amck at thenetdr.com
Sat Mar 24 17:16:12 CDT 2007
> From: "Kevin and Tania O'Neal" <kevinandt at gmavt.net>
> Date: March 23, 2007 6:43:52 PM CDT
>> Google "Al Gore" and "Generation Investment Management" for plenty of
>> information NOT from Republicans,
> Not so sure about that.
Maybe you'd prefer this, all 75 minutes of The Great Global Warming
Swindle, thoughtfully put on Google video:
The producer, being both British and a former if not current Marxist,
is clearly not a Republican, so cannot be dismissed out of hand.
>> If you like that idea, imagine the bureaucratic boondoggle of trying
>> to assign not only a carbon quota to each US citizen but to each
>> daily activity.
> Yes, because in Alan's eyes, there should be *no* government,
Wrong. I'm not an anarchist. I'm also not interested in having the
government telling me what standard of living I'm to be allowed
before having to buy a permit, and am somewhat surprised that you
are, given your prickly attitude toward authority.
>> The US could have the carbon footprint of Africa if it had
>> Africa's living standard, but I doubt that even the 10% of us that
>> would survive under those conditions would approve of the switch.
> So, fuck it.
> Right Alan?
If it involves reducing ourselves to starvation in the name of
achieving Africa's carbon footprint, yes.
> Why is it ok for this capitalist society to destroy the environment
> to make money,
It's not at all clear that capitalism is to blame for environmental
destruction, given the amount of "corporate welfare" that people
(including me) are always complaining about, which is not capitalism
but fascism. My impression is that environmentalists will go to the
wall to prevent allowing the public to vote with their wallets as to
exactly how much they value "the environment" -- say, Yellowstone
Park -- preferring instead to lobby government to enforce standards
of the environmentalists' choosing.
> but it's somehow unethical to make money by *saving* the environment?
Obviously, the "pro-environment" industry is already in place and
providing a lot of people with a living. It's not clear that it
needs saving in a way that people can do anything about. If people
CAN do something about global warming, human geo-engineering would be
my choice rather than punish ourselves back to a lower standard of
living through thinly-disguised taxes.
> Come on.
> Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Capitalism (private property) is the cure for environmental problems,
too. People take much better care of property, be it houses or
mountains, if they have a personal stake in it. Enforcing those
rights is one of the legitimate purposes of government.
"the average Texan...carries not just a gun but a SHOTGUN." --Pete
More information about the TheWho