I wouldn't say it's a lot of kicks. In the end, you have yet to provide any real answer/solution to anything, just more pie-in-the-sky ideals. So there's really nothing to comment on.
I take it ideals aren't something you put much stock in. Can I take it also that you are a Conservative?
I did provide a couple of options we have for increasing the resources of the planet in order to make sustainability possible. I guess since you had trouble of one sort or another understanding or perhaps seeing them, (have you been drinking too much of your namesake?) before, I could point them out again. By improving our care of forest and farm lands we can improve our grandkids chances of sustaining themselves. By conserving our fossil fuel resources as much as possible we improve the near term sustainability for humans and other species as well. Such a deal eh? Would you like me to put that in bold for you?
Just one utopian ideal? How about your demand to leave a net increase in resources for the next generation.
I'm unable to think of any way of leaving more arable land for the next generation unless you figure that we expend lots of oil/gas on heavy machinery to level some forests... Come to think of it, how would we be able to leave 'more oil' for the future when we need to burn it to raze the land to accommodate the first goal.
Hmmmm.... What's your solution beaker?
Well given my repeated recommendations, or as you call them demands, that we improve our forest management it would seem at cross purposes to adapt your strategy of destroying forests. You might be surprised to learn that over the centuries and with an emphasis on the last fourty years agricultural land has been degraded through a variety of natural and market forces. This degradation could be reversed leaving improved resource values.
They were your words beaker..... Words that you aren't prepared to address directly in terms of a go-forward solution.
I disagree CM, You accused me of vilifying people who work in the patch. And I have clearly stated my impression of the importance of their work. Your insistence that they are my words means I have to recognize that you are someone who would rather not have a reasonable discussion.
Ahhhhh.. It's all clear now... Beaker will sit in judgement as to who and when these natural resources will be allowed to be consumed by the world citizens.
Just for the benefit of the discussion, what are the rights of world citizens in your omnipotent eyes?
Another example of the same stuff. Attempt to isolate the opposition, try to make them appear elitist. I will just counter by saying that I think a growing number of people would rather believe in the possibility of a sustainable planetary eco-system, and that a "dying breed" of people has adopted the fatalistic view that we are screwing up the world and so we might as well get on with it, which, so far, seems to be your view.
My opinion is that the rights of the people of the world are equal to the responsibilities of the people of the world, and include our right to use resources in a fashion that allows for a sustainable future. I thought I had mentioned that.
I wrote, Quote: Originally Posted by beaker
"Yes, and any other residents present or future of this amazing land. The Liberals and Conservatives have sat smugly in their little power bases and ignorantly impoverished us. I'm hopeful that the next election will turn things around."
to which CM responded,
What kind of math do you practice in beaker-world?
Do the 'any other citizens' include the majority that voted for our present gvt?
Just curious about that. Some clarity would be nice.
Math is math. If you estimate the value to the future, of the fossil fuels our governments are trying to drag out of the ground and export as quickly as possible so that they can have more money to spend and still look like they know what they are doing, and subtract that from the actual cash flow returning from our resources and efforts you arrive at the level of impoverishment any present and future citizens of this amazing land have achieved under successive so-called centre right and right wing governments. Is that clear?
Why are you calling it climate change when the 'experts' were dead set on global warming just a few short years ago? Were they mistaken? Are you mistaken?
No mistake that I am aware of, just one of those clarifications that I thought you were in favour of.
And may you have a long and happy drugged life enjoying your bargain. Personally I favour approaching life a little more realistically and think that if we can create a level playing field around energy options we will arrive at better decisions on how we deploy our financial, labour, and environmental resources.
You have no solutions to offer, only these untenable demands.... I didn't make that up and attribute it to you - you did that all on your lonesome.
BTW, I notice that you have aggressively postured your responses such that you deflect the discussion from providing any solutions and piss and moan about red herrings, strawmen, etc, ad nauseum.
I did? Not something I would normally do, suggest that we could "leave the next generation with a net increase in oil, gas, iron ore and arable land" But okay, show me where I said that and I will withdraw my suggestion that this was a strawman argument.
Let's make a deal, you quit throwing in red herrings and strawmen and I will quit complaining about them.
You're saying that peak oil is another name for just oil?
No, I didn't say that, Peak oil is a time reference for the occasion when we have used half of our oil resources. What I said was that there are a variety of conditions which affect the given moment in question, but there is no doubt about the effect of our exponential growth in use of this non-renewable resource as we slide down the backside of the Peak oil bell curve.
Yep... Those 2 links pretty clearly represent your position.
I can see that it is a difficult thing for you to respond to the quoted segments that I left for you from those links. Sorry about the links not working however. Try these,
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2011/factsheets.pdf
Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $409 billion in 2010, with subsidies to oil products representing almost half of the total. Persistently high oil prices have made the cost of subsidies unsustainable in many countries and prompted some governments to try to reduce them. In a global survey covering 37 countries where subsidies exist, at least 15 have taken steps to phase them out since the start of 2010. Without further reform, the cost of fossil-fuel consumption subsidies is set to reach $660 billion in 2020, or 0.7% of global GDP (at market exchange rates).
Coal's hidden costs top $345 billion in U.S.-study | Reuters
The United States' reliance on coal to generate almost half of its electricity, costs the economy about $345 billion a year in hidden expenses not borne by miners or utilities, including health problems in mining communities and pollution around power plants, a study found.
Those costs would effectively triple the price of electricity produced by coal-fired plants, which are prevalent in part due to the their low cost of operation, the study led by a Harvard University researcher found.
"This is not borne by the coal industry, this is borne by us, in our taxes," said Paul Epstein, a Harvard Medical School instructor and the associate director of its Center for Health and the Global Environment, the study's lead author.
I don't have the time to explain basic accounting principles to you.... You can figure it out yourself, or more likely, you can refuse to do so and remain incorrect
You must be very busy, but you wouldn't need to get into the basic accounting principles. All I asked for was the difference on the bottom line between a subsidy in the form of a cash payment and a tax write-off of smilar amount. I have figured it out using my modest accounting abilities and son of a gun if it doesn't look to me like the resulting effects are very similar. Which means that subsidies benefit the oil industry. Which wouldn't be a big surprise would it?
