Gas Prices and The Environment

[Vicious]

Why does the 'growing green trend' need the government to do anything? If such a large percentage of people believe it's so important then they should change there ways, if 70% of the nation reduced their emissions by half we would meet those Kyoto targets quick.

I think that alot of these folks want someone else to solve the problem. I don't think swapping out your light bulbs is gonna cut it.

 

[gc]

Why does the 'growing green trend' need the government to do anything? If such a large percentage of people believe it's so important then they should change there ways, if 70% of the nation reduced their emissions by half we would meet those Kyoto targets quick.

I think that alot of these folks want someone else to solve the problem. I don't think swapping out your light bulbs is gonna cut it.

Because the way people think is: What difference does it make if I reduce my emissions? I'm only one person!

When everyone thinks like that, there is a problem. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind reducing their emissions if they knew that everyone else in the country was doing their part too. That is (in theory at least) where the government steps in.

That, and a lot of people are hypocrites

 

[Vicious]

I would put it this way, they may believe in the cause but would prefer that other people make the painful choices and/or sacrifices for them. It's the Al Gore approach.

I'd throw this out for consideration. If you believe what the media and scientists are saying about global warming and that need to act now. Why aren't you acting now?

 

[gc]

I'd throw this out for consideration. If you believe what the media and scientists are saying about global warming and that need to act now. Why aren't you acting now?

Me personally? I am (and by acting, I mean not acting, and by not acting, I mean not emitting very much carbon dioxide). Not sure about the other 70% or so who believe in global warming but still drive to work...

 

[Niflmir]

Why does the 'growing green trend' need the government to do anything? If such a large percentage of people believe it's so important then they should change there ways, if 70% of the nation reduced their emissions by half we would meet those Kyoto targets quick.

I think that alot of these folks want someone else to solve the problem. I don't think swapping out your light bulbs is gonna cut it.

The largest proportion of our emissions come from electricity generation and oil exportation. The public does not have enough power to alter either state. In the provinces that I know of, electricity is generally a monopoly, so you can't exactly switch to a green provider. Oil exportation is completely out of the public's hands, yet technically the land belongs to the government.

For these reasons only the government has the power to make the changes necessary.

 

[snfu73]

I would put it this way, they may believe in the cause but would prefer that other people make the painful choices and/or sacrifices for them. It's the Al Gore approach.

I'd throw this out for consideration. If you believe what the media and scientists are saying about global warming and that need to act now. Why aren't you acting now?

Who? Who isn't acting now? When? Where? How do you know we aren't acting now? How do you know who is acting now, where and what they are doing? Huh?

 

[snfu73]

Why does the 'growing green trend' need the government to do anything? If such a large percentage of people believe it's so important then they should change there ways, if 70% of the nation reduced their emissions by half we would meet those Kyoto targets quick.

I think that alot of these folks want someone else to solve the problem. I don't think swapping out your light bulbs is gonna cut it.

It has nothing to do with what they are or are not doing...and everything to do with votes in the case of the politicians.

I think more people might be doing more than you think. And I don't think the lightbulb idea is that bad of an idea. And people can only use public transportation if public transportation is provided, and that does require government help...or, at least SOMEONE to help.

I think more and more people really ARE coming to a realization that there is an issue...and taking steps to act. There are still those that aren't changing...you bet...and that hope is that they will come inline, with education and pressures through heavy taxation on gas guzzling vehicles, gas prices, etc. I think that it is coming. More people are conscious of the environmental situation and ARE acting, and I don't believe you are giving your fellow countrymen enough credit.

 

[TomG]

Gas prices may be part of the problem. They are too low, and the taxes raised go to into general government revenues rather than to provide ‘green incentives.’ A couple of days ago I read in the news that some 1,500 international scientists had signed a petition urging the Canadian government to protect at least 50% of its 98% ownership of the Canadian boreal forest. The forest is the world’s largest repository of carbon and is declining due to logging, mining and energy industry activities. The world has an interest in the health of the Canadian boreal forest. I’m not sure that government protecting crown land in isolation is likely to accomplish much.

My reaction to the story was that I live in a forest based community. I like the idea of protecting the forest but I also recognize that regions similar to mine need an alternative economic development plan, and where is the plan? I live moderately, since the place where I live makes me happy, and modern consumer products and going fashionable places doesn’t make me happy. I may be the ideal modern consumer, since I am a reluctant consumer.

Ultimately, if GHG levels need to be reduced, increased efficiency alone isn’t likely do it. We must conserve. We must consume less, which in our culture means we must reduce our life-styles. Where are the incentives that will promote conservation, when all of our media are drenched in slick psych-manipulative encouragement to buy and display all those fashionable products, and all politicians are promising prosperity and job? Where are the incentives for jobs that conserve material things rather than produce them?

Where are the incentives for our legal person corporations to conserve rather than produce, and to abide by the same rules as do we legal person individuals? Where are the government policies that promote efficiency and also conservation by refusing to continue to shift external costs of production and consumption (pollution, subsidized commercial infrastructure, degraded environment etc.) to the taxpayer. Unpaid external costs are subsidies to production and also to consumption. Material consumption may be the problem, why are we still subsidizing it? Can’t our well rewarded leaders find an alternative to GNP increases to sustain aggregate demand?

Plenty of questions but no answers from me. But, why should I have the answer when there probably isn’t a simple bullet-point sound-bite answer. It seems more likely that we need to generally retool ourselves, our society and all our institutions into something coherent, organized and organic. We have all the wrong incentives.

Me, the reluctant consumer might be a start at an answer, but what is needed to keep me happy and low-consuming? Ah an answer, social justice is what I need. I am happy enough with my low consuming life-style, and I could do more, but I am unwilling to live in a society at present levels of inequitable wealth distribution. The basis for the materially rich seems to be they are largely employed to perpetuate the very things that may be at the root of present problems. The rich produce and they consume, and they are rich because our social institutions subsidize their overhead costs of production. The rich compete so they can do more of the same--create more of the problem. Ultimately, I can’t be led by somebody who wears dark suits.

 

[BitWhys]

Yes.

Not.

 

[folcar]

Material consumption may be the problem, why are we still subsidizing it? Can’t our well rewarded leaders find an alternative to GNP increases to sustain aggregate demand?

Alot of good questions and only one awnser address's them all, in terms of the overall problem. What is the core problem to all the issues affecting us today, the environment, garbage and recycling, health care, housing/ shelter, clean food and water for all, abundant renewable energy. The only thing standing in the way of all of these things is the monetary system created by us as originally a form a trade and today as the very soul of our culture. Money has become so dominant that we have become blind to all else, and have let it become more important than all of the above which collectively affect our ability to survive and thrive in a strong and vibrant global ecosystem. Think what do you need to survive, shelter? Pay your taxes or it will be taken away! The environment, we can change a ton of things we are doing in short order. But it has been deemed to expensive! What is more important the global environment we need to survive or making a profit? Farms are being paved over for housing while old land in the cities sit vacant, because it is too expensive to clean them up and reclaim them! In fact our food production has fallen for several years straight. The same goes for all these areas we have the technology, the manpower and the will power to do all these things and more. Yet we have placed a noose around our own neck, and stand upon a tombstone like the end scene in the Good the bad and the ugly. The monetary system is holding us back in terms of all areas of advacement, we need a change alright and i'd start there!

 

[Vicious]

The largest proportion of our emissions come from electricity generation and oil exportation. The public does not have enough power to alter either state. In the provinces that I know of, electricity is generally a monopoly, so you can't exactly switch to a green provider. Oil exportation is completely out of the public's hands, yet technically the land belongs to the government.

For these reasons only the government has the power to make the changes necessary.

Are you sure it's not because the general public likes to talk the talk but not walk the walk. It's easy to answer a poll question and claim global warming is your top concern. It's a bit harder to actually take some personal action. If 60% of the country stopped using electricity and parked their cars permanently we'd meet our emission targets pretty fast.

Do your part, freeze in the dark.

 

[Vicious]

Who? Who isn't acting now? When? Where? How do you know we aren't acting now? How do you know who is acting now, where and what they are doing? Huh?

The 60-70% of canadians who believe in Kyoto. If they all took it apon themselves to act we would be there. But that's unCanadian, we must wait for a government program and taxes to guide the way.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

First it was the tobacco companies lying to the public about cancer. Recently it has been the oil companies scammed the public about global warming by encouraging "debate" on the issue.

What these companies do is create hype with their ads, cars and gasoline are fun, exciting. While greenies and environmentalists always seem earnest and hard working. They are never fun. Just like the expression,

"Everything that tastes good is bad for you."

Yet if green power like solar, wind and tidal can make electricity, they are electric, fun.

 

[s243a]

First it was the tobacco companies lying to the public about cancer. Recently it has been the oil companies scammed the public about global warming by encouraging "debate" on the issue.

What these companies do is create hype with their ads, cars and gasoline are fun, exciting. While greenies and environmentalists always seem earnest and hard working. They are never fun. Just like the expression,

"Everything that tastes good is bad for you."

Yet if green power like solar, wind and tidal can make electricity, they are electric, fun.

Solar power give you a very low return on the energy you get out of it compared to the energy you put into it. As a consequence it is not very economical. As far as wind power goes I question if there are enough good places to put the windmills so that they won’t take up too much land and kill to many birds. Nuclear really is the way to go. As much as you were brainwashed tobacco companies weren’t exactly lying. The connection between smoking and cancer is very week and if you are going to die of cancer that was caused by smoking it will likely happen quite late in your life.

 

[Scott Free]

It amazes me that increasing taxes is viewed as a satisfactory way to help the environment.

So what? Only the rich should be able to pollute?

The other crazy thing is that people with cars are constantly being blamed and have to shoulder the expense while airplanes and industry are far bigger polluters. :angryfire:

Are Canadians really stupid or something? :angry3:

 

[TomG]

If personal taxes were sufficiently progressive, they would take care of the rich polluters. If the division between personal and corporate taxes were based on their costs to the public (including restoring damage done to the public’s environment) our corporate polluters might be taken care of. If governments formed budgets as stewards of the public trust rather than as instruments re-election popularity contests then government might take care of itself.

Consumption itself may be the problem. Consumption requires production and production produces byproducts that are called pollutants unless they are managed. It costs, to manage the byproducts of economic activity. The trouble is that none of us, individuals, corporations, rich, poor, etc. are required to pay for the environmental damage done by the production, consumption and disposal of what is consumed. We prefer big pay cheques and cheap consumer products instead. We accept environmental degradation as a price of our present prosperity and without regard to its sustainability. We’ve been on a consumption binge, a party hardy, for about a hundred years. And, of course, the people who bring us this party are rewarded the most, and pay the least to clean up the mess.

Taxes make consumption more expensive and thereby reduce consumption. Potentially taxes aren’t bad, but the question arises, how will tax revenues be used? In itself, taxes are too blunt an instrument to be useful, and in the hands of career politicians the use of tax revenue becomes even more obtuse.

Yes, we Canadians may be dumb, really dumb. We keep electing the same old gang of elitists in dark suits to lead us to the Promised Land. Maybe we think that people in fine weeds have our interests in mind, or maybe we just expect some of the finery to rub off on us. We somehow keep expecting that those who are displayed across the phosphorescent screen have the answer, somehow have a plan. But, there isn’t a plan, and maybe there’s no answer we’d like to hear.

Lord, leaders in suits; yes, dumb, really dumb. We might as well elect goats that wear bells. At least nobody expects goats to have a plan, and we already know that the goat always gets fed. Voting: we might as well buy a ticket and cheer for the good guy on the WWF. There is no good guy. They’re all in it for the money. You buy into the spectacle you contribute to all their prosperities. Dumb, Really Dumb. Maybe it has been so dumb that it’s getting better. Maybe.

 

[Scott Free]

Lord, leaders in suits; yes, dumb, really dumb. We might as well elect goats that wear bells. At least nobody expects goats to have a plan, and we already know that the goat always gets fed. Voting: we might as well buy a ticket and cheer for the good guy on the WWF. There is no good guy. They’re all in it for the money. You buy into the spectacle you contribute to all their prosperities. Dumb, Really Dumb. Maybe it has been so dumb that it’s getting better. Maybe.

My primary problem with " those who are displayed across the phosphorescent screen" is that they don't ever feel it when I throw my boot at them.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Well s243, oil companies get massive tax breaks, yet the price of oil is skyhigh. What about using tax break money to further research into alternative energy?

There are still plenty of avenues to exploit new for new energy sources, you give up easy.

And tobaco companies were lying, but of course "legally" one could use weasel words to say they didn't. A direct link can be hard to find, but if putting smoke in your body was good idea, then all athletes would smoke to boost performance. Yet they don't. Odd.

 

[Toro]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - environmentalists should be praying for $200 oil.

That, more than any other government program, will change the behavior of consumers.

 

[iARTthere4iam]

I don't own a car or smoke. They should tax the heck out of them and give us tax breaks on our paychecks. Call it a pay to play system. You want to pollute the planet, it's going to cost you. You want to commit slow suicide, that will cost too. And if you want a gun, your going to have to jump through hoops.

Nice that the things that you dislike you believe should be highly taxed or made legally difficult to acquire. Since these things cost you nothing to condemn you are willing to disregard others who may need a vehicle to get to work. I lived in London for years and had no trouble getting around on the buses there, as I now live in a community of 600 and must drive to work you would have me severly punished financially for that. Thanks for your shortsightedness.