|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted April 12, 2009 02:50 AM |
|
|
No, unless you have the wrong definition of beneficial. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 02:53 AM |
|
|
Say there's a polluting factory. There are both costs and benefits to it. The costs are, of course, electricity, raw materials, wages, etc. - but those are all costs the factory pays. There's also another cost that it doesn't pay - the cost of the pollution. But the factory also produces something beneficial - some product. So how about we make the factory pay for the pollution instead of shutting it down? If it decides that the cost of the pollution is greater than the profit it gets from selling the good, then it will shut down. If not - it's making stuff, and it's paying for its pollution.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 09:01 AM |
|
|
|
Why is a liberal now cluttering the green thread with silly liberal-capitalist propaganda?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 01:51 PM |
|
|
What on earth is carbon tax?
Does anybody actually has to pay for something a single volcano eruption produces more than all human industry combined? 
Green terror.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 02:04 PM |
|
|
What? I have heard a lot of bull but that is just amazing on any standards. I do not understand the motives of spreading such misinformation.
Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by all the volcanoes in the world put together. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 02:09 PM |
|
|
Volcanos are not the biggest source. Every living organism is. We all emit CO2. And not just "we". Every aerobic organism does. Think how petty the industry is in comparison.
It's like complaining that cutting down trees reduces the amount of oxygen produced, while the ocean produces many times more than all ground plants at once.
A source on that "150 times" thing would be nice. I keep hearing the exact opposite.
EDIT: oh, you mean the thing we see when putting "volcanos", "co2" and "industry" in google? But why don't they take time into comparison, too? Industry is like a hundred years. Volcanos are billions of years old and their activity is nothing compared to what it used to be.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 02:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So how about we make the factory pay for the pollution instead of shutting it down?
And then they would not have to reduce the pollution at all. Unless their small enogh to feel the fee.
Quote:
If it decides that the cost of the pollution is greater than the profit it gets from selling the good, then it will shut down. If not - it's making stuff, and it's paying for its pollution.
Nah, they would not do that. If they did they would be so small that they would feel it.
Do you mind to tell me what world you live in? Because unless the tax is really high they would not DO A snow to actually reduce the polution, if its that high the smaller factory's would go straight to bottom of the pit.
In pure capitalistic spirit: You don't shut down someting that you still earn money on.
Quote:
If not - it's making stuff, and it's paying for its pollution.
And what about murders paying their way out of jail? I think its equal, or people wrecking other peoples life that pays their way out fo court and jail?
Just "payng for the polution" is far from enogh, its one of the weakest methodes there is for this issue.
And also i guess you mean the factory owners would decide? Then we are doomed.
Also you said: "pollute to much then shutdown", thats my solution except we set a cap each year and reduce it over time causing a forced reduction otherwise they would go straight to bottom of the pit. And the goverment decides in this matter for my idea of this, and they enforce it stricly. On the top of that a fine is handed out to the owners if they break it to make sure they just don't attempt doing it again.
The cap would ofcourse have to be somewhat realistic in contrast to how low we can go with the current tecnology.
Quote:
Volcanos are not the biggest source. Every living organism is. We all emit CO2. And not just "we". Every aerobic organism does. Think how petty the industry is in comparison.
Thats true, however we can do nothing about it and the amount is nothing in contrast to someting as simple as a camp fire.
The industri spews out greater amounts then we creatures, thats for sure. And also constantely increaseing the amount we spew out will ruin all of us if we keep it up to long.
Also, choppingdown rain forest and alike is: "Not helping".
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 02:23 PM |
|
|
oh, and Minion, "internetz" host different opinions, so don't try to be smart by putting the first thing you googled around.
Cause I can do it too.
Quote:
This is an amazing feat when you consider that human-added concentrations of CO2 are only about five per cent of natural carbon emissions every year from factors like rotting vegetation, volcanoes, outgassing from the oceans, and the like. And amazing considering that 90 to 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect is produced by water vapor, not CO2.
How is that?
We need Corribus here. We really do. 
PS. I'm not saying I'm smart or that I know the truth or anything. I'm just tired of the CO2 propaganda when there are more important matters - like saving the near extinct species. What's really bad, imho - is the diminishing variety of our planet, not the controversial CO2 emission.
And the most horrible of all, and completely unstoppable: overpopulation.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 02:43 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 15:01, 12 Apr 2009.
|
It is nothing of the same level as oxygen production. Carbon is accumulated to the atmosphere unless it is "recycled" or absorbed by nature. Human emissions exceed this limit, and some 41% of human emissions is absorbed by nature. That means that the carbon dioxide concentration levels increase.
Now to the issue at hand. Here is one paper of human emission, that approximate some 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. Note that scientists measure carbon dioxide emissions by the weight of carbon in it rather than the weight of carbon dioxide itself (which is 24 billion tons, so you can compare it to the number given for volcanic emissions)
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html
Volcanoes produce 130 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
Now, do you have any sources other than what you "have heard"? Those are reliable sources, however I can get you more. Btw, you were the one that claimed that a single volcano emits more than humans, you need to prove it. I am waiting.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 03:39 PM |
|
|
The fact that there are non-human sources of CO2 is irrelevant.
Natural sources of CO2 - Natural carbon sinks = balanced greenhouse gases and a climate that is stable on the time scale of human activity.
Natural sources of CO2 + human sources of CO2 - natural carbon sinks + loss of carbon sinks due to deforestation = build up of greenhouse gases and warming that occurs on a human time scale.
Let's say you spend exactly as much as you make. You're doing fine. If you then decide that you're going to buy a cup of coffee every day, which is a miniscule expense compared to say, rent and car payments or whatnot you go into 2 dollars of debt every day. After a few years, your stuffs being repossessed because you can't make your payments. Yet the whole time you refused to give up that cup of coffee because you thought it was silly to worry about the coffee price when you were paying 50 as much on rent.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 03:51 PM |
|
|
Minion, I owe you an apology on the volcanos. I did some search around, and it seems my old sources were indeed incorrect.
Still, I'm tired of the CO2 propaganda, as I said. And the random quote I've thrown in, what do you think of it? Even with volcanos out of the picture, I'm still pretty sure we are nowhere near the casual nature cycle of CO2 production and, as the random quote says, CO2 is not the most important part of greenhouse effect.
And overpopulation will kill the planet 100x faster than pollution anyway.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 04:00 PM |
|
|
Doom:
Quote:
What on earth is carbon tax?
Carbon tax.
del_diablo:
Quote:
And then they would not have to reduce the pollution at all. Unless their small enogh to feel the fee.
Or unless the fee is large enough to make them feel it.
Quote:
And what about murders paying their way out of jail?
That's not comparable. Murder is purely destructive - so there are no trade-offs. Whereas with pollution, something positive is produced in the meantime.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 04:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Or unless the fee is large enough to make them feel it.
Then you are killing all the small factories.
Quote:
That's not comparable. Murder is purely destructive - so there are no trade-offs. Whereas with pollution, something positive is produced in the meantime.
When we have destroyed our planet or somehow managed to raise the water level those 10 meters or one of the many of these i beg you to reconsider.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 05:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then you are killing all the small factories.
Are you ignoring the "shift" part of "green tax shift"? It would also have an adjustment in the income tax to prevent such things.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 05:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Are you ignoring the "shift" part of "green tax shift"? It would also have an adjustment in the income tax to prevent such things.
Well, you also allow great loopholes easly abuseable to be formed with this.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 06:06 PM |
|
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 07:36 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:37, 12 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
And the most horrible of all, and completely unstoppable
oh really?Quote:
And overpopulation will kill the planet 100x faster than pollution anyway.
I somewhat agree, and ironically, it's the easiest to maintain
if people are willing of course. And no, by willing, I do not mean to let the individual choose. We need regulations on how many kids we can have. It's not a "personal business" because as you can see it's not just about YOU or YOUR family, it's about the whole planet.
We need more wars (j/k)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 07:46 PM |
|
|
|
Nah, we just need to impose capitalism more consequential, stop all this socialist welfare crap and let nature teach them a lesson on survival of the fittest.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 09:01 PM |
|
|
No company wants the Earth to become uninhabitable or for weather patterns to change dangerously. But the problem is, lowering emissions isn't free, so if one company starts to do it, it has to increase product costs or pay its workers less - and its competitors will jump on that. So the role for government is to make it so a company that decreases its emissions would be put at an advantage to its competitors, instead of a disadvantage.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 12, 2009 11:08 PM |
|
|
You think that it should be an advantage in profit for that?
With that said, it means you only care about profit and want to encourage that?
These two ideologies are mutually-exclusive. Notice that in reality it might be more profitable to let's say, pollute less, BUT in ideology it matters WHY you do it: because of profit? In other words, is that all you care about? Do you even CARE about pollution or is it just a side-effect of a profitable business (clean or polluted, depending on which one)?
Profit should ONLY be a side-effect, if any. (speaking about the government interventions here ofc)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
