[PaperNotes]

Now they're pushing politicians to back heavily monitored rationing using a program that will cost billions a year.

BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs back personal carbon credits

I always knew the Green movement went hand in hand with a desire for Big Brother government and communism. That's why I never bought their doom and gloom stories backed by drug using celebrities and politicians who want more power.

BTW, it's May. It's raining and quite cold. Global warming heh?

[Gamoe]

That there are people trying to use the environmental movement for their own ulterior motives does not mean there are no environmental issues at hand. It's like saying that there's no inequality issue between classes simply because communists use this issue for their own sinister purposes.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

That there are people trying to use the environmental movement for their own ulterior motives does not mean there are no environmental issues at hand.

There are environmental issues at hand, always have been, and the solution has always been more development and more consumerism not less!

The real motives of environmentalists are anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-capitalist and even more radically a halt to all development in the developing world. When a Green sees a black man with money, house and car he tells the black man (or other ethnic minority), you were happier in the jungle living a simple uneducated life!

They are simply totalitarian communists who shroud themselves in nature loving platitudes to appeal to soft hearted Disney cartoon watching types who genuinely believe animals and trees have feelings and thoughts, and thus freely donate millions to such Green organisations who then use the money to buy power and influence.

[besson3c]

So, the take home message here is that there are those with a radical agenda?

[Chongo]

That is what the "carbon credit" scam is all about. The US and the EU will have to buy "credits" from countries that are not using them (i.e. third world countries) to offset their "footprint" Just another transference of wealth scheme

[Eug]

[peeb]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

When a Green sees a black man with money, house and car he tells the black man (or other ethnic minority), you were happier in the jungle living a simple uneducated life!

WTF?

[Zeeb]

I think keeping track of people's "carbon footprint" precisely will be nearly impossible. Also, what does it matter if Western countries reduce their carbon footprint a little while places like China belch out ever more smoke into the air?

Eventually, I think a lower population will solve the problem. This will happen naturally as the result of starvation, conflict over limited resouces, and environmental poisoning someday. As smart as we are, I don't think human beings can overcome the natural instinct to have a lot of kids and buy as much as you can.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

There are environmental issues at hand, always have been, and the solution has always been more development and more consumerism not less!

I think that might be the most ludicrous post I have ever, ever read. Whilst I’m not very green at all, claiming that the solution to environmental problems is to increase one of their major causes is patently ridiculous. I don’t even need to point out the flaws in it because they’re so glaringly obvious.

Whilst some environmentalists are “anti-human, anti-freedom and anti-capitalist”, that doesn’t hold true for the majority of them. I know people who describe themselves as ‘environmentalists’ (or derivatives thereof) who recycle, walk whenever practicable and try not to buy overly packaged foodstuffs; it would be a feat of some magnitude to make a convincing argument that someone who refuses a carrier bag at a supermarket is “anti-human”.

As with all movements, there is inevitably going to be a lunatic fringe who brings disrepute to the wider, largely sensible majority. I don’t think that because maybe 1% of environmentalists are certifiable that you can dismiss a whole group of people and their views so glibly. I mean, really, if I recycle my cans and bottles, am I threatening anyone else’s freedom, or advocating communism? I think not.

It is also worth noting that the traits you assign to environmentalists can be applied to (some of) those who are in direct opposition to them. As with everything, there is a huge group with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo…

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

BTW, it's May. It's raining and quite cold. Global warming heh?

Your willful ignorance isn't helping.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

...who genuinely believe animals and trees have feelings and thoughts...

Did you go out of your way to ignore everything you learned in biology/natural sciences class?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Koralatov 

I think that might be the most ludicrous post I have ever, ever read. Whilst I’m not very green at all, claiming that the solution to environmental problems is to increase one of their major causes is patently ridiculous.

But it is. This was raised and highlighted by one of the founders of Greenpeace just last year (has has left Greenpeace, claiming it is anti-human, religious driven and halts development in poor countries).

Take logging for instance. Greens will say the logging industry is destroying the environment by reducing forest or jungle cover. A genuine forestry official backed by genuine science will tell you that more forestry, not less, is the solution for a simple reason. Old trees have reached their limit in terms of how much carbon dioxide they can absorb, like an old mammal they are unable to absorb the very elements they need and their growth has stopped. The solution is to always cut older trees down and grow new sapling trees which have much better carbon dioxide absorption.

That is exactly how the US forestry industry has maintained almost the same amount of wild forest cover in the United States for decades now.

As with all movements, there is inevitably going to be a lunatic fringe who brings disrepute to the wider, largely sensible majority.

Sadly they are not a fringe in the environmental movement. They are the most wealthy, most influential and most driven. They are also closet anti-development, have odd religious beliefs about spirit-rocks, are racist and demonstrably against liberal societies. They wish to rule by dictat and by controlling what people do and how they behave. The first way to get people used to that is by controlling their spending habits and making people fear about the future.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Did you go out of your way to ignore everything you learned in biology/natural sciences class?

Your mockery genuinely moves my soul. I think I might turn vegetarian and worship a treegod now.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Your mockery genuinely moves my soul. I think I might turn vegetarian and worship a treegod now.

I'm not advocating vegetarianism, I'm pointing out your lack of understanding of basic principles. Cognitive abilities are not limited to the human animal or any other member of the great ape family. It also doesn't change my opinion that the cheeseburger is one of man's best inventions.

Plus, what's wrong with worshipping a tree god?

Speaking of cheeseburgers, off to lunch.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm not advocating vegetarianism, I'm pointing out your lack of understanding of basic principles. Cognitive abilities are not limited to the human animal or any other member of the great ape family. It also doesn't change my opinion that the cheeseburger is one of man's best inventions.

Shut that pigeon hole now. You have no opinion here and if you did, it would probably be less grounded in reality than your opinion that Iraq is getting worse.

[peeb]

Sober up and come back when you can be civil, papernotes.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Plus, what's wrong with worshipping a tree god?

god<--this part.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

god<--this part.

What?

[PaperNotes]

More robbery by the UN and climate change liars

BBC NEWS | Business | The great carbon bazaar

[peeb]

Erm, Papernotes, have you read the article? First, the UN is not 'robbing' anyone. Second, it doesn't seem that anyone, except, perhaps, the company who is falling foul of the 'additionally' test is a 'liar'. This is a new system, and the kinks are being ironed out. It's good to find these cases, and refine the system. Grow up and try to keep that frothy foam in your mouth!

[Chongo]

British contemplate carbon rationing - Green Daily

Unlike carbon offsets, which have (perhaps rightfully) been condemned as modern-day "indulgences," carbon rationing, administered by the government, would not unduly punish poorer people who can't afford to buy their way out of big carbon footprints. Under this scheme, each citizen would receive the right to emit a certain amount of carbon every year. Carbon cards would be required every time a citizen would visit a gas pump, buy electricity, or take a flight on an airplane. If you want to fly from pillar to post for business purposes, you would have to purchase carbon credits from somebody willing to part with theirs. Otherwise, no go.

sounds like ROW

[peeb]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Koralatov 

I think that might be the most ludicrous post I have ever, ever read. Whilst I’m not very green at all, claiming that the solution to environmental problems is to increase one of their major causes is patently ridiculous. I don’t even need to point out the flaws in it because they’re so glaringly obvious.

Air and water quality have improved drastically since the late 1970s, yet we didn't clean the air and water by stifling growth. We grew like a son-of-a-gun during this period.

I don't know that I can agree with the original statement as is, without a discussion of all the various elements involved, but I will say that if growth is stifled, monies for research and development of newer technologies (like those that help improve the environment) dries up. Growth is good. It generates capital for investment, and the results from those investments help our society progress.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Air and water quality have improved drastically since the late 1970s, yet we didn't clean the air and water by stifling growth. We grew like a son-of-a-gun during this period.

I don't know that I can agree with the original statement as is, without a discussion of all the various elements involved, but I will say that if growth is stifled, monies for research and development of newer technologies (like those that help improve the environment) dries up. Growth is good. It generates capital for investment, and the results from those investments help our society progress.

Exactly my meaning man.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Exactly my meaning man.

That reduction in population happened through regulation though.
BTW, growth is a drug - we need to get off that train before it kills us and develop a steady state stable economy.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Shut that pigeon hole now. You have no opinion here and if you did, it would probably be less grounded in reality than your opinion that Iraq is getting worse.

Some people get frustrated when they don't understand something, especially children with learning disabilities. I'll try to explain it a little better.

The mean temperature of the planet is rising. It may have an adverse effect on micro-climates. That means out of the ordinary weather patterns, with summers and winters moving more into the extremes in localized regions.

Humans are a member of the great ape family. Humans are also not the only species on the planet that is self aware and can reason. Humans are the most advanced, arguably most intelligent, but not the only cognitive species.

I did not say Iraq is getting worse. For all the lying and flag waiving to get people to support the war that was instigated not on the principles of freedom & democracy, Iraq may very well be better off. I stated that they've been warring for so long that replacing the current dictator will probably have little to no affect on the region. Give it a few hundred more years.

[besson3c]

Paper, Spacefreak: the key is sustainable development. With it, growth can be infinite, without it, it can't. An oil based economy is not looking to be sustainable right now, which is the problem.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

god<--this part.

At least a tree is tangible.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Paper, Spacefreak: the key is sustainable development. With it, growth can be infinite, without it, it can't. An oil based economy is not looking to be sustainable right now, which is the problem.

There needs to be a checks & balance system. Free reign capitalism is bad.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There needs to be a checks & balance system. Free reign capitalism is bad.

You might also say that free reign capitalism is not sustainable - both to building an economy, and even to the company itself. Every empire crumbles, and in some cases the collapses are magnificent.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

free reign capitalism is not sustainable

Of course it's not.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

An oil based economy is not looking to be sustainable right now, which is the problem.

Because the American left has handcuffed us. We have tons of oil reserves, yet we can't go drilling because of the left.

Brazil just signed a 40-year lease for one of it's fields. Do you really think companies and nations would agree to 40-year contracts if they weren't planning on the oil still being pumped at a good clip 40 years from now?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Air and water quality have improved drastically since the late 1970s, yet we didn't clean the air and water by stifling growth. We grew like a son-of-a-gun during this period.

I don't know that I can agree with the original statement as is, without a discussion of all the various elements involved, but I will say that if growth is stifled, monies for research and development of newer technologies (like those that help improve the environment) dries up. Growth is good. It generates capital for investment, and the results from those investments help our society progress.

Correlation != Causation

There is nothing to say that un-restricted economic policies are what allowed for the "drastic improvements in air and water quality" that occurred during the 1970s. How do you know that the economy would not have grown more during this period is we didn't have even stronger environmental regulations? You don't. Al you know is that two actions (air and water quality improvements and economic growth) occurred roughly simultaneously to one another. Chronological simultaneity does NOT equal causality in any logic system. So, there is no reason to assume the two sets of actions are related in any way.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Because the American left has handcuffed us. We have tons of oil reserves, yet we can't go drilling because of the left.

Brazil just signed a 40-year lease for one of it's fields. Do you really think companies and nations would agree to 40-year contracts if they weren't planning on the oil still being pumped at a good clip 40 years from now?

Okay, so we find a little more oil and buy ourselves a little more time. That does not take away from the fact that the world's oil supply is depleting. I'm not saying that we shouldn't drill, but simply that oil is no longer a sustainable path that we should be investing resources on.

[peeb]

You don't have a lot of oil. Perhaps enough for 2 years of current demand if you ransack the last wild areas. It doesn't solve the problem that there is not a sustainable supply of oil. Your arguments about the idea that you could spend the next decade grubbing around the places that are on the cover of the Sierra Club calendar and wring a few more years out of the carbon economy are just dumb.
It's the same kind of thinking that has led to Japan trouncing the US car industry. Invest NOW in non-carbon fuels, or have the new economy dominated by others.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You don't have a lot of oil. Perhaps enough for 2 years of current demand if you ransack the last wild areas.

Proof?

[besson3c]

The other thing that I think a lot of people don't put together in their head is that vehicles aren't the only things that consume oil, contributing to higher gas prices. Conservation across the board - improving building efficiency, supplementing power plants with energy alternatives, etc. can also decrease our demand on oil without having to alter our lifestyle. We are so hyper-focused on our transportation costs, but there are so many other pieces of the puzzle we need to look at in our energy usage.

The one thing I liked about Al Gore's documentary was its attempt to dispel some enviro-myths:

1) Conservation means using less energy which means giving up on the things which we need and/or enjoy
2) Doing stuff that benefits the environment is now, and will always be expensive
3) Being an environmental advocate is akin to being a tree hugger that is completely disconnected with modern society

I don't understand why anybody would be so dismissive of the idea of improving the efficiency of their building to save on their electric bill, or wanting to invest in alternatives simply so that we are less dependent on foreign oil so that we can reduce the demand towards oil. I don't see how any of this stuff is left-wing or right-wing, this is just plain old common sense.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Proof?

This is another of your trolls, right?

[Chongo]

Judge for yourselves.
U.S. Crude Oil Proved Reserves, Reserves Changes, and Production

[peeb]

Yeah, but if we dug up all the national parks we could get another year or two out of it, surely?

[Chongo]

Is The Bakken Formation in a national park?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Is The Bakken Formation in a national park?

That's what I was wondering.

[subego]

Is my math wrong? I calculate about 4 years at current consumption.

[peeb]

Maybe 4, depends on how you count it. The point is it doesn't provide an alternative to developing a post-carbon energy economy, just means you'll be behind the curve.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Maybe 4, depends on how you count it. The point is it doesn't provide an alternative to developing a post-carbon energy economy, just means you'll be behind the curve.

This use of the word carbon is soo abused these days by fascists who want to place more taxes and controls on our lives it is sickening.

In 20 years we'll be kicking ourselves at how much time was wasted in 2007-2008 with this word CARBON. Our children will be laughing at us.

Here's a list of fearmonging from religion, charities, government and corporations to squeeze money and power out of us. Notice how they hardly overlap as if they run out of steam on one fearmonging and then move on to the next:

1. God will punish you unless you come to temple/church/mosque. Fear God™ and Fear Hell™
2. God will send a flood and kill you all unless you cease development!!!!!! - Noah
3. Mother Nature will send a flood and kill you all unless you cease development!!!!!! - Greenpeace
4. AIDS will kill us all within 20 years!!!!! - scientists, charities and celebs in the 80s. They still aren't close to a cure and AIDS hasn't come close to killing even a micro-nation.
5. Asteroids will kill us all!!!! - scientists and mvies in the mid 90s.
6. The millennium bug will hault all progressive development!!!! - corporations, contractors, authors. They minted money from upgrades but even most of the non upgraded machines in the world showed very little problem.
7. Carbon will kill us allllllll!!!!!! - Al Gore, Leonardo Di Caprio, Greenpeace, money hungry scientists, tax and control hungry government officials. Despite the fact nature needs carbon, despite the fact we have cleaner air and water now than in generations, despite the fact that we need global warming because glaciers and harsh cold weather are mostly useless, despite the fact we can channel ice water to desert regions, despite the fact we have far less forestry than 10,000 years ago and we aren't dying from it.

[besson3c]

Paper: I'm far more afraid of people who value their gut feelings as much as you do over than worrying about a fascist under my bed (which seems to be of concern to you).

"Harsh cold weather is useless" is the extent of your argument? Really? If so, here is another problem for your gut to mull over: where is all of that melted ice going to go?

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

where is all of that melted ice going to go?

Firstly, I don't believe the hype. Scientists have said if all of the snow in the Arctic and Antarctica melted there would be a one meter global rise in ocean and sea levels. One meter!

What are the chances of all that snow melting? None.

Environmentalists are only ever eager to point to the Antarctic Peninsula (which is subject to erosion just like all coasts around the world, something they conveniently ignore), while ignoring that increased precipitation in the southern seas has contributed to heavier snowfall inland across Antarctica. That's right, increased snowfall inland! We learned about the water cycle at school so this should not come as any surprise.

Further to that, increased precipitation would also means increased rainfall over some of the areas of the world that suffer from drought.

Why not also build canals and rivers to feed water into deserts? Why not turn the Sahara green by purposefully melting ice and channeling increased ocean volume inland? It's called terraforming. Scientists have been talking about terraforming other planets to make them habitable, yet why ignore our inhabitable areas on Earth? Is it because poor coloured people live in those areas and they don't deserve the benefits? How many black environmentalists do we see? Hardly any. It's a rich white man's game. Yes, this is the race card because the whole environmental movement really seems to be about making the developing world stay backwards by all means possible and maintaining a status quo, or rather turning back the clock on development in general even in modern countries while increasing the amount of laws, taxes and controls on citizens.

One thing sticks in mind from Al Gore's Convenient Lies. He showed an image of a drab mountainscape covered by a glacier. It was dead land in some Eurasian country. The ice made it inhabitable. Forward to the next photograph: the glacier had melted. The landscape this time was a new lake, green fields and lush valleys teaming with wildlife.

Gore presenting this as a disaster.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yeah, but if we dug up all the national parks we could get another year or two out of it, surely?

Just off the continental shelf we have 115 billion barrels sitting in the ground - enough to fuel current US consumption rates for 16+ years. And then there's the Gulf of Mexico, ANWR, and the shale in Colorado/Utah where estimates of embedded oil are 4x the total of Saudi Arabia's entire reserve.

China, India, Cuba in Gulf oil partnership - May. 9, 2006

... (U.S. continental shelf contains) 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would be enough oil to satisfy U.S. demand, at current consumption levels, for 16 years and enough natural gas for 25 years, according to the Times.

And if we stay on good terms with Canada... the Arctic Circle is estimated to be another Middle East, and many estimate the oil reserves to be even greater than that.

Existing holes -> at best, only 30-40% of oil in a given hole can be extracted. It's not economically feasible at $50 a barrel to get the other 60-70%. However, at current oil rates, it's now very feasible to get the rest. So of all the oil that's ever been pumped (ie. existing holes), there is still plenty there.

We need oil to fuel ourselves, and to fuel economic growth. With economic growth, we have more money to spend on R & D of alternative technologies. And no matter what anyone claims, especially with regards to cars, the technology is still nowhere near the level in labs or in production to to be basing energy decisions on. Toyota, after a decade of spending a gazillion dollars on R&D, just hit the 500-mile plateau in terms of how far their cell engines can travel on a charge. And that's just in a lab so to speak. Nowhere near large or even small-scale production.

I have no doubt will someday be where we want to be, but it's going to remain a long road to get there. Society's infrastructure depends on oil, and replacing that infrastructure on a mass scale will take many decades. And it will be a slow process.

[subego]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Firstly, I don't believe the hype. Scientists have said if all of the snow in the Arctic and Antarctica melted there would be a one meter global rise in ocean and sea levels. One meter!

Not that I'm anywhere close to being an environmentalist, my understanding is that the issue has little to do with sea levels rising and is more about dumping large quantities of fresh water into salt, which could diddle with your big ocean currents.

Frex, the warm water in the Gulf Stream becomes colder and saltier (through evaporation) as it goes North. The water has to get dense enough to sink (i.e. it needs to be salty) and it needs not to freeze (i.e. it needs to be salty).

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not that I'm anywhere close to being an environmentalist, my understanding is that the issue has little to do with sea levels rising and is more about dumping large quantities of fresh water into salt, which could diddle with your big ocean currents.

Frex, the warm water in the Gulf Stream becomes colder and saltier (through evaporation) as it goes North. The water has to get dense enough to sink (i.e. it needs to be salty) and it needs not to freeze (i.e. it needs to be salty).

The whole thesis presented on the Gulf Stream by people like Al Gore is completely theoretical. Gore was the same guy whose science said Lake Chad has almost dried up because of greenhouse gases when in fact the Chad has dried up many times throughout history. Gore and Di Caprio's 11th Hour documentary also claimed that hurricanes like Catrina were caused by post 1970s greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, when it is a solid fact that there were more regular and more violent hurricanes in the first half of the 20th century.

The science from the likes of Gore is astoundingly contradictory. It states that global warming will heat up the northern hemisphere, shut down the Gulf Stream and then contribute to an Ice Age. It doesn't add up. Global warming or Ice Age?

As pointed out before, you would have to melt a HUGE amount of ice to disturb the Gulf Stream. I'm not talking about a few glaciers around the world (which have not resulted in rising sea levels because the melted water was absorbed by land and new wildlife). I'm not talking about the coastal erosion of just one corner of Antarctica. The amount of ice needed to melt and affect the Gulf Stream or cause any meaningful rise in ocean levels is ridiculously large. It's literally all the ice in the world. We couldn't melt a third of it if we tried to on purpose. Antarctica is thicker today because of increased precipitation and snowfall.

The climate change scientists use computer models to simulate temperature changes in the foreseeable future. Here's the flaw in their simulation. They simulate cars and other technology that we have been using for the last decades up to present. That's one major flaw. In five years or ten years our technology will be more energy efficient, not because of Green pressure but because technology always is becoming more efficient. Climate models don't take any future technology or human behavior patterns into account, and with the figures they use the best they can muster is a degree or so increase in temperature.

That's why our children with their every better technology and their ever more developed and more rational world will be laughing at what gullible fools we were in the early 21st century. I suspect several leaders of Green movements would have ran away with the free moneys by then.