Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Five questions I would like to ask the leaders of the climate change agenda. Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    I find it funny that liberals hark on about the environment "for the sake of the children", but don't bat an eyelid when it comes to the debts accrued from their left wing premises. Another example of hypocrisy.
    I find it sad that when I hear arguments like this, which suggest (wrongly and without foundation) that there will be no economic damage if we 'do nothing'. In the UK, only UKIP takes a position close to that, and they are the party which says what people who don't think are thinking.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    I find it sad that when I hear arguments like this, which suggest (wrongly and without foundation) that there will be no economic damage if we 'do nothing'. In the UK, only UKIP takes a position close to that, and they are the party which says what people who don't think are thinking.
    I didn't mention the credibility of climate change though did I? I was merely pointing out how hypocritical most of you are.

    Try again.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    I didn't mention the credibility of climate change though did I? I was merely pointing out how hypocritical most of you are.
    Try again.
    I wasn't being hypocritical. I was merely pointing out how daft opinions like yours are.

    Try again
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Right back at you: Why do the parties which deny climate change (BNP and UKIP are the 2 I know of) also support very right wing views?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    I wasn't being hypocritical. I was merely pointing out how daft opinions like yours are.

    Try again
    Which opinion was daft? Enlighten me.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Which opinion was daft? Enlighten me.
    Strange that you've forgotten - you only posted it 45 minutes ago... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...5&postcount=20
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    1. Family A is environmentally conscious and they recycle, compost, eat organic, drive hybrids, use smart energy and etc. Family B does none of that and takes no active interest in their environment. Family A has three or more children and raises them with their values. Family B has two or less children and raises them with their values. Which family is more detrimental to the environment?
    Impossible to tell, plus you only talk about 1 generation. If the children then have 0 and 10 kids respectively the argument on kids is no longer valid.

    2. If you truly believe that the livability of our planet and possibly the very existence of our species is at risk in the conceivable future, then why are you not willing to even talk about population control? I would think that risking your political future on an obviously unpopular subject would pale in comparison to the survival of our species.
    The whole point is supposed to be the well being of people and gaining public support. Killing people or telling them they can't have kids isn't really going to help.

    3. Why is it that every proposed measure to reduce carbon emissions I have ever heard of or read about seems to ultimately re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor?

    4. Why is it that every major political party which yields a strong voice in support of the climate change movement also happens to be of a more progressive opinion in regards to wealth redistribution?
    Seeing as its probably the poorest nations who are going to be affected first, it likely required a more socialist attitude until the point it affects you. No to mention its costs money, the standard money over people or people over money, right or left stance.

    5. Why should I not doubt your sincerity and motives on this issue when considering your answers to the first four questions?
    Why not question to oppositions views. Most of the work on climate science has been generated by devoted individuals who spend their lives investigating because it is of interest to them. Much of the opposition as came out earlier this year was funded by a few individuals who know nothing about climate change and seemingly would have no interest in the subject. The political debate is questionable perhaps, but as for the scientific debate one sides is far more questionable than the other, following the flow of money from the likes of Exxonmobile probably gives you an insight into who may be motivated to find something specific rather than just look.

    If one volcanic eruption can release enough gas and debris to change the climate on earth, why is it inconceivable that 7bn people over 200 years with little to no care taken could not achieve similar levels of influence?

    Hypothetically, if the fictional arc reactor was created tomorrow at cost of 1% more than the equivalent modern day source, meaning we could have a carbon free society, would you suggest we should use it or continue with conventional energy sources?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Strange that you've forgotten - you only posted it 45 minutes ago... http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...5&postcount=20
    Which part of that was daft? It is fact. The left favour 'saving the environment' for future generations but don't care about racking up the debt, despite the effects on future generations. That is hypocrisy. Which part of that do you disagree with? Or are you confused?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Which part of that was daft? It is fact. The left favour 'saving the environment' for future generations but don't care about racking up the debt, despite the effects on future generations. That is hypocrisy. Which part of that do you disagree with? Or are you confused?
    :facepalm: I addressed your (presumably intentional) omission in http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...3&postcount=21
    Are you suffering from short-term memory problems? You haven't made a new point, and you're going round in circles, so neg and goodbye.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    :facepalm: I addressed your (presumably intentional) omission in http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...3&postcount=21
    Are you suffering from short-term memory problems? You haven't made a new point, and you're going round in circles, so neg and goodbye.
    Jesus Christ you're slow. I asked which part you disagreed with and found "daft". You can't answer. Amusing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    1. Family A is environmentally conscious and they recycle, compost, eat organic, drive hybrids, use smart energy and etc. Family B does none of that and takes no active interest in their environment. Family A has three or more children and raises them with their values. Family B has two or less children and raises them with their values. Which family is more detrimental to the environment?

    2. If you truly believe that the livability of our planet and possibly the very existence of our species is at risk in the conceivable future, then why are you not willing to even talk about population control? I would think that risking your political future on an obviously unpopular subject would pale in comparison to the survival of our species.

    3. Why is it that every proposed measure to reduce carbon emissions I have ever heard of or read about seems to ultimately re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor?

    4. Why is it that every major political party which yields a strong voice in support of the climate change movement also happens to be of a more progressive opinion in regards to wealth redistribution?

    5. Why should I not doubt your sincerity and motives on this issue when considering your answers to the first four questions?
    1. It depends on the per-capita ecological/carbon footprint of each family member. Generally speaking however I would consider the eco-friendly, albeit larger family, to be the most efficient.

    2. The survival of our species and the habitability of the planet isn't the issue. Even in the worst case scenario, the planet will still be habitable, but many species would have gone extinct due to the changing climate (as they have in the past), and the quality of life for humans would become an issue. The population-resource issue is still debated between environmentalists, where many consider advances in resource efficient technology to be the answer, rather than birth control.

    3. Economic measures to control carbon are based on the same measures to curb pollution trends in the past, which have been successful. Sometimes the poor are hard-hit, but governments can and do employ methods to ensure the impacts on the economically disadvantaged are offset. The government of British Columbia for example uses a neutral carbon tax, where taxes are reduced elsewhere in response.

    4. I don't really know about that. Most world governments, each with very different political stances, have all voiced concern over climate change in some form or another.

    5. That is up to you. I believe my sincerity is implied.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barksy)
    Which part of that was daft? It is fact. The left favour 'saving the environment' for future generations but don't care about racking up the debt, despite the effects on future generations. That is hypocrisy. Which part of that do you disagree with? Or are you confused?
    Alas, the state of the environment and the economy are closely tied. It costs to remove or adapt to pollution, it costs to source more resources, it costs to repair damages caused by climate change, acid rain, and invasive species for example, and we benefit from a healthy environment. Unfortunately, externalities such as environmental degradation can't go ignored or underestimated, as when the current costs of preventing further degradation go unpaid, the future costs of environmental neglect stack up year by year. Either way, it's going to be paid for, and it's better to do it now.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Alas, the state of the environment and the economy are closely tied. It costs to remove or adapt to pollution, it costs to source more resources, it costs to repair damages caused by climate change, acid rain, and invasive species for example, and we benefit from a healthy environment. Unfortunately, exertanalities such as environmental degradation can't go ignored or underestimated, as when the current costs of preventing further degradation go unpaid, the future costs of environmental neglect stack up year by year. Either way, it's going to be paid for, and it's better to do it now.
    PRSOM. I'm glad someone understands this no-brainer.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    You do, however, understand that this is not about assumptions and speculations, but about cold hard facts, right? Climate change is happening.


    Oh, and I'm SO sorry some redistribution of wealth may be going on (btw, it isn't really). So there wasn't enough money on your bank account for a Veyron this year, was there?
    Climate change is definitely happening, i mean, today i walked outside, i swear a drop of rain landed on my jacket.

    Its a scary scary thing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    Climate change is definitely happening, i mean, today i walked outside, i swear a drop of rain landed on my jacket.

    Its a scary scary thing.
    Anything else you might care to mention to prove your ignorance, or was that all?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.