*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #60 on: March 21, 2014, 10:02:31 AM »
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
I see the tax as not discouraging driving but discouraging wasteful driving.
I'm sure we've all heard stories of people driving down the block for a gallon of milk in good weather.
The high tax might discourage people from using there vehicle when alternate modes of transport are available.  This includes carpool.

It also helps shape car purchases.  Think back 15 years ago at the age of the hummer and SUV. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy an SUV or hummer but most buyers didn't use them for their designed purpose.  It was a big car with poor gas mileage that was built for off road but driven on nothing but roads.  Not only has the high tax curbed what drivers will buy, but the car makers have adapted to this curve to create more fuel efficient SUVs that aren't designed for off road.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #61 on: March 21, 2014, 10:29:39 AM »
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
My point was that you dont *need* a car, it simply makes your life more convenient. In most cases, it is unnecessary to own a car.
And the tax isn't meant to discourage people from driving, it's to discourage people from using gas. If you can't figure out a way to use less gas, than that's your problem, go start carpooling or something.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #62 on: March 21, 2014, 10:46:49 AM »
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
My point was that you dont *need* a car, it simply makes your life more convenient. In most cases, it is unnecessary to own a car.
And the tax isn't meant to discourage people from driving, it's to discourage people from using gas. If you can't figure out a way to use less gas, than that's your problem, go start carpooling or something.

....
I live 15 miles away.  I have a job that requires me to drive between buildings.
I don't need a car?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #63 on: March 21, 2014, 11:15:48 AM »
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
My point was that you dont *need* a car, it simply makes your life more convenient. In most cases, it is unnecessary to own a car.
And the tax isn't meant to discourage people from driving, it's to discourage people from using gas. If you can't figure out a way to use less gas, than that's your problem, go start carpooling or something.

....
I live 15 miles away.  I have a job that requires me to drive between buildings.
I don't need a car?
It was your decision to get a job that requires the use of a car. So it's your problem to figure out.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7184
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #64 on: March 21, 2014, 01:27:04 PM »
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
My point was that you dont *need* a car, it simply makes your life more convenient. In most cases, it is unnecessary to own a car.
And the tax isn't meant to discourage people from driving, it's to discourage people from using gas. If you can't figure out a way to use less gas, than that's your problem, go start carpooling or something.

....
I live 15 miles away.  I have a job that requires me to drive between buildings.
I don't need a car?
It was your decision to get a job that requires the use of a car. So it's your problem to figure out.
The job will have to be done one way or another.  If not by me then by someone.  At least I don't have a 10 mpg truck.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #65 on: March 21, 2014, 05:03:48 PM »
I have a further issue with carbon taxes.

I do not believe we will ever just stop using fossil fuels until they are all gone. I just can't see it. So to my mind climatologists should make a temperature calculation based on all of the worlds fossil fuels having been burnt and being in the air. It will happen whether in 100 years or 1000 years. Neither is very long in the greater scheme of things. People won't just leave oil or gas in the ground.

So one can safely assume all the carbon ends up back in the air (where it started I might add). It doesn't matter if I don't use it, or use less. A man in China will use it instead. Or a man in Africa who won't be born for another 75 years. It doesn't matter. It will end up in the air.

So why do I have to pay a premium to my government when it will be used one way or another?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15534
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #66 on: March 21, 2014, 07:13:47 PM »
Assuming that global warming is true, it buys us some time to figure out a solution.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

P.S.  All of us illiterate folks understood this the first time.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #67 on: March 21, 2014, 07:14:39 PM »
While Thork is, as per usual, phrasing his argument in the worst possible way and making it sound like he just wants to buy a new TV or something, the burden on taxpayers is a valid concern.  Driving isn't a luxury that one can easily just forgo if the price tag gets too high.  We need to be able to drive - or at least we need to be able to travel a fairly large distance in a fairly short length of time - which is a task that (at least so far) only motor vehicles can accomplish.  Handwaving this away with "just ride a bike lol" doesn't cut it.  Not when you have a job and are expected to function in the modern world.

Now, if the argument is "I don't want to pay these taxes, therefore global warming isn't real," well, that's stupid.  But piling exorbitant taxes onto fuel - and not even the fuel companies, but the consumers, the people on the street who simply have to drive - for the express purpose of trying to discourage driving is completely fucking stupid.

