• 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!

An Honest Politicians Answer for solving Climate Change

MrPeanut said:
I'm not talking in circles. I'm rejecting the idea that the people should bear the burden for the damage done by large businesses. What is your solution?
Click to expand...

It is not to pretend that a "large business" will operate at a loss or even become non-profit. My solution is that the end user of power (energy?) must be held responsible for the environmental effects (costs?) of its production. If "green" energy production costs 2X what "brown" energy production costs then it simply cannot be sold for the same price.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not to pretend that a "large business" will operate at a loss or even become non-profit. My solution is that the end user of power (energy?) must be held responsible for the environmental effects (costs?) of its production. If "green" energy production costs 2X what "brown" energy production costs then it simply cannot be sold for the same price.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that oil companies, for example, would be forced to operate at a loss with some type of carbon tax? Are their profits that minimal?
 
MrPeanut said:
1) Do you honestly believe that oil companies, for example, would be forced to operate at a loss with some type of carbon tax? 2) Are their profits that minimal?
Click to expand...

1) Nope.

2) Their profits per gallon of gas sold are lower than the federal excise tax per gallon of gas sold.
 
Mycroft said:
So...your preferred tactic is to raise taxes and prices to influence people's choices. Why bother? Why not just pass laws that outright TELL people they WILL live in a smaller home? Why not just pass laws that outright TELL people how much energy they will be allowed to use?

Why not just be an honest politician?
Click to expand...

I do not advocate anything. just stating how people would change their habits.

As much as I would love to become king and run a monarchy, I think we live in a free country and do not prescribe having a government force you to do anything.
 
charliebrown said:
I do not advocate anything. just stating how people would change their habits.

As much as I would love to become king and run a monarchy, I think we live in a free country and do not prescribe having a government force you to do anything.
Click to expand...

???

You certainly DID advocate a course of action.

There are two ways to solve this problem. One is to tax income higher to solve this problem, but I do not like that because there is no association between cost and source of cost.

Increasing taxes to drive people into smaller homes and increasing energy cost to drive people to use less of it. That is the basic solution to all of our problems.
Click to expand...

And now, after saying you want to drive people into smaller homes and to use less energy, you have the balls to say this: "...do not prescribe having a government force you to do anything."

Now you are just plain lying.

I take back what I said earlier...your career as a politician WILL be very brief.
 
Mycroft said:
I was thinking more along the lines of this:



He targeted coal and energy producers to increase energy costs. Now, for sure, Obama's goal wasn't to reduce energy use by consumers. He was going for artificially making alternative energy more cost effective by raising overall energy costs. But Obama's attitude was similar to the OP's...use the power of the government to influence the choices people make.

And, as I said, that didn't hurt Obama's political career.
Click to expand...


And Trump is so very different:
Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

The conservative philosophy of allowing an unregulated free market to operate unfettered often seems to fall by the wayside when the Republican Party’s industry allies are failing to compete in the marketplace. Trump’s Energy Secretary Rick Perry recently provided a stark example of this philosophical flexibility when he proposed to effectively pull the failing coal industry out of the marketplace and instead prop it up with taxpayer-funded subsidies.
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1) Nope.

2) Their profits per gallon of gas sold are lower than the federal excise tax per gallon of gas sold.
Click to expand...

Good, so neither of us are saying any business should operate at a loss due to some form of taxation, regulation, or whatever. You commented that the end user should be held responsible. I don't believe in constantly putting pressure on people due to the destruction caused by large businesses. I believe that we need to put the health and safety of people first. That seems to be our disagreement.
 
Mycroft said:
???

You certainly DID advocate a course of action.



And now, after saying you want to drive people into smaller homes and to use less energy, you have the balls to say this: "...do not prescribe having a government force you to do anything."

Now you are just plain lying.

I take back what I said earlier...your career as a politician WILL be very brief.
Click to expand...

Writing laws will ABSOLUTELY FORCE you to do something. Paying a tax will not. It will sway you to think about the true cost of energy.

I would personally prefer a tax verses a law. Obamacare was not a law that demanded you buy health insurance, if you didn't, they would tax you.
 
Jack Hays said:
The questions are unimportant because CO2 is not the problem. The sun caused temperatures to go up, and the sun will take them back down.
Click to expand...

I am going to agree with you.

You are forgetting all of the other byproducts of a wasteful society on the environment. If not, keep breathing in those wonderful fumes every time you fill up you tank and tell me how you feel.
 
cabse5 said:
SIAP. How about these questions?
(1) Why do you solely concentrate on reducing CO2 emissions (and methane emissions) when CO2 (and methane) is less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases in earth's atmosphere?
(2) Why do you insist on alternatives to fossil fuels other than nuclear power that haven't been created, tested and approved even though nuclear power is a clean (less CO2 emissions) fuel?
(3) Why do you require the alternative fuel to be good to water and air yet you are against walls which would restrict undocumenteds (and their trash) from entering the US unabated?
(4) Why do you insist on calling a fuel with less CO2 emissions a 'green' fuel when less CO2 in the atmosphere would turn everything grey? Maybe you mean a fuel with less CO2 emissions would be a grey fuel??
(5) Per one through four, what is your position, exactly, on climate change 'cause it doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

I said conserve energy. I did not want to debate anything about the energy sources we rely on.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is ridiculous (as well as hard to implement) so I suspect that your career as a politician will be quite brief.
Click to expand...

I would run in the primary so I can clearly translate what other politicians are actually saying. I would never even consider being a politician.
 
MrPeanut said:
Why is the solution to this problem always to put more pressure on regular people? Why can't we hold the major polluters accountable instead of telling everyone to buy expensive electric cars, never travel outside of the country, or learn to live with far less than what is considered standard?
Click to expand...

I hate applying real pressure to regular people, but damn peanut, WHY the F does anyone need to drive a FULL SIZE PICKUP truck to an office job?

Didn't we notice the massive increase in full sized vehicles when gas prices went down?
 
code1211 said:
You are confusing polluting the environment with Climate Change.

If you are trying to address pollution, then do so.

If you are trying to control the climate of the planet, please provide a prayer so the rest of us may worship you properly.
Click to expand...

Why should we separate CO2 from every other negative effect wastefulness costs society?
 
charliebrown said:
I am going to agree with you.

You are forgetting all of the other byproducts of a wasteful society on the environment. If not, keep breathing in those wonderful fumes every time you fill up you tank and tell me how you feel.
Click to expand...

Air quality in the US (and in the developed world, for that matter) is the cleanest it has ever been.
 
charliebrown said:
Writing laws will ABSOLUTELY FORCE you to do something. Paying a tax will not. It will sway you to think about the true cost of energy.

I would personally prefer a tax verses a law. Obamacare was not a law that demanded you buy health insurance, if you didn't, they would tax you.
Click to expand...

Jesus...

A "tax" is a "law".

What kind of politician are you?
 
charliebrown said:
1) Why are you using a pickup truck to drive back and forth to an office?
2) Why are you using an SUV to drive kids around the neighborhood?
3) Why is your family living in a 3,000sf home instead of a 1,500sf home?
4) Why are you going to a huge open air, high ceiling office space for work every day?
5) Why are you tearing up farm land over an hour drive from your work to get an oversized home cheaper and then spending the difference in mortgage on gas and cars?
6) Why are you even thinking of drinking out of bottled water. Do you know how much gas it took to get that bottle to your lips?

... If you are a democrat and you care about the environement, then go on a web site and get a carbon consumption analysis for yourself and family. If you are a conservative republican, can I please ask you what conservative means? Would conserving natural resources fall under the mantra of conservative thinking?

Increasing taxes to drive people into smaller homes and increasing energy cost to drive people to use less of it. That is the basic solution to all of our problems.
Click to expand...

The answers to all your questions may be summarized as: "Because I desire to pursue happiness". Who are you to tell me (or us) what we are allowed to purchase with the fruit of our labor? You may have the desire to live like a monk in self-denial of the good things we can obtain, but that is your business. My business is to freely choose my labor, my purchases, my enjoyment - all of it without penalty by a busybody ascetic.

