Green agenda. A con?

« Did Jesus Really Exist? | Illegal Music Downloading and the new Coldplay Album »

Green agenda. A con?

by joebangles @ 2008-06-09 – 16:05:30

Is the green agenda just a con practised by governments to collect taxes, and by others that have jumped on the band-wagon, to line their own pockets?

If there is any truth in the statements made that the cause is co2 emissions, the fact that the United Kingdom only produces less than 2% of the world total would suggest that, should we stop producing co2 emissions by banning all and everything that produces this gas, excepting those that are a necessity to keep the UK from grinding to a halt, there would be no noticeable affect on the world total.

2% of China's emissions, 2% of India's emissions or 2% of the USA's emissions, would make a major difference.
Options:
Tags:
- green agenda.

34 Comments to Green agenda. A con?

Hide subcomments

- deleted user (Visitor)
- 2008-06-09 @ 16:32:24
I think its all a con myself.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- 2008-06-09 @ 16:32:48
I think its all a con myself.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- deleted user (Visitor)
- 2008-06-09 @ 16:33:10
I think its all a con myself.
- - jackfrost ^Pro
  - 2008-06-09 @ 18:46:42
  it is mate..it is only us the punters who have to go green...the businesses do what they like.......must not start to rant must not start to rant must not........
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- DominicGee
- 2008-06-09 @ 16:51:28
I think a large part of it, if not all is a con. This is not based upon any science (both sides have in my view rather spurious statistics) but because of who is involved. Governments, big business. Anyone who thinks that environmentalism is anti-establishment is seriously naive, the figures speak for themselves.
As soon as it wsa announced that extra tax was going to be levied as a result of global warming I knew something was up. Especially this bit of Medaevilism: You get off feeling guilty for driving a large 4x4, living in a fully heated house and going on long haul trips around the world by simply 'off-setting' your carbon footprint. This basically means you pay someone to get rid of the situation. It's one rule for the rich etc etc... Where's Martin Luther and a cathedral door when you need one??
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Benjamy
- 2008-06-09 @ 16:53:22
I have yet to be convinced that its anything other than a knee jerk tax collect scheme. However, the Earths resources are precious and limited in amount and as a palnet we do need to take care of the resources we have, and nurture nature. so there is nothing wrong in the principles of sustainability and bieng enviromentally friendly, but taxing us to the hilt is no encouragement.

i did read the article that stated the earth would recover within 200 years if we were not here. and am reading with interest Nigel Lawsons current tome.
its a different stand point to theat Al Gore chappie but hey shouldnt we be fully informed of both sides of the debate?
- - joebangles
  - 2008-06-09 @ 19:22:44
  You and I concur Benjamy.
  - - Benjamy
    - 2008-06-10 @ 13:15:40
    a Lively debate youve started here!
    
    Every little helps, and im sure the running thread is that we must all look after our planet. the subject of taxing us is a complete red herring, yes to do something we must pay, in our actions primarilly, and that will cost, but i will never be convinced that bieng fined for putting the wrong rubbish in the wrong bin will in any way to the coffers to help reduce carbon emmisions. YES keep looking and keep researching and gathering more information on how best we can help mother nature and preserve outr planet, YES do every thin we can to help reduce carbon emmisions and waste, YES its a drop in the ocean and we need to assist the emerging countries and help them to emerge CLEAN.
    
    vbut when someone can adequatley explain to me why The United kingdom operates a PENAL system of encouragement instead of a rewarding system then i will oppose taxation, and continue as I have for as long as i can remember to keep my own house in order, and not bludgeon others into submission.
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- SeasideMan ^Pro
- 2008-06-09 @ 17:11:02
Climate Change is not a myth, it's very real, and us humans need to pull our fingers out and start reducing our energy usage and investigating alternative energy sources. And it does require action from the world collectively.

CO2 emissions are certainly a major factor in the problem. The last time I checked, The USA was responsible for 25% of the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. Not surprisingly, they were the ones most resisting action because it would hit their economy.

The biggest study ever done on the financial implications is The Stern Report, and that estimated the cost of fixing Climate Change at about 1% of GDP. That's not so much really when you think about it.

As far as the UK is concerned, offshore wind generators could be the answer. It's less clear what other countries will do, if anything. But inaction by other countries is no reason for us to not take any action.

Things as simple as loft insulation and using more efficient lightbulbs will make a difference, and you'll save money too.

