The merits of carbon off-setting

Cunsiderthis

rbrt wrote: »

Interesting article, you should have gone with CarbonNeutral at a third of the cost :-) Not surprising to discover there are so many different calculations of costs, difficulties in calculating additionality, all within the industry which from a financial perspective is viewed as being the new Dot-Com bubble. Sounds all too familiar...

And one of the recognised problems with buying carbon credits is the lack of accountability, and anyone buying carbon credits is advised to ensure that the projects in which they invest are kosher.

Of course the process does not deter people from abusing the environment. Instead, it allows those rich enough to afford credit transactions, and continue leading what they consider to be wasteful lifestyles (jet fuel, exhaust, etc.) without the associated guilt. Indeed, buying carbon credits makes one feel positively virtuous and does not deter from reducing ones emissions.

Del2005

rbrt wrote: »

So, I drive a petrol engine car and take multiple long-distance flights per year.

On the plus side I recycle and have a compost bin for my gardening, peels and veg etc. What's the best way for me to offset my pollution, I'm a keen gardener and no problem with planting some trees?

Can't see anything about trying to reduce, just keep up what they are doing and feel better by throwing money away.

djpbarry wrote: »

I believe the OP asked for advice on lowering his or her energy consumption, not a series of sarcastic posts. If you want to discuss the merits of carbon offsetting (or lack thereof), please do so in another thread.

mikom

Carbon off-setting.
The modern day equivilent of Hitler impregnating one Jewish lady for each one he sent to the gas chambers.

Yes I know.......Godwin's law

quentingargan

I wouldn't be quite so judgemental. There are times when travel is either essential or useful.

For example, to visit relatives who are sick or dying. Buying carbon credits in those situations has a lot of merit.

I've also flown to China to check out solar panel factories which I think was worthwhile. I've flown to Spain a few times to help set up solar parks. Buying carbon credits makes sense for that sort of trip.

I would imagine that many of the carbon offsets are bought by government agencies and businesses who see no alternative to flying. That's not always true, and webinars should become more of a norm, but there are times when there is no sensible alternative, and buying carbon offsets is better than nothing... Q

Mahatma coat

So if I fly to PNG (1 international 3 Domestic Each way) to cut down some Virgin Rainforest Can I offset my Carbon by Promisin not to cut down as many trees as last time???

Does it matter that I have built a Hydroelectric Powerstation, but dammed a river to do so?

or is it as a lot of us suspect a Giant Lulzfest by those in charge to Finaly Tax the Air we breathe???

Cunsiderthis

quentingargan wrote: »

...I would imagine that many of the carbon offsets are bought by government agencies and businesses

I'd imagine so too, mainly as the someone else pays for it ( ie the taxpayer).

Del2005

quentingargan wrote: »

I wouldn't be quite so judgemental. There are times when travel is either essential or useful.

For example, to visit relatives who are sick or dying. Buying carbon credits in those situations has a lot of merit.

No one ever said some travel wasn't.

I've also flown to China to check out solar panel factories which I think was worthwhile. I've flown to Spain a few times to help set up solar parks. Buying carbon credits makes sense for that sort of trip.

Why do you need to see a factory that makes solar panels? Could you not have got samples sent to you and saved a long plane trip.

If you really wanted to see something in the Chinese solar panel factories why didn't you hire someone over there to walk around with a camera, laptop and wireless internet connection? It only takes a little imagination and you wouldn't have needed the flight so there would have been no need to ease your conscience.

It's a shame the Spanish don't have anyone who can build. Or why didn't you get the boat and train down as that's green way to go.

I would imagine that many of the carbon offsets are bought by government agencies and businesses who see no alternative to flying. That's not always true, and webinars should become more of a norm, but there are times when there is no sensible alternative, and buying carbon offsets is better than nothing... Q

Carbon offsetting is a way of letting people still do what they want and fell good about it. There are very few things these days that can't be done virtually and it would save money but people don't need to figure these out as they have a get out of jail free card.

I like the irony of all the green scientists flying around the world telling us that flying is really bad for the environment, but it's OK as they bought some piece of paper that makes the trips OK.

Macha

Del2005 wrote: »

I like the irony of all the green scientists flying around the world telling us that flying is really bad for the environment, but it's OK as they bought some piece of paper that makes the trips OK.

Last time I checked, EasyJet charges a miserly €2 or so per flight to "offset" it.

Mahatma coat

$2 or not I still think its a scam to squeeze a few more quid outaya.

as for goin to China to Actually see something for yerself, thats an important part of the Business world and it often works out cheaper in the long run to do it early and often.

quentingargan

Del2005 wrote: »

Why do you need to see a factory that makes solar panels? Could you not have got samples sent to you and saved a long plane trip.

If you really wanted to see something in the Chinese solar panel factories why didn't you hire someone over there to walk around with a camera, laptop and wireless internet connection? It only takes a little imagination and you wouldn't have needed the flight so there would have been no need to ease your conscience.

That simply isn't how you do business in China, where business is done on the basis of building relationships.

More importantly though, you simply cannot do quality control by webcam. It is difficult enough to communicate across a language barrier

Del2005 wrote: »

It's a shame the Spanish don't have anyone who can build. Or why didn't you get the boat and train down as that's green way to go.

We welcome foreign direct investment in Ireland. We'd still be on spuds and buttermilk without it. Directing investment into overseas projects cannot be done without visiting and meeting to establish relationships of trust. Otherwise, you might as well send your bank details to that nice woman whose deceased husband is trying to smuggle funds and wants to cut you in for a few million.

The issue with the growth of aviation is probably that it has become so cheap that people take four or five overseas holidays per year. If true carbon offsetting raises the price enough that people opt for one long holiday instead of four short ones, that may improve matters.

Personally I think aviation fuel should be taxed the same way that motor fuel is, and that would put manners on us:rolleyes:

Macha

quentingargan wrote: »

Personally I think aviation fuel should be taxed the same way that motor fuel is, and that would put manners on us:rolleyes:

Taxing it at all would be a start!

I agree with your point that some things cannot be done over the phone/internet. People's opinions of what those things are will vary, of course.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Taxing it at all would be a start!

I agree with your point that some things cannot be done over the phone/internet. People's opinions of what those things are will vary, of course.

When will some folks realise that to tax anything that moves is part of the problems and why we are in the economic mess we are in.

In any case, tax on aviation kerosene is exempted from tax under international agreement.

Even if Ireland were to break this agreement and unilaterally impose a tax, the more likely effect would be that short haul planes would not fill up in Ireland, so our sales of aviation fuel would decline. This means less jobs, and less tax, national insurance and VAT received by the government, and more dole payments needed from the government. (Ryanair, for example, would be very well placed to buy fuel elsewhere and, as the largest user of fuel in Dublin airport, their loss of business would be huge.

In the current climate, where airline costs are under fierce competition, it is likely some long haul flights would switch away from Ireland and fly instead to Belfast or Liverpool or other UK airports. Either that or operators would fill up whenever possible outside Ireland, or even hopping up to Belfast just to fill up. The effect would be more lost jobs in Ireland, with this and the decrease in fuel sales, and would probably outweigh any benefit in increases in the tax take, and increase the total emissions of many flights.

It's quite possible that the net effect would be a loss in revenue as a result in imposing such a tax, would be counterproductive and against EU law also.

quentingargan

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

In any case, tax on aviation kerosene is exempted from tax under international agreement.
....

It's quite possible that the net effect would be a loss in revenue as a result in imposing such a tax, would be counterproductive and against EU law also.

This isn't an Irish problem - it is an international one. I don't think any of the carbon offset companies are relying on Ireland for their bread-and-butter business.

There are discussions and proposals internationally for aviation fuel to be taxed in some form.

Cunsiderthis

quentingargan wrote: »

This isn't an Irish problem - it is an international one. I don't think any of the carbon offset companies are relying on Ireland for their bread-and-butter business.

There are discussions and proposals internationally for aviation fuel to be taxed in some form.

At any time, there are discussion and even proposals for all sorts of things, most of which never see the light of day.

If you feel there is any viable prospect of getting international agreement on tax on aviation fuel, then you must be very optimistic! China, Libya, the USA, Burma, Malaysia, France, the UK and so on....they all have reasons why they are most unlikely to agree to it, but all are happy to discuss for years into the future on the understanding that they will never agree to it. Thats the way politics works.

silverharp

how do you avoid pushing emissions/fuel use around by taxing it? wrt to air travel you might affect demand at the margin but either the gov. will end up with the taxes which might end up in building new roads or the person that doesnt go for the foreign flight might load the car up and go for a driving holiday? how do you measure all this stuff?

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

When will some folks realise that to tax anything that moves is part of the problems and why we are in the economic mess we are in.

Do you think that it is ultimately sustainable, in the true sense of the word, for us to encourage modes of transport heavily dependent on fossil fuels that are becoming increasingly expensive and are being used up at a rate faster than they are being laid down?

