Great Editorial Cartoon...

[shultice24]

[cptacek]

Weird. I don't see how taxing the crap out of us will help preserve the rainforests, promote sustainablility, create green jobs, make cities more livable, better utilize renewable resources, clean the air and water (since what they want to take out of the air is a natural component of air) and promote healthy children. And if we want energy independence, we need to drill for oil, dig for coal, and tap natural gas HERE in this country.

[disneysteve]

Reminds me of the old joke that years from now all the health nuts who exercised regularly, didn't smoke and ate healthy will be lying in hospitals dying from nothing.

Whether you believe in global warming or not, reducing pollution is a good thing, preserving the rainforest is a good thing, developing alternative energy sources is a good thing, creating new jobs is a good thing.

I think cptacek raises valid points about the way governments may be going about doing some of those things so you can argue with the process but I don't see how anyone can argue with the goal.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by cptacek

Weird. I don't see how taxing the crap out of us will help preserve the rainforests, promote sustainablility, create green jobs, make cities more livable, better utilize renewable resources, clean the air and water

Our government is notoriously inefficient, but it's even more ludicrous to think that the free market would possibly do these things. Left unchecked, the current way our economy operates would slowly destroy the planet, would it not?

The problem with the current system is that the market does not efficiently price goods. Negative externalities are costs that are imposed on society (pollution, greenhouse gasses), that should be reflected in the price of goods, but are not. It's completely wrong that we should pay more for solar power than for coal; if the long term effects of coal-burning were actually figured into its price, it'd probably be the most expensive source of energy. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and we burn coal cheaply only by pushing these costs onto future generations who will have thoroughly degraded planet if nothing is done.

BTW, I in no way consider myself a democrat, left-wing, liberal, etc. I don't want 'solutions' that are intended to pad the coffers of our government or seize more economic control, but solutions that will actually work.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

Whether you believe in global warming or not, reducing pollution is a good thing, preserving the rainforest is a good thing, developing alternative energy sources is a good thing, creating new jobs is a good thing.

That's exactly why this strip is now hanging above my desk. What's sad though is that even a statement like yours may be interpreted by some as left-wing bias that only seeks higher taxes and more government intervention. "You're obviously a liberal hippie! Take your Prius and get out of this town you nutjob!!"


One of my friends told me today a story about his old roommate. He got so caught-up in the anti-liberal, anti-global warming stuff that he refused to recycle. When my friend took paper out to the recycling bin, the other guy went outside, took the papers out of the recycling bin, and threw them in the dumpster. Have things gotten so bad that you have to blatantly attempt to degrade the planet to make a political statement?!?!?

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

I think cptacek raises valid points about the way governments may be going about doing some of those things so you can argue with the process but I don't see how anyone can argue with the goal.

Thanks for the awesome thoughts Steve. I think a huge part of our problem relates to what you said here. It seems to me that many who want to argue against the process have resorted to attacking absolutely anything to do with the goals themselves, hence attitudes like my friend's old roommate who refuse to recycle.

[buildmybudget]

Originally Posted by shultice24

Thanks for the awesome thoughts Steve. I think a huge part of our problem relates to what you said here. It seems to me that many who want to argue against the process have resorted to attacking absolutely anything to do with the goals themselves, hence attitudes like my friend's old roommate who refuse to recycle.

Exactly. It's that kind of nonsense that is keeping our country from moving forward on anything at all. Half of Congress is working on solutions and the other half is working on stalling. I think it's truly a shame.

Thanks for the comic though--enjoyed it!

[cptacek]

Look, if one volcano goes off or one wildfire burns out of control, that natural process of the earth will put more carbon dioxide into the air than we will if we convert every light bulb in America to LEDs (the most efficient lighting available, though very expensive, as opposed to those poison swirls of glass we like to call CFLs). How can we combat that? And how will raising taxes on us (which the rich can get around by buying indulgences...er I mean carbon credits) help in any way get to the goal you actually want?

I heard this the other day. The people who went to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference put more carbon dioxide into the air just getting there than 60 countries on this earth combined (I haven't checked this out; I just heard that stat). If they really care about carbon dioxide, those hypocrites should be using a teleconference. Until they personally start treating this like a crisis, I don't believe them.

