3 ms·
Why anyone thinks that its ok to attempt to alter the climate, is beyond me. How can this be ok? How can someone else (a government) decide what weather I can
by verisimi 5y ago
Why anyone thinks that its ok to attempt to alter the climate, is beyond me. How can this be ok? How can someone else (a government) decide what weather I can have!??
What happens if oil companies lobby for extra coldness and cloud cover, as they know they will more than make up the expense in additional fuel costs? What if other vested interests get involved in what is bound to become a political scam? Is it possible that a slightly warmer climate will be of benefit to most people?
The chutzpah that the governance structure has in believing themselves righteous in determining not just the level of fines, or of the required licensing you need, or taxation, but now even the weather is unbelievable! Who gave them the right? Does say the US have the right to determine the weather for other countries? The whole concept would surely be illegal, if law was even based morality.. which its not.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoWe already alter the climate with every action we take, or every action we don't take. It is less dangerous to take deliberate actions with intent than take actions without intent. Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have. Countries that burn large amounts of coal have an impact, as do countries that ban coal!
- verisimi 5y ago> Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have. I agree that they are determining the weather already, and I don't like it. I don't want government to force cold weather on me. Do I get a choice on that? No. Neither do you. All we get is the governance structure attempting to convince us of the validity and righteousness of their actions. If they do a good job, you will agree with what they say. That is propaganda. I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits). Greater gifts and power to those that already have power. Its a wheeze. The trick is to make you think you want it.
- formerkrogemp 5y agoI wonder how libertarian philosophy handles a worldwide crisis such as climate change? Laissez faire capitalism? Or laissez faire catastrophe? I don't understand what'll it'll take to convince people that dire action is necessary? More wildfires? More crop failures from drought and invasive species? More tornadoes, flooding, and hurricanes? How much could you want?
- s1artibartfast 5y agoThere is no problem from the libertarian perspective. Preventing damage and paying restitution is entirely compatible with the philosophy. Same as if you were dumping toxic waste on someone's elses property.
- formerkrogemp 5y agoWhat I don't understand is how someone so often identifies as libertarian in these climate change discussions and immediately dismisses the existence of climate change as a government conspiracy or denies any realistic solution that by necessity will involve governments. Of course, I agree capitalism is probably the least worst economic system and that companies will have a role to play in combating climate change, but I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoWho is the someone you mention? > I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes. You might be conflating anarchists or anarcho-capitalists with Libertarians. Libertarians do believe in a government (with limited scope) that protects individual and property rights. If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. having to deal with the damage of someone else's pollution falls squarely within those property rights. It is no different then if someone dumps a pile of toxic waste on your land or upriver. The libertarian solution would be more along the lines of cap and trade and civil damages opposed to sin taxes and a Green New Deal.
- DennisP 5y agoHow can it be ok that people get to make massive changes to everybody's climate, as a side effect of making a personal profit? That's what's happening today.
- bastardoperator 5y agoWhat do you think we've been doing for the last 100 years?
- verisimi 5y agoCorporations, working with governments, have done whatever they like. So it's not 'we' it's those elites that own companies. Get it straight. Now they want to change things, and they want to 'socialise' their tab. They think it would be great if you and I pay for their bad decisions. They just need to do really good public relations to make you want the bill. If they do it right, they will make money off the environmental issues too. The upshot will be that government and corporations will be stronger, while the citizen/consumer will be weaker.
- DennisP 5y agoOne way or another, we're all going to be footing the bill. The method here would make that bill way smaller than anything else I've seen.
- bastardoperator 5y agoYou're mad at companies, yet I bet you're a consumer which makes you partially responsible. Humans and companies are synonymous and require one another. I'm willing to look at viable solutions regardless of cost. I don't care who pays it, a healthy planet benefits everyone.