4 ms·

>but if this is the only solution, why not? It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are causing global warming, not government. It'

by akerro 10y ago

>but if this is the only solution, why not? It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars and get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route anyway, people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution. People who don't turn off lights (also TVs, computers) at their homes over night. I met a lot of them, one of the dumbest excuse was... light bulbs break if we turn on and off the lights frequently, so they were leaving 3x 100W lightbulbs overnight, irony, they were working as council of Greenest Capital of Europe :))) People who burn coal and wood to heat homes, burn coal = more CO2, burn wood = less forests. People who don't recycle stuff - I'll just throw away that TV on a street or drop from 2nd flow window for fun! Ha! People who buy new phones and computers because that's a new fashion. People who eat food that was grown in places were 10years ago we could see amazon rainforests. People are too lazy and it's too hard for masses to leave their comfort zones.

estefan 10y ago
It's people who rape people, murder people, poison people... oh wait, they're all illegal too.
- akerro 10y ago
  So let's sue government for rapist and murderers to end it?
  - cauterized 10y ago
    If the government were not enforcing existing laws against rape and murder, damn right there would be lawsuits.
    - lostcolony 10y ago
      Or if the government was allowing the laws to prevent rape and murder to be written by lobbyists for rapists and murderers.
      - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        Speak of the devil...
  - kwhitefoot 10y ago
    If there were no laws or no enforcement of laws against such things you would certainly sue (especially in the original sense of to plead and make arguments for a point). The US is a uniquely litigious country so going through the court system in an adversarial sense makes perfect sense. In The UK system you might instead ask a court to determine who or which state organ has responsibility to fix the problem or who has authority to do something. See for instance the judgement on the Brexit case: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judg....
simonh 10y ago
The US government has committed to meeting environmental targets such as emissions limits, and can be held accountable for meeting them. It also licenses and regulates industrial activity, and therefore can reasonably be held accountable for the results of that activity. Or are you arguing that the government should have no accountability, oversight, responsibility or say in any of the activity of it's citizens? It's not up to the plaintiffs to say what specific thing the government or individuals should or should not do - switch off this light bulb, don't drive on that journey, don't build that factory. It's the government's responsibility to maintain the environment in a sustainable way and implement policies to do so. If it's not doing so, or worse not even trying to do so or doing so in a willfully negligent manner, then it should be held accountable for that. The same should be true of any of the government's responsibilities.
- akerro 10y ago
  Agreed, I'm not saying government is not responsible for it, they provide grants for renewable energy, create power plants, give tax cuts for people with own solar panels etc. But it's up to people how that energy and material is used, is it wasted or used efficiently. So far, we're great at wasting everything.
  - simonh 10y ago
    Absolutely, our current way of life in the western world may not be completely sustainable. We're competing for a share of a shrinking pie with growing and advancing economies across the world, economies that we are also heavily and inextricably dependent on. I think to some extent we need to accept this and figure out ways to manage the painful transition to a long-term sustainable civilization.
roryisok 10y ago
People burning wood or coal in their homes is a miniscule contributor to CO2 compared to coal power plants. Only governments have the power to stop coal being mined at a national level, or coal power plants from being built.
croon 10y ago
> It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars and get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route anyway, people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution. This is what's wrong. The government is supposed to be the people. The point of government is for people to steer people (as a collective) in the right direction.
- tunap 10y ago
  And yet the true power is the policy makers in governments and board rooms who have(had?) the ability to incentivize and influence adoption of more sustainable actions. These people make decisions every single day. Their primary motivation? Profit for them and theirs. Their business models & the global economy relies on people consuming & throwing shit away, thus creating jobs, increasing production and, in turn, infinite quarterly growth... jusy like a parasitoid or a cancer. The dichotomous messages is what irritates me to no end with every "don't change habits, buy X to reduce your carbon footprint" news piece run ad infinum every. single. day. I don't have the answers and, luckily, I am not a policy maker or <hardware maker> would be fined for deprecating 2 year old equipment, producers would account for the residual effects of their products' existence after it's usefulness expired, etc.. Now everyone run out and get in that Black Friday line to binge buy all those new XYZs, they're so much newer than the last iterations!
- awful 10y ago
  Government is supposed to be for the people by the people, and protect our common shared interests, as you say, such as resources (public trust, inherited from very old common law). This is the very angle the kids are coming from; and I suggest they will win at some point, maybe not today but soon enough as they represent all people yet to come, and since they are alreay present would have "standing".
AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
Wood burning is more environmentally friendly than any other combustion heat source. Wood regrows.
stinos 10y ago
I feel your wrath, all your points are things which should be addressed and the amount of people not giving a single f are legion. But saying government didn't create this is too short-sighted: - they at least have a part in it. Just take your 'people who decide to use cars' argument: in countries like Belgium where it is, simply explained, more economical for a company to lease cars and give them to employees than to give the employees more loan. You can imagine what an employee does with a car he/she often doesn't even have to pay the gas for. - they should be part of the solution as well. In my opinion it's their job to create a system where information and education about any of the problems you mention is available, or no, mandatory, for everyone annd definitely children. Teach them to do right, instead of having them believe chasing glamour or so is what's needed in life.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
awful 10y ago
The Public Trust Doctrine describes the issue. But it must be recognized that the Government comprises and represents us, otherwise there may be a problem understanding their authority, to act in our name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine

by akerro 10y ago

estefan 10y ago

It's people who rape people, murder people, poison people... oh wait, they're all illegal too.

akerro 10y ago
So let's sue government for rapist and murderers to end it?
- cauterized 10y ago
  If the government were not enforcing existing laws against rape and murder, damn right there would be lawsuits.
  - lostcolony 10y ago
    Or if the government was allowing the laws to prevent rape and murder to be written by lobbyists for rapists and murderers.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      Speak of the devil...
- kwhitefoot 10y ago
  If there were no laws or no enforcement of laws against such things you would certainly sue (especially in the original sense of to plead and make arguments for a point). The US is a uniquely litigious country so going through the court system in an adversarial sense makes perfect sense. In The UK system you might instead ask a court to determine who or which state organ has responsibility to fix the problem or who has authority to do something. See for instance the judgement on the Brexit case: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judg....

simonh 10y ago

The US government has committed to meeting environmental targets such as emissions limits, and can be held accountable for meeting them. It also licenses and regulates industrial activity, and therefore can reasonably be held accountable for the results of that activity. Or are you arguing that the government should have no accountability, oversight, responsibility or say in any of the activity of it's citizens? It's not up to the plaintiffs to say what specific thing the government or individuals should or should not do - switch off this light bulb, don't drive on that journey, don't build that factory. It's the government's responsibility to maintain the environment in a sustainable way and implement policies to do so. If it's not doing so, or worse not even trying to do so or doing so in a willfully negligent manner, then it should be held accountable for that. The same should be true of any of the government's responsibilities.

akerro 10y ago
Agreed, I'm not saying government is not responsible for it, they provide grants for renewable energy, create power plants, give tax cuts for people with own solar panels etc. But it's up to people how that energy and material is used, is it wasted or used efficiently. So far, we're great at wasting everything.
- simonh 10y ago
  Absolutely, our current way of life in the western world may not be completely sustainable. We're competing for a share of a shrinking pie with growing and advancing economies across the world, economies that we are also heavily and inextricably dependent on. I think to some extent we need to accept this and figure out ways to manage the painful transition to a long-term sustainable civilization.

roryisok 10y ago

People burning wood or coal in their homes is a miniscule contributor to CO2 compared to coal power plants. Only governments have the power to stop coal being mined at a national level, or coal power plants from being built.

croon 10y ago

> It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars and get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route anyway, people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution. This is what's wrong. The government is supposed to be the people. The point of government is for people to steer people (as a collective) in the right direction.

tunap 10y ago
And yet the true power is the policy makers in governments and board rooms who have(had?) the ability to incentivize and influence adoption of more sustainable actions. These people make decisions every single day. Their primary motivation? Profit for them and theirs. Their business models & the global economy relies on people consuming & throwing shit away, thus creating jobs, increasing production and, in turn, infinite quarterly growth... jusy like a parasitoid or a cancer. The dichotomous messages is what irritates me to no end with every "don't change habits, buy X to reduce your carbon footprint" news piece run ad infinum every. single. day. I don't have the answers and, luckily, I am not a policy maker or <hardware maker> would be fined for deprecating 2 year old equipment, producers would account for the residual effects of their products' existence after it's usefulness expired, etc.. Now everyone run out and get in that Black Friday line to binge buy all those new XYZs, they're so much newer than the last iterations!
awful 10y ago
Government is supposed to be for the people by the people, and protect our common shared interests, as you say, such as resources (public trust, inherited from very old common law). This is the very angle the kids are coming from; and I suggest they will win at some point, maybe not today but soon enough as they represent all people yet to come, and since they are alreay present would have "standing".

AlgorithmicTime 10y ago

Wood burning is more environmentally friendly than any other combustion heat source. Wood regrows.

stinos 10y ago

I feel your wrath, all your points are things which should be addressed and the amount of people not giving a single f are legion. But saying government didn't create this is too short-sighted: - they at least have a part in it. Just take your 'people who decide to use cars' argument: in countries like Belgium where it is, simply explained, more economical for a company to lease cars and give them to employees than to give the employees more loan. You can imagine what an employee does with a car he/she often doesn't even have to pay the gas for. - they should be part of the solution as well. In my opinion it's their job to create a system where information and education about any of the problems you mention is available, or no, mandatory, for everyone annd definitely children. Teach them to do right, instead of having them believe chasing glamour or so is what's needed in life.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

awful 10y ago

The Public Trust Doctrine describes the issue. But it must be recognized that the Government comprises and represents us, otherwise there may be a problem understanding their authority, to act in our name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine