NationStates Jolt Archive

A new report on climate change (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23255724-601,00.html) came out today here in Australia. The author predicts that it'll be more serious for us than previously thought and told the government that the target of reducing carbon emissions by 60% by 2050 is probably not enough. So now Labor has found itself in the uncomfortable position of being told by people to be more green, which was of course what they enjoyed doing while Howard was still in power.

It's an uncomfortable one because being told that you're not green enough is quite a serious charge these days in Europe and increasingly Australia as well. As both serious evidence and media hype accumulate, people's worries about climate change are becoming a massive political and social issue. Politicians are forced to act and even in everyday life I find that more and more people want to see more and more radical action.

That brings me to another thing I read recently: an angry letter to the editor in a car magazine. Of course not the most valid of sources, but the premise was interesting. The author reckoned we should be glad that speed cameras are still around. Sooner or later people will catch on to the fact that the braking and accelerating caused by them actually leads to greater emissions - and the solution are black boxes in cars that are always sending data to government agencies to make sure that you're a) not speeding and b) driving in such a way that you minimise emissions. The next logical step would be cars that you don't drive at all anymore, but have a computer do it for you.

These aren't all that ridiculous ideas, I'm sure plenty on this forum would agree with them. The mayor of London meanwhile is seeing how far he can push legislation to make cars disappear from the inner city (apparently Porsche now wants to sue the city because the latest congestion charge changes have ceased to bare any semblance to being environmentally justifiable), showing the intent governments can potentially have on the issue.

But why stop at cars? There are lots of things we do that use resources or pollute the environment. Since we are (were?) in a drought around here, the government send us hour glasses to attach to shower walls to make sure we don't take too long. Water restrictions have become more and more extreme. "Water Patrol" cars are driving around to make sure no one waters their plants at the wrong times and there is literally a phone number available for people to dob in their neighbours. So really, it's not that big a step to start checking water consumption by individual households directly, actually monitoring how long people take a shower. Not the proverbial government in your bedroom, but rather in the bathroom.

So I think we can agree that political environmentalism as a force seeking regulations is certainly an anti-liberal movement. Sooner or later that would put it at odds with the way our countries are currently organised, with privacy and personal freedom being respected values. How do you see this conflict pan out over the next few decades? What sort of impact will environmentally-inspired policies have on our lives? Where would you draw the line?

Given that climate change throws a planet sized spanner in the workings of libertarian thought, I'd have thought you'd be more a deny-because-that's-more-convenient kind of guy.

sounds like someone likes his cars :p

*puts on green hat that is made locally and environmentally supportive*

It's an uncomfortable one because being told that you're not green enough is quite a serious charge these days in Europe and increasingly Australia as well. As both serious evidence and media hype accumulate, people's worries about climate change are becoming a massive political and social issue. Politicians are forced to act and even in everyday life I find that more and more people want to see more and more radical action.

I wouldn't say so, it appears that your regular Joe thinks the Kyoto agreement will solve everything something governments have taken advantage of with the painfully slow progress of carbon reduction agreements

really apathy still remains hence why the bombshell of how much carbon shipping is really costing is being forgotten and why bottled water is more and more popular

The next logical step would be cars that you don't drive at all anymore, but have a computer do it for you.

or maybe having everyone use buses and those strange appendages that dangle from the bottom of bodies

odds are the cost of the black boxes themselves will offset any reduction made

The mayor of London meanwhile is seeing how far he can push legislation to make cars disappear from the inner city (apparently Porsche now wants to sue the city because the latest congestion charge changes have ceased to bare any semblance to being environmentally justifiable), showing the intent governments can potentially have on the issue.

congestion charge is to do with pollution now?

I thought it was more to do with encouraging public transportation to ease congestion (hence the name)

Since we are (were?) in a drought around here, the government send us hour glasses to attach to shower walls to make sure we don't take too long. Water restrictions have become more and more extreme. "Water Patrol" cars are driving around to make sure no one waters their plants at the wrong times and there is literally a phone number available for people to dob in their neighbours. So really, it's not that big a step to start checking water consumption by individual households directly, actually monitoring how long people take a shower. Not the proverbial government in your bedroom, but rather in the bathroom.

that has nothing to do with enviromental reasons unless of course you count making sure there is enough water for the fields so you can eat and stuff

water can only be tapped so much after all hence the big project in China to keep Beijing watered:http://www.water-technology.net/projects/south_north/

course you will get to look forward to such measures in future as it gets to the point when the planets fresh drinking water gets less than the total population (which is more to do with water treatment but still)

So I think we can agree that political environmentalism as a force seeking regulations is certainly an anti-liberal movement.

pfft environmentalism from the start has followed a policy of having people do the right thing hence why it hasn't got anywhere in the past 40+ years

How do you see this conflict pan out over the next few decades? What sort of impact will environmentally-inspired policies have on our lives? Where would you draw the line?

1) social stigma will emerge and suddenly driving your hummer around will be regarded to the same extent as a pregnant woman smoking

2) you will have to pay for the damage you do and as such you will begin to notice that local goods will become much cheaper (hmmm sounds like globalization will run into some trouble;))

3) when we live in a world where you can breath the air

Given that climate change throws a planet sized spanner in the workings of libertarian thought, I'd have thought you'd be more a deny-because-that's-more-convenient kind of guy.

No. Neu Leonstein is a very intelligent man, as well as no fool. He and I might disagree on certain elements of economic policy ideology, but he's not someone to deny something just because it'd be more convenient.

But why stop at cars? There are lots of things we do that use resources or pollute the environment.One thing that's often ignored is the massive impact ranching, particularly in large agroindustrial businesses, has on Climate Change. It's one negative of the big hype about Carbon Dioxide. Governments can claim they're doing a lot to combat anthropogenic climate change, when in fact they're ignoring a massive part of it.

So I think we can agree that political environmentalism as a force seeking regulations is certainly an anti-liberal movement. Sooner or later that would put it at odds with the way our countries are currently organised, with privacy and personal freedom being respected values. How do you see this conflict pan out over the next few decades? What sort of impact will environmentally-inspired policies have on our lives? Where would you draw the line?Of course its anti-liberal. Letting people use as much as they please will only work if the resources are unlimited and the process of consumption has no negative side effects, a little tidbit that liberalism and libertarianism tend to ignore.

Of course its anti-liberal. Letting people use as much as they please will only work if the resources are unlimited and the process of consumption has no negative side effects, a little tidbit that liberalism and libertarianism tend to ignore.

Yeah. "You mean that this runs out and might actually, you know, cause some sort of reaction? Oops."

Yeah. "You mean that this runs out and might actually, you know, cause some sort of reaction? Oops."NL gave the example of water. How likely do you think it is that Australians affected by the drought will have the foresight to conserve as much as needed on their own?

So I think we can agree that political environmentalism as a force seeking regulations is certainly an anti-liberal movement. Sooner or later that would put it at odds with the way our countries are currently organised, with privacy and personal freedom being respected values.
Perhaps. But I do think positive influence through the provision of eco-friendly public services is a good idea. I would certainly rather see the British Government spending more of its effort on making its public transport worth riding than on trying to dissuade people from using the alternatives.

Fascist tyranny is not the solution to environmental concerns.
I know I would certainly object to having someone look over my shoulder 24/7 to make sure I 'behave in an environmentally friendly way'. Not to mention that oversight costs money - having half the population watching the other half eats up all production. Water rationing and constant surveillance is not the answer to anything.

Then there is the little problem of governments not being entirely infullible. Remember the massive resources that are being poured into government backed 'alternative energy solutions'? Case in point is biofuels - current research suggests that the net impact on the environment by using biofuels is negative.

Decisions on individual behavior should be made by individuals - not some bureaucrat trying to enforce some misguided idea about 'what is best for you'.

If you really want to help the environment, control your own behavior. If this is not enough for you, try to convince your neighbors (nicely) to modify their behavior as well. The absolute limit of government control should be imposting a tax to offset the negative externalities. Thats it, no more. No water police spying on you to see how long you spend in the shower, no emissions control bureaucrat auditing your driving style and fining you for not maximizing fuel efficiency. no fascist controls on behavior

If you cannot convince other people to change their behavior of their own free will, then obviously your arguments are not sufficiently compelling. You have no more right to force your views on others than that guy standing on the corner, dressed in pea soaked rags, and yelling about the aliens controlling government.

The next logical step would be cars that you don't drive at all anymore, but have a computer do it for you.


It's called a "bus." Its slower and somewhat less convenient, and the driver typically has no idea what he's doing, but I have yet to get a speeding ticket. :D


So I think we can agree that political environmentalism as a force seeking regulations is certainly an anti-liberal movement.


At most, one has suggested that the local Australian "political environmental" movement cited has "anti-liberal" characteristics. As much as the "Libertarian" hates them, "regulations" alone to do make for "anti-liberal" regimes. One of the basic premises behind political liberalism is that individuals must restrict their behavior, or have their behavior restricted if not otherwise willing to cooperate voluntarily, in order to avoid violation of other's rights or liberties.

One can argue that a particular set of regulations are excessive or unnecessary, but one cannot yet label the entire practice of environmental regulation as "anti-liberal;" sufficient evidence has not yet been shown.

At any rate, it is not difficult to find market based, extra- or even explicitly anti- government, or other sorts of "liberal" environmental movements.

For example, an Organic-certified supermarket (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/) here in my town has recently started paying it customers 5 cents (as a discount on their bill) if they carry their groceries out in reusable bags made of recycled materials, instead of the usual paper or plastic (in fact, I'm not sure, but it may have stopped offering plastic bags altogether, as well). Then there is the entire organic and fair trade movement in general, which serves both social and environmental ends while essentially remaining a market based approach.

I would argue that these are a form of "regulation," to the extent that the purpose is to alter people's behavior, even if it is not the result of express legislative/governmental action. I would also argue that this form of "regulation" is exemplary of a well established and growing, if unfortunately less famous, liberal political environmentalism.

Given that climate change throws a planet sized spanner in the workings of libertarian thought, I'd have thought you'd be more a deny-because-that's-more-convenient kind of guy.
I don't think it does damage libertarian thought. It just makes libertarians deal with externalities.

Riparian law is a good source for guidance on how to deal with the use of common resources like the sea and atmosphere. Any air you take from the amtosphere must be returned in the same state in which you took it. Voila - no pollution, and no externalities.

or maybe having everyone use buses and those strange appendages that dangle from the bottom of bodies

odds are the cost of the black boxes themselves will offset any reduction made
Possible and eventually the momentum may go that way. But I think a government still has an interest in looking like it's not being mean to people, and monitoring them driving rather than not allowing them is a better way of doing that.

Nonetheless, the result is the same.

congestion charge is to do with pollution now?
The latest change makes tiny cars with few emissions free of charge, while putting big increases on cars with greater emissions. So I guess it does.

that has nothing to do with enviromental reasons unless of course you count making sure there is enough water for the fields so you can eat and stuff
It was just an example. But if you think about it, the argument isn't all that different to that used by paternal autocrats, namely that uncoordinated behaviour by individuals leads to suboptimal aggregate outcomes (the criteria depend on the ideology), hence the government needs to force people to behave a certain way. That's why I'm thinking that as environmental concerns become more mainstream, environmentalism will become more and more a political movement, and it's not a particularly freedom-loving one.

pfft environmentalism from the start has followed a policy of having people do the right thing hence why it hasn't got anywhere in the past 40+ years
Well, the supporters of the Islamic Revolution in Iran would say something similar.

