|
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
Where did I imply, in any post of mine, that you are not "green" enough?
I am sorry, but this is a silly way of trying to sidestep the issue.
First of all, because if you do live "much greener" then the costs of this bill to you will be negligible.
Second, because in all these posts about 700 scientists this and that, you seem to do everything to avoid discussing the meat of the issue.
There are two questions here, and I've yet to see you tackle each head on:
Is reducing emissions a worthy goal?
I answer it with an unequivocal yes, because not only does the science support the idea that there is global warming, that human action has had a significant impact on it, and that it has serious consequences for mankind, but because those gases also have several other negative side effects, which you still have not acknowledged, which means that there is a social interest in reducing their emissions. Otherwise, we are talking about a private activity with socialized costs, costs that we have every day in health and food expenditures.
Is cap and trade the best way to deal with this?
To me, it is the best "free market" alternative. Other than that, we have two options which were preferred in the past: hard limits, which I don't particularly like because there is no additional incentive once you are under them; and "suggestions" in the form of available subsidies, which I don't like because it is basically a give away without a corresponding obligation. Our experience with cap and trade in the case of acid rain gases has been a great success, so I dont see how it can't work elsewhere.
Yet every other post is some former Bush aide column pointing to vast conspiracies and misleading "scientists."
|
It isn't an accusation directed at you, but if you feel that, like mom said, maybe you have something to be guilty about.
Personally, I don't give a shit about the environment 50 years from now since I have no legacy to have stake in the matter. I do it because it means LESS out of my pocket now. Use less energy means it costs me less each month. use less gas, means it costs me less each month.
The way that I read this bill is that eventually my electricity will cost more, just like my gasoline did when they started putting ethanol into it. The idea that it was going to cost less and be less impact on the environment was a bill of goods sold to the American public.
Sorry you may believe that trading for this and that works for you. If it's bad, then outright stop doing it. Saying a company, group, or individual can purchase their way out if it...and they do, doesn't mean that they really have the convictions or intended results. Myself I state that Mr. Gore since he's the Captain of the Greenie movement in my book, doesn't seem to walk the talk, but just buys his way out of having to reduce his consumption or impact. Sorry, hypocrite in my book.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
|