If you are a democrat or republican, exactly what don't you get about each of our rights to live free?
 
maxparrish said:
The answers to all your questions may be summarized as: "Because I desire to pursue happiness". Who are you to tell me (or us) what we are allowed to purchase with the fruit of our labor? You may have the desire to live like a monk in self-denial of the good things we can obtain, but that is your business. My business is to freely choose my labor, my purchases, my enjoyment - all of it without penalty by a busybody ascetic.

If you are a democrat or republican, exactly what don't you get about each of our rights to live free?
Click to expand...
Except you cannot just do anything you want in your desire to pursue happiness. If I steal your car, I cannot say it was okay to do so "because I desire to pursue happiness." If one's idea of living free imposes harm on others, then there is no right to live in that way without the consent of those being harmed.
 
charliebrown said:
1) Why are you using a pickup truck to drive back and forth to an office?
Click to expand...
Because we want to, or we don't work in an office, we work on a ranch, some construction job, or just hunt for a living.
charliebrown said:
2) Why are you using an SUV to drive kids around the neighborhood?
Click to expand...
Because they don't fit into a VW bug or a Smartcar.
charliebrown said:
3) Why is your family living in a 3,000sf home instead of a 1,500sf home?
Click to expand...
Because we want to.
charliebrown said:
4) Why are you going to a huge open air, high ceiling office space for work every day?
Click to expand...
Personlly, I don't. The ceilings we have are the false drop ceilings. Others use open ceilings. I don't like them. They make me feel like I'm in a furnace room. They both heat and cool using about the same energy.
charliebrown said:
5) Why are you tearing up farm land over an hour drive from your work to get an oversized home cheaper and then spending the difference in mortgage on gas and cars?
Click to expand...
No farm was ever on the land my house is built on. If one wants to build on farmland, it doesn't tear up any farmland beyond the foundations of the house itself.
charliebrown said:
6) Why are you even thinking of drinking out of bottled water.
Click to expand...
Because we want to. Personally, I prefer soda.
charliebrown said:
Do you know how much gas it took to get that bottle to your lips?
Click to expand...
Do you know how much gas it took to get that computer you are using right now on your desk?
charliebrown said:
There are a ton of other questions we need to ask ourselves
Click to expand...
Ask away.
charliebrown said:
As a politician, I am going to tell you to stop looking for someone else to solve these problems.
Click to expand...
As a citizen, I am going to tell you that these are not problems, and to get lost.
charliebrown said:
If you are a democrat and you care about the environement, then go on a web site and get a carbon consumption analysis for yourself and family.
Click to expand...
Democrats have lost their minds. If they want to waste their money on such programs, so be it.
charliebrown said:
If you are a conservative republican, can I please ask you what conservative means?
Click to expand...
Certainly. It means to conserve the Constitution of the United States and of the several States. It means to conserve a capitalistic economy, the only economy that creates wealth. It means to reject socialism, since that can only exist by stealing wealth.
charliebrown said:
Would conserving natural resources fall under the mantra of conservative thinking?
Click to expand...
No. Leaving natural resources untouched is a waste of natural resources. We do not like waste.
charliebrown said:
There are two ways to solve this problem.
Click to expand...
It's not a problem.
charliebrown said:
One is to tax income higher to solve this problem,
Click to expand...
It's not a problem.
charliebrown said:
but I do not like that because there is no association between cost and source of cost.
Click to expand...
Socialism and price controls don't work.
charliebrown said:
Increasing taxes to drive people into smaller homes and increasing energy cost to drive people to use less of it. That is the basic solution to all of our problems.
Click to expand...
You are not solving a problem, you are creating one, by implementing fascism, one of the two forms of socialism.
charliebrown said:
thanks for reading, we are all human beings, lets treat each other with respect no matter what the views or intellectual level!!!
Click to expand...
Attempting to implement socialism is NOT respecting other human beings.
 
charliebrown said:
I said honest politician not successful politician. As a society, we do not want to hear the truth.
Click to expand...

Socialism is not the 'truth'. Personally, I am glad you are not successful. I will fight socialism everywhere I find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom