Do as we say, but don't do as we do.

[Devastatin Dave]

Out of curiosity, where would you say that the right tries to control people?

You should open a dictionary and look up the word liberty. Its pretty nifty.

[Strike For The South]

Beskar, since you are so much more elite, enlightened, and intelligent then simplistic little ole me, let me what happens when you give your liberty to a government body (one that will tax your "carbon foot" for example) in a simplistic, dumbed down, good ole boy way. You may want to have your wealth, future, and livelyhood DICTATED to you, I don't. I don't ask you to have faith in Jesus, Budda, Muhamed, or Santa Clause, don't ask me to put faith in Global warming.
Global Warming has nothing to do with the enviroment and everything to do about control. But you're too smart to understand this.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Out of curiosity, where would you say that the right tries to control people?

Drugs, some moral issues (prostitution), some law-and-order crime issues, some homosexuality related cases, the Patriot Act, the War on Terror, National Security, immigration, etc. Neither list was exhaustive, though.

CR

[Gregoshi]

Neither list was exhaustive, though.

In the spirit of the conference, no doubt.

[Fragony]

Typical.

ah, 300 more euro's to Switzerland Africa, courtesy of our ministry of climate-lies NGO's and fraud.

bloody thieves liars', one day we will be comming for you

[Andres]

I don't know about you guys, but I don't need 15.000 clowns driving around in limousines, flying in private jets and eating caviar to tell me that one day we'll run out of oil...



I wouldn't be too surprised if those who manufacture cars, engines and whatever runs on oil, already figured that out themselves. Even I knew, even before Mr. Electric bill 30.000 $ entered the movie business, that the amount of oil on this planet is limited and that one day we'll have to use something different.

I also think that maybe, just maybe, we don't really need high paid individuals flying around the world, eating caviar and being driven around in limousines to tell us stuff we already know.

One day, we'll be forced to use alternative energy sources and therefore, we will use alternative energy sources.

We don't need expensive summits where they'll merely come to an interim intention statement to tell us that.

Waste of time and money that could have been better spent on developping alternative energy sources.

[Furunculus]

1. While there could be debates to the effects and the figures, there are major things that need to occur anyway, regardless, so it doesn't even bother me that much. The fact is, we are going to run out of Oil, so switching to alternative sources even now would be a good idea, it would also keep oil prices lower, due to lower demand.

2. Also, through various methods and ways, alternative methods would also bring in independent energy security to various nations. I am not sure about you Furunculus at times, but I bet you agree that you don't want Russia dominating the energy supply of Europe and the British Isles. (or the Middle East being the supplier of our energy needs)

3. Recycling is also another issue, through recycling, we could again reuse vast amounts of resources which otherwise would end up in the bottom of the ocean or in a hole in the ground, and for many materials, recycling is also far cheaper than getting it from new. There are also various safety hazards and other things related to landfill sites, and other various issues which could go on for pages, but I think we can agree here.

4. There are a lot of issues and things under the whole Global Enviroment agenda which really do need to be done, or really considered to be done. While there are some things I disagree with (such as Carbon Credits) and other issues, they are pretty much second priority compared to what I just listed which would obviously deal with those secondary issues at the same time.

5. Majority of angry replies about Global Skepticism, goes into many issues such as "Change", people dislike it, even if it is for the better. Then there are narrow-minded views as people cannot conceptualise the problems, thus they just simply dismiss it. Then there is the "we have an axe to grind" who simply just grinds axes on the next thing. Then there are the obviously millionaire and billionaire examples where the whole Climate Change issue means they lose money from their Oligarch oil investments.

6. Though you miss out where conservative party policy is to oppress the masses, while left-wing policy is liberating them, or distributing wealth to help all in the greater good. But those details seem to go unmentioned.


As for any personal distress, might be subconsciously venting some distress over deadlines.

