| ??? 05/04/07 19:24 Read: times |
#138640 - Socialism Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Christoph Franck said:
Oddly enough, the whole "controversy" suddenly flared up not when global warming and man's impact were discussed, but when the question "What are we gonna do about it?" was raised. That, coincidentially, is the same moment that some big corporations saw their bottom line threatened. That's not accurate. While the media may be reporting it more sensationally lately, there have been a lot of people that have been arguing this for more than a decade. I've been one of those people. Christoph Franck said:
What could be more erosive to national sovereignty than being dependent on a bunch of potentially or openly hostile countries to sell you the resources in the quantities that you like to consume ? Socialism. Which is essentially the political end-game to the "cliamte change" hysteria. Over the last decade I've seen that the proposed environmental "solutions" do little--if anything--to improve the environment but do restrict freedom and transfer wealth arbitrarily. And we have politicians and bureaucrats mixed in with scientists to produce the IPCC reports. There's something very suspicious about the whole thing. At least the interests of the oil company are well understood. Christoph Franck said:
If the world economy is as dependent on cheap and plentiful energy as you picture it, it's going to become more than just damaged in the next few decades. Given the development of consumption and production of various energy sources, prices are going to go up, no matter what. That's fine. I've already said I have no problem with rising energy costs because it will lead to real development of alternative energies. But I reject proposals that artificially and unnecessarily drive up costs before their time, and I reject proposals that drive us to alternative energies that aren't ready yet. Christoph Franck said:
Those economies who work efficiently will have a far easier time of dealing with this effect than those who cherish inefficiency. I agree. And that's all the motivation that is necessary for efficiency to take effect. When it becomes too costly to be inefficient, the inefficient will become efficient. Those that do it sooner rather than later will probably have an advantage at some point. So let the market work and it'll all shake out in the end. Craig Steiner said:
we prefer to give our children a world just as free as the one we inherited from out parents. Christoph Franck said:
Their freedom is going to be limited by the resources we left them, the amount of food our planet can still produce, the amount of land that's habitable, the availability of potable water, .. and those limitations are far harder than just trying to drop a few bad habits. I'm all in favor of not destroying all our forests and I'm in favor of make sure we still have good land to produce food and I'm in favor of clean water. But I have yet to see compelling evidence that how much I drive and/or how much CO2 I generate has any significant effect on any of those things. Regards, Craig Steiner |
