It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:52 am

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:49 am 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
Foota wrote:
We were told (SCOLDED) that New York would be under water by now, arctic ice caps would melt by 2014 and snow in the UK was a thing of the past.


So I suppose the obvious question to ask is:

If New York *WAS* under water by now, the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps had disappeared, and it never snowed in the UK again…

…Would you *THEN* admit that there may be something to all this “Climate Change”/”Global Warming” nonsense..?

I suspect not…

Point being: you seem to be taking the position that unless catastrophe actually occurs, you won’t believe that catastrophe could or will occur.

That’s a brave position… But not one likely to make you very popular with The Kids.

Foota wrote:
Face it, global warmist doom-mongers were way too hyperbolic (and wrong) with their predictions and they lost a lot of credibility. It doesn't help they are hyperpartisan in league with the Democrats and call anyone a "denier" who is skeptical of their worst case scenarios that never pan out.


Ever tried walking a mile in another man’s shoes Foota?

Remember when you believed (still believe?) that the Muslamics were hell-bent on turning the entire World into an Islamic Caliphate?

And do you remember how a lot of people laughed at you when you said that (me, for one…)?

And do you remember how in response to the disbelief, you kept amping up the existential threat levels posed to Western Civilisation, by – what anyone with a facility for independent thought considered – a rag-tag bunch of criminals justifying their atrocities with a twisted ideological interpretation…?

(Anyway, whatever did happen to that existential Muslamic Threat..?)

((No! Wait! Don’t answer that..! I don’t want to derail my own thread!!))

My point being: when *YOU* feel there is a genuine, existential threat (to Humans/Americans/Californians* - delete as applicable), and the people you are talking to dismiss, denigrate or just plain laugh at your fears…

…Your language becomes… Hyperbolic.

Not because you particularly believe that whatever the threat is, it is as extreme as your hyperbole seems to suggest you do; but because you are trying to emphasise/convince/ram-home just how important it is not to dismiss or ignore the threat.

Do you see that?

No, you don’t think the danger is quite as bad as you are making out; but the fact that no-one else seems to be taking you seriously, or even regarding your definition of “the Threat” at all, causes you to “Up” your rhetoric, to try and get it into their thick skulls that there *IS ACTUALLY A PROBLEM HERE*.

Well… That’s how the Tree-Huggers feel, when their warnings of significantly negative consequences arising from the way Human Activity is polluting and damaging the Human Environment… Are ignored or dismissed.

Do you get it now?

Foota wrote:
BTW - I remember when HM was a bit more skeptical of the climate change doom-mongers a few years ago, but now that the US is leading the world in oil production putting the hurt on OPEC and Russia, he is now a card carrying member of the doom-monger cult.


I was never “skeptical [sic]” about the messages Environmental-Defenders were trying to communicate; because of the reasoning I just described above.

My position has *ALWAYS* been that I’m no Climatologist, Oceanographer, Physicist, Chemist or Biologist. And so to claim that I understand much or all of the science behind “Anthropogenic Climate Change”, would be to lie.

(And I never lie: even and *ESPECIALLY* when it would be to my personal/immediate advantage to do so.)

Additionally, I have always said that even with my limited understanding of Science, it seems fairly obvious to me that you cannot keep injecting/introducing vast quantities of chemicals into a closed Ecosphere, and not expect to alter the chemical balance within that Environment.

I’ve tended to focus more on the Economic aspects of the situation:

That “Climate Change” (whatever that refers to) is going to – and already *IS* - costing National Economies a *LOT* of money;

That when a corporation creates pollutants (and CO2 is definitely a pollutant) during its manufacturing processes, but does not take on the costs of mitigating or cleaning-up that pollution, that corporation is ”Externalising” some of its costs of production;

And that a shift by Humanity/Corporations towards a “Green Economy”, would create millions of jobs in newly created Economic sectors.

But my ultimate, Common Sense, “Headline” attitude to this whole business has always been:

1) Surely it is better to do something now about “Climate Change”, only to discover later on it wasn’t necessary; than to *NOT* do something about it now, only to discover later that we should have acted sooner

2) If I’m wrong, but we do what I think ought to be done, we end up with a Really Clean Planet; but if you are wrong, and we don’t do what I think ought to be done, we end up with a Dead Planet.

Sound familiar?

The reason why we’ve gone off on this tangent (forcing me to clean up its pollution of the Trump thread…), is because the U.S. Government’s scientific advisors have come up with a report that says that “Climate Change” is *ALREADY* costing the USG a lot of money, and the bill is only going to get higher… And your President’s response to this report is, “I don’t believe it”.

