Gore Refuses to Hear GOP Statement on GW

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Mar, 09:48 PM) [snapback]409982[/snapback]</div>

Here's just a small clip of it. Countdown had a longer clip but I can't find it. I'll keep looking.

 

Here's the longer clip from Countdown.

 

Would somebody who has seen the meeting tell me if anything concrete was proposed by anybody. All I've heard is sound bites of hot air. One sound bite captured Gore asking for a ban on coal fired plants. Was that it?

NPR interviewed Dingell today and specifically asked if the democratic congress was going to raise cafe standards or gas taxes. He waffled while giving the impression the interviewer had asked a stupid question. I'd have smacked him one.

 

Now increasing the CAFE standards would truly be a huge step, but then again both parties are getting their back pockets line with crisp green one's (nope its not recycled paper)

That is why I said before that the true change has to come from within each individual, buy cars that exceed the CAFE standards, let the purchasing power of masses make the change. They way I see it is that government proposed limits or minimum is only asking for constant challenges to be overturned.

Now I would really welcome CAFE increases, don't get me wrong, I just don't need the government to tell me that conserving an energy resource is good for my financial future as well as my planet. It is such a fundamental part of my life that I am baffled that we still need regulation to force people to make a pro planet choice.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Mar 21 2007, 09:42 PM) [snapback]410010[/snapback]</div>

Well worth the almost 7 minute watch, both for the political theater and the analysis in the second half.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Mar, 09:15 AM) [snapback]410172[/snapback]</div>

Not everybody thinks like you do. That's why we need regulation. (Of course we also need a government that is interested in serving the people rather than the corporations, but that's for another thread.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Mar 22 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]410192[/snapback]</div>

<bows head>: yeah :mellow: <mumbling>: I know, I am only a grain of sand at the beach of life


..but <perks up> I just gotta be me!!! :lol:


seriously though, I agree a nudge in the right direction might eventually result in a permanent change. Look at recycling, it is locally mandated and it was a fashionable thing and often an annoyance for my parents, for me its second nature to separate my garbage and my kids won't even know the difference.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Mar, 11:45 AM) [snapback]410307[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, and my b/f still sometimes puts aluminum cans into the trash even though it's right next to the recycle bin. (sigh) Although he's getting better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 22 2007, 06:56 PM) [snapback]410321[/snapback]</div>

Sounds good to me. Banning incandescent lightbulbs, or at least adding a 1000% tax for starters. Similar moves are happening in other Australia and the EU. And I think I'd prefer tradable carbon rationing to carbon tax.

What's the problem with that?

Hardly going to cause you major hardship, is it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 22 2007, 01:56 PM) [snapback]410321[/snapback]</div>

Oh I don't know if you have to regulate it, for me its a natural choice.. CFB's mean a lower energy bill, which means less energy demand, which means more energy for your hot-tub which means one shovel of coal less needing to burn.

A tax incentive might work. I got one for getting my Prius, although I didn't know about until I did my taxes the following year.

Australia is seriously considering banning ILBs, they rather spend the saved electricity on manufacturing, hospitals, schools and reducing cost of living costs (probably just a little of the yearly e-bill but hey makes for good political slogan ) while maintaining a breathable environment for its citizens to thrive, work and earn higher wages which means more taxes for the government dang I know there was a monetary motive :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lywyllyn @ Mar 22 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]410307[/snapback]</div>

Recycling gets easier all the time. We are doing 'single stream' recycling whereby all recycling goes into one can, garbage in other, and garden waste in the third. Recycling is effortless as there is no washing out first, no separating, nada, just move your arm from over the garbage can to the next one a foot away=recycling. Single Grains of Sand make a beach.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 22 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]410417[/snapback]</div>

An excellent list. I imagine it matches the same list most of us would draw up.

I also believe, Dr. Berman, based on your posts and many of the reactions to them, that many of us view yourself as SOLIDLY belonging to 3rd and 4th groups, even if you believe yourself not part of those groups. But your belief counts for little against the reality of how you are perceived.

I'm frequently a member the 3rd group myself - more so than I'd like to be, but I try to maintain an awareness of that and try to moderate it by saying "I think" and "I believe" and "probably" as much as possible rather than "All A" and "Every B" and "Absolutely C" and top it off by calling anyone who disagrees a "traitor" or "stupid", which is the hallmark of an irredeemable #3, and most #4s.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 22 2007, 09:09 PM) [snapback]410417[/snapback]</div>

The government gives every individual an equal carbon allowance (for free), the total amount determining how much the nation will pollute. The rations are gradually reduced year on year, to lower the total amount the nation pollutes.

The open market, the value will be determined by the fixed supply versus demand.

Some sort of simple trading exchange - could be done online. Just like any other uniform commodity - gold, oil, whatever. When you buy petrol, or whatever, you would hand over your ration card along with your credit card, and carbon units would be deducted. If you were out of carbon credits, you could automatically buy the necessary on the spot at the current market price.

The government.

Everyone can buy and sell. Those who don't travel much will have an excess they can sell for profit to those flying all around the place.

Quite a lot of work has been put into how this would work in practice by various groups; I read a good paper on it a few months back that I can't find now. It's being fairly seriously considered here in the United Kingdom.

I don't see any real practical problems at the individual level, but the problem will be making sure all costs are incorporated from upstream processes (transportation, imports, whatever).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 23 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]410783[/snapback]</div>

Yes. The American Indian gets a fat lot of money selling his unwanted credits to Al Gore.

These clever folks called scientists.

Trade rules can be enforced - import tariffs can be agreed on countries which aren't meeting treaty agreements to cut CO2 emissions.

It would be a damned good start, because they're the biggest emitters.

The total number of credits is fixed. Supply is fixed by the government. So you are reallocating a fixed amount carbon production to those that can afford it, and they are going to have to pay for the privilege. It's a way of incentivising people to emit less. Those who don't emit as much as their ration (quite a large proportion of the population) will make money by selling theirs.

It's not only travelling, obviously, it's also anything you buy that used fuel for its production. The people who produced the goods will have had to buy carbon credits for their fuel, and the cost will be passed on to the end consumer.

The government. I know you righty anarchist types don't think the government should be allowed to determine anything, of course. :lol: That job's best left for the corporations... Damn that pesky democracy, government by the people for the people lefty claptrap.

Out of interest, how do you feel about the worldwide treaties that banned various CFCs?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ Mar 23 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]410837[/snapback]</div>

Oh, and of course, if you're really green, you can surrender them. Or charities could buy them up for surrender. That would cut emissions further than the minimum imposed by the government.

 

It sounds like carbon credits are all about about "the government" deciding what I get. No thanks, I already have enough of that.

BTW - I believe the EU is a do-as-I-say organization that wants to use GW and carbon credits to punish the US - with some guilt but mostly reduced financial power due to the "GW enforcement" effects on the US economy. Carbon credits will just be another way to separate people from their money, and the governments of the world are all for that!

 

So, do you have a better suggestion for reducing CO2 emissions? How do you do that without "the government"? That's what the government's for.