I don't disagree, I think the tax on fuel could be used and applied in a better way. For instance the cost of public transport in the UK is ridiculous. It costs me more to get a train to London than it would for me to hire a car and pay for any fuel I use.

The tax on fuel could go to subsidise that and other public transport but it doesn't. I don't know why Thork wanted to have an argument over it.

However I do think something needs to be done. More money should be invested in alternate sources of energy to not only reduce CO2 emission but also reduce our reliance on fossil fuel. Taking the risk that the earths ecosystem could collapse in the long run because Thork doesn't want his wallet to be hurt, is immaterial to me.

I have a further issue with carbon taxes.

I do not believe we will ever just stop using fossil fuels until they are all gone. I just can't see it. So to my mind climatologists should make a temperature calculation based on all of the worlds fossil fuels having been burnt and being in the air. It will happen whether in 100 years or 1000 years. Neither is very long in the greater scheme of things. People won't just leave oil or gas in the ground.

So one can safely assume all the carbon ends up back in the air (where it started I might add). It doesn't matter if I don't use it, or use less. A man in China will use it instead. Or a man in Africa who won't be born for another 75 years. It doesn't matter. It will end up in the air.

So why do I have to pay a premium to my government when it will be used one way or another?

Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #68 on: March 21, 2014, 07:32:44 PM »
Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


At what arbitrary point have global governments decided the earth can 'handle it'. I'm of the opinion the earth can 'handle it' anyway and it won't make one jot of difference to the earth's temperature. More carbon means bigger vegetables. Not extremes of weather.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #69 on: March 21, 2014, 07:50:16 PM »
Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


At what arbitrary point have global governments decided the earth can 'handle it'. I'm of the opinion the earth can 'handle it' anyway and it won't make one jot of difference to the earth's temperature. More carbon means bigger vegetables. Not extremes of weather.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but what if you're wrong?

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #70 on: March 21, 2014, 07:52:49 PM »
Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


At what arbitrary point have global governments decided the earth can 'handle it'. I'm of the opinion the earth can 'handle it' anyway and it won't make one jot of difference to the earth's temperature. More carbon means bigger vegetables. Not extremes of weather.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but what if you're wrong?
Then earth gets weather changes which are going to happen anyway as there are 20 Chinese for every Brit and they aren't paying masses for fuel or using expensive fuel efficient engines.

What if you are wrong? I have to spend all that money over my entire lifetime because some Chicken-Licken scientists made a hypothesis that cost regular people trillions of dollars?

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #71 on: March 21, 2014, 08:03:38 PM »
Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


At what arbitrary point have global governments decided the earth can 'handle it'. I'm of the opinion the earth can 'handle it' anyway and it won't make one jot of difference to the earth's temperature. More carbon means bigger vegetables. Not extremes of weather.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but what if you're wrong?
Then earth gets weather changes which are going to happen anyway as there are 20 Chinese for every Brit and they aren't paying masses for fuel or using expensive fuel efficient engines.

What if you are wrong? I have to spend all that money over my entire lifetime because some Chicken-Licken scientists made a hypothesis that cost regular people trillions of dollars?

Or we screw up the ecosystem to an extent where we can't survive in it.

What if I'm wrong? You have to pay for something that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels and makes cars (transportation) cheaper to run. We ensure we have the technology in place to counter energy demand when the source of fossil fuel runs out and we make sure the air in the UK isn't clogged up with smog (like in Hong Kong and Paris recently).

The consequence to your wallet is irrelevant. You would probably have to pay that tax in another way. You wouldn't save anything.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #72 on: March 21, 2014, 08:17:25 PM »
Or we screw up the ecosystem to an extent where we can't survive in it.
wat? No, climate change means the Dutch will have to immigrate and I'll need a cagoule. The Aussies will need better sun block and the African's will have to start eating each other. Its not some kind of end-of-days scenario.

What do you think is supposed to happen? This will be interesting.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #73 on: March 21, 2014, 09:28:01 PM »
It's not conclusive (I realise I'm being highly speculative) but some of the possible consequences of climate change happened to the UK this winter with the flooding. That could only get worse.

Somehow you assume the UK and your way of living would be immune to climate change. Do you only think it'll happen to 'other' countries? Also what do you think the knock on consequences of the scenarios you suggested would be to the UK?

Your burying your head in the sand again.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #74 on: March 21, 2014, 09:33:38 PM »
What happened in the UK is because we keep building on flood planes to house 25 million immigrants and because cost cutting councils haven't been dredging the water ways.

There were worse floods in 1947. The Thames froze over in 1814. If that happened today you'd say "Look, look what you have done with your cars and your pollution."
In 1976 there was the hottest heatwave in living memory.

At some point you will have an extreme of some sort. Its perfectly natural. This year happened to be wet. Taxing me won't stop the rain.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #75 on: March 21, 2014, 09:58:50 PM »
Those events do happen. I can't argue against that. But how often do those events occur? What would happen if they became more frequent?

Also Google just found this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33717/GST4_v9_Feb10.pdf

I've only read the executive summary but it does talk about the possible strategic effects of climate change by 2040.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #76 on: March 21, 2014, 10:12:37 PM »
What would happen if they became more frequent?
I don't want to be giving away thousands of £s of real money every year on 'what if?'.

As for that source, that's just an investor's wet dream. Mmmm, instability , scarcity, migration, war, globalisation. There will be pushback from populations they try to inflict all this upon and blaming it on the weather won't cut it.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #77 on: March 21, 2014, 10:29:37 PM »
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
My point was that you dont *need* a car, it simply makes your life more convenient. In most cases, it is unnecessary to own a car.
And the tax isn't meant to discourage people from driving, it's to discourage people from using gas. If you can't figure out a way to use less gas, than that's your problem, go start carpooling or something.

....
I live 15 miles away.  I have a job that requires me to drive between buildings.
I don't need a car?
It was your decision to get a job that requires the use of a car. So it's your problem to figure out.
The job will have to be done one way or another.  If not by me then by someone.  At least I don't have a 10 mpg truck.
Get an electric car man. Unless the power in your area is from coal (which is pretty likely) then you won't be helping too much. Either you quit, or pay the tax. If you want to use a vehicle that consumes gydrocarbons, cool, but you'll have to pay the fine for using public space as a dumping ground.

Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


At what arbitrary point have global governments decided the earth can 'handle it'. I'm of the opinion the earth can 'handle it' anyway and it won't make one jot of difference to the earth's temperature. More carbon means bigger vegetables. Not extremes of weather.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but what if you're wrong?
Then earth gets weather changes which are going to happen anyway as there are 20 Chinese for every Brit and they aren't paying masses for fuel or using expensive fuel efficient engines.

What if you are wrong? I have to spend all that money over my entire lifetime because some Chicken-Licken scientists made a hypothesis that cost regular people trillions of dollars?
Same kind of anti-intellectualism we saw when "independent" research groups were giving "scientific" evidence that tobacco is not harmful to your health, when the scientific community was face-palming on how many people believe it.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #78 on: March 21, 2014, 10:40:36 PM »
What would happen if they became more frequent?
I don't want to be giving away thousands of £s of real money every year on 'what if?'.

As for that source, that's just an investor's wet dream. Mmmm, instability , scarcity, migration, war, globalisation. There will be pushback from populations they try to inflict all this upon and blaming it on the weather won't cut it.

I'm assuming you don't pay car or home insurance then?

Because, you know, you don't want to give away thousands of pounds on 'what ifs'.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #79 on: March 21, 2014, 11:13:22 PM »
If it wasn't the law I wouldn't buy any insurance other than home insurance.

How many times have you bought a computer or some other electrical thing and they ask you if you want a warranty? Basically, insurance in case it breaks.

Look at it this way. The insurance company knows the odds of these things breaking and offers insurance (a warranty) based on those odds + profit. Now extrapolate all the warranties over your lifetime. If you just let the occasional thing break, you'd be out of pocket to the tune of the cost of your warranties minus the profit those companies make. In other words, a warranty is a scam. Its like buying Calgon for your washing machine.

You are supposed to add a tablet every time you do a wash to protect your washing machine.

Calgon tablets are £20.29 for 75 tablets or 27p per wash.
It takes 6-8 years of washing in hard water to get a build up to get the kind of lime scale that will break your machine. In this time if you do 3 washes a week, that's over £300. Getting an technician to replace the parts would cost £50. Or of course for £300 you could buy a new bloody washing machine with all the parts including motors etc with 8 years more life in them.
source

Insurance never ever pays.

With the exception of house insurance. Not contents insurance. You are being boned on the risk of burglary vs cost of insurance + profit.

I would only buy house insurance because its the one gamble most people cannot afford to take even though of course most never claim and are paying odds + profit. Everything else, never buy insurance unless its the law.

So, do I want to pay environmental insurance just in case? No damn way.