1. agreed.
2. very much agreed.
3. i know, i helped start a recycling technology company valued by Grant Thorntons at £1.7m, with the aim of empowering local communities by source separated segregation of recycling which would allow local reprocessing into raw materials for manufacture, thus keeping the value of the material within the community. oh i know all about it.
4. as i have already said on several occasions; there are lots of green things i agree with, which is a separate matter for my general disdain for the politically motivated greens
5. i recognise that such people exist, in much the same way that i believe that the rabid element of the green movement are the inadequates of the lefty movement who need a cause to maintain a sense of self-worth, and thus needed to reinvent themselves when their previous cause failed in order to avoid a rapid onset on suicidal depression.
6. lol, oppress the masses? you realise that the current conservative party is an amalgam of the old tories, and the libertarian rump of the whigs? free-to-be-a-slave, or a slave-to-freedom, i know which i would rather be.

good luck

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Though you miss out where conservative party policy is to oppress the masses, while left-wing policy is liberating them, or distributing wealth to help all in the greater good. But those details seem to go unmentioned.

Examples:

Right = Monarchy, Patriot Act, Wage Slavery and various oppression.
Left = Universal Healthcare, Minimum Wage, Suffrage and various other things.

And you wonder why?

You do realise that is was largely what you would consider the political Right-Centre that actually achieved sufferage? Neither the Whigs nor Tories were "left", both were philanthropic and considered that helping the poor was a personal, not a governmental, responsibility.

Right Equals: No Cartels, no monopolies, low taxation, small government and personal responsibily, it also equals traditional monarchy, and NOT dictatorships. It doesn't equal the Patriot Act, which has been described by various opponents as "Stalinist" among other things.

This is not to say that the Hard Right is a good thing, because if you go all the way over there you have a dissinterested and disspationate government. However, you are the one who has invoked, "the greater good", the universal call of the authoritarian and oppressor.

About the Summit: At the very least the Danish could have layed on coaches, even fancy refitted ones would have been preferable. How many delegates used more than one car? Private planes are also unreasonable, when they could potentially have charted half a commercial carrier plane, or something.

Loius, while you may be partly right you've missed a wider point: Politicians like an excuse to indulge, and that is all this is.

[Beskar]

Right Equals: No Cartels, no monopolies

These first two are very interesting, since majority of conservatives want less regulation, however, it is regulation that prevents monopolies and cartels and very many call for no state interventation at all saying it should be the "market forces". However, the absense of regulation mean companies go uncheck as they become above the law in a big way (worse than some practises today) and they form cartels and monopolies, even to a point of running the state and oppressing the people themselves. It is generally the left which calls for greater regulation to prevent economic abuse by businesses and banks and other things, as they believe that oppression and authoritianship is a bad thing.

(Which goes back to the point, that saying a dictatorship is left-wing is completely invalid, since the left-wing is against authoritarianship, since it doesn't meet the basic criteria, it is obviously not the left.)

[Fragony]

Yeah yeah. Vista STOP THINKING, you aren't doing anything but thinking I can't use my mouse, opening word is too much to ask, I need my spreadsheet tomorow but Vista can't do that it's too slow, figure it out so I can perform simple tasks I must really open this document to make a few adjustments, why can't I simply open a document without having to wait for an hour only to have my keyboard swapped, I try to change it, when Vista finally understands I really want to adjust the vollume of my speakers it crashes because it is chasing tails it is of absolutely no use it is simply not functional enough for someone who needs to use a computer to perform simple tasks.

I want my macbook back DO something, a click, it opens, why is that not possible? Why is my cursor on the upper left when I want to write something right here? And I do not mean crashing. Excersise in fultiliy I know, windows crashes that is what windos does when it's not thinking about whatever is troubling it which must be a lot since it just doesn't stop thinking, STOP THINKING you can't

[Beskar]

So what you've been saying is: all bad and mean things = the right of the spectrum.
All things made of sugar and spice and everything nice = the left side?

Let's take a look at your points.

They want to have a say in where I work

How do you mean? As far as I am aware, they would have no problems, unless you are part of a Mafia family and other obvious examples.

how much I make

Generally they would want to set minimum wage to a level the populace can actually have a life with, which would only benefit you. So how is this bad?

what I learn at schools

This is really strange considering the massive movements from the right in regards to issues such as (un)intelligent design. Basic education requires you be equipped with certain facts for the work places and advanced university, only thing the left would do, is make sure these things are taught opposed to have an unqualified teacher teaching a classes on how Frodo's biblical journey to destroy the ring at Mount Doom. Unless you think that having studies in English, Maths and Science should surrender themselves to the preaches of Frodo. I don't see the problem.

what I have to buy

Where? Apart from plainly obvious things you would have to buy anything, I can't think of anything.

what I can't buy

Well, apart from plainly obvious things again, I can't think of anything. Then again, movements such as Freedom to Smoke Cannabis are on the left, so less drug regulation in that sense, then it would be the left which generally allows abortion, opposed to the right who wants to ban that. Looks like a losing battle in this field.

what I have to pay

How is that different? Both sides of the spectrum in one way or another do this.

who I have to buy from

Shop licences are not a new thing. You have to go to a bar or a shop with alcohol licence to buy alcohol (shops without them can't legally sell it), same with these such as mediciene, which is there to actually protect the consumer. This isn't a left or right issue, really.

what health insurance I have

Actually, the left make it so you don't need Health Insurance, not choose it. It is optional to get Bupa health insurance.

where I can start a business

Again, I doubt your Hitman Business would get much leeway under any government other than a corrupt one. Other then that, there plainly isn't anything there unless you require a licence/health and safety. I doubt having your bakery next to an open air waste treatment plant was a great idea anyway.

how I can run a business

Health and Safety regulation (plainly obvious) Practises against discrimination based on gender, race, etc (plainly obvious) So other than plainly obvious reasons.. where is a problem?

in whether I wear a seatbelt or helmet

LOL, if you really like, don't wear one. However, I will miss you posting on the forum.

where I can smoke

I doubt smoking next to the gas pipeline is a great idea. But things such as "common curtesy" shouldn't go amiss, if you smoke in someones face, they will hit you.

what cars I can own

Cars need to pass an MOT so they are safe for the roads. How is that a bad thing?

what electricity I consume

Are there different kinds?

what food I eat

I am glad anthrax pie is not on the menu.



So yeah, majority of that was just dribble.

[Meneldil]

Because of computer models, based on faulty and politicized science, the common man supposed to destroy his way of life. At worst the alarmists promise a slight temperature rise.

CR

Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.

In other news, cry me a river

[Beskar]

Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.

In other news, cry me a river

It is unfortunately true.

Perhaps it is the unbridled excessives of the society of the past decade are too much to give up on.

What you forgot to mention, Global Warming or not, we do need to start recycling, less reliance on fossil fuels and energy efficiency anyway. So sorry Rabbit, you have to give it up regardless.


That pretty sums up my position, I don't really care enough about Global Warming get to all hurt about it, as the majority of the changes we have to do anyway and even Furunculus who comments as being on the right agreed with me that they had to be done. The ball is out there with Global Warming, and if I was in government, I would be more focused on doing the big changes we need to do anyway, and perhaps have the geoengineering back-up which Louis posted from the telegraph if it turns out it is getting bad afterall, even after these changes have been done.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Beskar, you do seem bitter lately.

[Beskar]

Beskar, you do seem bitter lately.

I will decrease my posting significally for a while then (probably until the weekend at least). Not as a rage-quit, as I am understress and if this is influencing my behaviour too much in a negative light, it is best I become temporarily less-active.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Smoking gun of the Denial Industry uncovered!

1 The public persuasion campaign

In 1991 the Western Fuels Association, National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute set up a group called the Information Council for the Environment (Ice). Its founding documents were leaked. The text has been made available online by the scientist Naomi Oreskes. The strategy was spelt out in a document produced by the Western Fuels Association: to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)".


Ice was given $510,000 to test its messages in key markets, all of which happened to be the homes of members of the energy and commerce or ways and means committees of the US House of Representatives. The purpose was to "demonstrate that a consumer-based media awareness program can positively change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming." If it worked, Ice would "implement program nationwide".
It identified "two possible target audiences": "Target 1: Older, less educated males". These people, Ice said, would be receptive to "messages describing the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming – for example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence … "


"Target 2: younger, lower-income women" … "These women are more receptive ... to factual information concerning the evidence for global warming. They are likely to be "green" consumers, believe the earth is warming, and to think the problem is serious. However, they are also likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information …"
Ice discovered that "members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others' motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues." Here are some of the messages it tested:


"Some say the earth is warming. Some also said the earth was flat."
"Who told you the earth was warming … Chicken Little?"
"How much are you willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?"*
These messages must have worked, because they were later used by Ice in a wider media campaign.


* James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, 2009. Climate Cover-Up. Greystone Books, Vancouver.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Chicken little did tell me the earth was warming.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.

In other news, cry me a river

I do all of those things (well, a 50 mpg vehicle, not an electric car).

Unsurprisingly, that isn't enough.

What you forgot to mention, Global Warming or not, we do need to start recycling, less reliance on fossil fuels and energy efficiency anyway. So sorry Rabbit, you have to give it up regardless.

I'll start relying less on fossil fuels as they become scarcer, and not before. And I'm completely happy with my current energy efficiency.

Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.

CR

[ajaxfetish]

Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.

CR

I'm fairly sure that depends on the materials in question. As I understand it, for some materials, especially aluminum, recycling is cheaper than gathering new resources. Of course, for other materials, it's more expensive.

Ajax

[Beskar]

Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.

CR

No it doesn't.*

Aluminum costs 5% when recycling compared to from new.
Plastics costs around 30% when recycled compared to from new.
Paper costs 60% compared to from new.

There are other resources, especially the rarer ones, but there are also some areas where it is more ecologically valid to recycle, even though it is not profitible, such as batteries/computers/fridges containing toxic materials and acids which cause damage the environment and its wildlife.

There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.

There are many reasons to recycle, not all of them include profit, then again if we lived only in the name of profit, we would never have children.

As for enviromental concerns, you have to remember this. You do not inherit from your ancestors, you only borrow from you children.

*Yes, there are some resources that are currently cheaper to get new from other countries. Which also argubly, we don't have ourselves.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Aluminum is an exception. I am not convinced by your percentages, Beskar. Why do people have to pay for recycling services at all if paper and plastic are cheap to recycle?

There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.

Or, it can be gathered up and used as a power source. Which has already been done, by the way.

CR

[Beskar]

Aluminum is an exception. I am not convinced by your percentages, Beskar. Why do people have to pay for recycling services at all if paper and plastic are cheap to recycle?

We don't pay for recycling services, and i always lead to believe that you always got paid if anything.

I am fairly saw I seen American cartoons, even the Simpsons where they collect stuff for recycling and they got paid for doing so.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Over here nobody (either way) pays for the recycling per-se; everybody pays for the service that is collecting the waste and disposing of it somehow... though.

Perhaps I am on a different planet?

[Devastatin Dave]

Holy crap, having a bin for recyclables, driving an electric car and not letting all lights turned on at night is so going to destroy my way of life.

In other news, cry me a river

If it was just that,then no problem. But when you regulate carbon and add more and more taxes on industries to produce products that we as customers consume, then the cost gets past down to the customer. This will cause the price of energy, food, housing, and just about anything else we spend money on to go up. Its basic economics, but i guess in the age of Obama, basic economics means nothing when they believe the way to get out of debt is to spend more money that doesn't exist. And you know who this will hurt the most? The poor. the poor who you lefties constantly act like you are the sheppards of mercy for.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We don't pay for recycling services, and i always lead to believe that you always got paid if anything.

I am fairly saw I seen American cartoons, even the Simpsons where they collect stuff for recycling and they got paid for doing so.

Garbage men are volunteers?

You can get money for aluminum cans, and some states sponsor the buyback of glass bottles.

[Beskar]

You can get money for aluminum cans, and some states sponsor the buyback of glass bottles.

Yes, this is what I was refering to.

Garbage men are volunteers?

That is something different, also Garbage men play a very important part in our healthcare. Garbage men are probably the most underrated and unrespected lines of work compared to how very important they are to the daily running of our cities and places.

Making them handle recycling with seperate bins is also using the existing service to make mass recycling which is very effective.

[Furunculus]

No it doesn't.*

Aluminum costs 5% when recycling compared to from new.
Plastics costs around 30% when recycled compared to from new.
Paper costs 60% compared to from new.

There are other resources, especially the rarer ones, but there are also some areas where it is more ecologically valid to recycle, even though it is not profitible, such as batteries/computers/fridges containing toxic materials and acids which cause damage the environment and its wildlife.

There are also problems related to landfill sites, you cannot keep dumping rubbishing into the ground, because of many reasons, number one is the huge amount of methane that gets produced which can cause explosions.

There are many reasons to recycle, not all of them include profit, then again if we lived only in the name of profit, we would never have children.