My tangential observations have nothing to do with a new-found sense of responsibility towards Planet Earth; and *EVERYTHING* to do with my continued fascination with how some (too many…) Human Beings can be so fucking stupid.

That’s all.

>&8~

_________________
Image

"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:28 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
MIDNIGHT wrote:
NO! you are just talking about Global Warming caused by man-made CO2 gas.

All this other shit your throwing in, which I agree with you on, has nothing to do with climate but instead with environmental degradation.

Furthermore, it's all this other shit your throwing in, behind the curtains, which you are Claiming is Climate change, is probably a far greater problem and an entirely solvable one.

This is a fucking outrage ...seriously


Alright, well, I hope you got from my mea culpa that I wasn’t directly targeting you with my response… More the general type of “La-La-La-Not-Listening!” attitudes that are all too prevalent when these topics are being discussed.

And whilst in no way wishing to undermine the sincerity of my apology, but probably being unnecessarily pedantic, I would also say that I wasn’t primarily talking about “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” (or associated ills): I was actually talking about individuals who put their beliefs ahead of evidence.

But hopefully we’ve cleared up any confusion there.

Down to Business!

MIDNIGHT wrote:
"Similarly, I feel that the vast amount of attention and funding were given to Global Warming is critically needed elsewhere.

We have dozens of much easier environmental issues with much simpler fixes that don't take doctoral degrees in climate science to figure out and are 100% CAUSE vs EFFECT, well maybe 97.8% :D . I think a huge amount of progress on environment and sustainable living suffers do to obsessively focusing on man-made CO2."


(I’ll use this ^^^ as a sample of your broad point, save making this post longer than absolutely necessary..!)

So… I’m not sure I agree with your focus on prioritisation.

Interestingly, I think you’ve highlighted something of an irony (or even a paradox) here.

The main flaw in the current iteration of Capitalism, is that it is based on the principle of Infinite Resource. That is: that Capitalists and Consumers alike can continue to, uh, capitalise and consume resources that will never run out…

I guess this wasn’t so much of a flaw when the Godfathers of Capitalism (Adam Smith & Co.) were laying out their Frameworks in the 18th and 19th Century. It was the tail-end of the “Age of Exploration” after all, and the beginning of the “Age of Imperial Colonisation”.

So nobody particularly worried about mining away all the coal in England, or observing appropriate Crop Rotation cycles to keep English soil fertile, because there were always going to be other places in the World were replacements could be sought.

But the 21st Century World is perceptually much, much smaller than it was in the 19th Century.

Australia is little more than 24 hours away from England now; whereas two hundred years ago, it required at least 3 months of usually perilous sea travel to get there. Add to this the fact that we’ve explored *ALL* of the non-subaquatic and non-subterranean areas of the Globe (one way or another), and our Planet just *SEEMS* much smaller to 21st century humans, than it did to their 18th and 19th century counterparts.

Pretty much any and every viable source of Natural Resources has been identified (at least on this Planet) and had the shit raped out of it. Not saying that our Planet hasn’t managed to keep *ALL* of its treasures secret… But I am saying that I don’t think there will be any more “Rushes” (to stake claims to Earth’s resources).

Point being that capitalists (and Capitalism) are now having to come to terms with the fact that a lot of the stuff they’ve been using to generate capital… Is running out.

And hey, wouldn’t you know it, *JUST* at the precise point Humanity needs to put “All Hands to the Pumps” (umm… Literally!); Capitalists are telling us that there are limits to what can be done!

But that’s not the reason why I disagree with your focus on prioritisation.

This is:

What is distinctive about the recent report on “Climate Change” issued by the U.S. Government (though not endorsed by its Chief Executive), is that just as with the UK Government’s 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, it focuses on the economic impact of… [Whatever you want to call it.]

And one of the key findings in both reports is that the vast majority of… [Can we just call it “Pollution”] …That is damaging (or has the potential to damage) the Global Environment…

…Is caused by inefficiency.

In other words: the sheer amount of *WASTE* that is created during many manufacturing, resource extraction and refining processes.

And that actually… If businesses cleaned up their acts, they would become more profitable through the reduction of waste and elimination of over-production.

(I don’t think the recent USG covers the issue of Economic Externalities that *I* keep banging on about… But any focus on the reduction of waste in business processes, would necessarily reduce the generation of externalised costs.)

I think it also important to emphasise, in the context of Capitalism (as an Ideal at least), that restrictions on what sorts of activities businesses and corporations can engage in, is generally frowned upon. So prohibiting one area of activity because it is considered a lower priority than others, is a bit… Totalitarian.

If some Enterprising Free Marketeers want to focus on Carbon Sequestration, whilst others are dealing with Deforestation, who would stand in their way?

It’s not like there aren’t enough Human Beings sitting around without a great deal to do with their Time on this Planet, is it?

And we know for an absolute fact that it has nothing to do with money: because we Human Beings invented and completely control Money. It’s not like Money tracks any fundamental Physical or Natural Laws, is it? We can create as much Money as we feel like creating, right?

In fact… Perhaps I was wrong… Maybe there *IS* one final “Rush” left..:

The Green Rush!

You know all this new technology we keep being bombarded with? Stuff like Dating apps, apps that let you take a picture of your son and then distort his face in some humorous way, and… Oh yes… Computer Games..!!

Well… We’re talking here about multi-billion (and getting nearer to multi-trillion every day) Economic sectors that have sprung up out of nowhere! Not to fulfil some fundamental physical need, or to ensure Humanity’s survival: but just because people like the way these digital gew-gaws enhance their lifestyles.

Well… Same goes for any “Industry” Sector that develops around cleaning up the mess Humans have made of the Planet.

And there’s a wealth of information to support this:

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/201809 ... ner-future
https://www.edf.org/energy/clean-energy-jobs

Your Nation’s “Newspaper of Record” has even coined a term for it:

”Green Collar Jobs”

Pithy, eh?

In Reality then, the U.S. Government report recently pooh-poohed by President Trump, can be summed up thusly:

If action is *NOT* taken to mitigate and repair the damage being caused to the Planet’s Environment by many current Human activities, it will continue to *COST* the U.S. Economy a considerable and increasing amount of money.

But if concerted and co-ordinated action *IS* taken: then a lot of people and businesses in the United States are going to become very rich.

*THAT* is what Donald Trump doesn’t believe.

(I’ll cover the perils of trying to respond to existential Human perils on a Nationalist basis in my next post.)

B-)

_________________
Image



"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:29 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
Holyman wrote:
(I’ll cover the perils of trying to respond to existential Human perils on a Nationalist basis in my next post.)


Unless anyone else wants to pick up the challenge of pointing out the bleeding obvious, of course.

:-"

_________________
Image



"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 5:39 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 17358
Location: teh internet
Hitler

/thread


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 11:12 am 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
Foota wrote:
Funny how the doomsday cult never points to potential benefits like having huge swaths of Canada and Russia which will become much more habitable for humans and plants.

I will take a warmer planet compared to a colder planet any day of the week. Humanity thrives in warmer conditions.


*HAD* to extract and transpose that gem Foota!

Quote:
Crossing a Threshold

Nearly a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere’s landmass sits above permafrost. Trapped in this frozen soil and vegetation is more than twice the carbon found in the atmosphere.

As fossil-fuel burning warms the Earth, this ground is thawing, allowing microbes to consume buried organic matter and release carbon dioxide and shorter-lived methane, which is 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2.

- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... -expected/

Quote:
Why Thawing Permafrost Matters

In Bethel, Alaska, walls are splitting, houses are collapsing, and the main road looks like a kiddy rollercoaster. In the coastal town of Kongiganak, sinking cemeteries prevent Alaskans from burying their dead in the ground. The village of Shishmaref, located on an island five miles from the western Alaska mainland, has eroded so much that it is contemplating total relocation. These communities are being plagued by permafrost that is thawing.

Permafrost is ground that remains frozen for two or more consecutive years. It is composed of rock, soil, sediments, and varying amounts of ice that bind the elements together. Some permafrost has been frozen for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

Found under a layer of soil, permafrost can be from three feet to 4,900 feet thick. It stores the carbon-based remains of plants and animals that froze before they could decompose. Scientists estimate that the world's permafrost holds 1,500 billion tons of carbon, almost double the amount of carbon that is currently in the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, when permafrost warms and thaws, it releases carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. As the global thermostat rises, permafrost, rather than storing carbon, could become a significant source of planet-heating emissions.

Permafrost is already thawing in some places, and if the problem spreads, scientists worry it could initiate a runaway process of global warming.

The Warming Arctic

Permafrost covers about 24 percent of the exposed landmass of the Northern Hemisphere—about 9 million square miles. It is found at high latitudes and high altitudes, mainly in Siberia, the Tibetan Plateau, Alaska, Northern Canada, Greenland, parts of Scandinavia and Russia. The continental shelves below the Arctic Ocean, which were exposed during the last ice age, also contain permafrost.

However, polar and high altitude regions are some the most climate-sensitive places on the planet. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, at a rate of temperature change that has not been observed in at least the last 2,000 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In 2016, annual average surface temperatures were 3.5 degrees Celsius warmer than they were at the start of the 20th century. That year, permafrost temperatures in the Arctic were the warmest ever recorded.

- Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-permafrost.html#jCp

Need I continue?

:D

_________________
Image



"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:32 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
barcelona wrote:
MIDNIGHT wrote:
Let's say you're 110% correct about CO2 gas causing Global Warming, then have all countries pitch in equally with the same goals whatever that might be an across the board 5%, 10%, 30% reduction by everyone equally, not fuck the U.S. so China and India can make up the difference and we end up with just as bad a situation only now the west is bankrupt and unable to develop cleaner technologies.


It's not a fucking race who is the greatest.....Just because other countries are slower to adopt policies that would benefit the World, you think ee should just cock our nose, fuckwittery and go join them?

No one should lead by example?


Nationalism then…

It’ll be the Death of us All..!

There are some very, very bright and intelligent USAmericans. I know. I’ve worked (and continue to work) with a lot of them… And I’ve even fucked a few of them.

But even some of the really bright ones are intellectually hobbled by their Nationalist Conditioning.

Which is a shame.

If or when Humanity irreparably damages the ability of the Planet to sustain Human Life (in an even remotely comfortable manner), all these imaginary lines we’ve drawn on our Maps of the Globe will count for nothing.

The United States of America may well be – for the Time being – the “Richest” Nation on Earth, but as I have explained at length, “Money” isn’t really a thing… It’s just something that Human Beings came up with to keep score.

If and when the collapse of the Planet’s (Human-Appropriate) Environment really takes hold, “Money” will become completely useless.

“Money” is solely a measure of the Trust and Confidence we Human Beings have in each other. A $100 bill is only worth “one hundred dollars”, because we all agree it is worth that.

If we all start agreeing that bits of paper with numbers printed on them – or the numbers displayed on our computer and smartphone screens – are nowhere near as useful to us as the ability to shelter from a hostile Environment, then “one hundred dollars” will be “worth” as much to each of us as “one hundred pounds”, “one hundred euros”, or “one hundred Bitcoins”.

I.e. nothing.

So all of a sudden, the U.S.’s claim to be “the Richest Nation on Earth”, becomes utterly meaningless.

And to be frank, so too will the undeniable fact that the U.S. possesses the World’s most powerful military capability.

‘Cos, you know, whilst tanks, fighter-bombers and nuclear weapons frighten other Human Beings: they don’t faze Mother Nature one bit.

Indeed, at this stage, I would imagine that Mother Nature is really starting to wonder if continuing with this whole Experiment with Higher Intelligence is worth the ag.

And whilst USAmericans can rightly believe that they are shielded by a near-indomitable Military Capability (if you don’t count the anomalous irregular forces in Afghanistan, Syria, Viet Nam, Korea &c. who might beg to differ… Oh, and the Russians who possess enough nuclear warheads to utterly overwhelm any “Missile Defence [sic] Systems” the U.S. is *ALMOST* at the point of perfecting…)…

…The fact is that if Mother Nature feels so-inclined, She can eliminate the United States of America as a functioning entity with just a single one of the many weapons in Her armoury.

But leaving aside an unnecessary distraction around “Mother Nature’s” capacity for Agency, the Reality is that we Human Beings don’t appear to *NEED* Mother Nature to act to wipe us out: we seem both capable and hell-bent on doing it ourselves.

Probably… You know… If you listen to your scientists rather than your gut.

Moving on…

If “Money” is the cancer that is eating away at Human Society, then Nationalism is the radiation that is causing it to metastasize and spread.

Whoever it was that said, “The Love of money is the root of all evil” (I think it might have been Paul the Apostle/Saul of Tarsus), appears to have been bang on the, uh, money….

Think about it:

What causes one nation to covet the territory and resources of another? Money.

Why is almost half of the food produced for human consumption every day thrown away? Money.

Why do so many human beings continue to suffer from easily treatable medical conditions? Money.

That’s three of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse right there! And let’s face it, the Fourth Horseman relies *HEAVILY* on the other three to keep him busy.

And why does so much Human Activity produce so much pollution? Money.

And what is the one thing that very, very, *VERY* few of us manage to get through a whole day without worrying about?