I agree reducing pollution is a good thing. I just don't agree that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by cptacek

I heard this the other day. The people who went to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference put more carbon dioxide into the air just getting there than 60 countries on this earth combined (I haven't checked this out; I just heard that stat). If they really care about carbon dioxide, those hypocrites should be using a teleconference. Until they personally start treating this like a crisis, I don't believe them.

I completely agree. For the same reason I think Al Gore is an enormous hypocrite.

I just don't see any other way though- the changes we need are not materializing quickly enough from the free market.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by cptacek

I heard this the other day. The people who went to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference put more carbon dioxide into the air just getting there than 60 countries on this earth combined

This one annoys me, too. Plane travel is so vastly overused today. I know people who will fly to DC or Florida or Boston for the day for a business meeting. You can't tell me that in this day and age, there isn't an economical way to hold a meeting without having everyone physically in the same room. Conference calls and video conferencing have come a long way.

[PrincessPerky]

Originally Posted by shultice24

One of my friends told me today a story about his old roommate. He got so caught-up in the anti-liberal, anti-global warming stuff that he refused to recycle. When my friend took paper out to the recycling bin, the other guy went outside, took the papers out of the recycling bin, and threw them in the dumpster. Have things gotten so bad that you have to blatantly attempt to degrade the planet to make a political statement?!?!?

Recycling trucks, plants, overhead, and 'education' is often thought of as burning MORE 'dirty' energy than normal decomposition of simple materials. So it is possible the statement he was trying to make was being misunderstood - not that I agree with him.

I figure it is better to try to reduce, reuse, recycle than to worry about every detail. though it sure would be nice if all those trucks were a bit more fuel efficient and the conveyor belts at the plants ran off solar power.

I will never be in favor of lying to the masses, but then again I am in favor of true green habits, just wish honesty were used instead of fear mongering.

[cptacek]

Originally Posted by cptacek

Look, if one volcano goes off or one wildfire burns out of control, that natural process of the earth will put more carbon dioxide into the air than we will if we convert every light bulb in America to LEDs (the most efficient lighting available, though very expensive, as opposed to those poison swirls of glass we like to call CFLs). How can we combat that? And how will raising taxes on us (which the rich can get around by buying indulgences...er I mean carbon credits) help in any way get to the goal you actually want?
.

shultice24, you didn't respond to this. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by cptacek

Look, if one volcano goes off or one wildfire burns out of control, that natural process of the earth will put more carbon dioxide into the air than we will if we convert every light bulb in America to LEDs (the most efficient lighting available, though very expensive, as opposed to those poison swirls of glass we like to call CFLs). How can we combat that? And how will raising taxes on us (which the rich can get around by buying indulgences...er I mean carbon credits) help in any way get to the goal you actually want?

I'm not so much worried about the actual level of carbon in the air. We probably have the technology to fix that now through geoengineering.

What I'm concerned about is the tangible effects of harming the planet; for instance soil erosion, nutrient depletion, and pollution runoff from the industrial agriculture industry that dominates my home state of Iowa and the rest of the midwest. I don't want to go into much detail here, but the way we grow food on a large scale is harmful in many, many different ways, only one of which may be the effects of greenhouse gas emissions (and as we know, that one is debatable).

Another example is our dependence on fossil fuels. Even if we leave global warming out of the picture, it's not an ideal way to power our world. We destroy ecosystems to get to our energy sources, they release pollutants (global warming or no, there's no way anyone can argue that smog and acid rain aren't bad) and we become addicted to finite energy sources.

I don't know the best way to go about bringing changes to society that will help us become more earth-friendly and sustainable. I do think it will require sacrifice, but in my mind it's not really a sacrifice, but picking up the tab for the damages we've already caused. Like I said in an earlier post, most of the things we buy today don't reflect the actual costs imposed on society; it only seems fair that they should.

I completely sympathize though with worries that some people and industries, especially those with heavy government influences, stand to gain from shady dealings disguised as genuine 'solutions'.

[Caoineag]

Originally Posted by shultice24

I'm not so much worried about the actual level of carbon in the air. We probably have the technology to fix that now through geoengineering...

I have to agree with this statement. I am not so worried about the carbon dioxide as I am the trace chemicals that often accompany it.

