Canada disgraces itself on the enviroment.

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

Well the right wing has had it's say, now I'll go. We need to move faster then 20 years, we need to not be limited to just one area or one pollutant. Your plan would have been great back in the late 80's. Probably one of if not the most noted scientist in Canada, David Suzuki has even said that the collapse of our environment is accelerating. He compared it to a snow ball rolling down a hill, in our case the weaker our environment becomes, the faster the degrading occurs.

We are trying to force them to do what needs to be done, if that causes a fight it's their fault for being so uncooperative.

Yes there would be some economical fallout, my tax plan would help ease the burden on the most vulnerable.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/

Originally posted by Starhawk
We are trying to force them to do what needs to be done, if that causes a fight it's their fault for being so uncooperative.

why would you possibly want a fight with business?

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Why wouldn't you simply link something like this? It would have supported your argument.

Also, David Suzuki is an idiot. He does not garner that much respect in the scientific community because he is overzealous and he proves it hear by over exaggerating the effects we are having on the environment.

And once again, your tax plan would cause massive job losses that would effect low income earners more than anyone. You do not understand the economy if you think your plan works.

They would be the ones starting the fight by not complying. They would be the ones who want a fight.

LOL you are retarded if you think that. You know absolutely nothing about business do you? Don't answer, we all know the answer. Big business doesn't want a fight, they simply need incentive.

This isn't a case where we can accept a no from them, they are one of the causes of the problem. Now they have to suck it up and do whats needed. Sorry I don't go kissing ass to the people who have been doing the polluting.

Originally posted by Nellinator
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Why wouldn't you simply link something like this? It would have supported your argument.

Wake up, people.

Starhawk's not really a left-winged environmentalist. He's using ludicrous arguments to make himself look stupid, which in turn, he's hoping that everyone will view left-winged environmentalists as idiots.

Example:

SH: "I hate George Bush. He goes poo-poo in the oval office toilet. See? Here's a link: www.barbie.com. See? Anyone who doesn't believe this is killing our country!!!!@$@!$%!@#%!%!!!!!"

Originally posted by Nellinator
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Why wouldn't you simply link something like this? It would have supported your argument.

Also, David Suzuki is an idiot. He does not garner that much respect in the scientific community because he is overzealous and he proves it hear by over exaggerating the effects we are having on the environment.

And once again, your tax plan would cause massive job losses that would effect low income earners more than anyone. You do not understand the economy if you think your plan works.

No he is extremely respected, just not by the Right Wing. And the government can give transition assistance to people who lose jobs.

Originally posted by Starhawk
No he is extremely respected, just not by the Right Wing. And the government can give transition assistance to people who lose jobs.

With what money?

Tax money. The problem here is that it someone has to lose, either the environment or big business. And in order to insure our survival, it has to be the environment that wins out.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Tax money. The problem here is that it someone has to lose, either the environment or big business. And in order to insure our survival, it has to be the environment that wins out.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Tax money. The problem here is that it someone has to lose, either the environment or big business. And in order to insure our survival, it has to be the environment that wins out.

You don't really understand the economy do you?

Canada doesn't have enough money to do what is required now.

Forcing company's to fire people with reduce tax income

Less tax means less money to support what you have now.

People will complain about that so much that eventually the Kyoto will be ignored again and the money will be put into other things that are common now.

Meaning you

1.) Destroyed the economy
2.) Didn't help the environment
3.) Killed millions of people in other country's for a heavily debated theory.

Originally posted by Fishy
You don't really understand the economy do you?

Canada doesn't have enough money to do what is required now.

Forcing company's to fire people with reduce tax income

Less tax means less money to support what you have now.

People will complain about that so much that eventually the Kyoto will be ignored again and the money will be put into other things that are common now.

Meaning you

1.) Destroyed the economy
2.) Didn't help the environment
3.) Killed millions of people in other country's for a heavily debated theory.

Thats why as I said we raise taxes on the higher incomes. It would not destroy the economy merely inconvenience it, and it would help the environment greatly. And I think people would rather not have cancer, polluted air and water and not have species integral to our eco system like bees be wiped out.

Originally posted by Starhawk
Thats why as I said we raise taxes on the higher incomes. It would not destroy the economy merely inconvenience it, and it would help the environment greatly. And I think people would rather not have cancer, polluted air and water and not have species integral to our eco system like bees be wiped out.

Tax the rich and they will need to save money on something, tax company's and they will have to save money on something. The poorest people are the easiest to save on. Move their jobs to low wage country's. Meaning higher unemployment meaning more money to welfare meaning less tax income.

