Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Canuck100

Are humans really responsible for climate change?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You'd get more done then you would with the extremism, that's the point. 

Do you want better, or do you want worse because you clinged to extremism instead of throwing it under the bus? Your choice.

Sure, another cent or two on the carbon tax will do the trick, while China builds another coal fired power plant somewhere.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, another cent or two on the carbon tax will do the trick, while China builds another coal fired power plant somewhere.

 

 

The carbon tax is extremism. Throw it under the bus or undermine the very cause you claim to champion, your choice. If you package shit that will actually work in with poison pills, you aren't going to be able to sell what actually works.

#ditchthepoison

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

The carbon tax is extremism. Throw it under the bus.

Ah.  More Prius ads on TV then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Ah.  More Prius ads on TV then?

Sell what actually works, don't sell it in a bundle with poison. Designing a fuel efficient car that people like and advertising it, sure does more for the environment than a carbon tax ever will

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Works better than a carbon tax. Sell what actually works, don't sell it in a bundle with poison.

Well, at least we know there's a plan.  What a relief!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Well, at least we know there's a plan.  What a relief!

A good plan that doesn't solve the whole issue is better than a bad plan that tries to solve the whole issue and just makes everything worse.

Perfect is the enemy of good. Pro tip.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

A good plan that doesn't solve the whole issue is better than a bad plan that tries to solve the whole issue and just makes everything worse.

Perfect is the enemy of good. Pro tip.

My Dad used to say, "every little helps, said the monkey as he pissed into the sea".

Of course, that was before climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

My Dad used to say, "every little helps, said the monkey as he pissed into the sea".

Of course, that was before climate change.

You don't really think doing better is worse than doing worse, just because it doesn't solve the entire problem, do you? As long as you are trying to solve the problem in it's entirety, it doesn't matter how much worse you make the problem? Virtue signalling good intentions trumps actually achieving good results?

If so, the lack of pragmatism on your part is truly staggering. If you want to sell the good stuff, packaging it with poison undercuts that cause. Don't say that I didn't warn you to throw the extremism under the bus, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I start with myself and my family, then my community and so on. Reduce waste, drive less, bike more and take the train. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, marcus said:

I start with myself and my family, then my community and so on. Reduce waste, drive less, bike more and take the train. 

 

 

Well if those were the policies environmentalists were pushing, without including poison pills and government power grabs to force people to behave the way they want them to, they'd find a lot less opposition to their cause than they currently do with their extremism fetish.

Ditch The Poison, throw the crazies under the bus, and then come back to table, you'll get a lot more concessions that way. The current strategy of virtue signalling your moral superiority, and shaming those who don't support extremist measures proposed by those claiming the moral high ground, that is extremely counter-productive to the cause.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Well if those were the policies environmentalists were pushing, without including poison pills and government power grabs to force people to behave the way they want them to, they'd find a lot less opposition to their cause than they currently do with their extremism fetish.

Ditch The Poison, throw the crazies under the bus, and then come back to table, you'll get a lot more concessions that way.

Your aggressive characterization and one-dimensional view of people kills conversations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, marcus said:

Your aggressive characterization and one-dimensional view of people kills conversations. 

If you can't see that extremists have hijacked the environmental movement, you aren't paying attention, or you're one of the extremists. Real environmentalists would be castigating the extremists using their cause for nefarious ends, not embracing them and their policy proposals while they undermine your efforts.

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

If you can't see that extremists have hijacked the environmental movement, you aren't paying attention, or you're one of the extremists. Real environmentalists would be castigating the extremists using their cause for nefarious ends, not pretending they don't exist and letting them undermine their efforts.

You seem to share a characteristic of an extremist. You have the same "you're either with us or against us" approach to discussions. Your threat to accept your view of who people are and how things work is unappealing. 

You, me, someone else may have a different view as to who the 'extremists' are and who the 'real environmentalists' are.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, marcus said:

You, me, someone else may have a different view as to who the 'extremists' are and who the 'real environmentalists' are.

 

Indeed, but I am right. If you want to ally yourself with those who hold back your cause, I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink. It's your funeral, I am simply offering you some great advise, fully realizing you are just going to double down on derp instead of taking that advise.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2019 at 11:28 PM, Nefarious Banana said:

Do the red ants spend countless centuries figuring out how to eliminate the black ants . . . 

Ant wars are legion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You don't really think doing better is worse than doing worse, just because it doesn't solve the entire problem, do you? As long as you are trying to solve the problem in it's entirety, it doesn't matter how much worse you make the problem? Virtue signalling good intentions trumps actually achieving good results?

If so, the lack of pragmatism on your part is truly staggering. If you want to sell the good stuff, packaging it with poison undercuts that cause. Don't say that I didn't warn you to throw the extremism under the bus, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

I don't think a carbon tax is an extreme attempt to solve climate change, if that's what you mean, no.

I don't think that thinking so is an example of pragmatic thinking either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think a carbon tax is an extreme attempt to solve climate change, if that's what you mean, no.

I don't think that thinking so is an example of pragmatic thinking either.

 

A carbon tax doesn't work, so clearly you are for virtue signaling intentions over actual results, or you misguidedly believe that a carbon tax works with no actual proof, yet you demand people be taxed more anyway. Either way, sounds extreme to me, whether you can see it or not.

If you want to raise people's taxes, you better have a good reason for it, and until you prove it's a good reason, you shouldn't be demanding higher taxes. This is an example of supporting answers that involve government power grabs over answers that actually address the issue.

What's more important to you? Higher taxes or the environment? Because based on the results of your carbon tax support, you are putting higher taxes above the environment.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

A carbon tax doesn't work, so clearly you are for intentions over results, or you misguidedly believe that a carbon tax works with no actual proof.

I know.  That's why I don't think it's an extreme attempt to solve climate change.  It's a pathetic attempt to look like we're doing something when we're not.

Your notion that we should try for more extreme measures won't work either though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I know.  That's why I don't think it's an extreme attempt to solve climate change.  It's a pathetic attempt to look like we're doing something when we're not.

Your notion that we should try for more extreme measures won't work either though.

My notion is that extreme measures require those measures to actually be effective to be worth the trade off, because if they are not, then extreme measures will be counter-productive and have a lot of downsides. If you want to implement extreme measures because anything less won't solve climate change, then it's up to you to prove that those extreme measures will actually work and that they are worth putting up with the downsides, or you can f*ck off with your extreme measures.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

My notion is that extreme measures require those measures to actually be effective to be worth the trade off, because if they are not, then extreme measures will be counter-productive and have a lot of downsides. If you want to implement extreme measures because anything less won't solve climate change, then it's up to you to prove that those extreme measures will actually work and that they are worth putting up with the downsides, or you can f*ck off with your extreme measures.

You don't have extreme measures.  I just wanted to see what it was like to put words into another posters mouth, as you do.  As I'd never done it before.

I didn't like it much.  It seemed dishonest.  I don't think I'll do it again.

You do have a classy turn of phrase, though, as evinced by your last sentence there.

But that in itself is not worth continuing with this waste of time, so you can have the last word in this conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You don't have extreme measures.  I just wanted to see what it was like to put words into another posters mouth, as you do.  As I'd never done it before.

I didn't like it much.  It seemed dishonest.  I don't think I'll do it again.

You do have a classy turn of phrase, though, as evinced by your last sentence there.

But that in itself is not worth continuing with this waste of time, so you can have the last word in this conversation.

Higher taxes which don't address the issue and make the problem worse, that's extreme. Environmentalists need to stop using higher taxes as their go to fix for everything, same goes with banning behaviors they don't like.

Stop with the government intervention heavy methods already, stop with the claims of the sky falling if people don't embrace those methods, it's poison and undermines the environmentalist cause. Environmentalists need to start focusing on means, and stop claiming the ends justify the means, especially when the means don't even achieve the ends while infringing on people's well being just to implement those counter-productive means.

That sh*t doesn't sell, and that sh*t is why there are so much opposition to the environmentalist agenda. Pro tip.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I know.  That's why I don't think it's an extreme attempt to solve climate change.  It's a pathetic attempt to look like we're doing something when we're not.

Your notion that we should try for more extreme measures won't work either though.

Sounds like you're bound and determined to keep wringing your hands, which puts you in the vast majority, but the result will still be extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions


 

Quote

 

Planting billions of trees across the world is by far the biggest and cheapest way to tackle the climate crisis, according to scientists, who have made the first calculation of how many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas.

But tree planting is “a climate change solution that doesn’t require President Trump to immediately start believing in climate change, or scientists to come up with technological solutions to draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere”, Crowther said. “It is available now, it is the cheapest one possible and every one of us can get involved.” Individuals could make a tangible impact by growing trees themselves, donating to forest restoration organisations and avoiding irresponsible companies, he added.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You could do tree vouchers. You could cut taxes for companies that supply the trees, no government power grab required, the people who want to buy the trees will have the savings passed on to them.

But the extremists masquerading as environmentalists won't settle for anything other than government power grabs, they only care about environmentalism in so much as it helps them push their socialist agenda, market based solutions are anathema to them. 

So throw them under the bus, along with all their baggage, and the environmentalist movement will be able to do a lot more to help the environment with a lot less opposition.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You could do tree vouchers. You could cut taxes for companies that supply the trees, no government power grab required, the people who want to buy the trees will have the savings passed on to them.

Having lived in Fort Mac, I've seen how fast land reclamation happens up there.

Sometimes we only see pictures of the actual oilsands - which is only about 2% or so of the actual boreal forest - Neil Young, Leonardo DiCaprio and Darryl Hannah never show pictures or talk about the reclamation going on up there.

Before anyone piles on me as being an oilsand supporter - I am and I'm not.  I'd love to see us get off the fossil fuels, but I don't think immediate shutdown of it all with nothing to fall back on is economically or societally viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...