environment vs. economy (2 Viewers)

[ashie0]

i'm always bamboozled by peoples reasoning in this debate.

two major fucking problems, which do you put first, and why?

economy or environment?

 

[moll.]

I always put myself first. It's the only logical position. I would advise you all do it.
Put me first, that is.

 

[Venom.]

economy. we're never gonna reach worldwide consensus on how to properly deal with the changing climate.

 

[Kwayera]

They are not necessarily competing interests. In the long run, a healthy environment is essential for a healthy economy.

This.

 

[ashie0]

Well obviously as an individual you will do what is best for yourself. This is irrelevant to a discussion about environmental policy.

The point of environmentalist policies is that they try to force everyone to minimize damage to the environment, which may be beneficial to you personally in the future.

its not really...
the fact that people aren't willing to change their lifestyle is one of the reasons this problems so difficult to fix.

 

[fleckar]

Changing our lifestyles to make it better for the environment = knocking down every factory and completely getting rid of technology.

Or maybe buying power saving light bulbs and taking public transportation once in a while instead of driving will do the trick.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

They are not necessarily competing interests. In the long run, a healthy environment is essential for a healthy economy.

the economies definition of a healthy environment is a lot different from
the environments definition of a healthy environment

although i like the thought

i vote economy btw

 

[EmeraldTempest]

Environment vs. economy is a funny one.

What is carbon trading? - fixing the environment by making Carbon Dioxide a commodity to be traded in the economy.

Although in Australia we are a little way off Carbon Trading - after Penny Wongs attempt where by major corporations will be able to give off more CO2. By luckily due to the change of president in the US, hopefully the world will become more involved in this form of economic stimulus.

Although my personal thoughts are that Carbon Trading is crap - I would prefer that every body be given "tokens" to be able to use so much Carbon Dioxide per year. I.e. say everybody gets 100 carbon units. Driving a small fuel efficient car for say 20000km (about Aust. average for 12 months) and this would use 10 carbon units - compared to that gas guzzling 4WD which would use say 20 carbon units.
This method also gives direct responsibility to the consumer not the corporation (although the corporations would have to go greener to produce products that have a smaller cost in carbon units to their competitors so that more people buy them).
In order to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted, every year the government might reduce the number of tokens per person by 5. Thus slowly but steadily capping Green House Gas emissions.

Anyhow slightly off topic - the Environment must to fixed first - it’s far easier to fix an economy that a destructed environment!!

 

[moll.]

Environment vs. economy is a funny one.

What is carbon trading? - fixing the environment by making Carbon Dioxide a commodity to be traded in the economy.

Although in Australia we are a little way off Carbon Trading - after Penny Wongs attempt where by major corporations will be able to give off more CO2. By luckily due to the change of president in the US, hopefully the world will become more involved in this form of economic stimulus.

Although my personal thoughts are that Carbon Trading is crap - I would prefer that every body be given "tokens" to be able to use so much Carbon Dioxide per year. I.e. say everybody gets 100 carbon units. Driving a small fuel efficient car for say 20000km (about Aust. average for 12 months) and this would use 10 carbon units - compared to that gas guzzling 4WD which would use say 20 carbon units.
This method also gives direct responsibility to the consumer not the corporation (although the corporations would have to go greener to produce products that have a smaller cost in carbon units to their competitors so that more people buy them).
In order to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted, every year the government might reduce the number of tokens per person by 5. Thus slowly but steadily capping Green House Gas emissions.

Anyhow slightly off topic - the Environment must to fixed first - it’s far easier to fix an economy that a destructed environment!!

That's a ridiculous idea. It's completely unenforcable except with the aid of a massive and expensive beaurocracy, something which this country needs not. Even Carbon Trading requires too much effort.
Carbon Tax is the only sensible idea.
"Here's the initial tax. If you don't lower your emmissions now, we'll raise the tax price, costing you more in the future as you struggle to pay increased prices and to refurbish your homes/businesses at the same time. Your choice. Kthnxbye"

 

[yoddle]

really, there is no debate because the two are glued together.
our economy is generated by, initially, humans, who extract natural resources. The environment both allows for a functioning economy to exist but at the same time is negatively effected by it (did i use the right 'effect'?).
If you choose to put the economy first then really you mean "put the economy first right now, in the short term", because in the long term that sort of policy is going to cause enormous environmental damage that will cause economic regression.

environmental policy is economic policy.

"we are running an uncontrolled experiment on the only home we have"

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Neither of those things are sentient, and are thus incapable of defining anything.

The only sentience you can prove is your own - beyond that you're isolated. You've just as much evidence for the sentience of trees and waterfalls as you have for any one of us.

 

[boris]

If I own land, I'll look after it.

What if you can make money out of arse raping that land?

sure it will be fucked so no one else can make money out of it after you are done but you own it now.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

go back into hiding, boris. no-one wants your mediocre input.

 

[boris]

I haven't been hiding

Dont you have some shit trolling to do, you ugly fuck?

 

[Kwayera]

What if you can make money out of arse raping that land?

sure it will be fucked so no one else can make money out of it after you are done but you own it now.

And this is why I have so much trouble applying right-wingism/libertarianism to the environment.

 

[hungwell1337]

you cant profit from fixing the environment

 

[nerd4lyf]

lol THIS CARTTOOON WOULD SUM IT ALL UP


http://www.inkcinct.com.au/Web/CARTOONS/2008/2008-603--environmental-collapse.gif

 

[boris]

you cant profit from fixing the environment

yes you can

i can sell plenty of carbon offset shit lol

i can environmentally engineer the shit out of stuff

plenty of money to be had

its big buisness now

 

[Iron]

And this is why I have so much trouble applying right-wingism/libertarianism to the environment.

There's hope for you yet

I even struggle with the notion that the most talented people will always seek the highest paying jobs - as if mere materialism and vanity can tame them. I suppose that it often will, but it's pretty sickening to equate earning capacity to moral worth

 

[moll.]

There's hope for you yet

I even struggle with the notion that the most talented people will always seek the highest paying jobs - as if mere materialism and vanity can tame them. I suppose that it often will, but it's pretty sickening to equate earning capacity to moral worth

It's also pretty sickening to equate moral worth to talent.