The money you get from the extra taxes on the rich and the company's will in the end be spend on helping the poor, nothing else.

Helping them adjust from the fallout of the economic changes we need to make to save the environment.

no, help them adapt to the fact that we have no major companies or good jobs, while having done nothing but moved the environmental problem to another nation that wont do anything about it

Originally posted by inimalist
no, help them adapt to the fact that we have no major companies or good jobs, while having done nothing but moved the environmental problem to another nation that wont do anything about it

We are not going to lose all big companies or good jobs. And we can impose sanctions on those other countries until they comply.

Originally posted by Starhawk
We are not going to lose all big companies or good jobs. And we can impose sanctions on those other countries until they comply.

And what sanctions would you pose on China and India? The two fastest growing new markets in the world?

What sanctions would you pose on Russia? Who completely ignores the UN whenever they feel like it?

What sanctions would you put on the US who has no reason to listen to anything unless it benefits them?

But who cares about those, India has a billion people if a few dozen million die it's not that bad right? Russia and China can probably handle it as well, and the US is filled with big business so they suck anyways don't they?

I would really like to know what you would want to do about Africa? Nations that have no money, are in a constant state of near or total civil war, where hundreds of thousands of people die because of poverty a day? Where diseases such as aids can affect a third of the population, where half of the population doesn't even have electricity or flowing water? Where cars are as rare as people having mules in a 1 bedroom apartment in Canada....

You would make it impossible for those people to expand their economy, to create jobs, to actually get electricity and power. For what, a theory you don't even know is true? Well you do, but the rest of the world doesn't... Tens if not hundreds of millions of people would die because of this. And you are just willing to let them suffer, let them die and make the situation in the country ever worse and the likelihood of another great civil war all the greater....

Excuse me, but what is at stake is our environment and through that our ability to live. As I have listed there is many effects to our health we are already seeing, such as polluted water supplies, such as ever decreasing air quality. More and more species becoming extinct, some necessary to our survival, such as bees, drastically rising cancer rates, ever increasingly erratic weather patterns. And grow up, there is a staggering amount of people in many scientific fields and in many economic fields who have realized the danger to our environment.

What you meant to say was

Well you do, but the rest of the right wing world doesn't

Now onto your right wing scare tactics, people in Africa will be dying whether we do this or not. Millions die there every year as it is. And in places like china Russia and India, if they started letting millions die, they would have revolutions on their hands.

And how do you think the people in those world will feel when the air they breathe in starts making them sick? When they have no water to drink because it will kill them? When they start dying off in mass numbers from cancer? When they become unable to grow things to feed themselves.

Tens if not hundreds of millions of people would die because of this. And you are just willing to let them suffer, let them die.

Originally posted by Starhawk
[B]Excuse me, but what is at stake is our environment and through that our ability to live. As I have listed there is many effects to our health we are already seeing, such as polluted water supplies, such as ever decreasing air quality. More and more species becoming extinct, some necessary to our survival, such as bees, drastically rising cancer rates, ever increasingly erratic weather patterns. And grow up, there is a staggering amount of people in many scientific fields and in many economic fields who have realized the danger to our environment.

Economists are not of interest here, they aren't scientists. And there are a large group of scientists that put the results of the IPCC into doubt, even scientists that worked on the reports. They criticize the way the IPCC works and the way they got their results. But you want to ignore that of course.

What you meant to say was

I said exactly what I wanted to say, unlike you I'm not a lying bastard.

Now onto your right wing scare tactics, people in Africa will be dying whether we do this or not. Millions die there every year as it is. And in places like china Russia and India, if they started letting millions die, they would have revolutions on their hands.

Yes millions die in Africa already, and they can prevent them from dying by economical growth and make their lives better. Instead of that you are willing to let their economy get worse, meaning the likelihood of civil war will go up, and their quality of life will go down. Meaning you are killing more people then before, and preventing anybody from doing something about it.

And how do you think the people in those world will feel when the air they breathe in starts making them sick? When they have no water to drink because it will kill them? When they start dying off in mass numbers from cancer? When they become unable to grow things to feed themselves.

They are dying in mass number because of aids, because of poverty, because they don't have hospitals medicine and electricity. Cancer will be a small factor in to all of that. Many of them don't have any water anyway, and the water they do have is polluted as hell. Of course they could get clean water but that would require big businesses to build factory's there and would mean that they couldn't comply with environmental demands. To prevent progress in those country's is to kill millions. And that is what you are willing to do for a heavily debated theory.