is distinctly unusual amongst large corporations, let alone countries. They are global entities.
Just as car companies do not want to play by two standards, countries do not want to either.
As a current example, consider Iran and oil sanctions. Some countries formally agree to these measures, the sanctioned country (exporter) does not, considers them unjust, and at least one or two large countries (importers) at least unofficially do not recognize the sanctions. AFAIK there are no formal contracts between said parties, at least that those which imposing sanctions can see. Yet plenty of oil still leaves Iran and gets burned.
Multinationals are common in the western world, but often not so with State owned and supported enterprises.
Just putting that out there, because this will be a serious potential stumbling block if renewable economics don't win the day.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Understood. But this is about the large potential of carbon taxation not to capture these products.
Consider that scenario with everyone in the rest of the world (ROW) having a carbon tax except rogue exporters (say Russia or SA) and rogue importers (say India or China). ROW could tax carbon products that pass through their supply chains at any point to capture negative externalities. But if ROW never has access to the rogue pipeline because it goes directly from rogue exporter nation to rogue importer nation, a carbon tax is never applied and the fossil fuels continue to be burned in large quantities.
Also fossil fuels procured and consumed within a rogue nation would not be able to be captured by carbon taxation.
We could try to capture "cheaters" with satellite imaging showing CO2 rogue emissions, but would they pay a carbon bill sent to them?
Consider that scenario with everyone in the rest of the world (ROW) having a carbon tax except rogue exporters (say Russia or SA) and rogue importers (say India or China). ROW could tax carbon products that pass through their supply chains at any point to capture negative externalities. But if ROW never has access to the rogue pipeline because it goes directly from rogue exporter nation to rogue importer nation, a carbon tax is never applied and the fossil fuels continue to be burned in large quantities.
Also fossil fuels procured and consumed within a rogue nation would not be able to be captured by carbon taxation.
We could try to capture "cheaters" with satellite imaging showing CO2 rogue emissions, but would they pay a carbon bill sent to them?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
^^
Australia as the rogue exporter and the USA as the rogue importer sounds more realistic to me, but I digress ...
One possible solution would be for countries to slap carbon tariffs on rogue countries. It is hard to hide an oil tanker. My larger point though is that oil is not free, it just might be a little cheaper than clean energy. The compliance mechanisms do not have to be perfect, they only have to make it not worthwhile to continue the fossil economy.
Australia as the rogue exporter and the USA as the rogue importer sounds more realistic to me, but I digress ...
One possible solution would be for countries to slap carbon tariffs on rogue countries. It is hard to hide an oil tanker. My larger point though is that oil is not free, it just might be a little cheaper than clean energy. The compliance mechanisms do not have to be perfect, they only have to make it not worthwhile to continue the fossil economy.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
To be clear, are you a representative off these supposed "rational" people?
Incorrect. It was removed in DSM V.
It was placed under the Autism spectrum, and is considered a developmental disorder. It's not a mental disturbance as you said.
Maybe you need
Well I am a rational person, if that's what you mean but I don't represent them.
It's just a bit of fun to throw a rational comment or two into a thread like this one from time to time and watch the lefties splutter.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You failed on all counts, but I'm sure you'll keep telling yourself otherwise.
Success doesn't mean bringing irrationals to rationality. We know that never happens. Success means I got a couple of you spluttering which I did. I am amused and I hope some others are too. Goal achieved.
Hmm. I never have done this before but I guess this makes me a flame baiter? But genug ist zuviel. I won't be back.
Hmm. I never have done this before but I guess this makes me a flame baiter? But genug ist zuviel. I won't be back.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Divestment works – and one huge bank can lead the way | Bill McKibben
Perhaps the first real test will come on 15 October, when the board of the EU’s European Investment Bank – the largest public bank in the world – meets to decide whether the time has finally come to stop expanding the fossil fuel sector. This should be a no-brainer decision: the bank’s staff has put forward a cogent proposal, supported by campaigners across the continent, that would end loans to new fossil fuel projects by 2020.
And if the EIB does act, it will send a strong signal to markets and to other lenders. For almost a decade now, observers have understood that restricting the flow of money to the fossil fuel industry is a key part of the climate fight. That’s why endowments and portfolios worth more than $11tn have begun divesting their fossil fuel stocks; last month the University of California system became the latest big player to join in, scrubbing its $80bn endowment and pension fund of fossil fuel stocks.
Perhaps the first real test will come on 15 October, when the board of the EU’s European Investment Bank – the largest public bank in the world – meets to decide whether the time has finally come to stop expanding the fossil fuel sector. This should be a no-brainer decision: the bank’s staff has put forward a cogent proposal, supported by campaigners across the continent, that would end loans to new fossil fuel projects by 2020.
And if the EIB does act, it will send a strong signal to markets and to other lenders. For almost a decade now, observers have understood that restricting the flow of money to the fossil fuel industry is a key part of the climate fight. That’s why endowments and portfolios worth more than $11tn have begun divesting their fossil fuel stocks; last month the University of California system became the latest big player to join in, scrubbing its $80bn endowment and pension fund of fossil fuel stocks.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Similar threads
