Global Warming

[Super Nova]

The risk of 'doing something' is greater than the risk of doing nothing.

Rubbish. What sort of logic is that.

We need to manage the risks. I do not think we should panic and go to extreme lengths right now creating costs that are not thought through. We need to invest in the R&D to produce clean mobile energy, we have a long way to go and reduce emissions.

The economic costs of a waste planet in a 1000 years time is not in the economic impact because we are such short term thinkers.

So,
- We agree there is human activity that is warming the planet
- You point to economic costs are too expensive to justify doing anything
- Solution is, hell with the Earth and all live on it as long as human can adopt their local environment, she'll be right mate
- Sort term economics override long term needs
- I present there is a need for an action plan, I do not support just taxing the crap out of everyone because there are alarmist demanding it.
- I do think the debate is needed and there needs to be a solution that is economic and imposes change will a minimum impact on the economies of the world.
- Doing nothing is NOT an option.

I don't think humanity living in Logan Run styled domes is the solution.



PS: Did you ever not her skirt got shorter and shorter as the series ran?

[IQS.RLOW]

Of course doing nothing is an option.

In many cases it's clearly the best option to take because the risks of doing something clearly outweigh the risks of doing something- especially when that something is clearly the economic path favoured by governments because another source of revenue (in their mind) clearly outweighs doing something achievable or doing nothing.

I don't think humanity living in Logan Run styled domes is the solution.

Panic merchant.

[Super Nova]

Of course doing nothing is an option.

In many cases it's clearly the best option to take because the risks of doing something clearly outweigh the risks of doing something- especially when that something is clearly the economic path favoured by governments because another source of revenue (in their mind) clearly outweighs doing something achievable or doing nothing.

I don't think humanity living in Logan Run styled domes is the solution.

Panic merchant.

If the motive of governments is to have another revenue stream, I agree.

My point is they need to be planning to do something, begin doing something strategic now.

Taxation as the only way to change behaviour is not my preferred mechanism. Incentives, the opposite to taxation is the way to go.

[IQS.RLOW]

You cannot apply sin taxes or throw tax money at 'incentives' at energy use or production.

The cheapest method of production will always win out and artificially inflating it so alternatives are more attractive is a a recipe for disaster on a major scale in market distortion of the base materials of production and human existence.

Why do they need to something strategic now?

[boxy]

We need to manage the risks. I do not think we should panic and go to extreme lengths right now creating costs that are not thought through. We need to invest in the R&D to produce clean mobile energy, we have a long way to go and reduce emissions.

We've got to do something about energy soon anyway, regardless of global warming. We can't rely on fossil fuels, because we are running out of easily accessible deposits (that are not replenishing). We can't really rely on ethanol from crops (given that phosphorous is also going to run low soon as well). Giving non-carbon technologies a financial edge now will give us an opportunity to develop them before the crisis point arrives, while we still have the productive capacity to invest significant resources towards bootstrapping ourselves out of our dependence on fossil fuels.

[IQS.RLOW]

The old 'we are running out', 'peak oil' 'oh noes where moar fossil fuels??" bullshit

Have you been missing the coal seam debate? There is only one thing that changes behaviour and that is human ingenuity and genuine market forces.

Oil and petroleum underpins the world as we know it for energy and products so unless you or Bob Brown or anyone else can come up with a clean, green replacement that is BTU and chemically equivalent so trillions of dollars of equipment doesn't have to be scrapped because it will be illegal to operate under the "new regulations" , you are just shit out of luck because nothing proposed so far will make any difference to CO2 output or temperature.

Not.
One.
Fucking.
Bit.

[boxy]

There is only one thing that changes behaviour and that is human ingenuity and genuine market forces.

I count two just there

[IQS.RLOW]

You need both together as one to create the synergy for change.

[Super Nova]

You cannot apply sin taxes or throw tax money at 'incentives' at energy use or production.

The cheapest method of production will always win out and artificially inflating it so alternatives are more attractive is a a recipe for disaster on a major scale in market distortion of the base materials of production and human existence.

Why do they need to something strategic now?

because sooner or later something must be done. We will need to take action.

A strategy now, cost effectively implemented will save money later. Failing to plan is planning to fail.

Sticking your head in the sand is not way to manage the risks.

[boxy]

You need both together as one to create the synergy for change.

lol

**sips on latte**