On May 9, 1:56 pm, Michael Johnson <c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Enough Already wrote:
> > On May 9, 7:38 am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
> > <rander3...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> A much-needed $260 million shot in the arm for Chrysler Canada.
> >> 6.1 litres, 425hp, mileage like a Durango SUV. But do you know why
> >> this is no threat to the environment? Because none of the buyers of
> >> these cars are going to use it as a daily driver. They will see
> >> weekend use in the summer, like most muscle cars.
> >> Which begs the question, why do they charge a $1200 gas-guzzler tax
on
> >> it in Canada? If you think about it, the guy who opts to drive a
> >> 200hp 6-cylinder as their daily driver is burning more fuel than a
guy
> >> with the Challenger who drives a 4-cylinder to work.
> >> Environmental laws need "adjusting."
>
> > How do you really know when and how far such cars will be driven? SUVs
> > with ****y mileage are widely used for commuting, even with $4/gallon
> > gas. You still hear non-conscientious people saying "I can afford the
> > gas" - as if it's only about money.\
>
> Look at how many drivers are trying to dump their SUVs and look at the
> sales figures for low mileage cars and trucks for your answer. All that
> matters is how far the daily commute is and if the batteries can get
> them to work and back with an errand or two thrown in for good measure.
> Then they charge the car overnight for a $1.50 and do all over again
> the next day. If they have to take a trip then use gas and get 45+ mpg.
>
> > That obsession with taxes shows the disconnect between physical
> > resources and dollar wealth. Money is not a true resource, just a
> > measure of what people _think_ something ought to be worth; to other
> > people, not the planet, which ought to be the benchmark for wealth.
>
> You want to save the planet? Then make it economical to do so. If
> people can get 300 miles for a $3.00 charge then electric cars will
> happen and fast. People aren't going to live like paupers to satisfy a
> bunch of limousine liberals that burn more fuel in a month than most
> people will in their lifetime.
>
> > Money has taken too long to reflect physical resource depletion. Few
> > cared to listen when these things were predicted long ago. They
> > assumed all they had to do was get a paycheck and resources would
> > materialize from Heaven.
>
> What has been depleted? There is basically just as much iron, copper,
> aluminum, carbon, water etc. on the planet as there was ten million
> years ago. All we do is move it around from one place to the other. In
> 100 million years God knows where it will be.
>
> >http://enough_already.tripod.com/money.htm
>
> > Nature can't hear your excu$e$.
>
> Nature doesn't give a **** about mankind. We are nothing more than a
> slight itch on her backside. Life on Earth has taken hits far worse
> than anything mankind can dish out (comet hits, massive volcanic
> eruptions, total global ice coverage etc.) and has rebounded every time
> with even more diversity of life than before. Mankind is one arrogant
> life form to think he is the best the Earth can produce. Mankind is
> just the latest organism to affect the planet. Where do you think all
> this oxygen we breath came from which makes life as we know it possible?
> It came from another organism that run a muck for about a billion
> years. Our impact on the planet is infinitesimal compared to it.
>
> These environmentalists act like we are going to be around for a billion
> years and the Earth should never change during that time. When it comes
> to the planet Earth, the more things change the more they stay the same.
> If we are going to survive we had better get good at adapting and
> overcoming changes instead of thinking we can change the entire planet
> to our liking. What's next on our list of improvements for the planet?
> Stopping plate tectonics?
+1
If you really believe that man-made greenhouse g***** are warming the
climate there is one thing that should become an international
priority, and that is to manage fresh water. We need to make sure
that the use of all runoff and underground resources are optimized.
That would be worth multiple trillions of dollars, it is somethng we
can actually do, and it would yield benefits regardless of climate
change.
These endless debates about whether and how to manage man-made
greenhouse gas production are completely pointless. The West could
park every car, close off every gas pipeline, and shut down every
fossil fuel powerplant tomorrow and it would not reduce the current
325 ppm concentration of CO2 for 100 years. It would not even stop the
increase. At the same time, such a measure -- or even the 20 to 80%
aspirational goals the alarmists bandy about -- would condemn the
entire world to economic collapse. Also at the same time, the
"consensus" scientists predict that the current 325 ppm concentration
of CO2 is already sufficient to guarantee catastrophic climate change.
Therefore a program of adaptaion is the only reasonable response.
Where are the alarmists on the issue of adaptation? I'll tell you
where: in denial. It's not nearly as much fun to do something
constructive in the real world, somethng that doesn't include the huge
measure of the self-righteous, quasi-theological posturing and state
control that the Greenies invariably favor. That's what Greenism is
after all, a religion. It's not about achieving results in the real
world. It's about doing "God's work," living a virtuous life, with
the only reward a spiritual one. Also, the right to heap scorn on
your sinful neighbors.
180 Out
|
