Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to 'Punish Climate-Change Deniers' and 'Put a Price on Carbon'
Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 2 months ago to The Gulch: General
" The former vice president focused on the need to “punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,'” said the Chicago Tribune."
Previous comments...
I wonder how he would like a law passed the punished anyone who has used more than ten times as much energy as the average citizen in the last ten years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLp...
Regards,
O.A.
Jan
Obama needs to turn all foreign affairs over to someone else, and take that "Unfit for Command" supposed Naval Officer, John Kerry that allowed all those atrocities to be committed while he watched in Vietnam, out of the State Department. He needs to be retired and go sail his tax free boat.
He's one hell of a hypocrite, that's why he bugs me so much.
I get a gag reflex when he shows up in the news.
http://www.plusaf.com/pix/homepagepix/pr...
or any of the stuff I've collected at
http://www.plusaf.com/global-warming/glo... ?
C'mon... "The Science is" NOT "in.".. at least Al's isn't!
Socialism is a not an economic system until you get to Marxist-Leninist Economics. Even then it's not an economic system. It is a belief system that operates on faith. As Lenin put it you can't teach it it must be preached then taken on faith. In the area of economics it has always been a failure and that includes in the USA.
Governments produce nothing. Their true task is to ensure others can produce and then protect those others who do produce. For the most part it leeches, mooches, and loots but not every where.
Fascism is a system wherein governments control the population by any means necessary. It may be more than political.It may be religious as well as secular.
Liberal means making large changes rapidly. Conservative means making haste slowly.
Left means Government control of the population
Right means the population as the source of all power and all rights control the government thus replacing the divine right of Kings for example.
Anarchists are the extremists of the right wing.
Hard core fascist governments such as the Internationally oriented Communists and the Nationally oriented Nazis are the extremists of the left. The Pol Pots.
Both Republicans and Democrats are left of center. They just like to let you think the center is between the two of them. It isn't. They both believe in Government control of citizens. The belief can be bad or good depending on the intensity and distance from center
.Skipping all the rest Some nations such as NZ and Sweden and perhaps Switzerland and more lately China have learned to meld the best of both systems using capitalism to financially support socialism. Capitalism with a social conscience or Socialism with a capitalist economic system. Same Same
The US of course hasn't progressed that far.
Gore is a combination looter moooo-cher and a full time joke.
I added the o's to honor his noxious gaseous releases which probably do more to harm mothere nature than all the cows in history. .
Since the costs are in the future and everyone benefits today from burning stuff, everyone wishes the problem didn't exist. That and the uncertainty about costs lead to the political agenda of people refusing to see the facts.
This is true by an unbelievable margin. Just look how people lived in pre-industrial societies.
One of the ways become better stewards of the environment, though, is recognizing problems like this and dealing with them rationally.
We can agree that science, technology, and improved education and standard of living is the path to take into a more benign future.
Jan, not a steward of nobody nohow
Yes. That's what I mean about avoiding solutions that take even a fraction of a percent away from growth in production. Compounded over years, that makes a staggering difference. Even if it does not affect growth, a series of costs over many years amortize to a huge future value, depending on the rate you assume.
I don't follow Gore. I detest the politicization of science. Some areas of science get people fired up: climate change, GMOs, evolution, vacines, nutrition. Not being an expert in any of those, I accept the current scientific understanding, knowing that science by its nature invites change when new evidence appears.
I mostly stay away for politicized areas of science I actually know something about: health risk of wireless signals, stray voltage affecting cows, health risk of 50/60 Hz from the electrical grid.
This has nothing to do with socialism. It seems like this is appeal to final consequences and staw man. No one likes the problem or measures to deal with it, so we'll deny it. The straw man is socialism, which has absolutely nothing to do with this.
so•cial•ism (sōˈshə-lĭzˌəm)
► n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
n.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
.The proletariat (/ˌproʊlɪˈtɛəriːət/ from Latin proletarius) is a term used to describe the class of wage-earners (especially industrial workers) in a capitalist society whose only possession of significant material value is their labour-power (their ability to work); a member of such a class is a proletarian.
Are you saying if anthropogenic climate change were a real problem the only approach to it would be gov't control? So if some radical new evidence appeared that contradicted what you know, you might turn to socialism as defined above? Or would you find some alternate solution?
Everyone knows that. The earth had a period of subtropical conditions at the poles and possibly a period of gaciation on all land masses. We're now in an "ice age" with glacial maxima and minima occuring every 20,000 years are so. My home was glaciated 20,000 years ago.
" the free market would find the solution if the government stayed out of the way."
When someone is doing something that devalues another's property the free market depends on a gov't not staying out of the way. If I'm producing a chemical on my property that finds its way to your property and will cause you a problem in the future, the courts are there to stop me or find a way to make sure I make you whole for the loss of value.
There is more and more evidence (not sure if rises to "preponderance of the evidence") that our activities are causing harm in the future. We need to calculate that harm, prove/disprove it, and pay those harmed. The market will quickly find ways to eliminate the emissions of the harmful gases (if they're proven to be harmful) and/or to counter their effects.
What Me Worry?
True or not all it means is the US starts growing mangos and bananas and Canada starts growing apples and pears or the other way around. Cyclical. Better to spend time getting San Jose California and much of the rest of the country to pick up the garbage cigarette butts included.