green religion indeed
its a great scam really. especially funny is how that this global warming 'truth' is bandied about by all n sundry as the truth.
however, im sure a nice cartoon will make everything better.
hahahahahaahahahahahhaaha
(, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 14:59, Share, Reply)
I'm just curious...
Scams tend to be... well, they tend to be for something.
I'm buggered if I can work out what, if this is a scam, how and for whom it's supposed to work. Therefore, I have difficulty seeing how it's a scam. Do you have any evidence?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:03,
Share,
Reply)
ha! good question!
the global warming debate is very interesting in that temperatures are rising which seems to be widely agreed upon. the reason for a rise in temperature is the sticky point. there is a rather large body of evidence to indicate that the temperature rise is not due to human activity (apart from me farts) but due to more natural events.
scam...well if the global warming argument of human activity causes it then it allows those in positions of influence to raise revenue & create social shaping (not david ike sort of shift shaping) through the introduction of carbon taxation, etc.
its fucking ace!
(, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:12, Share, Reply)
Does this mean the oil companies are also running a scam?
They want us to carry on consuming and having already made billions from this and have the means to carry on.
Look at who has integrity and who is in fact trying to sell something. Buying green means consuming less not more
(, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:18, Share, Reply)
...
there is a rather large body of evidence to indicate that the temperature rise is not due to human activity (apart from me farts) but due to more natural events.
Care to cite it? Of course, proving an exact link to anything would be difficult - but plotting temperature alongside CO2 levels - deducible from ice core samples and so on - and taking into account the relevant drag factors gives good circumstantial evidence of a link between weather patterns and human emissions. Moreover, this corroborates what one may deduce from what I believe to be reasonably basic chemistry and physics. In other words, the evidence for anthropogenic climate change comes independently from more than one direction.
it allows those in positions of influence to raise revenue & create social shaping (not david ike sort of shift shaping) through the introduction of carbon taxation, etc.
This makes no sense in one way, and is utterly trivial in another. It seems like social shaping is one of the things that we might legitimately want governments to do. If raising people out of poverty, or protecting them from misfortune is social shaping, then bring it on. In the other sense, you seem to be treating taxation as an end in itself - and that's bananas. Government ministers do not sit around planning ways to raise taxes just for the hell of it. Why would they?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:21,
Share,
Reply)
internet arguments are the best!
in answer to your points, very interesting.
do i care to answer, not really. im cooking tea.
(, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:25, Share, Reply)
You seriously don't
see the market behind the big eco drive? We are forced to pay more for pretty much everything, carboon footprint laws that are due to come in which will scam even more money out of us, recycling schemes which don't actually help the big picture, if anything all they do is make some fucker money.
Kachiing, it's all money.
The list goes on, although I'm sure you knew that already...
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:24,
Share,
Reply)
Nyah
I'm not sure how much use "green" taxes are. But it doesn't follow from that that they're a scam. They're plausibly an attempt - and possibly the best yet - to correct market failure: that is, to privatise the public costs of our consumption.
Nor have I any objection to people making money out of green schemes. Why not? If protecting the environment has a value - and it does - then if you're clever enough to release that value, go for it.
Please do explain the problem for me. I'm afraid I've missed something...
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:33,
Share,
Reply)
Sure nothing wrong with people making money out of green schemes
except they shouldn't be labelled as "green" when they do more harm than good.
The CoOp somehow believe that manufacturing thick plastic bags and charging 50p for them is being green! Believe it or not, you can actually get bio degradeable plastic bags, I got one a few weeks back and it was as strong as a normal bag, why not use those? Because they can't charge 50p for those... yet!
(
Firkinfedup last shat on your wife's tits at, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:44,
Share,
Reply)
...
they shouldn't be labelled as "green" when they do more harm than good.
Well, for sure. And if you can demonstrate that this is the case in a given situation, then you've identified a problem. It doesn't alter the general picture one jot, though.
Incidentally, I'm not sure that biodegradable is always good. To my uneducated eye, that makes it look as though the carbon'll be released sooner rather than later. Non-degradeable would take it out of circulation in the long term. Course, you'd have a problem with waste, but that's a different matter...
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:47,
Share,
Reply)
Efforts have indeed been clumsy and sometimes counter-productive
The capitalist approach and view does not work without profit, a new way is needed by the people and for the people. Profit driven companies will indeed try to make money out of this.
(, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:36, Share, Reply)
...
Your hidden premise here is that profit is bad. Maybe you could give us an account of why that is?
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:42,
Share,
Reply)
Profit isn't bad
There are a lot of companies out there for whom it is the sole aim and that is a problem. I don't have a problem with companies making money but they need to have ethics as far as I am concerned.
(, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 16:06, Share, Reply)
The cartoon may have an impact
In which case it is part of the solution rather than the problem.
We would need three planet earths to sustain the consumption levels we are at now; this is the plain "truth" so something needs to be done and raising awareness is part of it.
(, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:06, Share, Reply)
well yes then. the cartoon has certainly had an impact on me.
im going straight out to scrap my gas-guzzler and ride around on a bicycle made from recycled biscuits.
and we should all stop eating meat AND vegetables.
...oh, and think about the poor water, the poor little water molecules should be SAVED!
(, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:18, Share, Reply)
I think that there might be a well you forgot to poison somewhere...
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:23,
Share,
Reply)
Isnt it so that we would need 3 planets,
if the whole world consumed at the rate of America and us brits. If Africa was densely populated, and even Australia and Russia. And they consumed the same as the 'richer' (loose term) countries, then we would be in the shite.
(
@RBFesquire Good luck b3ta, was nice knowing you. So long., Mon 15 Sep 2008, 15:21,
Share,
Reply)