Cheers, Tom.
- - joebangles
  - 2008-06-09 @ 19:35:22
  I fully agree Tom, I won't argue that we have global warming, we probably do, but, I believe that is natural and there is nothing that we can do to stop it, we must learn to live with it, such as building at the riverside, lift them and put legs underneath them, but, is there any real science that proves that global warming is caused, even partly, by co2 emissions.
  
  Possibly, a better way to spend the money collected in taxes would be by helping China/India to reduce their emissions, help them to build nuclear power stations instead of coal fired, reducing just 2% of their emissions would make a major difference.
  - - SeasideMan ^Pro
    - 2008-06-09 @ 19:58:12
    The science on this is solid. CO2 is one of the major drivers of Climate Change, and the human contribution to it is major.
    
    The USA is a far bigger problem than either China or India.
    
    A 2% reduction is nowhere near sufficient.
    
    Tom.
    - - joebangles
      - 2008-06-09 @ 21:57:22
      Is the science so solid Tom? There are many scientists that disagree with the theory and this is based on the fact that they do not have enough true data to feed in to there computers, much information fed in is based on supposition.
      
      My suggestion is that the Government accept that in the UK we have so little, and, even going back to horse and cart days would have no effect on the world total, that we should, whilst taking every care, forget about increasing taxes and giving this explanation for doing so.
      - SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-06-09 @ 22:14:05
        
        Yes it is very solid. The link Cassandra gives elsewhere on this discussion to the Royal Society's articles on this is excellent. There are very, very few reputable scientists in the field who disagree that anthropogenic Climate Change is a reality. I really recommend looking at their "myths" about Climate Change - they will answer any science questions far better than I could, and you can't get much more reputable than the Royal Society.
        
        If my neighbour pollutes the river, this doesn't mean I shouldn't stop polluting it myself. If that argument is taken to it's logical conclusion, no-one would do anything.
        
        There is no profit ledger in government accounting. The necessary taxation is raised and the money spent. Without the sin and green taxes, income tax would have to go off. It doesn't really make any difference what the tax is labelled as, it all goes into the same pot!
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- tylluanpenry
- 2008-06-09 @ 17:21:35
Climate change has been with us for thousands of years. At one point the Sahara was savannah grassland... and I don't believe it was down to carbon emissions unless maybe the ancient EGyptians were a lot more advanced than we thought.

I do agree that the Earth's resources are precious. It should be cherished, treated with respect. It is the only home we have and if we destroy it we will not get another.

I do not believe our government really believes in global warming however, and is cynically using it as an excuse to raise taxes.
- - joebangles
  - 2008-06-09 @ 19:40:21
  I'm with you tylluan, the grape growers in the north of England many years ago saying, "it's getting colder, throw some more coal on the fire to build up the co2 emissions".
  
  Yes, it's the only planet that we have and we must look after it.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- - CassandraofTroy
  - 2008-06-09 @ 20:06:52
  I'm inclined to agree with you about the government's commitment.
  they claim to be trying to tackle the problem, but no doubt they will cave in over petrol taxes again, just as they did 8 years ago.
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- CassandraofTroy
- 2008-06-09 @ 19:59:04
I think the Royal Society can answer this better and more convincingly than I can:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
I have been following this debate for the last 20 years.
Strikes me as the inverse of Hitler's Big Lie. No matter how often and how loudly people are told the truth, with however much evidence there is to back it up, if they don't want to hear it they will find all sorts of ways of comforting themselves with lies, myths and half-truths.
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-06-09 @ 21:47:11
  I agree with you completely, Cassandra. My experience of arguing about this issue with people for the last 15 years or so, both in real life and in virtual life, is that many cannot entertain the idea of trying to fix Climate Change because what is necessary conflicts with their political/economic ideology. Others simply think it's a mad conspiracy theory made up by bearded weirdos and soap-dodging hippies.
  
  The result is some holding their hands over their ears and chanting "LALALALA" and some shouting "RUBBISH!" repeatedly and vociferously.
  
  The debate scientifically was over some time ago, but it keeps being continued by those with vested interests in denying it. The result, almost inevitably, will be too little action too late.
  
