2020 election

[brewster]

What you call bans I call restrictions and what you call taxes I call incentives.
What you say is force I say is persuasion.

This is an old battle, "the tragedy of the commons". If you can't convince someone that dumping their shit in the river isn't a good idea, and you can't fine them, and you can't raise taxes to build a treatment plant, then they'll keep dumping their shit in the river till enough shit is coming downriver at them to convince them it's a bad idea, and often then they're only convinced that the people upriver should stop, not them.

What amazes me is that when you show evidence that alternative energy is actually getting cheaper than carbon, they deny it and call it fake because they're so attached to the position that climate friendly is more expensive.

Except it's easy to come up with regulations to prevent people from dumping their shit in a river, limiting carbon emissions worldwide, not so much. Limiting pollution is actually doable and effective, the regulations and taxes you are proposing don't address the issue at all, and are mere virtue signaling.

It's easy? No, it took decades to get people to stop polluting our air, water and land with toxins. Industry fought it every step of the way. Carbon is different only in it's scale. Tax the pollutant carbon, and it's use will drop and alternatives will thrive. I posted a market analysts report saying it was now cheaper to build wind turbines than burn NG in existing plants. I've pointed out that cheap enough electricity is easy to store in pumped hydro like has been proposed for the Hoover Dam. This is not only doable, it can be market driven if only ideologues don't actively hamper it.

[Fife]

BTW, Msgr Monte, here's the nutshell of the specific argument I made that branded me as no better than a common "suicide bomber:" Bring on the CO2, baby!

Plants rely on carbon dioxide to exist.

All of Earth's biosphere relies on plant life to exist.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

[Montegriffo]

You don't want to do anything about it. All your proposed solutions will come nowhere near doing fuck all about climate change, you want to virtue signal and purchase tickets to heaven as opposed to actually fixing the problem, or all your solutions wouldn't involve government intervention.

Again, please try to be more specific about ''my solutions'' or all that's left is for me to call you a wanker.

I have been specific. How will banning plastic straws stop climate change? Even if all plastic straws and vanished from the earth, and were never made ever again, it wouldn't put a dent in the problem, and neither will any of your other bullshit solutions.

It all adds up to fuck all, it just makes you think you are doing something by supporting counter-productive solutions, yeah you are hurting the cause you claim to champion.

Plastic straws are not about halting climate change. The aim of eliminating them and other single-use plastics is to prevent the pollution of our oceans and the damage caused to marine animals.
I'm guessing this is why you resort to wide-ranging statements and infantile insults. Your arguments just don't stand up to scrutiny.
Some less forgiving posters might just resort to labelling you as spam and get into page after page of pointless name-calling.
I shall try to rise above that, dickhead.

[Speaker to Animals]

Well, unless you ban straws in Asia and Africa, you are doing jack shit about ocean pollution.

[Montegriffo]

BTW, Msgr Monte, here's the nutshell of the specific argument I made that branded me as no better than a common "suicide bomber:" Bring on the CO2, baby!

Plants rely on carbon dioxide to exist.

All of Earth's biosphere relies on plant life to exist.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

No, it's a greenhouse gas. The ravages (hyperbole? maybe not) of climate change, soil erosion, deforestation etc will override the benefits of more CO2.

[Fife]

OK, I see your conclusion. ("ravages (hyperbole? maybe not) of climate change, soil erosion, deforestation etc will override the benefits of more CO2") Shit, I see it every damn day.

Is there an argument that leads to that conclusion?

[Montegriffo]

Well, unless you ban straws in Asia and Africa, you are doing jack shit about ocean pollution.

So do we do that by leading by example, physical force, punitive sanctions, international treaties or all of the above?

Will mere scapegoating help assuage our guilt or is action necessary?

[Speaker to Animals]

Well, unless you ban straws in Asia and Africa, you are doing jack shit about ocean pollution.

So do we do that by leading by example, physical force, punitive sanctions, international treaties or all of the above?

Will mere scapegoating help assuage our guilt or is action necessary?

It's not scapegoating. White people are not the problem. Asia and Africa are the places fucking up the oceans. No nanny statist banning and virtue signaling in the west is going to stop it.

[StCapps]

Well, unless you ban straws in Asia and Africa, you are doing jack shit about ocean pollution.

So do we do that by leading by example, physical force, punitive sanctions, international treaties or all of the above?

Will mere scapegoating help assuage our guilt or is action necessary?

Do you have any solutions that don't involve attempting to control the voluntary actions of individuals, or ban some of those actions? Anything at all? Bueller?

[Montegriffo]

OK, I see your conclusion. ("ravages (hyperbole? maybe not) of climate change, soil erosion, deforestation etc will override the benefits of more CO2") Shit, I see it every damn day.

Is there an argument that leads to that conclusion?

There are many scientific reports and predictions to support that conclusion. Will they suffice or do we need to get down to the nitty-gritty and repeat old arguments until we both lose the will to live and fall out with mindless name-calling. Asking for a friend...