• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Harvard Hometown Plans Coercive Taxes, Veganism to Stop Climate 'Emergency'

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It looks like the religious zealots in the man made global warming fairy tale religion are running amok.


FOXNews.com - Harvard Hometown Plans Coercive Taxes, Veganism to Stop Climate 'Emergency'

Going green will not be optional in Cambridge, Mass., if the Cambridge Climate Congress has its way. It will be mandatory.

There will be congestion pricing to reduce car travel. Curbside parking will be eliminated. There will be a carbon tax "of some kind," not to mention taxes on plastic and paper bags. And the Massachusetts city, home of Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will advocate vegetarianism and veganism, complete with "Meatless or Vegan Mondays."

Those are just some of the proposals put forth by the Congress, which was created in May 2009 to respond to the "climate emergency" plaguing Cambridge. Once the Congress settles on its recommendations, they will submitted to the City Council.

"This emergency is created by the growth of local greenhouse gas emissions despite the urgent warnings of climate scientists that substantial reductions are needed in order to reduce the risk of disastrous changes to our climate," the Climate Congress reported in proposals issued on Jan. 23. "This proposal is made in the belief that an effective local response is, if anything, made more urgent by so far inadequate global agreements and federal policies for emissions reductions. It is made in the belief that our City should lead by example."

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021210_cambridge.pdf

While the group's proposals remain a work in a progress, some experts say the potential measures it advocates are "heavy-handed" and incongruous. But others say the city just might be onto something, particularly if the taxes associated with the plan are used to make buildings and transportation more efficient.

Dr. Ken Green, a resident scholar on environment and energy at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington-based think tank, said he found an "overall redundancy" in the proposals, specifically regarding a carbon-based tax coupled with congestion pricing, increased parking meter rates and parking tickets.

"That's just a revenue-raiser for the city," said Green. "There's an overall incoherence of having a carbon tax and three or four indirect taxes."

To best reduce emissions in the near-term, Green suggested a revenue-neutral carbon tax, meaning that little -- if any -- of the funds raised would be retained by municipal government. The vast majority under such a plan would be returned to the public.

"It creates an incentive to become more energy efficient to either avoid the tax or keep as much of any rebate as possible," Green said. "But if they do the [carbon] tax, they should get rid of almost all of the other things. If the point is to put a price on carbon, pick one price, make it transparent and then get rid of the other regulations, which end up overpricing carbon. So if you had your carbon tax, you don't need your congestion pricing because people are already paying the tax in their gasoline."

Green also said the proposal to ban the production and distribution of plastic bags and bottled water in city limits is as "heavy-handed as government can get" and questioned Cambridge's proposal to institute disincentives for the purchase of non-regional food.

"Trying to grow something out of season in a greenhouse locally may produce more greenhouse gas emissions than having the same food shipped in from a place where it grows naturally," he said. "Studies do not come down uniformly on the side that local is better."

But Richard Rood, a professor of atmospheric, oceanic, and space sciences at the University of Michigan, praised Cambridge's proposal to create a "temperate zone" program, in which building are neither heated nor cooled during the fall and spring.

"That is a place where you might make a difference," said Rood, who writes a blog for Weather Underground.

He also praised the city's proposal to advocate vegetarianism and veganism.

"From a climate point of view, eating less meat would have a climate impact," said Rood, citing increased deforestation, methane production, fertilizer use and greenhouse gases associated with maintaining that land. "Eating less meat is for the environment in many ways.
 
Very impressive to see a locality taking reposnibility to protect the environment. A good model for other communities!

Thanks for posting it!
 
When veganism becomes your religion, you have truly left reality.....:roll:
 
When veganism becomes your religion, you have truly left reality.....:roll:

I must have missed the part about veganism becoming a religion, or even any requirements whatsoever in regards to veganism.

Could you quote any requirements associated with veganism?

Thanks!
 
I must have missed the part about veganism becoming a religion, or even any requirements whatsoever in regards to veganism.

Could you quote any requirements associated with veganism?

Thanks!

No, I won't waste my time...
But it is a cult.....
I do enjoy vegetarians who eat chicken though....:lol:
 
Last edited:
This came out in 2008;
Sep 18, 2008, Scientists at Oxford University in England have discovered that a meat-free diet may be bad for your brain.

Researchers found that people who adopt a vegan or vegetarian diet are six times more likely to sustain brain shrinkage than meat eaters due to the former's lack of Vitamin B-12, which is found in meat, fish and dairy products including cheese. http://www.mainstreetmeats.com/blogs/bd/2008/09/18/Vegans-Have-Small-Brains/

I questioned it and found this;
Meat: It does a body good, scientists say
Meat: It does a body good, scientists say
By Tom Johnston on 9/16/2008
Meatingplace.com - Home

Scientists at Oxford University in England have discovered that a meat-free diet may be bad for your brain.

Researchers found that people who adopt a vegan or vegetarian diet are six times more likely to sustain brain shrinkage than meat eaters due to the former's lack of Vitamin B-12, which is found in meat, fish and dairy products including cheese.

So Who do you believe? Keep in mind we have teeth for chewing meat and if you're a Christian you will remember Jesus would eat fish.

Also keep in mind that anything connected in any way with the environmentally retarded movement is most likely a HOAX, since we have those environmental wackos fighting Solar plants in CA. & NV and wind all over the place. They used to talk about how good these systems were, but now they fight them because if they ae built the Environmental ists will not have a reason to make huge money for those who run the HOAXES for profit at the top.

Most of knew before the study that Vegans had little brains. I personally wondered if they any at all.
Have to run my Steak is ready.
 
Very impressive to see a locality taking reposnibility to protect the environment. A good model for other communities!

Thanks for posting it!

Comrade, if all of America would be so smart as to let the smart people tell them how to live, how glorious would be the revolution!
 
No, I won't waste my time...
But it is a cult.....
I do enjoy vegetarians who eat chicken though....:lol:

Just pointing out that despite the misleading headline, there are no requirements of any kind regarding veganism........
 
Well hell I am just going to go over to Cambridge tomorrow to see how much of this is true.
 
Just pointing out that despite the misleading headline, there are no requirements of any kind regarding veganism........

Merely mentionioning meatless Mondays moronic.....:roll:
 
Last edited:
Well I went over to old Cambridge and asked around a bit about this veganism thing. I was mostly told that it would not be required, but they would want people to try it. So, I honestly don't see anything wrong with it and I may start trying it on this side of the Charles River.
 
Lenin would be proud.
 
"Meatless monday" would carry the legislative power of "taco tuesdays," jesus christ. Some people will freak out about anything.

As for the taxes, it's a measure to DISCOURAGE the overconsumption that is our way of life. It's not coercive, that's just an inflammatory buzzword.

What people need to realize is that, global warming aside, our consumption is simply not sustainable. We're either going to learn to exercise some moderation or its going to be forced upon us by the inevitable shortages. Things like having a 2000 pound vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine of ~25% efficiency to transport one person 30 miles back and forth to work every day. (multiplied 50 million times over)

Our transportation and production of everything from food to action figures depends on our consumption of a limited energy source. We need to improve efficiency, reduce consumption, change our habits, and discover new sources of energy if we want to continue to feed 7 billion-and-rising people.
 
"Meatless monday" would carry the legislative power of "taco tuesdays," jesus christ. Some people will freak out about anything.

As for the taxes, it's a measure to DISCOURAGE the overconsumption that is our way of life. It's not coercive, that's just an inflammatory buzzword.

What people need to realize is that, global warming aside, our consumption is simply not sustainable. We're either going to learn to exercise some moderation or its going to be forced upon us by the inevitable shortages. Things like having a 2000 pound vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine of ~25% efficiency to transport one person 30 miles back and forth to work every day. (multiplied 50 million times over)

Our transportation and production of everything from food to action figures depends on our consumption of a limited energy source. We need to improve efficiency, reduce consumption, change our habits, and discover new sources of energy if we want to continue to feed 7 billion-and-rising people.

More nanny GUBMINT controlling the masses.....;)
The shortages will be forced on the poor in any scenario.....
 
Well I went over to old Cambridge and asked around a bit about this veganism thing. I was mostly told that it would not be required, but they would want people to try it. So, I honestly don't see anything wrong with it and I may start trying it on this side of the Charles River.

Thanks for your efforts SB! That is what it seemed, much ado about nothing.
 
Thanks for your efforts SB! That is what it seemed, much ado about nothing.

Oh it is no biggie. I just figured that since I live literally right across the river from Cambridge I should just go over there and find out for myself rather than read what some media source said. Plus I honestly love Cambridge and it gave me a good reason to go over and visit some friends at Harvard.
 
Damn that federalism! Don't localities know that they are only supposed to use their 10th amendment powers to do conservative things?!!
 
Where is CC, they're using a word he finds inflammatory.
 
"Meatless monday" would carry the legislative power of "taco tuesdays," jesus christ. Some people will freak out about anything.

As for the taxes, it's a measure to DISCOURAGE the overconsumption that is our way of life. It's not coercive, that's just an inflammatory buzzword.

What people need to realize is that, global warming aside, our consumption is simply not sustainable. We're either going to learn to exercise some moderation or its going to be forced upon us by the inevitable shortages. Things like having a 2000 pound vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine of ~25% efficiency to transport one person 30 miles back and forth to work every day. (multiplied 50 million times over)

Our transportation and production of everything from food to action figures depends on our consumption of a limited energy source. We need to improve efficiency, reduce consumption, change our habits, and discover new sources of energy if we want to continue to feed 7 billion-and-rising people.

World-impacting problems don't exist. Or humans aren't responsible for them. Or you can't do anything about them.

Take your pick.
 
Damn that federalism! Don't localities know that they are only supposed to use their 10th amendment powers to do conservative things?!!
Way to misuse the tenth there. States and localities are not supposed to hinder life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process, along with they must protect BOR protections. The Fed is only supposed to intervene when those protections are ignored. Besides, what the hell does federalism/anti-federalism have to do with this thread, or did you just feel like misrepresenting?
 
Don't veggies make global warming worse?
 
What happened to the "BN Specialist"?

On holiday?

The BN forum seems to have become filled with all this hyper-partisan non-story crap.
 
Way to misuse the tenth there. States and localities are not supposed to hinder life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process, along with they must protect BOR protections. The Fed is only supposed to intervene when those protections are ignored. Besides, what the hell does federalism/anti-federalism have to do with this thread, or did you just feel like misrepresenting?


Conservatives love to argue that the localities and the states should make the important decisions about our lives since they are closer to the people. But whenever states do things they don't like (gay marriage, medical marijuana, health care) then suddenly they are attacked and laws are even passed on the federal level to prevent them from doing so.

This seemed to me to be another case of "No! Wait! When we said localities should have lots of power, we didn't mean power to do things we disagree with!!!"
 
Conservatives love to argue that the localities and the states should make the important decisions about our lives since they are closer to the people. But whenever states do things they don't like (gay marriage, medical marijuana, health care) then suddenly they are attacked and laws are even passed on the federal level to prevent them from doing so.

This seemed to me to be another case of "No! Wait! When we said localities should have lots of power, we didn't mean power to do things we disagree with!!!"

Localities shouldn't have the power to take away personal liberties. I think we can all agree on that one.
 
Back
Top Bottom