  Tom.
  - - CassandraofTroy
    - 2008-06-09 @ 21:58:34
    It's not even as complex as political/economic ideology, it's just that it conflicts with the way they've always lived their lives, people cannot cope with the idea that the way we live cannot go on indefinitely, we have been on borrowed time for decades. So they invent the 'mad conspiracy theories' explanation to protect themselves from having to face up to the truth.
    What baffles me is that the stronger the evidence becomes, the more robust the scientific consensus, the more people contrive to find ways to disbelieve it. So, any statement made by, say, the IPCC is automatically disbelieved, because somehow the people with the greatest expertise, who have spent the most time seriously studying the issue, automatically have a 'vested interest' and are hence discredited - unlike, of course, the pseudo-scientists in the pay of the oil companies who tell them what they want to hear.
    This is why I'm tearing out my hair.
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-06-09 @ 22:16:06
      Yes, it's very frustrating, isn't it? There's nothing I can add to what you just said: I am in total agreement with you.
      
      Tom.
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink
  - - DominicGee
    - 2008-06-10 @ 13:03:19
    Do you not think that it is possible that your side of the issue is just as clouded by ideology as the other? The Global Warming issue is anti-capitalist, anti-american (the US does not contribute 25% of the world's carbon emissions) and resulting from a general guilt attached to our successes and disappointment at the failure of global Marxism (just a theory)? Or do you work for a Nuclear power company?
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-06-10 @ 13:20:42
      Where is your source? Here is mine. You will note that these figures are actually the US governments own:
      
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
      
      “The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels; primarily because our economy is the largest in the world and we meet 85 percent of our energy needs through burning fossil fuels. “
      
      There is nothing ideological about those numbers, they are simple unspun facts. Doing something about Climate Change is also non-ideological.
      
      Tom.
      - DominicGee
        
        2008-06-10 @ 13:36:14
        
        Sorry, I misread what you had written. Thought you said USA was responsible for 25% of the carbon produced on Earth.
        
        We won't bother getting into a debate though. I can see where it will end up, and I don't want a slagging match. I do believe it is ideological though - the fact that I knew you'd be a firm believer in Global Warming due to human actions, and the fact that you probably knew I would deny it says it all.
        Follow the money, that's all I do, cos that's usually where the answers lie. And there is definite money involved.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-06-10 @ 13:48:57
        
        You said this was anti-American: it isn't, it's anti-pollution and the USA makes most of it.
        
        You said this is anti-capitalist: it isn't because the solutions require capital and buy-in from corporations.
        
        Nuclear power isn't the answer either, alternative energy is. And guess who has a distribution networks for spreading power: yup, it's the power companies, so they will be the big winners of any profits to be made from this. So by all means follow the money: you'll find it leads to the power companies.
        
        But also bear in mind that there are far more important things than a bit of reduced profit: ensuring a decent planet for all of our descendants is far more important.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        CassandraofTroy
        
        2008-06-11 @ 06:56:52
        
        If you ascribe any argument which you doesn't confirm your pre-existing beliefs to 'ideology' on the part of the person making the case, what kind of evidence would you require to actually make you think about something and question your own views?
        do you, for example, believe in the evidence of a connection between smoking and lung cancer, or do you think that is also just a con?
        BTW, Tom said the US was responsible for 25% of CO2 emissions 'pumped out', not produced on earth.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
    - - CassandraofTroy
      - 2008-06-11 @ 06:47:41
      'Anyone who thinks that environmentalism is anti-establishment is seriously naive' Quote
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink
  - - DominicGee
    - 2008-06-10 @ 13:05:43
    Also, the fact that you keep re-emphasising the idea that 'the debate is over' as if science simply reaches conculsions without furthur probing is worrying. I don't trust the Royal Society after they changed their motto from a friendly and scientific "On the Word of No One" to the rather more sinister and UNscientific "Respect the Facts." It has been the people who have gone against concensus that have prevailed, not those brainwashed by it.
    - - CassandraofTroy
      - 2008-06-11 @ 07:06:56
      I am at a loss to understand why 'respecting the facts' should be seen as sinister and unscientific, but never mind.
      If you don't trust the Royal Society, how about every other reputable independent scientific body in any other country, even the US, despite the attempts of the government to gag, silence it and undermine it?
      Why do you assume that a body of people who have spent their careers studying the 'facts' about how the world operates is not in a better position to draw conclusions and make recommendations from those facts than those who haven't? If that's the case, what is the point of science at all?
      - Reply to comment
      - Permalink
- - joebangles
  - 2008-06-09 @ 22:07:32
  Interesting link Cassandra.
  
  From that site, "It is important to note that computer models cannot exactly predict the future, since there are so many unknowns concerning what might happen.........
  While climate models are now able to reproduce past and present changes in the global climate rather well, they are not, as yet, sufficiently well-developed to project accurately all the detail of the impacts we might see at regional or local levels. They do, however, give us a reliable guide to the direction of future climate change. The reliability also continues to be improved through the use of new techniques and technologies."
  
  Scientists have been wrong on many occasions.
  
  Yes, of course we must look after our planet, it's the only one that we have, but, I don't want the scientists to say that they know, I want them to keep looking, it may be something else.
  - - CassandraofTroy
    - 2008-06-10 @ 06:58:27
    Interesting that you pulled out that particular quote.
    Why not this one?
    'Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable'.
    
    Thirty years ago, the predictions were based largely on computer models. Since then, those models have been tested and developed using ever more empirical evidence, which is all pointing in the same direction, to the point where it is no longer about models. The biological and ecological evidence, the climatological evidence, the oceanographical evidence, is all getting stronger and more disturbing. Talk to anyone involved in these fields, and they will tell you straight.
    
    There are so many feedback loops going on that new problems are becoming apparent all the time. The whole situation is unpredictable and ready to blow up in our faces.
    
    I was at a lecture at the Royal Geographical Society two years ago, given by the chief modeler of the Henley Centre, where he said that they are always being told to make the models more complex, to include more data, but because they are constantly finding out about new feedback loops, this increases uncertainty in the results - sure, they can't say EXACTLY what will happen, but we already know enough about what is happening already (and is irreversible) to know that the situation is dire - or to use his words: 'We're screwed'.
    
    You want the scientists to keep looking for something else? What a comforting thought. 'No, we don't like this explanation, find us another, doesn't matter whether it's true or not, just make something up please'.
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink
- Benjamy
- 2008-06-10 @ 13:32:24
back in 1975 it was predicted that if we didnt do something urgently then we would be in the midst of an ICE AGE even down to a Panoramma programme and serious articles and i belive a Royal Society Lecture and even today amongst all the hype we get this http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

and yes it will be back to the old its from a NASA man and the Americans have more to gain etc etc. but and its a BIG BUT it does show we need to keep researching and consider all the theoretical outcomes from the collected data

by the way of nature if we live as one and respect our planet then we can help but our planet will always have its own life and continue to grow old and change its the way of life is it not
- - Benjamy
  - 2008-06-10 @ 13:39:38
  to increase my devils advocate stance just a tad.
  Its not clear cut, it is clearly debateable, and there are deniers on both sides other wise we would not have sites like this
  http://www.iceagenow.com/Climatologists_Who_Disagree.htm
  
  but one thing you can be sure of, when it comes to snow shovels there will be a a tax and a fine from the Government of the time
  - Reply to comment
  - Permalink
- DominicGee
- 2008-06-10 @ 13:42:04
I don't see how the oil company's would be against global warming - they are not going to produce any less oil, our world can't function without it. All that's going to happen is drive the fuel price up. Then who's laughing?? Have you seen the price of oil lately? But does it cost any more to get out of the ground? We pay more, simple as that.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink
- Kibitz
- 2008-06-14 @ 07:49:09
Whatever the facts on global warming ...

Whatever the cause ...

And regardless of politics ...

A cleaner planet must be desirable.

x
- Reply to comment
- Permalink

You haven't lived until...
by Znethru on 2009-11-16 – 00:35:02
Hello all.
by joebangles on 2009-11-15 – 14:26:22
PMs
by kitten44 on 2009-11-13 – 16:22:25
How?
by avenscent on 2009-11-13 – 15:11:36
OK here goes
by freeasthewind on 2009-11-12 – 14:19:56
DAILY QUIZ
by trulyfab on 2009-11-12 – 10:23:25
If you were close to death, what would you choose for your last words? To whom would you want to say them?
by anyak on 2009-11-11 – 07:36:48
you are . . .
by TheRavingLoon on 2009-11-10 – 22:51:06
Blog Space.....Help!
by Bushka on 2009-11-10 – 17:47:19
?
by Znethru on 2009-11-09 – 17:21:45

34 Comments to Green agenda. A con?

Leave a comment (Login)