Why is okay for a parent to tell a child to clean up their room because they should but we don't tell ourselves that regarding the environment? I personally don't enjoy knowing my life is shortened by the pollution we put out when the technology already exists to minimize that.

I do agree though that a lot of politicians pass out pork rather than real solutions. There has to be a better way of accounting for negative externalities.

[cptacek]

Originally Posted by shultice24

I'm not so much worried about the actual level of carbon in the air. We probably have the technology to fix that now through geoengineering.

Why do you think carbon dioxide in the air is a problem? And why do you think we can fix it if it is a problem?

What I'm concerned about is the tangible effects of harming the planet; for instance soil erosion, nutrient depletion, and pollution runoff from the industrial agriculture industry that dominates my home state of Iowa and the rest of the midwest. I don't want to go into much detail here, but the way we grow food on a large scale is harmful in many, many different ways, only one of which may be the effects of greenhouse gas emissions (and as we know, that one is debatable).

You want less food available that costs more. Got it.

Another example is our dependence on fossil fuels. Even if we leave global warming out of the picture, it's not an ideal way to power our world. We destroy ecosystems to get to our energy sources, they release pollutants (global warming or no, there's no way anyone can argue that smog and acid rain aren't bad) and we become addicted to finite energy sources.

N.U.C.L.E.A.R

I don't know the best way to go about bringing changes to society that will help us become more earth-friendly and sustainable. I do think it will require sacrifice, but in my mind it's not really a sacrifice, but picking up the tab for the damages we've already caused. Like I said in an earlier post, most of the things we buy today don't reflect the actual costs imposed on society; it only seems fair that they should.

So, do you think if we cut off electricity to every home in America and shut off the gas pumps, the earth would be better off? No. Someone would take us over and they would extract our natural resources instead. We actually have a good track record compared to the rest of the world. What other country does better?

I completely sympathize though with worries that some people and industries, especially those with heavy government influences, stand to gain from shady dealings disguised as genuine 'solutions'.

But they aren't even putting forth any solutions. They are just wanting to take our money.

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by cptacek

You want less food available that costs more. Got it.

Do you have any idea how destructive and completely unsustainable industrialized agriculture is? My guess is no, given that clever remark.

You want an eventual collapse and famine that takes the lives of billions. Got it.

[cptacek]

dude. I'm a farmer. What is your experience with "industrialized agriculture"?

[shultice24]

Originally Posted by cptacek

dude. I'm a farmer. What is your experience with "industrialized agriculture"?

Maybe that's why you're biased to the status quo? Just wondering.

My experience is limited, but I've taken the time to study the issue.

[shultice24]

CPTACEK,

Before this spirals into worthless cheap shots on both sides, I'd like to ask, in all seriousness; what is your opinion on negative externalities?

How is it remotely right that the price we pay for everything from gasoline to grocery store beef does not reflect the true costs imposed on society?

[cptacek]

ok, truce. This has been a good discussion. Let's keep it going.

I guess I would have to know what specific negative externalities you want to talk about. A fish in California that took over a water canal system that was built specifically for use by farmers may die off? I really don't care. Let them die. Smog in cities? Take care of it. It is a local problem, it should have a local solution (even a statewide solution). But smog in Los Angeles shouldn't make me (in Kansas) pay a penalty...I'm not contributing to it. And ESPECIALLY smog in China shouldn't effect me. If an oil company drills and spills some oil, they should have to clean it up, but they shouldn't be banned from drilling in the first place (maybe that company should have more inspections until they show it wasn't a systemic problem, though). Wolves are threatening caribou and polar bears (or calves, deer and antelope)? Shoot the wolves.

What if it is found that because women are taking the pill and their waste water goes down the river to the next town, that cleans it and uses it for drinking, and they found massive quantities of estrogen in that water? Would you be for or against banning the pill?

I just want to fight against the idea that all of our awesome technology is bad...and we have some really awesome technology that people 100 years ago would drool over. It seems to me that if we get to the far edge of "environmentalism" those people want us back living in mud huts gathering nuts and berries.

Are you for nuclear energy? Why or why not? What do you think would happen if farmers were told they could only put a certain amount of fertilizer on their ground? Would that or would that not contribute to less food? What other country extracts and uses natural resources better than us?

I've asked you a bunch of questions in previous posts you haven't answered, and I would like to hear what you have to say about some of those old questions.