1) social stigma will emerge and suddenly driving your hummer around will be regarded to the same extent as a pregnant woman smoking
People can deal with the social stigma. If they can live through people making fun of their looks or their mannerisms, they can live through people not liking their car. Precisely that's why I don't think the stigma is the end of it.

2) you will have to pay for the damage you do and as such you will begin to notice that local goods will become much cheaper (hmmm sounds like globalization will run into some trouble;))
And you're actually happy about that? How weird.

3) when we live in a world where you can breath the air
I can breathe the air now. I could breathe it if it was plenty more polluted than it is. And if I get cancer from doing it when I'm 80, that's IMHO still better than having spent my life in poverty or under some sort of green Big Brother.

Governments can claim they're doing a lot to combat anthropogenic climate change, when in fact they're ignoring a massive part of it.
Well, keep pointing it out and it'll be the farmer lobby vs the green lobby. I'd dare say that the latter can mobilise more votes, so my money is on them.

So what then? Cut food production and introduce rations? As I said, where is the line?

Of course its anti-liberal.
I'm not making a case for or against here, I'm pointing out the direction I see things heading.

I know this coming from me must immediately make everyone think I have another motive, but right now I'm really more interested whether the next big battle will be the one of citizen rights vs environmental concerns, who you think will win and where that leaves us. A sort of neutral assessment, with the judging coming afterwards.

One can argue that a particular set of regulations are excessive or unnecessary, but one cannot yet label the entire practice of environmental regulation as "anti-liberal;" sufficient evidence has not yet been shown.
I'm not referring to environmental regulation per se. I'm referring to this movement starting up which is becoming both more radical and more mainstream as we speak. The problem I'm seeing is that there is no one who will stand up in public and say "no, that's not worth it" and survive it. There is no consideration of the trade-off anymore. Because we can't figure out good estimates for the benefits of these regulations, people have taken to ignore the costs.

Perhaps even worse is that old ideas for regulation are now coming back with a green label on them. Certain people have been calling for universal speed limits on German Autobahns for decades, much in the same way people called for cars to be led around by a person on foot warning everyone of its impending arrival back when they were first invented. There was the oil crisis that gave weight to these people's opinions but eventually it turned out that this policy was unnecessary. But now it's back under consideration, this time backed by people talking about CO2 emissions.

It's heading for a situation where you can pass pretty much any rule you want as long as you can make it look like it serves a green purpose. Governments are talking about further increases to the taxes on petrol, when in Britain for example economists have had a look at this and said that existing taxes are plenty enough to discourage consumption to the appropriate level already.

Anyways, to bring back the example of a water patrol. You, as a generally pro-freedom sort of person, would not be happy with a bedroom patrol making sure that you're not engaging in deviant sexual acts, nor with a snitch-on-your-neighbour hotline for politically deviant opinions. But now we're seeing the same policies not justified by "it destroys the moral fabric of society" or by "it destroys our faith in our troops" but by "it destroys the planet and we'll all drown in a flood". Let's face it, most people have no idea about what climate change actually is beyond having seen "The Day after Tomorrow", and at least the Australian media has shown basically no effort to change this.

At any rate, it is not difficult to find market based, extra- or even explicitly anti- government, or other sorts of "liberal" environmental movements.
Yeah, but that's not where we're going, is it?

I don't think it does damage libertarian thought. It just makes libertarians deal with externalities.

Riparian law is a good source for guidance on how to deal with the use of common resources like the sea and atmosphere. Any air you take from the amtosphere must be returned in the same state in which you took it. Voila - no pollution, and no externalities.

And how exactly would this be enforced or verified in a libertarian society?

The latest change makes tiny cars with few emissions free of charge, while putting big increases on cars with greater emissions. So I guess it does.

Environmentalism is not the only reason to ban cars from the urban environment. Keeping children from getting fatal lung diseases (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/68335.php) is also a good reason.

It was just an example. But if you think about it, the argument isn't all that different to that used by paternal autocrats, namely that uncoordinated behaviour by individuals leads to suboptimal aggregate outcomes (the criteria depend on the ideology), hence the government needs to force people to behave a certain way. That's why I'm thinking that as environmental concerns become more mainstream, environmentalism will become more and more a political movement, and it's not a particularly freedom-loving one.

Just because it has some similarities to paternalism does not mean that it is similar in other ways. Eventually, environmental demands will create a market for ecologically friendly technology. Our industry should then adapt by making these artifacts on an industrial scale instead of the current range of products. We don't even need to ban the possession of the old technology. For example, if you wanted to get a sports car with an internal combustion engine, you could still buy one. There just wouldn't be factories churning them out by the thousands. The factories would be churning out electric bikes or something similar. No paternalism required.

People can deal with the social stigma. If they can live through people making fun of their looks or their mannerisms, they can live through people not liking their car. Precisely that's why I don't think the stigma is the end of it.

I think cars should be banned from urban environments with dense populations. I hope the stigma isn't the end of it.

I can breathe the air now. I could breathe it if it was plenty more polluted than it is. And if I get cancer from doing it when I'm 80, that's IMHO still better than having spent my life in poverty or under some sort of green Big Brother.

You are also making that decision for all the other people who get cancer from inhaling your toxic exhaust.

I know this coming from me must immediately make everyone think I have another motive, but right now I'm really more interested whether the next big battle will be the one of citizen rights vs environmental concerns, who you think will win and where that leaves us. A sort of neutral assessment, with the judging coming afterwards.

Maybe. You could also say the same thing about citizen rights vs the free market, citizen rights vs state programs like public health care, citizen rights vs cultural traditions of endangered peoples, etc. There should be debate about this, definitely, and I think it,s already happening.

I think you're making too much of things. There are a lot of ideas that are going to be put forward as a possible solution and not all of them are going to be winners, and some are going to be downright stupid. The black box regulators on cars is not a winner and will more than likely never get past the proposal stage, it'll be saved by your favorite thing in the world-the cost/benefit analysis. Trying to enforce cruise control is a whole lot of hassle for very little decrease in greenhouse gases, that money and effort could be spent better on making cars cleaner overall (the BMW defense, rather than releasing one hyper-effecient car and then a full size truck they work for things like a 15% (what they assume the turbosteamer will result in) increase in effeciency across the brand for a greater net decrease) or providing an alternative for people who would rather not have cars.

That last one is huge. There are people who, if they could, would LOVE to be rid of their cars. If we streamline and refine alternatives so that the people who don't even want a car don't have to have one (this is largely in regards to the US) would do wonders.

The thing is how you couch your objections matters. If you say, "I don't want the black box big brother" then the argument is "Well, I don't want to live underwater, so suck it up." If the counter argument sounds selfish then it will get ignored because a lot of people see that kind of selfishness as the cause of the problem. You can't stress out about the bad solutions convincing yourself that that's the way it's going to go and panicking. You end up overstating them. (remember the article you linked and said it meant Ethanol was less green than fossil fuels-and it turned out that it was just sugar/corn/soy but there were plenty of alternative ways to make Ethanol, some of which were even carbon negative, maintained biodivirsity and didn't use up food producing land. You took a good point (we're doing ethanol wrong) and took it too far in a panic.)

You can't point out Chicken Littles by saying the sky is falling.

And how exactly would this be enforced or verified in a libertarian society?
How would any contract be enforced or verified in a libertarian society? This would be no different.

Environmentalism is not the only reason to ban cars from the urban environment. Keeping children from getting fatal lung diseases (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/68335.php) is also a good reason.
Because there's lots of kids in London's CBD?

Eventually, environmental demands will create a market for ecologically friendly technology. Our industry should then adapt by making these artifacts on an industrial scale instead of the current range of products.
That's a different issue. Governments can't create environmental demands, all they're doing by introducing laws is creating artificial legal demands.

For example, if you wanted to get a sports car with an internal combustion engine, you could still buy one.
I really wish I could believe that.

You are also making that decision for all the other people who get cancer from inhaling your toxic exhaust.
Yes, of course. You get cancer from my exhaust, but not from those of the bus. Or your microwave.

Maybe. You could also say the same thing about citizen rights vs the free market, citizen rights vs state programs like public health care, citizen rights vs cultural traditions of endangered peoples, etc. There should be debate about this, definitely, and I think it,s already happening.
But what sort of debate? I don't see it, outside the US and several developing nations I don't see people who want to consider the cost of environmental policies getting any serious consideration.

I think you're making too much of things.
Where do you find this optimism? I really want to know!

Yes, there are good ways of doing it. Yes, BMW might have good ideas.

But where do you get the faith from that anyone actually cares? Greenies and governments alike think BMW is trying to cheat its way out of being "environmentally responsible" and start going on a rant the minute the new M3 comes out. Economists who have good ideas get shouted down as business lobbyists and replaced with a near-as-dammit representative of Greenpeace because it looks better on the evening news.

Democracies don't work on correct and incorrect, they work on whipping up baseless emotions. There are few causes today as well suited to that as the environment. The mayor of Brisbane is trying to get reelected at the moment, but it's not his policies that they had a news piece on commercial TV on, it's the fact that he drives a big Jeep. His response: "I've been carbon-neutral for two years now!"

I don't like it whenever the great unwashed get into a rut, and this is just such a case. Particularly sad is that I'm looking at being at the receiving end big time.

Democracies don't work on correct and incorrect, they work on whipping up baseless emotions.
This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

People are dumb.

This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

People are dumb.

Authority figures are included in "people".

This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

People are dumb.

We should eliminate all people to bring about utopia?

Authority figures are included in "people".
Yes. Though I never include myself in any group whose existence I posit.

People, generally, are dumb. However, there are people who are qualified to make governance decisions (and usually only some governance decisions). By selecting leaders based on unrelated criteria (who can tell the electorate teh most attractive lie), you're vastly elss likely to select competent leaders than if you selected them based on some sort of merit system.

We should eliminate all people to bring about utopia?
At the very least we should stop asking their opinion.

Geoengineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_engineering)

Any other solution is just Greenie puritanism.

Sixty percent won't be enough? Why bother trying, then?

Or, better idea: everyone, light a match. Now drop said match. Good. Now, go to your nearest cave and have a good life. There may be some environmental concerns about the vast amounts of smoke caused by this mass burning, but hey, that'll cut our emission by, what, 100% within the year? Hells ya, let's do it!

Where do you find this optimism? I really want to know!

Yes, there are good ways of doing it. Yes, BMW might have good ideas.

But where do you get the faith from that anyone actually cares? Greenies and governments alike think BMW is trying to cheat its way out of being "environmentally responsible" and start going on a rant the minute the new M3 comes out. Economists who have good ideas get shouted down as business lobbyists and replaced with a near-as-dammit representative of Greenpeace because it looks better on the evening news.

Democracies don't work on correct and incorrect, they work on whipping up baseless emotions. There are few causes today as well suited to that as the environment. The mayor of Brisbane is trying to get reelected at the moment, but it's not his policies that they had a news piece on commercial TV on, it's the fact that he drives a big Jeep. His response: "I've been carbon-neutral for two years now!"

I don't like it whenever the great unwashed get into a rut, and this is just such a case. Particularly sad is that I'm looking at being at the receiving end big time.

Experience and being one of those dirty hippies you're so afraid of. Even when bad ideas make it all the way through, if they're really bad they don't last.

Look, you want to be a racer, right? You've had some track days. What happens when you over-cook it in a turn, how do you correct? With a jerk? If you want to swap ends and end up in the weeds. Sliding through a turn takes a lot of steering and counter steering and jerking the wheel to hard either way puts you in the wall. There are people who are going to try and jerk the wheel one way, but if you respond by jerking it the other way, thats not going to help.

To restate what I ended with, you can't call out the Chicken Littles by saying the sky is falling. Call out the bad ideas not as ludicris for why they don't work exactly, and more importantly celebrate the good ideas. There are no shortage of people screaming that things won't work. Spend your time on the things that will. Trying to make those with less than perfect solutions into boogeymen makes you too close to the people that ignore the problem all together.

I hang out with these people that you're afraid of. We rarely actually get our way, and when we do it's hardly what we started with and even rarer that it sticks around. Because like most groups, most of our ideas suck. You'll drown yourself in ideas that suck, champion ones that don't.

Does it really sound like a good idea to let the government watch you wherever you drive? I mean, putting devices in cars that watch your speed, location, braking, etc. just sounds like begining of a dystopia.

Does it really sound like a good idea to let the government watch you wherever you drive? I mean, putting devices in cars that watch your speed, location, braking, etc. just sounds like begining of a dystopia.

It's a stupid idea on so many levels, enough that I'm confident that it won't fly.


I know I just told NL not to focus on ideas that don't work so much, shuddup...

At the very least we should stop asking their opinion.

You do not belong in the category "people"? What are you?

You do not belong in the category "people"? What are you?
An outlier.

An outlier.

Hahahahaha.

I think you're making too much of things. There are a lot of ideas that are going to be put forward as a possible solution and not all of them are going to be winners, and some are going to be downright stupid. The black box regulators on cars is not a winner and will more than likely never get past the proposal stage, it'll be saved by your favorite thing in the world-the cost/benefit analysis. Trying to enforce cruise control is a whole lot of hassle for very little decrease in greenhouse gases, that money and effort could be spent better on making cars cleaner overall (the BMW defense, rather than releasing one hyper-effecient car and then a full size truck they work for things like a 15% (what they assume the turbosteamer will result in) increase in effeciency across the brand for a greater net decrease) or providing an alternative for people who would rather not have cars.

That last one is huge. There are people who, if they could, would LOVE to be rid of their cars. If we streamline and refine alternatives so that the people who don't even want a car don't have to have one (this is largely in regards to the US) would do wonders.

The thing is how you couch your objections matters. If you say, "I don't want the black box big brother" then the argument is "Well, I don't want to live underwater, so suck it up." If the counter argument sounds selfish then it will get ignored because a lot of people see that kind of selfishness as the cause of the problem. You can't stress out about the bad solutions convincing yourself that that's the way it's going to go and panicking. You end up overstating them. (remember the article you linked and said it meant Ethanol was less green than fossil fuels-and it turned out that it was just sugar/corn/soy but there were plenty of alternative ways to make Ethanol, some of which were even carbon negative, maintained biodivirsity and didn't use up food producing land. You took a good point (we're doing ethanol wrong) and took it too far in a panic.)

You can't point out Chicken Littles by saying the sky is falling.

More pollution is produced in the manufacture of a car than the car will produce on its own until it has driven more than 120,000 miles or so. I think that the manufacturing process of these black boxes on a nation-wide scale will probably cause more pollution than it prevents. Not to mention the tremendous amount of tax money and bureaucracy that goes into such an undertaking.

By the way, there are a lot of ways to make ethanol, but sugar/corn/soy are the only methods that even begin to look cost effective. Making ethanol is a very inefficient process when you compare it to refining oil.

Personally, I'm in favor of doing nothing major. Climate change has not really happened in a few hundred years and the idea that we have any real control over our climate is just absurd. Whether or not billions of tax dollars and a string of anti-business laws can do anything so slow climate change remains to be proven. Let the sun shine baby:cool: