Edg, forgive me for not going point to point with you on your reply. But I
think you have missed my original point that I was trying to make. I'm not
against cleaning up or preventing pollution. The United States has spent
enormous amounts of money to do just that and will continue and it shows.
Countries that are currently rising up out of the third world have not, yet.
They are simply trying to rise out of their poverty and I would think one day
they will all have the time and money to think about reducing the pollution
they create. We can't do it all nor should we. We could spend our entire GDP
year after year and not get it done and you want universal healthcare to boot?
Where is the money going to come from to pay for all this? No profits for
businesses or investors, whats the point of being in business or investing your
money? Think before you kill that goose that lays the golden eggs.
--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
From: Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul on Global Warming
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 6:42 PM
Mike,
If we focus on cleaning up pollution but don't do anything about how that
pollution is created, that's half-assed, right?
The cost of cleaning up needs to be factored into pricing. Right now
corporations make profit by not paying for the cost-to-society of their
products. If we paid the true cost of maintaining our highways via gas taxes,
we'd be paying, what?, $10/gallon? Maybe. But BigOil doesn't have to pay for
road upkeep or the hospital bills of those who are dying from asthma.
If we put a carbon tax on stuff, it makes the corporations have to find ways to
stop pollution. What alternate method do you suggest?
And, your portrayal of America being so much better off than 3rd world nations
on the garbage issue is hardly a useful comparison. While India etc. have
massive garbage in the streets, America makes that pale when we compare India's
pollution to our toxic dumps and what we put into the ocean as an industrial
nation. Our production of truly toxic materials is to Indian garbage as nukes
are to bullets.
It is the insanity of the consumer feeding frenzy that drives most of this. I
drive an eleven year old car even though I can afford a new one every year. I
don't need a new car to symbolize anything to the world, ya see? But the whole
world is quite unable to resist the "new, improved, better, faster" line of
products that add nothing new except newness to folks who already have older
products that do the trick. Keep up with the Jones or you're a lower-class
citizen...like that.
Consider how little of a carbon imprint anyone really has to create to sustain
a simple lifestyle, and then consider the typical expenditures of the typical
person-with- recreational- capital. Going into a lesser state of
industrialization just makes sense, but the marketing forces extant are
powerful shapers of consumer consciousness. The American Dream isn't a home and
a chicken in every pot, it's several mansions, servants, air-conditioned
garages for their fleet of cars, and restaurant sized kitchens with freezers
filled with selected cuts from Angus steers.
2/3rds of the world survives on a bowl of rice a day. Shame on us. Shame on the
pollution. Shame on murderous blind corporate industry.
Edg
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@ ...> wrote:
>
> Edg, have you ever done any *globe trotting*? Ever been to India or China?
> How about Mexico city? If you had, you'll notice the filth and pollution is
> many times greater than the worst polluted cities in the US. Why? because
> these countries don't have an economy that allows them to clean up their
> streets let alone a toxic waist dump or the air they breath. Nobody wants to
> live in a garbage dump, breath nasty air or drink and bath in filthy water.
> However, as long as we have a healthy prosperous economy we can do whatever
> it takes to clean up our environment and develop new ways of preventing
> pollution in the first place. Look at what we have accomplished here in the
> US and then compare that to the newly developing countries mentioned above.
> We don't need to *de-industrialize* in order to clean up pollution, just
> modernize and develop newer technologies that advance our civilization and
> economies.
>
> --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroup s.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Duveyoung <no_re...@yahoogroup s.com>
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul on Global Warming
> To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 4:14 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Okay, I'll just say it yet again: it's not about the warming, it's about the
> pollution.
>
> If the warming concept is wrong, doesn't matter, addressing the warming
> concept entails addressing the pollution concept. I mean, what's not
> understood about, say, acid-rain? What's not understood about the hole in the
> ozone layer? What's not understood about 30,000 toxic dump sites leaching
> their poisons into the American water supply? What's not understood about 25%
> of L..A. smog is Chinese soot? What's not understood about that Texas sized
> garbage pile in the ocean?
>
> If we try to control "global warming," we have to be targeting pollution.
>
> If we have to suffer the fact that profiteers will find ways to suck at the
> public tit when we try to address pollution, so be it, we'll always have
> bastards like that finding niches.
>
> Morally, I see no difference between the Japanese whale killers and the
> Chinese smoke stacks. No difference between the torturers in Guantanamo and
> the American cigarette manufacturers. No difference between the Navy's
> underwater sonar "sound bombs that make whales' ears actually bleed" and the
> use of Agent Orange. And on and on.
>
> If we wrote up a precise plan to stop global warming, it would be virtually
> identical with the plan to stop pollution.
>
> To waste time blathering about if or if not the warming concept is valid is
> like letting the whalers keep harpooning while they do everything they can to
> keep the debate going lest it stop and they are forbidden to hunt any whale
> for scientific reasons.
>
> The debate about warming effectively delays the start of work on pollution.
>
> That's what you're doing Mike. You're helping profiteers with their killing
> the world, face it.
>
> Edg
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > No Vaj, it's not something I've *realized* or believe. What I do believe
> > is, that the* man made global warming* issue is nothing more than a power
> > grab by politicians.
> >
> > --- On Thu, 6/11/09, Vaj <vajradhatu@ ...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Vaj <vajradhatu@ ...>
> > Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul on Global Warming
> > To: FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 3:20 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Mike Dixon wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Shemp, notice how Vaj is trying to marginalize you, the same, as if you
> > were a holocaust denier. Vaj, really, more and more scientists are jumping
> > off the man made global warming band wagon as they take a look at the
> > studies and question the political motivations involved. A tanked economy
> > isn't going to be helpful for cleaning up our environment or providing
> > funding for scientific research on anything.
> >
> > Of course you do realize, since we have now entered Extinction-6, one of
> > the major extinction phases of sentient life on this planet, that Global
> > Climate Change will, in effect, make the Holocaust of WW II look like a
> > blip on the screen of loss of human and sentient life? That's not in any
> > way meant to trivialize the Holocaust, it's just to put into perspective
> > what the right-wing blue memers are in fact denying, all for a quick,
> > short-sighted buck.
> >
> >
> > BTW, I am not a supporter of cap and trade legislation. Personally I'd like
> > to see a Green marketplace based on American technology, creating jobs and
> > solutions, all assisted through tax incentives to consumers, manufacturers
> > and entrepreneurs.
> >
>
