unbillievable Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I'm not worried about the planet being destroyed I'm worried about a degradation of the planets ability to support human life- the way these people think it's like they know nothing of the Dust-bowl, which is clear evidence that human activity can cause massive environmental degradation. My contentions isn't that humans are incapable of altering the environment, it's the idea that carbon credits is the solution to global warming (especially since the left has admitted it will just add the increased tax revenue to the general fund) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) I'm not worried about the planet being destroyed I'm worried about a degradation of the planets ability to support human life- the way these people think it's like they know nothing of the Dust-bowl, which is clear evidence that human activity can cause massive environmental degradation.His religious conviction is arguably more threatening than ISiS because it represents an existential threat to the species. And to think he was in the running for the most influentual energy policy role in America. My contentions isn't that humans are incapable of altering the environment, it's the idea that carbon credits is the solution to global warming (especially since the left has admitted it will just add the increased tax revenue to the general fund) So than what's your solution? You admit theres this huge problem but then offer no alternative? Clearly a government policy is needed because even most individuals who concede the issue don't see their use at the margin enough to effect the outcome. It's the collective restrictive use enforced by states that needed. Edited June 26, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 So than what's your solution? You admit theres this huge problem but then offer no alternative? Clearly a government policy is needed because even most individuals who concede the issue don't see their use at the margin enough to effect the outcome. It's the collective restrictive use enforced by states that needed. So then what's your solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 So then what's your solution? cool. if we can all agree there's a problem then maybe we can agree to some measures that will at least slow the damage. I'm not worried about the planet being destroyed I'm worried about a degradation of the planets ability to support human life- the way these people think it's like they know nothing of the Dust-bowl, which is clear evidence that human activity can cause massive environmental degradation. i wonder what he thought of the movie "noah". i'm guessing he would have been one of those gorging on the animals collected for the ark if he had around back then. would have needed his ass burned by a flaming bush to get the gist. strange movie tho that just didn't quite work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 So then what's your solution? should be clear from my posts. carbon credits i dont care about fine tuning tax inequities and delaying action when the species is at risk. completely irrational to put tax ahead of extinction risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 So, according to some, carbon credits are the solution to global warming/climate change? Yes, let's pay a fee so that fee can do what? Lining pockets isn't an insulation to the problems you are claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 should be clear from my posts. carbon credits i dont care about fine tuning tax inequities and delaying action when the species is at risk. completely irrational to put tax ahead of extinction risk The reason I've never supported carbon credits as a method of addressing AGW is because I don't see how buying carbon credits actually helps anything. I'd like to hear a reasoned explanation of how they work, if you could offer one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The reason I've never supported carbon credits as a method of addressing AGW is because I don't see how buying carbon credits actually helps anything. I'd like to hear a reasoned explanation of how they work, if you could offer one. It's supposed to bring awareness to an individual's impact on the environment. It's like snapping a rubber band when you're on a diet. Paying carbon credits is self punishment for using too many resources. It also allows the carbon credit receiver to avoid getting a real job. (and keeps his SUV in the garage) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The reason I've never supported carbon credits as a method of addressing AGW is because I don't see how buying carbon credits actually helps anything. I'd like to hear a reasoned explanation of how they work, if you could offer one. Carbon credits are the modern equivalent of Indulgences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Carbon credits are the modern equivalent of Indulgences Except that "carbon credits" are intended to be traded between companies. You buy carbon credits from a "clean" company, not from the Church of Climate Change. But when the government institutes a carbon tax, then that'll be an excellent analogy. And I'd bet no small amount of money that the foundation for that - strict, legally binding restrictions on carbon emissions, requiring federal action to implement - is one of the big secrets buried in the TPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 It's supposed to bring awareness to an individual's impact on the environment. It's like snapping a rubber band when you're on a diet. Paying carbon credits is self punishment for using too many resources. From what I can tell, that seems to be a reasonable assessment of the concept in general. Can any AGW proponents clarify further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 ‘Disappointing’: After brief torrid love affair, the Left is again jaded by SCOTUSCNN Breaking News ✔ @cnnbrk #SCOTUS rules the EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act http://cnn.it/1C1IL82 ABC News ✔ @ABC Supreme Court rules against federal regulators' attempt to limit power plant emissions: http://abcn.ws/1LDXLff Mother Jones ✔ @MotherJones The Supreme Court just stopped the EPA from making the Earth a safer place http://mojo.ly/1U13r5w ThinkProgress ✔ @thinkprogress BREAKING: The Supreme Court will allow coal plants to emit unlimited mercury http://thkpr.gs/3673866 Will the Left drop it and move on thanks to their newfound “Court has spoken so it’s final” attitude that arose a couple days ago? yeah, right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 ThinkProgress ✔ @thinkprogress BREAKING: The Supreme Court will allow coal plants to emit unlimited mercury http://thkpr.gs/3673866 That's particularly stupid. As though there's no previous standards for mercury emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Very wide right Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) They are now blaming shark attacks on global warming errrrrrrrr I mean climate change.LOL,Silly liberals and the poor taxpayers money that funds their nonsense. Edited July 1, 2015 by Very wide right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 They are now blaming shark attacks on global warming errrrrrrrr I mean climate change.LOL,Silly liberals and the poor taxpayers money that funds their nonsense. They changed the regs on sharks in 2000. Could that have something to do with it? http://savannahnow.com/stories/061900/SPTshark.shtml#.VZQ6g2fbJaQ FTA "Federal regulations, which cover all ocean waters from the three mile state boundaries to 200 miles out, will become very restrictive for all recreational fisherman along the coast, and particularly in South Carolina where state laws automatically fall in line with federal mandates." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 They are now blaming shark attacks on global warming errrrrrrrr I mean climate change.LOL,Silly liberals and the poor taxpayers money that funds their nonsense. Now, now. Even the Pope warns us on global warming. I mean, he's wrong about the act of homosexual sex being a sin, but he's completely right about global warming cuz, y'know, he's the pope and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 They changed the regs on sharks in 2000. Could that have something to do with it? http://savannahnow.com/stories/061900/SPTshark.shtml#.VZQ6g2fbJaQ FTA "Federal regulations, which cover all ocean waters from the three mile state boundaries to 200 miles out, will become very restrictive for all recreational fisherman along the coast, and particularly in South Carolina where state laws automatically fall in line with federal mandates." Partially that, since herring schools are at 20-year highs (up from being overfished 4 years ago). But also because the water inshore is warmer and more saline than usual, so sharks are coming inshore much more than normal, which is favorable to sharks. Basically, of the Carolinas the sharks have a nice, comfortable room full of snack foods...and occasionally they grab a person by mistake. There was just another attack about three hours ago. That's seven in about two weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Very wide right Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 Partially that, since herring schools are at 20-year highs (up from being overfished 4 years ago). But also because the water inshore is warmer and more saline than usual, so sharks are coming inshore much more than normal, which is favorable to sharks. Basically, of the Carolinas the sharks have a nice, comfortable room full of snack foods...and occasionally they grab a person by mistake. Now, now. Even the Pope warns us on global warming. I mean, he's wrong about the act of homosexual sex being a sin, but he's completely right about global warming cuz, y'know, he's the pope and all. Yeah I hear he has some socialist woman scheduled to speak on climate change on his behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 From what I can tell, that seems to be a reasonable assessment of the concept in general. Can any AGW proponents clarify further? 1- I'm not necessarily an AGW proponent. 2- One way:'Companies' will be issued carbon credits allowing them to pollute 'x' amount. Companies that got 'cleaner' would pollute less, and could then sell their excess credits to 'dirtier' companies , with the goal being an overall reduction in carbon 'credits' being issued per year. The idea is that some companies can reduce their carbon emissions much more cheaply than others, and this provides an incentive for those who can cut emissions in the most efficient ways to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Very wide right Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 1- I'm not necessarily an AGW proponent. 2- One way:'Companies' will be issued carbon credits allowing them to pollute 'x' amount. Companies that got 'cleaner' would pollute less, and could then sell their excess credits to 'dirtier' companies , with the goal being an overall reduction in carbon 'credits' being issued per year. The idea is that some companies can reduce their carbon emissions much more cheaply than others, and this provides an incentive for those who can cut emissions in the most efficient ways to do so. TRANSLATION: More jobs lost in the good old USA due to a nonexistent liberal crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts