Global Warming

[saggyjones]

We do have an impact but it is local, not global. If you dig a hole in your back yard and plant a pecan tree, you have an impact on the environment but it is not a global impact. We simply are not capable of producing a global impact. Human beings occupy roughly 3% of the entire land mass of the world, we don't cover enough of it for our local impacts to even begin to have an effect on the global climate.

http://oceans.greenpeace.org/en/the-expedition/news/trashing-our-oceans/ocean_pollution_animation

^^^Trash vortex

Also, we are deforesting the Amazon, which is a major problem.

There are so many things we are doing that are ruining the environment. If you've been to LA you know how ugly the sky is. If we used nuclear power and hydrogen in cars, that would not continue, and we could keep many beautiful parts of the world still beautiful. I simply don't see the drawbacks of moving toward alternative energy.

Tax breaks and incentives are the palest ghosts of profit motive. Would you be more likely to do a thing because I was going to give you $100 in tax breaks or merchandise discounts or the like, or because doing it was going to make you a billion dollars? Tax breaks and incentives really are like $100 to a $ billion dollars when you consider the value of each respectively.

That depends on how much the government gives the company or by how much they reduce the tax for them. Also, a company could use profits to research new technology. They don't have to stop selling cars, etc. altogether. Some companies are doing just this with hybrid cars, and buyers of them get tax breaks, which raises the incentive.

More polution degrades our local environment and can result in long term problems for us and I believe that those who deliberately try to hide their polution should be brought to justice and be made to pay a heavy price. Secreting toxic agents away should demand decades of jail time without parole but that is not the same as causing the damage to the world economy that a scheme like Kyoto would cause in the name of a made up crisis.

I agree.

 

[saggyjones]

People aren't going to like it because a false picture has been painted of it by environmentalists. In truth, it is not a wildlife refuge because in truth, no wildlife lives there. It is a desolate ice plain that was falsely called a wildlife refuge in order to keep the resources there locked away to satisfy a very specific environmentalist agenda.

So we agree, people don't like the idea of drilling there because it's a wildlife refuge. It doesn't matter if there's no animals; people don't know that.

 

[saggyjones]

Science is not biased saggyjones. Science is science. Junk science isn't providing any information that is not true and verifiable. Pseudoscience like the IPCC reports represent genuine bias.

And yes it matters because a goodly percentage of the population believes the pseudoscience rather than the actual science because they either aren't willing to invest the time to understand the real science, or just aren't capable of understanding it.

That's very hypocritical; you criticize me for questioning the validity of junkscience.com, but an international study done by hundreds of respected scientists isn't valid?

 

[palerider]

That depends on how much the government gives the company or by how much they reduce the tax for them. Also, a company could use profits to research new technology. They don't have to stop selling cars, etc. altogether. Some companies are doing just this with hybrid cars, and buyers of them get tax breaks, which raises the incentive.

This particular argument is moot since corporations shouldn't be paying taxes in the first place. Do you believe that any corporation actually pays any tax? Whatever tax they are going to have to pay is built into the cost of whatever they are selling and the people who can least afford it are the ones who pay the taxes. Giving tax breaks doesn't have an effect on the price of thier products and therefore we not only pay higher prices for goods, but we have to make up for the tax breaks that were given to corporations that shouldn't be paying taxes in the first place. Your bureaucracy at work.

 

[palerider]

That's very hypocritical; you criticize me for questioning the validity of junkscience.com, but an international study done by hundreds of respected scientists isn't valid?

Are you aware of how many of those scientists have quit the IPCC because of the fact that the science must be bent and twisted to support the political statements? Dozens. Lead authors have quit but the IPCC still uses their names as if they agree with the political reports.

The UN is a corrupt organization. The IPCC is just one more corrupt part of a corrupt body.

 

[MarkVI]

palerider: I fixed the broken quote in your post (#79).

As a whole, I think we are gradually destroying the planet and we need to do something about it. More preservation of resources like forests and the like.
Whether global warming is being dramatically affected by us or not, we need to cut back on pollution output regardless.

Living in the L.A. area in SoCal, I see the effects of smog on the mountain views and the air quality in general.

This is a great discussion, keep it up, fellow HoP'ers!

 

[saggyjones]

palerider: I fixed the broken quote in your post (#79).

As a whole, I think we are gradually destroying the planet and we need to do something about it. More preservation of resources like forests and the like.
Whether global warming is being dramatically affected by us or not, we need to cut back on pollution output regardless.

Living in the L.A. area in SoCal, I see the effects of smog on the mountain views and the air quality in general.

This is a great discussion, keep it up, fellow HoP'ers!

I agree. Global warming or not, the environment is a thing we need to preserve as much as possible.

 

[saggyjones]

This particular argument is moot since corporations shouldn't be paying taxes in the first place. Do you believe that any corporation actually pays any tax? Whatever tax they are going to have to pay is built into the cost of whatever they are selling and the people who can least afford it are the ones who pay the taxes. Giving tax breaks doesn't have an effect on the price of thier products and therefore we not only pay higher prices for goods, but we have to make up for the tax breaks that were given to corporations that shouldn't be paying taxes in the first place. Your bureaucracy at work.

A company builds tax into the cost of the product, so by lowering the tax the cost of the product is lowered. More people will buy the product in that case.

And if companies are given subsidies to conduct research, they can still sell their current products but move toward better ones.

Tax breaks are given to consumers who buy hybrid cars, and in the future they'll get tax breaks for buying hydrogen cars or whatever the new technology is.

 

[palerider]

palerider: I fixed the broken quote in your post (#79).

As a whole, I think we are gradually destroying the planet and we need to do something about it. More preservation of resources like forests and the like.
Whether global warming is being dramatically affected by us or not, we need to cut back on pollution output regardless.

Living in the L.A. area in SoCal, I see the effects of smog on the mountain views and the air quality in general.

This is a great discussion, keep it up, fellow HoP'ers!

Polution has been decreasing steadily for nearly a decade and in the case of toxic dumping, that has been improving for far longer.

And you can't really compare so cal to the rest of the world as air quality goes, it is a unique area and its geography contributes nearly as much to its air quality as the people do.

 

[palerider]

A company builds tax into the cost of the product, so by lowering the tax the cost of the product is lowered. More people will buy the product in that case.

No. By eliminating the tax the cost will be lowered. If you are offering tax credits for research, then by definition the money they get in the form of credits must be spent on research, not in lowering the cost of their product.

And if companies are given subsidies to conduct research, they can still sell their current products but move toward better ones.

So we pay for the subsidies on our tax bill, and pay for their tax liability in the cost of their products. No offense, but it doesn't sound like much thought has gone into that plan.

Tax breaks are given to consumers who buy hybrid cars, and in the future they'll get tax breaks for buying hydrogen cars or whatever the new technology is.

Whooo whooo. You get a 1500 dollar tax credit for buying a car that cost 6000 dollars more than a comparable non hybrid car and hybrids barely last until they are paid for because the life on the batteries is only about 6 years and it costs about 10,000 to replace them. We are going to have to build additional land fills just to accomodate the batteries.

 

[saggyjones]

Polution has been decreasing steadily for nearly a decade and in the case of toxic dumping, that has been improving for far longer.

And you can't really compare so cal to the rest of the world as air quality goes, it is a unique area and its geography contributes nearly as much to its air quality as the people do.

What do you mean you can't compare it? Have you ever been there? The air is disgusting in some parts! I would know since I live in Reno and visit there every year. It's geography is not special in a way that would cause the air to be polluted more.

 

[saggyjones]

No. By eliminating the tax the cost will be lowered. If you are offering tax credits for research, then by definition the money they get in the form of credits must be spent on research, not in lowering the cost of their product.

OK, so why wouldn't tax credits for research work?

So we pay for the subsidies on our tax bill, and pay for their tax liability in the cost of their products. No offense, but it doesn't sound like much thought has gone into that plan.

We would pay the same amount as before for taxes. The only thing cost that would be added to our taxes would be the subsidies.

Whooo whooo. You get a 1500 dollar tax credit for buying a car that cost 6000 dollars more than a comparable non hybrid car and hybrids barely last until they are paid for because the life on the batteries is only about 6 years and it costs about 10,000 to replace them. We are going to have to build additional land fills just to accomodate the batteries.

People who can afford them will take the tax break and buy a hybrid instead of a purely gas-run car.

You seem very against progress in this area. Why is it that you oppose alternative energy? Do you not believe we are polluting?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Polution has been decreasing steadily ...

That's a great point.

Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.

But during these 37 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.

 

[saggyjones]

That's a great point.

Since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.

But during these 37 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.

That's because our cars, factories, and power plants are becoming more fuel efficient and putting out less of these harmful chemicals. But just because pollution is lower doesn't mean we can't make it lower, which is why we need to move toward alternative energy sources.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

That's because our cars, factories, and power plants are becoming more fuel efficient and putting out less of these harmful chemicals. But just because pollution is lower doesn't mean we can't make it lower, which is why we need to move toward alternative energy sources.

Of course. I'm just sharing some facts. The U.S. isn't an evil empire simply pumping out pollution on a whim as many would like to think.