I see Sweden has a much greater level of environmental taxation yet they don't seem to be in quite the quandary that we are.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Do you think that it is ultimately sustainable, in the true sense of the word, for us to encourage modes of transport heavily dependent on fossil fuels that are becoming increasingly expensive and are being used up at a rate faster than they are being laid down?

I see Sweden has a much greater level of environmental taxation yet they don't seem to be in quite the quandary that we are.

Sweden does not charge tax on aviation fuel.

Of course, nothing us "ultimately sustainable" , but I take your point. By "encourage" I take it you define that as "tax into oblivion". And perhaps, if you believe everything is running out, to do that, but all one is doing is delaying the inevitable.

My belief is that technology is much more likely to be our saviour than more taxes. It's not that we are encouraging anyone to be dependant on fossil fuels for transport, it's just that we really don't have viable alternatives with which to power airliners or ships or even motor cars, at this stage.

I am often wary of governments which propose more taxes as the solution to anything. As we read in the papers, over 30% of all cigarettes smoked in Ireland now are smuggled from abroad as the result of more taxes in Ireland, and to tax airliners or ships for their fuel appears to do nothing to solve what you see as the problem, but just increases the costs for the rest of us.

quentingargan

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Of course, nothing us "ultimately sustainable" , but I take your point. By "encourage" I take it you define that as "tax into oblivion". And perhaps, if you believe everything is running out, to do that, but all one is doing is delaying the inevitable.

My belief is that technology is much more likely to be our saviour than more taxes....
I am often wary of governments which propose more taxes as the solution to anything.

I agree that technology has a better chance of being our saviour than tax.

The problem is that Ryanair will price flights so competitively that alternatives are never viable. Cars are usually cheaper than trains, and electricity from coal is cheaper than wind turbines.

By the time the price of fuel has gone up because of shortage, it is too late to see an ordered introduction of the new technology. You need a combination of taxing the old and incentivising the new.

In relation to the theme of the post though, carbon credits are a sort of voluntary tax. There is merit in opting for this in the absence of an appropriate carbon tax on aviation.

Unless of course you believe that oil is being manufactured in the bowels of the earth and the climate change isn't manmade, in which case this is all a conspiracy to extort money from ourselves for no good purpose. :rolleyes:

Cunsiderthis

quentingargan wrote: »

...

By the time the price of fuel has gone up because of shortage, it is too late to see an ordered introduction of the new technology. You need a combination of taxing the old and incentivising the new.

Thats simply not true - while we have the current tax regieme, new technology is being introduced all the time, and no inventor is holding ot to his invention waiting for oil and coal to run out!

I can't agree that increasing taxes doe anythig other than give the governments more of our money, and as the example I gave shows, its often counter productive.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Sweden does not charge tax on aviation fuel.

I never said they did. They do, however, have far more environmental taxes than we do.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Of course, nothing us "ultimately sustainable" , but I take your point.

What makes you think nothing is sustainable?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

By "encourage" I take it you define that as "tax into oblivion". And perhaps, if you believe everything is running out, to do that, but all one is doing is delaying the inevitable.

I certainly don't mean "tax into oblivion" - that's evidently your take on it. And I don't believe that "everything is running out", as I do believe a sustainable society is possible, but you clearly don't - which leads to the question, do you think that society will eventually bring about its own collapse?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

My belief is that technology is much more likely to be our saviour than more taxes. It's not that we are encouraging anyone to be dependant on fossil fuels for transport, it's just that we really don't have viable alternatives with which to power airliners or ships or even motor cars, at this stage.

It's not a question of A or B. We have a wide set of tools and we need to use them all. Behaviour modification is just as important as wind energy. And yes there are many alternatives but quite often, people chose not take them, citing a range of excuses. Also, the point of taxes is to encourage the private sector to create alternatives - that is the purpose of a market signal.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I am often wary of governments which propose more taxes as the solution to anything. As we read in the papers, over 30% of all cigarettes smoked in Ireland now are smuggled from abroad as the result of more taxes in Ireland, and to tax airliners or ships for their fuel appears to do nothing to solve what you see as the problem, but just increases the costs for the rest of us.

How else to you propose internalising the impacts that are currently externalised?

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

I never said they did. They do, however, have far more environmental taxes than we do.


What makes you think nothing is sustainable?


I certainly don't mean "tax into oblivion" - that's evidently your take on it. And I don't believe that "everything is running out", as I do believe a sustainable society is possible, but you clearly don't - which leads to the question, do you think that society will eventually bring about its own collapse?


It's not a question of A or B. We have a wide set of tools and we need to use them all. Behaviour modification is just as important as wind energy. And yes there are many alternatives but quite often, people chose not take them, citing a range of excuses. Also, the point of taxes is to encourage the private sector to create alternatives - that is the purpose of a market signal.


How else to you propose internalising the impacts that are currently externalised?

We seem to be talking about different things. You were advocating taking aviation fuel, and it in that context I was writing.

Currently we have no option but to use aviation fuel for aviations transport, as we have no other viable fuel available to us to power aircraft.

As taxes on aviation uel are currently governed by international treaty, which is unlikely to be renegotiated any time soon, taxing aircraft fuel seems to be unlikely.

I have no plans or ideas on how to " internalising the impacts that are currently externalised?". Indeed, I have no idea to what that refers even!

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

We seem to be talking about different things. You were advocating taking aviation fuel, and it in that context I was writing.

Well, you started talking about "this sort of thing" or words to that effect, ie environmental taxation, being a main cause of why we are where we are, which is a more general comment.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Currently we have no option but to use aviation fuel for aviations transport, as we have no other viable fuel available to us to power aircraft.

You're thinking too narrowly. We should not be looking at alternatives to something as basic as tools - think higher up. What about different modes of transport or tools? Why are all these people travelling by plane and are there no alternatives? Other alternatives include web-conferencing and bus/train for internal journeys.

You cannot just ignore the fact that it's unsustainable and say "well we have to be allowed to do X, Y, Z" Sooner or later you will run into a ecological limit no matter how much you ignore it today.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

As taxes on aviation uel are currently governed by international treaty, which is unlikely to be renegotiated any time soon, taxing aircraft fuel seems to be unlikely.

Certainly if the above attitude prevails, aircraft fuel will not be taxed in the near future.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I have no plans or ideas on how to " internalising the impacts that are currently externalised?". Indeed, I have no idea to what that refers even!

There is a cost to the use of aviation fuel. It emits many forms of pollution both in it's extraction, refinement and burning. At the moment, those costs are not internalised in the cost that the involved companies, or end-users, pay. Therefore, these costs are externalised to the rest of society either in clean-up costs or suffering the results of that pollution, if it isn't cleaned up.
One of the purposes of a tax is to internalise those costs and in doing so, both send a market signal (and force the private sector to create alternatives) and generate funds to deal with the pollution.

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Thats simply not true - while we have the current tax regieme, new technology is being introduced all the time, and no inventor is holding ot to his invention waiting for oil and coal to run out!

Suppose said inventor was a major shareholder in Exxon-Mobil?

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Well, you started talking about "this sort of thing" or words to that effect, ie environmental taxation, being a main cause of why we are where we are, which is a more general comment.

We seem to have descended into semantics already! If you understood me to day that "environmental taxation is the main cause of where we are" then I can only assume you must have misread what I said. If you want to actually quote what i did say, then please do and I'll try to respond accordingly. It's difficult to respond to something I didn't say, or an interpretation of what i said which appears to be an not wholly correct interpretation!

taconnol wrote: »

You're thinking too narrowly. We should not be looking at alternatives to something as basic as tools - think higher up. What about different modes of transport or tools? Why are all these people travelling by plane and are there no alternatives? Other alternatives include web-conferencing and bus/train for internal journeys.

I'm afraid I disagree. We all have to think about these things for ourselves, and while I am touched that you think you can tell me how I should think, or how narrowly I should or should not think, I have no views on how you, or anyone else, should think. I have no views on how you, or anyone else, should travel or how they should conduct their business.

I am a libertarian and don't believe in bossing others and bullying them into in how they should think or travel. Perhaps thats the difference between us?

taconnol wrote: »

You cannot just ignore the fact that it's unsustainable and say "well we have to be allowed to do X, Y, Z" Sooner or later you will run into a ecological limit no matter how much you ignore it today.

Again, I don't think its a matter of anyone "allowing" us to do things, and I reject the kind of society where we all have to seek permission from others to live our lives as we see fit. (W've seen in the past, for example in the USSR, what happens when one body takes over and tries to control the behaviour of others. In the USSR citizens had to seek permission if they wanted to travel , even within the USSR, and that's not the sort of society in which I'd like to live).

I wonder is that the essential difference between people like us? One lot wants to control and force everyone else to do what they want (this time in the guise of impending ecological disaster, previously in many different guises) and another group wants to treat everyone as adults and let them make up their own minds on things.

I believe that technology will fix the problems you think we have. You appear to think that the way to do it is not to fix the problems but to to control the behaviour of others and force them to change their behaviour to conform to what you think is acceptable.

Perhaps put in such stark terms you might be a little horrified by that assertion, but it does seem to be what you suggest.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

We seem to have descended into semantics already! If you understood me to day that "environmental taxation is the main cause of where we are" then I can only assume you must have misread what I said. If you want to actually quote what i did say, then please do and I'll try to respond accordingly. It's difficult to respond to something I didn't say, or an interpretation of what i said which appears to be an not wholly correct interpretation!

You said: "When will some folks realise that to tax anything that moves is part of the problems and why we are in the economic mess we are in. "

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I am a libertarian and don't believe in bossing others and bullying them into in how they should think or travel. Perhaps thats the difference between us?

I too am a libertarian but there are ecological limits that must be acknowledged. Attempts to pretend otherwise are nothing short of folly or wishful thinking. I wish fossil fuels were limitless and every single person on this planet would have the same opportunity to exploit them as you and I do, but that is not reality. The planet cannot sustain even the small number of people who live our lifestyles.

The incredible irony is, that the very libertarian ethos you profess, actually limits the opportunities of others. The fair sharing of resources is the only way to move towards a more equal society and if that means some already very privileged people making a few lifestyle changes, then so be it.

You seem to get annoyed at the idea of someone being told to make some adjustments to their travel patterns (or even simply pay for the true cost of their travel impacts). What about the millions of people in this world that live with no electricity? What about the billions that have no access to clean sanitation facilities? These are far more pressing issues in my mind.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I wonder is that the essential difference between people like us? One lot wants to control and force everyone else to do what they want (this time in the guise of impending ecological disaster, previously in many different guises) and another group wants to treat everyone as adults and let them make up their own minds on things.

You see, I don't think you or I have the right, freedom, whatever to run this planet into the ground. The very definition of sustainability is that this society is able to be sustained, or continue on for future generations. It isn't a matter of labelling people as "totalitarian" or "controlling", it's about acknowledging that we have to work within certain ecological limits. Do you acknowledge that there are ecological limits?

It's easy to accuse others of wanting to take away freedoms (which, I have to say is a very, very subjective concept) while ignoring the fact that the limits we speak about are very real. Many resources are finite. Waste is accumulating. Habitats are being destroyed.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I believe that technology will fix the problems you think we have. You appear to think that the way to do it is not to fix the problems but to to control the behaviour of others and force them to change their behaviour to conform to what you think is acceptable.

Do you actually think we have any problems???

I disagree about technology. Technology is a vital tool that can help us move towards a more sustainable society but there are systemic flaws in how our society is constructed that necessarily moves us towards unsustainability and no matter how many isolated symptoms we address (eg switching from ICEs to EVs), the systemic errors will still be there.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

You said: "When will some folks realise that to tax anything that moves is part of the problems and why we are in the economic mess we are in. "

Thanks for clearing that up as I would have bee astonished if I have said "environmental taxation is the main cause of where we are". I said evre increasing taxation is part of the problem for the economic mess"

taconnol wrote: »

I too am a libertarian but ...The fair sharing of resources is the only way to move towards a more equal society and if that means some already very privileged people making a few lifestyle changes, then so be it.

What you appear to be saying is that you view what youi see as an ecological diaaster ( I disagree) as an excuse to impose socialism on others, or as you put it " a more equal society".

It doesn't sound very libertarian!

taconnol wrote: »

You seem to get annoyed at the idea of someone being told to make some adjustments to their travel patterns (or even simply pay for the true cost of their travel impacts). What about the millions of people in this world that live with no electricity? What about the billions that have no access to clean sanitation facilities? These are far more pressing issues in my mind.

I don't get annoyed at all, so again you are incorrect. I dislike someone being "told" (which translates to someone else imposing their views upon them, but force or by statute).

Having travelled extensively through the third word, I have no idea what you mean when you say "what about" all those with no electricity or sanitation. What about them?

taconnol wrote: »

I disagree about technology.

Which seems to suggest that we are doomed. Either we use up all the resources quickly and then all go back to living in caves, or else we impose draconian laws which ensure we use up all resources a little less quickly, and then all go back to living in caves.

We disagree, and I hope you are wrong and I am right!

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up as I would have bee astonished if I have said "environmental taxation is the main cause of where we are". I said evre increasing taxation is part of the problem for the economic mess"

And are you going to explain further?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

What you appear to be saying is that you view what youi see as an ecological diaaster ( I disagree) as an excuse to impose socialism on others, or as you put it " a more equal society".

It doesn't sound very libertarian!

And, again, are you going to explain why you don't think that there are some very serious ecological crises going on?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I don't get annoyed at all, so again you are incorrect. I dislike someone being "told" (which translates to someone else imposing their views upon them, but force or by statute).

Having travelled extensively through the third word, I have no idea what you mean when you say "what about" all those with no electricity or sanitation. What about them?

Annoyed/concerned - you can be pedantic about the wording but you're still avoiding the question. Your travels around the developing world should have informed you as to the extreme level of luxury we live in and how imbalanced the sharing of natural resources is in this world. It would follow, in my opinion, that we should be more concerned about addressing those issues than worrying about the impact of some lifestyle changes to those who already live in the lap of luxury, comparatively speaking.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Which seems to suggest that we are doomed. Either we use up all the resources quickly and then all go back to living in caves, or else we impose draconian laws which ensure we use up all resources a little less quickly, and then all go back to living in caves.

You cut my more complicated analysis of the role of technology down to one sentence, thus taking it out of context. Is it that you didn't understand what I was saying?

So you see only those two options - we continue on toward the cliff edge or live in caves? You do not see the possibility of us moving towards a sustainable society at all?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

We disagree, and I hope you are wrong and I am right!

I would like to think so but I cannot ignore reality.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

And are you going to explain further?

I want' going to, but if you ahve something you want to ask feel free.

taconnol wrote: »

And, again, are you going to explain why you don't think that there are some very serious ecological crises going on?

I didn't say I don't think there may be serious ecological crises going on.

taconnol wrote: »

Annoyed/concerned - you can be pedantic about the wording but you're still avoiding the question. Your travels around the developing world should have informed you as to the extreme level of luxury we live in and how imbalanced the sharing of natural resources is in this world. It would follow, in my opinion, that we should be more concerned about addressing those issues than worrying about the impact of some lifestyle changes to those who already live in the lap of luxury, comparatively speaking.

You claimed I was annoyed, and then when I correct you for your incorrect accusation, you claim I am being pedantic!

No one is stopping you, if you are concerned for others, to do something about it. As I do. And as many do.

It seems to me that you want to get me, and others, to something about it, and want to force others to do something about it, by diktat.

taconnol wrote: »

You cut my more complicated analysis of the role of technology down to one sentence, thus taking it out of context. Is it that you didn't understand what I was saying?

Yes, you said there are something called "sytematic flaws in society" althought you didn't say how these systematic flaws can be fixed.

taconnol wrote: »

So you see only those two options - we continue on toward the cliff edge or live in caves? You do not see the possibility of us moving towards a sustainable society at all?


I would like to think so but I cannot ignore reality.

You said that you didn't think technology could save us, and if that's the case then, as we have finite resources, when they run out, they run out. You can't use oil sustainably, so when it runs out if technology hasn't given us another way to power airplanes, or ships, or motor cars, or the pump for your central heating at home, then we appear to be doomed.

I judge that technology will win through, as necessity is the mother of invention. You have said that you don't think it will. So we differ, which is fine.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I want' going to, but if you ahve something you want to ask feel free.

And so we continue going in circles. My earlier point in response was "I see Sweden has a much greater level of environmental taxation yet they don't seem to be in quite the quandary that we are." So can you explain how exactly having taxes caused the current economic crises?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I didn't say I don't think there may be serious ecological crises going on.

Judging from comments like:
-"the guise of impending ecological disaster, previously in many different guises"
-what youisee as an ecological diaaster ( I disagree)
..I was beginning to wonder.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

No one is stopping you, if you are concerned for others, to do something about it. As I do. And as many do.

The point is that by continuing on with an unsustainable lifestyle and using up an unfair share of resources, you are by definition removing the possibility of these people getting their fair share. It's not a question of "doing something about it", by which I take it you mean throwing money at the problem, again, addressing a single symptom while ignoring the larger systemic flaws at work.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

It seems to me that you want to get me, and others, to something about it, and want to force others to do something about it, by diktat.

You have yet to explain what exactly is wrong with compelling others to do something about inequality. You seem to think being forced to do something about it is far worse than the existence of such inequality and poverty. Your continuous use of soviet language does your argument no favours.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Yes, you said there are something called "sytematic flaws in society" althought you didn't say how these systematic flaws can be fixed.

That's an entirely different question. You don't even accept that they exist!

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

You said that you didn't think technology could save us, and if that's the case then, as we have finite resources, when they run out, they run out. You can't use oil sustainably, so when it runs out if technology hasn't given us another way to power airplanes, or ships, or motor cars, or the pump for your central heating at home, then we appear to be doomed.

No, that isn't what I said. I said that technology alone is not going to solve our problems if we ignore the underlying faults. You're also making the mistake of seeing technology as our only tool.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I judge that technology will win through, as necessity is the mother of invention. You have said that you don't think it will. So we differ, which is fine.

Again, that's not what I said.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

And so we continue going in circles. My earlier point in response was "I see Sweden has a much greater level of environmental taxation yet they don't seem to be in quite the quandary that we are." So can you explain how exactly having taxes caused the current economic crises?

This is supposed to be a green issues thread, and you want to discuss how higher and higher levels of taxation have contributed to the current economic climate? I'm happy to do that if you want to discuss on an economic forum.

taconnol wrote: »

A




The point is that by continuing on with an unsustainable lifestyle and using up an unfair share of resources, you are by definition removing the possibility of these people getting their fair share. It's not a question of "doing something about it", by which I take it you mean throwing money at the problem, again, addressing a single symptom while ignoring the larger systemic flaws at work.


You have yet to explain what exactly is wrong with compelling others to do something about inequality. You seem to think being forced to do something about it is far worse than the existence of such inequality and poverty. Your continuous use of soviet language does your argument no favours.

"these people"? I happen to think of them as us, and not "these people", which seems to highlight another difference between us.

I've no idea what anyone's "fair share" is, and who judges it to be fair. Again, you assume you know what I do and accuse me of things where you are, again, incorrect. This time it's "throwing money at the problem" and, really, you have no idea what I may or may not do for others.

I have already said that I am a libertarian and against compelling others to do things that I, or you, or someone else, judges to be in their best interests.

I don't believe that that just doing "something about it" is intrinsically helpful. We've seen many people think they are doing "good" actually end up doing nothing at all or doing things which are less than good. Mugabe, no doubt, thinks he is doing something good in removing all those horrible white farmers from the land in Zimbabwe, but I judge the results to be harmful. the desire to "do good " simply isn't enough, and often it is harmful.

taconnol wrote: »

No, that isn't what I said. I said that technology alone is not going to solve our problems if we ignore the underlying faults. You're also making the mistake of seeing technology as our only tool.


Again, that's not what I said.

Technology is our only hope (as opposed to "tool") in replacing oil as a fuel for aircraft. taxing fuel ( which isn't going to happen soon thanks to international agreements) merely puts off the evil day that the fuel runs out.

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe technology will solve the problem, and you appear to say you are less certain of that.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

This is supposed to be a green issues thread, and you want to discuss how higher and higher levels of taxation have contributed to the current economic climate? I'm happy to do that if you want to discuss on an economic forum.

In that case, you can keep your comments on the current economic climate out of this forum as well.

The rest I will answer later.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

"these people"? I happen to think of them as us, and not "these people", which seems to highlight another difference between us.

If you want to ignore the huge chasm between your lifestyle, and say someone living in a refugee camp, then go for it. I don't see them as different, I see their lifestyle and opportunities as different.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I've no idea what anyone's "fair share" is, and who judges it to be fair. Again, you assume you know what I do and accuse me of things where you are, again, incorrect. This time it's "throwing money at the problem" and, really, you have no idea what I may or may not do for others.

Fair share is equal opportunities and equal access to resources - it isn't a difficult concept. Trying to make the whole idea of equality relative does nobody any good, especially those who suffer the most from inequality. If you want to explain what you consider the best way to help these people, then go right ahead. And please cut out the "oh you're accusing me of XYZ" - it's more language that doesn't help your case.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I have already said that I am a libertarian and against compelling others to do things that I, or you, or someone else, judges to be in their best interests.

That's wonderful but you haven't explained exactly how you bring about a fair share of resources without compelling people. The privileged are not going to give up their comfy lifestyles by choice, as we can see in your objection to being "forced" not to fly - when in reality you're simply being asked to pay for the full impact of your actions.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I don't believe that that just doing "something about it" is intrinsically helpful. We've seen many people think they are doing "good" actually end up doing nothing at all or doing things which are less than good. Mugabe, no doubt, thinks he is doing something good in removing all those horrible white farmers from the land in Zimbabwe, but I judge the results to be harmful. the desire to "do good " simply isn't enough, and often it is harmful.

This really has nothing to do with the argument that a more fair share of resources is necessary for greater equality and the reduction of global poverty. References to border-line insane dictators are quite irrelevant - it's a bizarre argument to make.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Technology is our only hope (as opposed to "tool") in replacing oil as a fuel for aircraft. taxing fuel ( which isn't going to happen soon thanks to international agreements) merely puts off the evil day that the fuel runs out.

So you don't understand how technology is a tool? How exactly do you expect technology to bring about a society whereby everyone can live as you or I do? There is only so much that technology can do and as I have said previously, it does not address the systematic flaws in our society's design.

As for technology - what exactly is the difference between Sweden and Ireland (two countries that are at the opposite ends of the scale in sustainability). Is there some secret technology that the Swedes have and aren't telling everyone else? No, it's policy, taxation, planning etc and yes the implementation of tools such as renewable energy that brings about behaviour modification and a more sustainable society.

I used to believe in silver technological bullets like you but I'm afraid it's a very simplistic view of the problems we face.

Del2005

taconnol wrote: »

This really has nothing to do with the argument that a more fair share of resources is necessary for greater equality and the reduction of global poverty. References to border-line insane dictators are quite irrelevant - it's a bizarre argument to make.

That tin pot dictator was trying to share the wealth of his country with the poor, and it's a very wealthy country, the fact he screwed it up is what Cunsiderthis is pointing out. Everything starts off as a good idea, but human nature will ruin it in the end.

So you don't understand how technology is a tool? How exactly do you expect technology to bring about a society whereby everyone can live as you or I do? There is only so much that technology can do and as I have said previously, it does not address the systematic flaws in our society's design.

As for technology - what exactly is the difference between Sweden and Ireland (two countries that are at the opposite ends of the scale in sustainability). Is there some secret technology that the Swedes have and aren't telling everyone else? No, it's policy, taxation, planning etc and yes the implementation of tools such as renewable energy that brings about behaviour modification and a more sustainable society.

I used to believe in silver technological bullets like you but I'm afraid it's a very simplistic view of the problems we face.

I'm sure people in the 1900s didn't know where aircraft technology would lead in 69 years. I'm sure people in the 1950s didn't know where computer technolgy would lead in the 1990s. I'm sure people in the 2010's don't know where technology will lead us. There have been lots of advances in technology, some good and some bad, that people never even though of 5 years before they where invented. Who's to say that someone won't invent a limitless source of power in the next 20 years, you or I certainly can't.

Can technology save the forests from being cut down for firewood in most of the 3rd world? Oh wait hasn't someone done that.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

If you want to ignore the huge chasm between your lifestyle, and say someone living in a refugee camp, then go for it. I don't see them as different, I see their lifestyle and opportunities as different.


Fair share is equal opportunities and equal access to resources - it isn't a difficult concept. Trying to make the whole idea of equality relative does nobody any good, especially those who suffer the most from inequality. If you want to explain what you consider the best way to help these people, then go right ahead. And please cut out the "oh you're accusing me of XYZ" - it's more language that doesn't help your case.


That's wonderful but you haven't explained exactly how you bring about a fair share of resources without compelling people. The privileged are not going to give up their comfy lifestyles by choice, as we can see in your objection to being "forced" not to fly - when in reality you're simply being asked to pay for the full impact of your actions.


This really has nothing to do with the argument that a more fair share of resources is necessary for greater equality and the reduction of global poverty. References to border-line insane dictators are quite irrelevant - it's a bizarre argument to make.


So you don't understand how technology is a tool? How exactly do you expect technology to bring about a society whereby everyone can live as you or I do? There is only so much that technology can do and as I have said previously, it does not address the systematic flaws in our society's design.

As for technology - what exactly is the difference between Sweden and Ireland (two countries that are at the opposite ends of the scale in sustainability). Is there some secret technology that the Swedes have and aren't telling everyone else? No, it's policy, taxation, planning etc and yes the implementation of tools such as renewable energy that brings about behaviour modification and a more sustainable society.

I used to believe in silver technological bullets like you but I'm afraid it's a very simplistic view of the problems we face.

Hmm, this is starting to get silly. "...if you want to ignore..." "...it isn't a difficult concept..." "...it's more language that doesn't help your case..." "...it's a bizarre argument to make..." "...you don't understand how technology is a tool..." "...I used to believe in silver technological bullets like you..."

We seem to have got to a position where its become more important for you to win the argument and patronise me with comments such as "...I used to believe in silver technological bullets like you..." or "...it isn't a difficult concept..."and others, which seem more designed to raise the emotional tempo and do little to discuss the issue. I enjoy argument and discussion, but not when my interlocutor becomes patronising, which means it is unlikely to progress.

Thanks for the argument and I look forward to many more interesting discussions in the future.

Macha

You're correct that responding by simply taking issue with how my points are phrased is not going to foster any meaningful debate. I too could take issue with how you have phrased some of your arguments but ultimately, it's going off topic and is not useful. If you have a problem with the tone of my posts, you know where the report button is. Otherwise, I'll just assume you're not interested in debating the topic.