As for enviromental concerns, you have to remember this. You do not inherit from your ancestors, you only borrow from you children.

*Yes, there are some resources that are currently cheaper to get new from other countries. Which also argubly, we don't have ourselves.

speaking as someone who ran a recycling and reprocessing company, and operated a household source segregated recycling scheme; it all depends on the level of contamination.

mixed paper products contaminated with food waste cannot be given away, a 40ft container would be turned away from shotton is more than a few bits of brown card were found in office paper recycling.
white office paper without contamination can be worth £80/tonne.

mixed glass used to be worth about £15/tonne
colour separated cullet varies from £30 to £60 depending on the colour, because while we use a lot of green glass such as wine and beer bottles, we don't actually produce it, whereas clear glass is something we produce a tonne of.

mixed plastics (of both type and form) is worth very little, however some plastics such a PET can be worth as much as £800/tonne when uncontaminated, cleaned, and re-pelleted.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

These first two are very interesting, since majority of conservatives want less regulation, however, it is regulation that prevents monopolies and cartels and very many call for no state interventation at all saying it should be the "market forces". However, the absense of regulation mean companies go uncheck as they become above the law in a big way (worse than some practises today) and they form cartels and monopolies, even to a point of running the state and oppressing the people themselves. It is generally the left which calls for greater regulation to prevent economic abuse by businesses and banks and other things, as they believe that oppression and authoritianship is a bad thing.

(Which goes back to the point, that saying a dictatorship is left-wing is completely invalid, since the left-wing is against authoritarianship, since it doesn't meet the basic criteria, it is obviously not the left.)

Look up the Corn Laws for an example of Liberals breaking cartels through removing regulation. Regulation always favours the current system, so large amounts of regulation is always oppressive and leads to an autocratic control of the ecenomy.

Note, I did not, and have not, said no regulation.

The modern Left is autocratic in that it oppresses the individual in favour of some nebulous "greater good", decided by the Left itself. I prefer the original Liberals, who had concern for both the individual and society.

[Beskar]

Regulation always favours the current system, so large amounts of regulation is always oppressive and leads to an autocratic control of the ecenomy.

Note, I did not, and have not, said no regulation.

Well, if you don't have regulation on the economy, just like you have regulation on government, you get exploited and manulapated by those with vast amounts of undeserved power. Lots of people tend to forget this, the ones who get hit by regulation are generally not the "common man", it would be the CEO's and other higher managers of the companies. Regulation prevents monoplies, they prevent price fixing, they are there to stop companies trying to exploit their consumers.

I think the banking crisis is the perfect example of what happens if you don't keep those with vast amounts of power not on a leash. Since all the countries which have tighter regulation got hit no where near as hard and they only got hit due to trade with nations that did.

[Meneldil]

I do all of those things (well, a 50 mpg vehicle, not an electric car).

Unsurprisingly, that isn't enough.



I'll start relying less on fossil fuels as they become scarcer, and not before. And I'm completely happy with my current energy efficiency.

Also; recycling isn't efficient; why do you think you have to pay for them to take the recycling away? Because it costs more energy to recycle than to gather new resources.

CR

Then I guess you surely have a way to explain why the average American (and there, I add Canadian or Australian so I don't sound like an american-hater) produces 3 times more carbon than the average French and twice more than the average German.

Looks like your energy efficiency is terribad actually :-(

Edit: For the sources, go here. Yeah yeah, they are envo's nutjobs greeno terrorists.

Edit2: And I don't pay anyone to take the recycling away. Never had, never will.

If it was just that,then no problem. But when you regulate carbon and add more and more taxes on industries to produce products that we as customers consume, then the cost gets past down to the customer. This will cause the price of energy, food, housing, and just about anything else we spend money on to go up. Its basic economics, but i guess in the age of Obama, basic economics means nothing when they believe the way to get out of debt is to spend more money that doesn't exist. And you know who this will hurt the most? The poor. the poor who you lefties constantly act like you are the sheppards of mercy for.

Companies try to rip the consummer off as much as possible anyway? Why don't you rant about that for a change?

And I am no leftie but thanks anyway. Maybe some day the american right will get its head off its bum and actually realizes that all people who care about global warming aren't greeno's nutjobs. Crazy **** I know, but many people on the right also think global warming is an important issue.