Boredstiff666 wrote: » I thought you were discussing Greta and how right or wrong she is same as the scientists and what you/me/we will have to do about it?
Tell me how wrote: » What has any of that to do with your fear of not being able to watch porn?
Having looked at more than 600 articles and 90 TV, radio and press ads, news clips and websites over three months, the research concludes that the alarmist language widely used to discuss climate change is likely to be having a counter-productive effect. The report argues that it is tantamount to "climate porn" by offering a terrifying, and perhaps secretly thrilling, spectacle, but ultimately making the issue appear unreal and distancing the public from the problem.
gozunda wrote: » This perhaps? Not a fan of the above publication - but it seems kinda relevant.... Or maybe this The mind boggles ...
Boredstiff666 wrote: » Actually quite a lot because more than one person in various governments for similar reasons to the Greta/environment thing has said that porn should be restricted or banned etc. And for lots of different reasons. But the main reason they spout such is really to make a name for themselves or they and their like may be getting something out of it. Just as those who want to push new taxes etc for Global warming.
Tell me how wrote: » This post alone is worthy of having its own thread on the topic. I'll leave you to it, it has nothing to do with the discussion here. Also, Who is pushing taxes?
Boredstiff666 wrote: » Carbon taxes on fuel etc?
Tuisceanch wrote: » I wouldn't mind if you could elaborate on what you meant by the highlighted text. In terms of Government Bonds / GDP Since you know a lot about this subject can you save me the time of googling and tell me whether the EU imposes any restrictions on the monetary amount of Government bonds each member state can issue?
Boredstiff666 wrote: » Governments because various reasons. I do not know names.
Tell me how wrote: » The 3 governments most relevant to Ireland for various reasons are generally our own, the US and the UK. None of these have pushed carbon taxes, in fact, Irish government was lambasted for not bringing in carbon taxes in the 2018 budget. The US government has a President trying to actively open coal mines. Boris Johnson's government is expected to facilitate fracking in the UK. So which government is pushing taxes or is it just something you heard which has made the hair stand up on the back of your head? (For the record, I think, unfortunately, taxes will end up being necessary, either that or legislation as we have seen in the past that it takes either or both of these to change behaviour even on items which are pretty straightforward. Think plastic bag tax and smoking in the workplace ban as examples of this. Tax or no tax, the fact is action is needed, so how do we make it happen?)
KyussB wrote: » Just an observation, not challenging anything in your post: The taxing of plastic bags, of pollution i.e. carbon emissions, is the concept of taxing 'bads' - discouraging certain harmful behaviours, through taxes. That makes sense, and is a universally useful purpose for taxes. However, taxing 'bads' shouldn't be considered as a method for funding government policy - because naturally, 'bads' that are taxed, are discouraged and will collapse revenue over time - plus, if we tax present 'bads' like carbon too much, we will quite literally collapse our economy - so that's not a sustainable way to fund the necessary government policy. So, this will mean that taxing carbon emissions, should not be mixed up with funding of solutions for climate change.
KyussB wrote: » That depends - taxing carbon/fuel shouldn't be considered in isolation - if you combine it with subsidies for renewable alternatives, then it's a wholly different beast and can resolve that problem while still discouraging carbon.
Tell me how wrote: » Well that has to be deserving of some sort of award for the most tenuous links I've seen offered to try to validate a previous post. Any wonder the mind is boggled.
KyussB wrote: » If you have subsidies/capital-projects for e.g. renewable heat generation (solar + storage + heat pumps) - if you make food production local and don't use diesel for transporting/producing it - with appropriate subsidies and industrial/technological development, to help the transition.
Boredstiff666 wrote: » Hold on dont try and put me down. I have heard various people banging on about how we must bring in carbon taxes on fuel even to farmers because they reckon agriculture is a big carbon producer which is totally skewed and false. Also they are on about taxing coal but then said that they were banning smokey coal from towns, but then they were told people drive out to country and buy cheap smokey coal and bring it back to the towns/cities. So then the shift is back to taxing such.
Tell me how wrote: » As you can see, from your own posts, there are no specifics that governments are going to tax, tax, tax. Every politician near a government seat knows that they Just because one politician, may say 'We need to cut down on cars and maybe a tax would do this' or something similar does not mean that that is government policy. But, once again, this is beside the point and is specifically something which Greta has pointed out. The appropriate solutions, technologies, economies are not there at the moment. They need to be created. So, why not support someone who is saying that something which needs to be fixed should get attention in order to fix it?
gozunda wrote: » Tennous lol? Again problems with basic comprehension there methinks. Yup both are linked with climate change. So certainly relevant. Although as they say - if you ask a stupid question - you might not like the answer
Boredstiff666 wrote: » Well we live in a country whose answer to everything is tax tax tax.....but call it a 'levy'. Whatever Greta and others are proposing it will cost money....where does it come from?
Tell me how wrote: » But, once again, this is beside the point and is specifically something which Greta has pointed out. The appropriate solutions, technologies, economies are not there at the moment. They need to be created. So, why not support someone who is saying that something which needs to be fixed should get attention in order to fix it?
Tell me how wrote: » The 3 governments most relevant to Ireland for various reasons are generally our own, the US and the UK.None of these have pushed carbon taxes, in fact, Irish government was lambasted for not bringing in carbon taxes in the 2018 budget. The US government has a President trying to actively open coal mines. Boris Johnson's government is expected to facilitate fracking in the UK. So which government is pushing taxes or is it just something you heard which has made the hair stand up on the back of your head? (For the record, I think, unfortunately, taxes will end up being necessary, either that or legislation as we have seen in the past that it takes either or both of these to change behaviour even on items which are pretty straightforward. Think plastic bag tax and smoking in the workplace ban as examples of this. Tax or no tax, the fact is action is needed, so how do we make it happen?)
Budget 2020 The carbon tax on fuel will increase by €6 from €20 per tonne to €26 per tonne. The increase will apply to auto fuels from midnight on 8 October 2019 and to solid fuels from 1 May 2020.
Boredstiff666 wrote: » You are dreaming. So are you forcing people to grow their own veg or are you seizing land and forcing people to work it by hand without machinery? You obviously know nowt about farming or food production and have been listening to the wrong people. Here is an example.......organic food is grown without pesticides etc but always costs more......why is that? Also subsidies are other peoples hard earned tax money.........so were is it coming from?
KyussB wrote: » However, taxing 'bads' shouldn't be considered as a method for funding government policy - because naturally, 'bads' that are taxed, are discouraged and will collapse revenue over time - plus, if we tax present 'bads' like carbon too much, we will quite literally collapse our economy - so that's not a sustainable way to fund the necessary government policy.
Tell me how wrote: » Once again, her message. What Greta is saying is that action is needed. She is not proposing anything other than listening to the scientists who have evidence that action is needed. If someone said your roof was going to fall in but it would cost 20K to fix it, would you refuse to fix it as it was going to cost money? Maybe if people offered some ideas instead of presuming that it is going to cost them money we would make much more progress.
KyussB wrote: » The original set of comments wasn't aimed at you, so I'm not interested in debating a reinterpretation of what I wrote.
Tell me how wrote: » Post by post, you are proving there is no argument against Greta's message. There are voices against it, there always will be, but all that is left is evidence of a lack of awareness of the issue, or what her actual message is. This nonsense is closer to being more of your attempted humour than anything actually worth discussing on this thread.
gozunda wrote: » My but you do seem to have a very short memory span no? Do you remember trying to make that claim previously and getting informed otherwise ... Carbon taxes here now for nearly a decade with the latest being And that is just the start of increases of carbon taxes in lots of new creative ways https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/tax/motor_carbon_other_taxes/carbon_tax.html
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
