3 ms·
No conspiracies involved - just my view of human nature and how it is capable of responding in an entirely spontaneous way to the temptations around it. Others
by grellas 17y ago
No conspiracies involved - just my view of human nature and how it is capable of responding in an entirely spontaneous way to the temptations around it. Others are free to disagree, of course.
I do disagree with you, quite strongly, about the idea that there are no vested interests associated with massive government power. A mere glance at what lobbyists do serves to dispel that assumption in my mind. At heart, this is the very debate that pervades the Federalist Papers at our country's founding - should government power be checked and balanced because, by its very nature, humanity will otherwise have a propensity to want to grasp for never-ending amounts of concentrated power in furtherance of self-interested goals? Again, you can disagree, but I side with the philosophy adopted by the founders on this one. Their major concern: what factions will do with their power. What they called "factions" I am calling "vested interests." Again, not everyone will agree with me on this. But, as I started my point, the topic of science and advocacy is an interesting one - this is my two cents on the question.
- philwelch 17y agoLobbyists usually lobby for something or other--some government regulation to serve as a barrier to entry, some government subsidy of this or tax on that, but usually with some understandable commercial interest involved. I can't conceive of any self-interested goal that's furthered by combating anthropogenic climate change, other than mitigating the effects of it actually happening.
- rationalbeaver 17y agoAllow me to assist. How do you think the environmental lobbyists propose that we combat APG? Does 'switch to renewable energy sources' sound familiar, or 'reducing emissions'? Does 'taxing carbon emissions' or 'carbon trading' sound familiar? All of these proposed changes have real economic impact, and they create winners and losers in the marketplace. If the government subsidizes solar or wind power and penalizes coal, who wins and who loses? The companies who make turbines and solar plants are, generally speaking, not the same companies who make and operate coal plants (or coal mines, for that matter). I think its quite safe to say that money is driving both sides of this argument.
- philwelch 17y agoOK. It's been well documented how the oil companies have their hands in the game. Show me the money trail from the solar and wind industry.
- brc 17y agoCarbon trading was invented by Kenneth Lay of Enron. That should give you a pointer into what self interests lie for which groups? There is massive amounts of money to be made in the carbon trading arena : yet another type of derivative contract in which you'll have to pay a percentage for in order to buy/sell carbon credits. While I think internalising the externality is a fine idea in terms of controlling it, if co2 is so evil and so dangerous, why are we not talking of a finite ban, like DDT or Fluorocarbons?
- philwelch 17y agoNo one is saying CO2 is "evil", just that there are limits to how much we can safely emit into the atmosphere. Incidentally, "carbon trading was invented by Ken Lay" is a classic logical fallacy. It's no better than saying "assembly lines were implemented in the auto industry by Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite who was decorated by Adolf Hitler and personally refused to assist in the war effort". Ford's evils don't invalidate the fact that cars are affordable, and Lay's evils don't invalidate the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
- brc 17y ago"carbon trading was invented by Ken Lay" I've looked into it and you're correct on this (both accuracy and logical fallacy usage). You won't hear this from me ever again. Also on the 'evil' statement - poor choice of words. I was referring to the EPA declaration of Co2.
- mynameishere 17y agoI can't conceive of any self-interested goal that's furthered by combating anthropogenic climate change, other than mitigating the effects of it actually happening. Wow. Really? It's not that hard. When billions of dollars move around, there's always a destination. The beneficiaries are: 1. Unproductive countries that sell carbon credits to productive countries. 2. Financial firms that skim the transaction. 3. Politicians, who move one (well, many) steps closer to the longstanding goal of controlling the means of production and distribution.
- philwelch 17y agoWhere do you people get this idea that politicians secretly want to implement socialism ("controlling the means of production and distribution")? What evidence do you have for this? If financial firms and "unproductive countries" have so much of a comparable vested interest, why don't they do as the oil companies do and actually invest in political advocacy on "their side"?