Professor Moriarty wrote: » Um. About three posts up I said this: "I would suggest that everyone, including corporations, pay carbon tax."
high_king wrote: » and that ends in : the wealthy and the corporations won't be, but they will be lecturing you on the environment, while you pay theirs for them.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Well let's vote in parties who won't allow that to happen.
high_king wrote: » lol, and those would be ???
Dr. Bre wrote: » The same parties get voted in around the world so unlikely
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Up to each and every human being to do their bit.
Dr. Bre wrote: » I agree. That’s a lot of humans to ask tho
Professor Moriarty wrote: » The Greens have some good policies but won't get into power in time.
high_king wrote: » The Greens ? God God, the Irish people have short memories . . from 2007-2011 these were the corrupt scumbags that collaborated with FF to saddle generations of ordinary Irish taxpayers with billions of debts belonging to corporations, bankers, and developers, while they continue to live the high life. The Green Party defended, propped up, and clung in with FF right to the bitter end, and destroyed us for a generation. Hundreds of thousands of young people had to leave Ireland, many of them for good.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I like their policies insofar as they tackle climate change. Lot of personnel change since then too. I'd give them a vote in the absence of a viable alternative.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » But the best way is for citizens to agitate for change so that all political parties take notice.
high_king wrote: » The exact same corrupt party that tax incentivsed new diesel cars, and their motor tax . . . and got most of the country to switched over to them ? lol By telling them ordinary people need to pay more carbon taxes. . lol . .turkey's voting for Christmas.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » You have a rather circular and one-dimensional argument. Anything of nuance to offer?
high_king wrote: » This is from the poster that keeps claiming taxing ordinary people and voting for the proven corrupt greens is going to save the environment.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » It would seem not, nothing of nuance. Just misrepresentation and repetitive straw man arguments ad nauseam.
high_king wrote: » That's your arguments not mine. You remind me of a Turkey enthusiastically telling other Turkeys what a good time they are going to have at the "green" Christmas party.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Straw man, misrepresentation and now ad hominem. So, anything of nuance? Anything about climate change? Anything about how it might be addressed?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Good that you agree with the science. Wrt taxation and climate change, here is a statement signed by: 3554 U.S. Economists 4 Former Chairs of the Federal Reserve (All) 27 Nobel Laureate Economists 15 Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers 2 Former Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Treasury From the statement:A carbon tax offers the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the scale and speed that is necessary. And:A carbon tax should increase every year until emissions reductions goals are met and be revenue neutral to avoid debates over the size of government. Let us assume you agree with these economists. If we, as a country, intend to convince fellow human beings in India and China that carbon tax is a necessary way of tackling climate change, then we should do so by example. Otherwise we are hypocritical and will not be taken seriously.
KyussB wrote: » The vast majority of those economists are responsible for the defining problem that is preventing dealing with carbon emissions: They are responsible for creating and upholding an economic orthodoxy that prevents the necessary scale of government action, to arrest climate emissions. It even says it right in the link! They view debates over the level of government involvement as a controversial and bad thing...They view that position as 'neutral' - when it's actually leaning way towards right-wing economics. A Carbon Tax on its own is useless. It needs to be paired with massive, massive war-time government spending on R&D and infrastructural redevelopment, among much more. There are no 'market solutions' routes to solving climate change. What we should have instead of a carbon tax, is a straight up prohibition on carbon emissons past hard-set limits. Exxon Mobil is in favour of the carbon dividends... We're all pretty much fucked until people stop giving those economists legitimacy - we're still going on like many of them weren't both responsible for encouraging as well as failing to see (when it was easy to see if they didn't hold on to outdated theory...) the crisis coming a decade ago.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » I think you're moving into a bigger discussion about politics there. Let's not forget that these economists could have said nothing at all about climate change. Anyway, carbon tax is seen as a primary route to tackling climate change by all parties in Ireland (including Greens). How do you see your ideas being brought to fruition globally in time to stop climate change? Are there any parities nationally or globally that promote your proposals?
KyussB wrote: » The Democratic Party under Bernie Sanders (and much popularized by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez) proposes the Green New Deal, and Labour in the UK are promoting a version of it too - as are other EU countries - though it's still to kick off properly. Unfortunately, their economic views don't shift far enough - but they still shift things significantly. It's actually worse and more dangerous to undertake ineffective policies under the guise of making true progress - that's the danger of these economists, they get to stay in their positions of influence and political power, by only shifting just far enough that they can claim to be 'doing something' - even when it's totally inadequate. DiEM25 on an EU level, support a Green New Deal as well - but they're very ineffective - the necessary changes are more likely to happen not through new grassroots parties, but through public opinion/views changing, and forcing changes in policy of mainstream parties. The important thing is, every single bit of it is rooted in economics - and in how economics has long ago been politically/intellectually corrupted to serve political goals (the same type of political intereference as in climate science in the past, except vastly more successful, with vastly bigger networks of think tanks upholding it). Nothing significant enough is going to change politically, until that is faced up to - which even among supporters of climate action, this doesn't seem to be much on their radar. All of our political parties (including the Greens) pretty much uphold somewhere between lite-to-hawkish versions of orthodox economic views.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Good post. The bit in bold has been my core point. It's up to individuals to agitate immediately. There simply isn't time for parties that support radical change to evolve and gain support. Ditto existing parties who are beginning to develop credible climate change policies The best chance we have is to convince those currently in power - be that politics, business or media - that fundamental change needs to happen now. One can argue for carbon tax or for carbon caps. Or both. But it doesn't really matter if you don't have the power to implement the change. So we must force change on the powerful. Which brings us back to Greta, of course.
windy shepard henderson wrote: » exactly , force change on the powerful not the guy on the street if its possible for the UN to put crippling sanctions on countries for weapons of mass destruction :rolleyes: then its more then possible to put huge sanctions on the biggest offenders , ie china , india US and so on , this is the argument most of us have been banging on about for months now on here , anything else is a complete wast of time
windy shepard henderson wrote: » exactly , force change on the powerful not the guy on the streetif its possible for the UN to put crippling sanctions on countries for weapons of mass destruction :rolleyes: then its more then possible to put huge sanctions on the biggest offenders , ie china , india US and so on , this is the argument most of us have been banging on about for months now on here , anything else is a complete wast of time
Dr. Bre wrote: » Greta is an anagram of great ...
is_that_so wrote: » She's a time traveller! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/22/greta-thunberg-time-traveller-1891-photo
