Canada disgraces itself on the enviroment.

Originally posted by Starhawk

And for your information I also watch Bill O'Rielly and many right wing programs, just top see what the other side is trying to pass off.

and here is where the difference between you and me is apparent

I haven't watched a news program on television in over a month, and at that it is sporadic watching of BBC world news or sometimes CBC, although I find both of them have inescapable biases.

So, where you might ask do I find what I consider scientific information? Well, from scientists of course. Not by comparing the memes I saw on O'Riley vs those on some Liberal show. Seeing any issue as a confrontation between right and left is abysmally limited.

and yes, I was going for condescending. Imagine if some 16 year old were convinced that the sun were going around the Earth, there are only so many times you can tell them they are wrong nicely.

Originally posted by Nellinator

Solution: Starhawk is has no idea what is going on and is only continuing this argument to preserve his dignity (defense mechanism = Psychology 101 [actually it was Psychology 105 for me in my day...)

cognitive dissonance is the most beautiful thing ever.

Many people agree that more and more species are dying off such as bees, Health Canada has stated that Cancer is rising for hast it will soon be the number one killer. My local news does air quality reports everyday and they are getting worse year after year. There has been allot more polluted water supplies including a couple new ones in my city. We are in constant battles over where our garbage is going because we don't know where to put it anymore. Farmers are having a more and more difficult time due to the now erratic weather shifts.

The above are facts. Unlike you guys I am just willing to give up money in favor of a healthy life.

Originally posted by inimalist
cognitive dissonance is the most beautiful thing ever.

On top of that he is using immature defense mechanisms. Namely projection.

No I am using facts, I simply care more about the environment then economy.

I can't believe you would try to claim environmental concern as a psychological disorder.

No, you are ignoring a lot of evidence and only using the evidence that supports your view. You are being stupid. Also, you still have not addressed why Kyoto is the solution when it is counter productive.

I didn't. Cognitive dissonance is not a disorder. However, you are making some very classic and predictable psychological mistakes. Your dissonance-reduction drive is leading you to reduce your dissonance in an illogical and maladaptive way. The fact that you admit to ignoring a large portion of evidence is testimony to that.

No I am ignoring evidence from biased sources trying to protect the economy at the risk of the environment. All my side of this is concerned with is the environment. Yours is the less then objective side.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No I am ignoring evidence from biased sources trying to protect the economy at the risk of the environment. All my side of this is concerned with is the environment. Yours is the less then objective side.

Would you really sacrifice the livelihood of millions of people by destroying the economy for a disputed theory? This is a yes or no question.

Therefore, I am being far more objective. You are being selfish, in that you would sacrafice the livelihood of millions of people because you don't like the slight increase in the chance that you will get cancer.

Originally posted by Nellinator
If you didn't notice, I support environmental reform. And for all your ranting, you have provided no solutions, whereas I have mentioned some good things that can be done without damaging the economy. The sooner you begin considering the necessity of both the better off you will be. Maintaining the economy is essential to providing quality of life for millions of people with limited income. And you still have not addressed what we should do, or why the Kyoto is worthwhile.

Would you really sacrifice the livelihood of millions of people by destroying the economy for a disputed theory? This is a yes or no question.

Therefore, I am being far more objective. You are being selfish, in that you would sacrafice the livelihood of millions of people because you don't like the slight increase in the chance that you will get cancer.

This is about more then just Kyoto and Global Warming, that is only one area where we need desperately need environmental reform. And you cannot limit it to only reforms that won't hurt the economy. The only reason it is disputed is because of right wing special interests trying to protect the economy. And I have already shown how to pay for it without hurting people on limited income.

Originally posted by Starhawk
This is about more then just Kyoto and Global Warming, that is only one area where we need desperately need environmental reform. And you cannot limit it to only reforms that won't hurt the economy. The only reason it is disputed is because of right wing special interests trying to protect the economy. And I have already shown how to pay for it without hurting people on limited income.

Would you be open to a suggestion that would save the environment and not hurt the economy?

Such as? The only one our Government has come up with so far will actually end up being another environmental problem on its own.

How about moving to the moon?

BTW, I'm just talking about one person, not the entire Earth.

Originally posted by botankus
How about moving to the moon?

BTW, I'm just talking about one person, not the entire Earth.

Reported for trolling

Come on, man. That was a valid suggestion. Ask anyone here if they thought it was.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Such as? The only one our Government has come up with so far will actually end up being another environmental problem on its own.

🙂 glee

I finally am going to voice an opinion about what I think the answer is (look how right wing it is)

Say we need 50% reduction in whatever pollutant in 20 years.

We say, by 2027, if you haven't made those reductions, you lose your ability to do business in Canada.

Now, there needs to be incentive. So, starting immediately, every year there is a target of 2.5% less emissions. Each company that succeeds in this is able to write off (loophole) say double the money they spent on becoming more environmentally friendly. Yes, double is huge, I'll go over that in a sec, but that benefit would be reduced to a normal 1 to 1 write off ratio by 2027. Also starting immediately, if a company is not able to reduce by 1% starting say 5 years down the line (ie, in 2012 it would be mandatory for each company to at least have brought emissions down 1%, then an additional 1% each year after up to maybe 10-15 years, then make it the full necessary 2.5%). If a company does not accommodate to the 1%, they get major tax hikes.

So, what does this do. Well, for starters, it ensures that in 20 years, no company will have the emissions problems. The big thing however, is that it makes it financially viable (or even profitable) to reduce emissions at first, so major companies and polluters will be enticed to stay and go green rather than move shop somewhere else. For smaller companies who many not have the capital to invest into these types of things, they have 5-6 years to make even menial changes. By that point, the technology used should have been adapted by the larger companies into a more cost effective green technologies, which the smaller companies can use to then catch up.

So ya. Why not just make it profitable for corporations to do what we want them to? Oh right, evil corporations 🙂 go anti-capitalistic green movement! or maybe its the PINK movement

Originally posted by Starhawk
This is about more then just Kyoto and Global Warming, that is only one area where we need desperately need environmental reform. And you cannot limit it to only reforms that won't hurt the economy. The only reason it is disputed is because of right wing special interests trying to protect the economy. And I have already shown how to pay for it without hurting people on limited income.

Your logic is so flawed it hurts. Can you justify why we would want to protect big business when none of us are apart of big business? My job would exist either way. You cannot justify it because you a close-minded on the issue.

Also, I suggested solutions to more than just global warming.

Fourth, answer the question. Yes or no? You are dodging because you don't want to face the reality of what you are suggesting because you know it is entirely selfish.

Fifth, you still avoid answering why we should have kept Kyoto when it is counterproductive. Stop dodging and answer as you just look like an idiot for not addressing the issue.

On top of that, you will hurt people with limited income because you are going to destroy the job market. Limited income people will have no jobs because they will be the first to be cut. The fact that you don't realize that shows how little you know about the economy. The fact that you called the NASA journal biased and right wing shows how uncredible you are on science. And your logic is flawed enough to discredit you as a reasonable person. You are entirely unfit for debating this.

Originally posted by inimalist
🙂 glee

I finally am going to voice an opinion about what I think the answer is (look how right wing it is)

Say we need 50% reduction in whatever pollutant in 20 years.

We say, by 2027, if you haven't made those reductions, you lose your ability to do business in Canada.

Now, there needs to be incentive. So, starting immediately, every year there is a target of 2.5% less emissions. Each company that succeeds in this is able to write off (loophole) say double the money they spent on becoming more environmentally friendly. Yes, double is huge, I'll go over that in a sec, but that benefit would be reduced to a normal 1 to 1 write off ratio by 2027. Also starting immediately, if a company is not able to reduce by 1% starting say 5 years down the line (ie, in 2012 it would be mandatory for each company to at least have brought emissions down 1%, then an additional 1% each year after up to maybe 10-15 years, then make it the full necessary 2.5%). If a company does not accommodate to the 1%, they get major tax hikes.

So, what does this do. Well, for starters, it ensures that in 20 years, no company will have the emissions problems. The big thing however, is that it makes it financially viable (or even profitable) to reduce emissions at first, so major companies and polluters will be enticed to stay and go green rather than move shop somewhere else. For smaller companies who many not have the capital to invest into these types of things, they have 5-6 years to make even menial changes. By that point, the technology used should have been adapted by the larger companies into a more cost effective green technologies, which the smaller companies can use to then catch up.

So ya. Why not just make it profitable for corporations to do what we want them to? Oh right, evil corporations 🙂 go anti-capitalistic green movement! or maybe its the PINK movement

Originally posted by Nellinator
Oh no!! It's logic and a fairly feasible plan. The only thing that could be a problem is the dates, but maybe not. And it might stagnate the economy a bit as expansion will be difficult when they are trying to reduce emissions. But, stagnation is far better than this retarded argument for increasing taxes, destroying the economy and ruining the livelihoods of millions of people. Hmm... when you compare the two like that, it almost seems like anyone arguing the latter is an idiot...

lol, the last thing I would ever claim to be is an economist, so I'll admit it may not be all that nuanced.

I guess the gist of it was "Why are we trying to fight against the most powerful individuals in the nation when we really need their help?"

Originally posted by Nellinator
Oh no!! It's logic and a fairly feasible plan. The only thing that could be a problem is the dates, but maybe not. And it might stagnate the economy a bit as expansion will be difficult when they are trying to reduce emissions. But, stagnation is far better than this retarded argument for increasing taxes, destroying the economy and ruining the livelihoods of millions of people. Hmm... when you compare the two like that, it almost seems like anyone arguing the latter is an idiot...

Stagnation isn't that bad as long as the other nations in the world do it too, they won't meaning it will still hurt as hell.

Because they are evil? Isn't that right Starhawk?

Basically the question is "Who has the MONEY to fix the environment?" The only answer is big businesses. The government has to many other expenses and is far less efficient with the money that they do have. Businesses use their money to its full potential which is one of the beauties of capitalism.