That certainly is your opinion.
But it’s been an ongoing thing for a long time. Whatever it takes to advance more government, more power for those that govern, more power for intergovernmental types, more socialism, etc.
All these people with other reasons to believe than environmentalism.
Even if it’s just that their research body received a political mandate in their creation and them living up to it is how they continue to receive funding, as with the IPCC.
Great…start with China and Russia and don’t talk to US citizens until both are fully on board and agreement must be subject to verification plus financial penalties if they cheat?
Here’s the problem with conservative ideas. Start with a premise that can’t be achieved, and then never fix the problem!
How are people in America supposed to influence Russia or China? They live in America!
How are Americans going to influence climate change with out Russia or China? Don’t charge me for something that won’t be fixed by the cost I’m being levied. I already contribute THOUSANDS to solve environmental problems…now…spread the love.
The problem is I haven’t found any solutions from the right. The left has several solutions in varying degrees of intrusiveness, but they’re at least some ideas.
It just seems like the right is like this:
It doesn’t change the facts that we are eroding our environment.
Really? Do you still use leaded fuel? Does your vehicle have a catalytic converter? How’s the fuel mileage? Each of those environmental improvements cost the user paying the bill thousands of dollars and that’s just in one area.
I’m not stupid, I know policies cost money.
Let me put it more succinctly. I am a voter. What environmental saving policies would you propose to me that are better than left leaning environmental policies they propose? Why should I vote with you?
My point is…just bring all countries up to the standard of the US…and then come talk to me. I personally observed the Detroit River and Lake Erie clean up beginning in 1974. I’ve gone trolIing for trout in Lake Erie for the past 11 years. That wasn’t even possible back then. The other part too is that I’ve also observed Detroit lose it’s population ranking from the 5th largest city in the US, to the 21st. Being green…all over the world…means all of us are going to have to pay the price. Just because the pollution is being hidden in China and you can’t see it, shouldn’t allow you to go end around by buying your goods at WalMart. It must be that the beginning is congruent enviromentally with the end user’s cost so that there crap doesn’t somehow become someone else’s financial burden.
Why do we need Earth? We have a whole galaxy to colonize. Lets use this place up like we’re renting without putting down a deposit.
I agree. Global warming is a global problem that can only be solved globally
Let us strengthen the UN!
I could have responded to several posts with a similar response.
Here in Australia we have the right of centre argument that goes thus: in the overall total of CO2 Australia is a small contributor so why should we do anything or we should wait for other countries first.
These should be countered by saying that individually the change may not be significant but collectively they are significant. The second is countered by saying it is called leadership and provides the moral imperative to encourage other countries to also contribute
How would that work? In fact, how would a carbon tax work? It would be nice to see a general idea of how any of this works.
I’m neither for nor against mainly because it will have no impact on my life money wise. But I lean towards against because I see it for the scam that it is. It’s a money grab. An endless one at that. Focus a tax to target the masses, the working class. But don’t hit them too hard, just enough for them to accept it. After all, it’s saving the planet indefinitely. The rich and upper middle class will not change behavior.
A carbon tax would be a tax on the amount of carbon a thing emits; it’s based on incentives. A carbon limit is rule that says you can’t emit more than this much CO2; it’s a legal measure.
Except for their political preferences, which we must always obey or suffer the consequences.
Has the USA ever had conscription? Has the USA ever had slaves?
They are just two things that seem to run counter to highroller’s edict that “Everything should be voluntary, no government force.”.
Does this mean that you favor a carbon tax?
Why do you ask questions that you already know the answer to?
So has most of the world. Including:
In fact, the U.S. inherited slavery from these powers. It was already in place as institution in America before the U.S. was founded. This does not make the U.S. innocent. But it does not make us more guilty than them either.
Do you judge these countries as harshly as you judge the U.S?
My questions were rhetorical in nature.
Do you judge these countries as harshly as you judge the U.S?