Money.

Do you see what St. Paul may have been talking about now?

And yet, money *IS* just a mechanism that we Humans have come up with as a means of keeping score.

Not in itself too problematic when it is just neighbours involved in a “Who’s-Got-The Nicest-Car-On-Their-Drive” race…

…But when Nations use it to fuel their obsession with out-competing each other, that takes it to a *WHOLE NEW LEVEL*..!

So money *HAS* to go. For sure.

But without money to keep score, a World that perceptually shrinks further every day, and new generations of Humans growing up using an Internet-Without-Borders…

…Is there any Future for (or with) Nationalism?

I don’t see it.

:-??

_________________
Image



"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:48 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 16649
Holyman wrote:

But my ultimate, Common Sense, “Headline” attitude to this whole business has always been:

1) Surely it is better to do something now about “Climate Change”, only to discover later on it wasn’t necessary; than to *NOT* do something about it now, only to discover later that we should have acted sooner

2) If I’m wrong, but we do what I think ought to be done, we end up with a Really Clean Planet; but if you are wrong, and we don’t do what I think ought to be done, we end up with a Dead Planet.

Sound familiar?

>&8~


If you are wrong AND got your way with heavy handed top down Government carbon reduction enforcement, you will have forced hundreds of millions (billions?) of human beings to spend alot more money on energy, food and transportation and accept a lesser living standard.

Very few people are willing to make that sacrifice when the predicted pain and risk of climate change is still so far away and not at all certain.

Just look at the mess in Paris this weekend.

You are doing it all wrong.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:39 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
Foota wrote:
If you are wrong AND got your way with heavy handed top down Government carbon reduction enforcement, you will have forced hundreds of millions (billions?) of human beings to spend alot more money on energy, food and transportation and accept a lesser living standard.


I'm afraid you are a bit behind the curve, old boy.

Most corporations that have any kind of future in our World have already recognised that People + Planet = Profit.

The 3P's or "Triple Bottom Line"

It's Free Market Capitalism at its best. But not, I fear, working entirely as its proponents intended.

Any corporation that gets a reputation for putting profit ahead of People and/or Planet, will soon run out of customers.

Because everything that most people buy these days, they advertise. And woe betide anyone Social Medialite chasing followers, who uses a product or service that does not put People and Planet first.

"Greenwashing" only goes so far. A corporation can only conceal its real identity to a limited extent. And the reputational consequences of being exposed as a "Greenwasher", or liar, as the kids say, are considerable.

If the Internet can bring down governments - it can and it has - bringing down a corporation is no challenge at all. Don't underestimate the shock-wave created by the Volkswagen scandal. The heart of the scandal was the contempt and cynicism Volkswagen showed towards its customers and their concerns.

Bullshit isn't cutting it anymore. Businesses have to clean up their act, or they will no longer be in business.

But that's okay, because they've figured out that there is plenty of profit to be made in doing the right thing. Businesses that charge higher prices that are attributable to putting People & Planet First, are doing very well. There's a nice, warm, profitable glow about them.

I'm not sure you can have fully understood what I wrote previously Foota, or you wouldn't have made the statement you just did.

It also sounds like you haven't been doing the homework I set you, and reading up on Democratic Socialism and Anarchism.

People are already making a lot of money in what is being called, "The Green Rush".

What your Government's recent report said was this:

It is already costing the U.S. Government a lot of money dealing with the effects of changes to the Earth's Climate.

It is going to keep costing the U.S. Government more and more money, if things carry on as they are.

If the changes to the climate continue on their current trajectory, things will become more expensive than the U.S. Government can afford, because there will be no business operations or payrolls to tax.

If the U.S. Government pursues so-called "Green" initiatives, as many other developed and developing nations are now doing, there is the opportunity to create whole new economic sectors and the jobs that go with them.

But it seems that like you with my post Foota, your President either didn't read his Scientists' report, or he just plain didn't understand it.

Which d'ya reckon?

:-?

_________________
Image



"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2018 8:14 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 16649
Holyman wrote:

Any corporation that gets a reputation for putting profit ahead of People and/or Planet, will soon run out of customers.

If the Internet can bring down governments - it can and it has - bringing down a corporation is no challenge at all.


Yes - I am fully aware that Corporate Boards are terrified of the enviro-rent seekers in government and our celebrity culture who are willing to shame them with junk science. Environmentalism has become a religion and very profitable for some - at the expense of others.

At the end of the day, *most* people are not going to spend more for shittier products - IF - given the choice. That's where the top down Marxists come in because they need the power of government to FORCE people to do things against their will.


Holyman wrote:
What your Government's recent report said was this:

It is already costing the U.S. Government a lot of money dealing with the effects of changes to the Earth's Climate.


If you believe the same people who were wildly off the mark climate models and predictions - and believe everything they say that earthquakes, hurricanes and fires are the result of climate change, you can paint quite a picture.

Holyman wrote:
If the U.S. Government pursues so-called "Green" initiatives, as many other developed and developing nations are now doing, there is the opportunity to create whole new economic sectors and the jobs that go with them.


How is that working out for France? Those riots look pretty bad IMO. Or are we to believe these are just standard run of the mill Islamist inspired riots in Paris? What are they so pissed off about HM?

How is that working out for Germany?

Quote:
Germany shows how shifting to renewable energy can backfire
The Christian Science Monitor, for example, reported that the average German household paid $171 for just the feed-in tariff in 2011. These expenses are on top of the record breaking high electricity prices in Germany — some of the highest in the world compared to similar countries like the U.S. and the U.K.

High energy costs are particularly harmful for the poor since they tend to spend a greater proportion of their income to meet their energy needs.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-envi ... n-backfire

Nah - I think America (and much of the world) will do just fine burning the shit out of our cleaner natural gas for the next couple decades as we continue to refine technology to make environmental alternatives that make economic sense in the near term.

You are a business consultant - right? Surely you know you have to find a win/win solution to get people to buy in? Right now, you are offering nothing by pain and higher cost which will stunt human development throughout the world with your religious belief that it might pay dividends 50 years from now.

As we see in Paris - it is not an easy sell.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:19 am 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 13121
Location: The OC
Speaking of pollution which idiots are burning all the cars in Paris and melting the ice caps two years sooner?

Truck Drivers?
Neo-Nazi's ?
Antifa?
Muslamics?
Soccer Hooligans?
Gays?
Rainbow coalition of all of the above? :-?
Image

_________________
Radio Free Midnight http://www.twitch.tv/midnight562



Image

[**==] [**==] SomeGuy 2020 [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] It's going to be a [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] Brave New World [**==] [**==]


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:40 am 
Offline
Sergeant-Major
Sergeant-Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:59 am
Posts: 8289
So tempafrost then?

_________________
Love him or hate him, Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred. Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money.

- Donald Trump


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:42 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 24098
Htown0666 wrote:
So tempafrost then?




I think you septics need to catch up and get with the rest of the civilised world.

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:22 am 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 17358
Location: teh internet
barcelona wrote:
Htown0666 wrote:
So tempafrost then?




I think you septics need to catch up and get with the rest of the civilised world.


Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:26 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 24098
PBFMullethunter wrote:
barcelona wrote:
Htown0666 wrote:
So tempafrost then?




I think you septics need to catch up and get with the rest of the civilised world.


Image



It's cobblers... That's a very old A reg .. 1983......

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:29 am 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 17358
Location: teh internet
That’s my point. You guys had it in the 80’s and we savages across the pond STILL haven’t even got that far.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:32 am 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 24098
PBFMullethunter wrote:
That’s my point. You guys had it in the 80’s and we savages across the pond STILL haven’t even got that far.




Go tell that to the stupid right wing murricuns who are burying their head in trumps arse.

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:55 am 
Offline
Sergeant-Major
Sergeant-Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:59 am
Posts: 8289
In what?
Refugees or taxes?
I like paying .55 a liter for fuel
I like eating a half pound of prime filet mignon for 10 bucks

You should learn to accept climate change
Climates can be trans if they want
Diversity is strength

_________________
Love him or hate him, Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred. Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money.

- Donald Trump


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:20 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 31908
barcelona wrote:
Go tell that to the stupid right wing murricuns who are burying their head in trumps arse.


*Trump's

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:07 am 
Offline
Sergeant First-Class
Sergeant First-Class
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:00 pm
Posts: 3286
Holyman wrote:
But it seems that like you with my post Foota, your President either didn't read his Scientists' report, or he just plain didn't understand it.


Holyman - it's 1500 pages long, I doubt Trump has read that many pages in his life, he's proud of his non-reading!

_________________
"I get irreversible brain herpes from Fuckwits"

"you stupid illiterate fucking bastard fuck. Maybe you should grab a dictionary instead, you fucking twat wanker. Oh, and fuck you and your stupid fucking boat. Fucking fuck.
Now fuck off out of this thread, you buttfucking fucking asshole." Slacks


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:56 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
Foota wrote:
Holyman wrote:
Any corporation that gets a reputation for putting profit ahead of People and/or Planet, will soon run out of customers.

If the Internet can bring down governments - it can and it has - bringing down a corporation is no challenge at all.


Yes - I am fully aware that Corporate Boards are terrified of the enviro-rent seekers in government and our celebrity culture who are willing to shame them with junk science. Environmentalism has become a religion and very profitable for some - at the expense of others.


I thought you were broadly supportive of Capitalism Foota?

Don’t you know how it works?

At its most basic level, Capitalism is about connecting “Supply” with “Demand”, and trying to spend less on making the “Supply”, than is charged to those who “Demand” (whatever it is you are offering).

The difference between what it costs you to “Supply” something, and how much the individual or organisation that purchases (or “Demands”) what you are supplying is willing to pay, is called “Profit”.

Most Capitalists will tend to pursue and develop supply lines that maximise the amount of money that can be obtained as “Profit”. I don’t want to get too technical, but this is what is called, in the Trade, “Running a *PROFITABLE* enterprise”.

(“Profitable” = able to make profit [with])

Now, if there were more customers like you (who are not terrified of “enviro-rent seekers” in government and elsewhere) demanding goods and services that do not factor sustainability and externalities into their costs of production, than there are customers demanding the opposite…

…Then that would be the way that businesses (that want to be “profitable”) would be marketing their product and service offerings.

However, it seems that more people are concerned with “People & Planet”, than there are those who are not concerned with same. So just about any business or corporation that wants to have any kind of a future (and ideally, a “profitable” one), is aggressively and marketably pursuing “sustainability” in their Production and Supply Chains.

Do you see?

But I think the Big Green Elephant in the Room that you are studiously avoiding looking at, is this:

The recent U.S. Government Scientific Report (on “Climate Change” and other ills), like the U.K. Government’s 2006 “Stern Report” (into same), made it clear that the bulk of the pollution that many Enterprises create (and which are *PROBABLY*, but not definitively causing the Earth’s Climate problems…), is caused by inefficient, wasteful, and therefore unnecessarily expensive production and service-delivery processes.

…And that if these corporations were to reduce or fully eradicate wastefulness in their processes, not only would the World be a less shitty place, but the corporations would become more profitable.

So you know anyone called Tim Woods?

I hope not… Because if you do, you can tell him he’s become synonymous with wastefulness. ;)

Who is TIM WOODS and why is he killing your business?

Basically… “TIMWOODS” is the acronym that Lean Practitioners use to categorise the 8 most common forms of waste in business processes:

Transport: unnecessarily moving stuff around
Inventory: making more than customers demand; building up unnecessary stocks
Motion: unnecessary movement; people walking to get things with should be located closer
Waiting: Delays between operations, e.g. because parts are missing
Over-Production: making too much or too many; or completing a task before it is needed
Over-Processing: duplicate or redundant operations, performing unnecessary steps
Defects – Producing stuff that has to be thrown away
Skills – Failing to use skills and capabilities of the workforce.

TIMWOODS is pretty much my “bread and butter” these days Foota. And I can’t say I’m feeling the pinch.

So my question to you:

If eliminating (/substantially reducing) waste in business processes makes those businesses more profitable… And *MAY* help slow-down the rate at which the Planet’s Environment is becoming hostile to Human Life…

…Why don’t you support such an approach?

Foota wrote:
Holyman wrote:
What your Government's recent report said was this:

It is already costing the U.S. Government a lot of money dealing with the effects of changes to the Earth's Climate.


If you believe the same people who were wildly off the mark climate models and predictions - and believe everything they say that earthquakes, hurricanes and fires are the result of climate change, you can paint quite a picture.


No, no. You have misread.

The U.S. Government’s scientific review board produced a report that evidenced how the effects of Climate Change are *ALREADY* costing the U.S. Government a lot money to have to deal with.

Not dealing with predictions of what *MAY* come to pass here, and choosing whether to believe it or not… We’re talking about scientific evidence about what *IS* happening already, and how much money it is *ALREAD* costing the U.S. Government.

It’s not a “picture” being painted by a child based on their own imagination and beliefs. It is a scientific, peer-reviewed report, that uses factual data to support its conclusions.




Foota wrote:
Holyman wrote:
If the U.S. Government pursues so-called "Green" initiatives, as many other developed and developing nations are now doing, there is the opportunity to create whole new economic sectors and the jobs that go with them.


How is that working out for France? Those riots look pretty bad IMO. Or are we to believe these are just standard run of the mill Islamist inspired riots in Paris? What are they so pissed off about HM?


Ah! I know this one!

The French (or some people who are French) *WERE* pissed off about a proposed increase in taxation on fuel.

They protested about it, and now the French Government has suspended the implementation of that tax increase.

That’s how democracy is supposed to work you know.

Foota wrote:
You are a business consultant - right? Surely you know you have to find a win/win solution to get people to buy in? Right now, you are offering nothing by pain and higher cost which will stunt human development throughout the world with your religious belief that it might pay dividends 50 years from now.


To some extent.

But when assessing the “Win:Win” nature of any proposition, there isn’t any requirement to hold back progress on the initiative, just because not every “stakeholder” fully understands the proposition.

See, despite me writing at length about how the recent scientific reports, current “Best Practice” in business, and basic common sense, indicate clearly that reducing waste and pollution directly and immediately benefits a corporation’s financial “Bottom Line”…

…You keep banging away with lines like:

“Right now, you are offering nothing [but] pain and higher cost, which will stunt human development throughout the world… &c.”

Do you see?

I say: “Cut waste and pollution, and your organisation will be more profitable (and more popular).”

And you hear:

“Make the cost of doing business much more expensive, reduce profitability, and probably go out of business!”

Whilst “Win:Win” is certainly what consultants like me always aim for; I’m required (/paid) to put only *SO MUCH* effort into persuading habitually obtuse people to try and see the obvious benefits that are clear to everyone else…

…If they don’t “Get It” ahead of time, then they either learn to adjust to what is very much going to happen, or they reconsider their career options.

Which they remain free to do at any time.

B-)

_________________
Image



"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:00 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
MIDNIGHT wrote:
Speaking of pollution which idiots are burning all the cars in Paris and melting the ice caps two years sooner?

Truck Drivers?
Neo-Nazi's ?
Antifa?
Muslamics?
Soccer Hooligans?
Gays?
Rainbow coalition of all of the above? :-?


You forgot the U.S. Military...

:-"

_________________
Image



"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:01 pm 
Offline
Holyman
Holyman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:00 pm
Posts: 16406
Location: Earth
Speaking of which...

The U.S. Military has long stated that "Climate Change" threatens U.S. National Security.

Does the current President of the United States not believe his Military Commanders either..?

I suppose there might be a silver-lining somewhere in that...

:-?

_________________
Image



"The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it. And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled." - Noam Chonsky


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:28 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 16649
Holyman wrote:

So my question to you:

If eliminating (/substantially reducing) waste in business processes makes those businesses more profitable… And *MAY* help slow-down the rate at which the Planet’s Environment is becoming hostile to Human Life…

…Why don’t you support such an approach?


I totally support that approach. In fact, I've spent nearly a quarter century in the water industry implementing these types of efficiencies that are also good for the environment. My company's products and services reduce cost, labor, taxes and pollution. I deal with real pollution problems that have instant and longterm impacts on the health of humans, animals and plant life.

But in terms of Global Warming, the majority of the regulations are heavy-handed top-down enforcement like forcing the use of expensive and unreliable alternative energies like wind and solar which increase cost to the consumer in the hope that it might keep the planet .5 degrees cooler in 100 years.

That is a tougher sell as we have just now seen in France.

Holyman wrote:
The U.S. Government’s scientific review board produced a report that evidenced how the effects of Climate Change are *ALREADY* costing the U.S. Government a lot money to have to deal with.


I'd like to see some examples of that cost and then compared to the cost to the average consumer who would have to reduce AND pay more for their energy needs. Particularly the effects on the 3rd world who are just now getting to 2nd world living conditions.


Holyman wrote:
Ah! I know this one!

The French (or some people who are French) *WERE* pissed off about a proposed increase in taxation on fuel.

They protested about it, and now the French Government has suspended the implementation of that tax increase.

That’s how democracy is supposed to work you know.


For real?

Americans peacefully vote for politicians that protect us from crazy Environmental regulations proposed by nutters at the UN.

But "real democracy" is a bunch of Parisians burning down their cities to get a 6 month reprieve from a new gas tax?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:30 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 31908
The French riots aren't just about increased fuel costs you know, albeit that's how they sort-of started.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Pollution
PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:39 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 16649
Slacks wrote:
The French riots aren't just about increased fuel costs you know, albeit that's how they sort-of started.


Well - they postponed the fuel tax hike. What other concessions is Macron offering the rioters?

Francois needs to chime in once he is done teeing up the next Playboy beauty in the French thread.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited