NationStates Jolt Archive

I read in the Australian that the majority are in favour of a carbon trading system. However when asked the next question of how much they are willing to pay suddenly they say nothing

Obviously you cant price carbon without paying for carbon. Just wondering how much people would be personally willing to pay for climate change

I'm not willing to pay for climate change.
I'm willing to pay for its prevention, of course. ;)

Let's just say this: I think Dion's proposed carbon tax is ridiculously small.

As italian, I already pay the highest prices for energy (be it electric power, methane, gasoline) in Europe. I'm in one of the lowest income echelons, yet between direct income taxation, taxes on consumer goods, motorway tolls, university fees, bank account taxes and sanitary service taxes about half of my income goes to the State. I don't think I can pay anything more!
I'm not against being taxed like that... I just want to see my money being used to do something effective, and that includes environmental issues.

Btw, carbon offset is RUBBISH, and the Kyoto Protocol is totally uneffective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

I don't believe in paying anything. theres too much natural stuff like solar flares and volcanic gasses for anything man makes to do more than make a tiny fraction of a percentage blip in any statistic of atmospheric gasses and climate change causations.



One volcanic eruption can loose as much CO, and CO2 amongst other gases and dust to match a decades worth of mans production.

CFC's are more of a problem than greenhouse gasses and as far as heavy metal contamination goes, sure, clean them up, but whats the point in insisting on tighter and lower levels permitted than is found NATURALLY in the seawater.


Instead of fussing about the greenhouse, fuss about the health effects of pollution and leave us alone otherwise.

As italian, I already pay the highest prices for energy (be it electric power, methane, gasoline) in Europe. I'm in one of the lowest income echelons, yet between direct income taxation, taxes on consumer goods, motorway tolls, university fees, bank account taxes and sanitary service taxes about half of my income goes to the State. I don't think I can pay anything more!
I'm not against being taxed like that... I just want to see my money being used to do something effective, and that includes environmental issues.

Btw, carbon offset is RUBBISH, and the Kyoto Protocol is totally uneffective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

All these taxes are is just another way to part you from your money. Global warming is natural.

Well said!

I don't believe in paying anything. theres too much natural stuff like solar flares…

I don't know what to say…

Those who created Global Warming (the ruling class bourgeois) will of course be insured to pay NOTHING for it, all the costs will be taken by toiling working people.

I read in the Australian that the majority are in favour of a carbon trading system. However when asked the next question of how much they are willing to pay suddenly they say nothing

Obviously you cant price carbon without paying for carbon. Just wondering how much people would be personally willing to pay for climate change

I'll pay quite a bit for climate change, but I suspect that the changes I have in mind might anger some. :p

To me it shows how selfish people are. They believe that their gasses are harming the world but they dont want to do anything themselves. That is the real reason earth hour was created in Sydney

For 1 hour you turn of the lights so that for the remaining 8759 hours (365 day year) you can bitch about the government and feel morally right

Does it occur to these people that by driving to look at the city with its lights off that there is no real offset. Or that they dont even cause a power station to shut down, or that it is not during the highest energy time of the day?

I personally dont believe that climate change is the results of humans. But if you do (and I agree most people do thus tyranny by majority) how can you be selfish enough to say that you are unwilling to pay for it?

I think that the public just hopes for a miracle solution and if that dosnt occur it is the governments fault. Never mind the fact that they could change their life style or pay a tiny bit of their income to help fix it.

For Climate Change: ninepence three farthings.

Against Climate Change: 1 Shilling.

Those who created Global Warming (the ruling class bourgeois) will of course be insured to pay NOTHING for it, all the costs will be taken by toiling working people.

I agree with Andaras. Never thought I'd hear myself saying that, but I'm pretty sure what said above is what will happen. It is logically quite difficult to get business to make anything other than token efforts to stop climate change, as this will cut into their profit margins. And if you regulate in your own country, business will go to another country with less regulation.

I am interested to see what happens to the green movement if the supposed imminent recession arrives. I think government will be even less keen than usual to anger business, and that environmental measures will be reversed as the poor who the burden of green taxation bizarrely tends to fall upon begin to protest and say they are unwilling to pay.

lets not forget that these businesses gave us the building we are in with all its services, the chair we sit on, the decorations of the room we are in and the computer we type on.

I agree business wont do much but its not as if we didnt want their products or services

its the individual wants and needs that are the cause of pollution. but naming business takes the blame of you as an individual so its much more satisfying ;)

I still think climate change is a load of bull.

As for keeping the environment clean however, I am willing to go out of my way to ensure that I personally damage as minimal as possible. I need a car though, and generally drive between 200 and 600 km a week carrying stuff which (even if it was usable) I wouldn't be able to practically take on public transport.

Without the support of China, India and other highly populated countries, all our efforts are going to be futile. Their continued building of coal powered stations is horrifying (And people wonder about asthma & other diseases).

I am still waiting for an environmentalist to suggest a practical response to the crisis. As I see it, the only way that we are going to get through the next 50 years without compounding the problem is to invest in nuclear power. With proper management and safety practices in place they are safe and the power to waste ratio is better than anything else we will see.

I agree with Andaras. Never thought I'd hear myself saying that, but I'm pretty sure what said above is what will happen. It is logically quite difficult to get business to make anything other than token efforts to stop climate change

Which is why I laugh when companies say that want to stop climate change and cut down on the amount of CO2 the emit into the air put then you look at a Saturday night (well any night really) and the exact same companies have their lights on in their offices all night. The whole reason that companies do these token gestures is to get people who are foolish enough to believe this to buy their goods and use their services, really just a marketing ploy. So while companies may be forced to pay extra to be allowed to emit CO2 into the air it will be the consumer who will be paying these extra charges I can't wait to see how Rudd is going to explain this esepically after the fact that he said he wants to bring down inflation, can't quite do that Rudd with everybody raising prices because you are taxing the hell out of them.

I read in the Australian that the majority are in favour of a carbon trading system. However when asked the next question of how much they are willing to pay suddenly they say nothing

The majority are in favour because they know nothing they have been scared that we will be 500m under water so something has to be done. Of course they plan comes unstuck when they see that they will have to pay for it hopefully they will see that the ETS will do very little and protest enough so that the government abandons this foolish idea.

I am not in favour of the ETS and I am not willing to pay anything more to combat it.

As you say people become quiet when asked about it and like to blame other people so that they can feel better about themselves when they drive their V8's around the place. In fact a recent survey done in Australia showed that 25% of the population wanted to take active measures to combat climate change and that it was a real threat, another 25% didn't see it as a threat and did wanted to do very little. The interesting thing about this is that both of these groups were just as likely to purchase a SUV.

I still think climate change is a load of bull.

As for keeping the environment clean however, I am willing to go out of my way to ensure that I personally damage as minimal as possible. I need a car though, and generally drive between 200 and 600 km a week carrying stuff which (even if it was usable) I wouldn't be able to practically take on public transport.

Without the support of China, India and other highly populated countries, all our efforts are going to be futile. Their continued building of coal powered stations is horrifying (And people wonder about asthma & other diseases).

I am still waiting for an environmentalist to suggest a practical response to the crisis. As I see it, the only way that we are going to get through the next 50 years without compounding the problem is to invest in nuclear power. With proper management and safety practices in place they are safe and the power to waste ratio is better than anything else we will see.

That is right with Australia emitting less than 1% of CO2 into the air while China is near 30% reducing ours is going to do very little we should be trying to get them to reduce theirs.

Nuclear power, and I think Australia should start making a few plants after all we already have the Uranium, but as most people do not know anything about it and are frightened by loud people who also do not know anything and will listen to the media who is also against it it may take a while untill some pollie bites the bullet and say we do need one, not to listen to a buch of know it alls who think that Wind power is the way to go.

nothing.

i see no reason to believe that TAX is going to stop unwanted climate change.

Those who created Global Warming (the ruling class bourgeois) will of course be insured to pay NOTHING for it, all the costs will be taken by toiling working people.

Wow. I agree with the Commie.

AGW is created and marketed by governments and the UN in order to impose a leftist agenda. Indeed the working people will pay the costs and the governments will reap the benefits of having the working people hand over their rights and money willingly in order to save the planet from something that happens naturally.

nothing.

i see no reason to believe that TAX is going to stop unwanted climate change.

This.

A tax credit is merely a permit to pollute, and pass any "cost" on to the consumer. Who will be paying companies to pollute.

Kind of an everlasting scam, in which the consumer feels "good" that "something" is being "done".

Wow. I agree with the Commie.

AGW is created and marketed by governments and the UN in order to impose a leftist agenda. Indeed the working people will pay the costs and the governments will reap the benefits of having the working people hand over their rights and money willingly in order to save the planet from something that happens naturally.

Taking money from the workers to enrich the bourgeois = leftist agenda?

Poll is meaningless without some indication of what the money will actually be doing...

Those who created Global Warming

Leave the Dutch out of this.

Taking money from the workers to enrich the bourgeois = leftist agenda?

Poll is meaningless without some indication of what the money will actually be doing...

I don't use the idiotic lingo of the commies but the point is the same. Leftist, who can't get their policies and ideology in the front door, are attempting to get those policies implemented through the use of global crisis.

Taking money from the working population to fund the fascist elitists who control the government = leftist agenda.

One volcanic eruption can loose as much CO, and CO2 amongst other gases and dust to match a decades worth of mans production.


Every single volcanic eruption in an entire year, plus all vulcanic activity whatsoever in that year releases 3/97 of what humanity releases in one year. source (http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html)

The idea that volcanoes have any more than a minuscule effect upon the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a lie invented by Rush Limbaugh, which, by the way, he originally applied to CFCs. And he was wrong about that as well. source (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895)

I don't use the idiotic lingo of the commies but the point is the same. Leftist, who can't get their policies and ideology in the front door, are attempting to get those policies implemented through the use of global crisis.

Taking money from the working population to fund the fascist elitists who control the government = leftist agenda.

Fascism and leftism are kind of polar opposites.

Fascism and leftism are kind of polar opposites.

They are one and the same. Mussolini's ideology stemmed from leftist ideology. Just because the fascists fought the communists does not mean they were ideologically different. They just had different agendas.

Taking money from the workers to enrich the bourgeois = leftist agenda?

.

Always works out that way in the end. Weird, isn't it?

They are one and the same. Mussolini's ideology stemmed from leftist ideology. Just because the fascists fought the communists does not mean they were ideologically different. They just had different agendas.

I'm sure you can demonstrate that with peer-reviewed sources.

Fascism and leftism are kind of polar opposites.

Ever noticed that on Earth, both poles pretty much look the same? Cold, white, long winters?

We need a new phrase. They are Polar Duplicates of each other.

Ever noticed that on Earth, both poles pretty much look the same? Cold, white, long winters?


There are actually some significant differences. For starters, the South Pole is a desert, while the North Pole is not. And then there's the whole magnetism thing, which is where the phrase comes from.

There are actually some significant differences.


True, and there's the Puffin vs Penguin controversey but we shall not go there. But, like the Left and Right versions of Authoritarianism, to an average person stuck there, the reaction is the same.

"Well, this sucks".

Zero. I'm not willing to pay for bullshit.

I'm sure you can demonstrate that with peer-reviewed sources.

Try this:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/mu/Mussolin.html

Can you find a peer-reviewed source to say he was a right-winger? Doubtful considered the man was a socialist. Once again, one can say he fought the socialists and communists but it remains a fact that a good deal of that was to the agendas of those parties compared to his. The man implemented socialist ideas under the fascist label.

Try this:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/mu/Mussolin.html

Can you find a peer-reviewed source to say he was a right-winger? Doubtful considered the man was a socialist. Once again, one can say he fought the socialists and communists but it remains a fact that a good deal of that was to the agendas of those parties compared to his. The man implemented socialist ideas under the fascist label.

I'm not entirely sure you understand the concept of a peer-reviewed source, because an encyclopedia isn't one.

Edit: Oh, and it doesn't say what you think it says anyways. It says his beliefs changed. Reading comprehension.

I'm not entirely sure you understand the concept of a peer-reviewed source, because an encyclopedia isn't one.

Edit: Oh, and it doesn't say what you think it says anyways. It says his beliefs changed. Reading comprehension.

I totally understand the concept of peer-review. You do not understand the concept of you not being worth any serious time devoted to providing one. I always find it funny when some idiot tries to make a point and then backs out on the weak premise of peer-review. It reeks of lameness.

Please tell me how I am mis-reading this encyclopedia passage. It supports the known history of Mussolini's ideology having its origins in socialism. He had a fall out with the socialist party of Italy and started his own party. That does not mean he no longer holds socialist values. In fact, he implemented them once he acheived power.

So once again, please provide your version of history. If not, shut up and I will return this thread back to its original purpose.

I read in the Australian that the majority are in favour of a carbon trading system. However when asked the next question of how much they are willing to pay suddenly they say nothing

Obviously you cant price carbon without paying for carbon. Just wondering how much people would be personally willing to pay for climate change

What? we actually might need to DO SOMETHING? and SPEND MONEY? NOOOOOOO!!!!! I thought the big nice government would take care of everything at no cost to me!

1. We still haven't proven that humans caused climate change. The rise of industry and the slight rise in temperature have occured simultaneously, but that does not necessarily prove a correlation.

2. Even if it's our fault to any measurable degree, you can't prove that throwing money at the problem will make it go away. Especially if the notoriously inefficient government is responsible for fixing the problem.

I was always sceptical of these global doomsday warnings. On how the ice will melt ant the water will cover every mountain, even Everest. On how our bodies will curl as global warming cooks us. On how it will create a new alien race, who will build a death star and blow up our planet.

Everyone knows that if global warming gets real bad, the melting ice will add fresh water to the salty oceans, thereby decreasing the saltiness and disrupting the ocean conveyor thing and whatnot. This will possibly create a new ice age.

Thanks alot, car drivers. You're going to make us all freeze. Unlike you, I walk. Except not midday now, now that the temperature regularly surpasses 105F this time of year.

And speaking of the thread's original purpose...

the basic problem:

Asking "how much would you pay" begs the question: for what?

Are you saying "pay 1% and the temperature rises 2 degrees, pay 3% and it rises just 1 degree"?

Not really.

So you want to put a precise number on how much someone is willing to pay for a completely undefined return?

That won't work.

Now, personally, I do believe its happening, because I've seen it. If you travel the US and Canada you will see, in National Parks, signs and photos telling you where the Glacier was 10,000 years ago. You will also see signs and photos telling you where they were a century ago. You will not find glaciers that have advanced over the past century.

Is it all related to CO2 output as cleanly and as neatly as Al Gore says? Probably not. But when you put energy into a system, something happens. It can't be "nothing", that would defy the laws of physics.

But on the third hand, if it's not going to be all that much, to me, it doesn't have that much impact. Telling me it's going to be a few degrees hotter of colder is like telling me I might have to live in Virginia or Montreal. My reaction: Yeah, so?

I would pay to keep the weather here from becoming like Costa Rica or Labrador. If you said something more concrete, like, "would you forgo 3% of your salary to avoid living in the climate of La Jornada Del Muerte*?" now we're getting somewhere. In between that, I'm pretty flexible.



*It's that Del Muerte thing. Whenever you see that, alarm bell should go off, saying "the weather must suck".

I do not believe in Global Warming.

I do not believe in world government.

I refuse to be part of any hair-brain cap and trade scheme.

I am an American and I vote.

I do not believe in Global Warming.


To paraphrase Pratchett, global warming believes in you.

I don't use the idiotic lingo of the commies but the point is the same. Leftist, who can't get their policies and ideology in the front door, are attempting to get those policies implemented through the use of global crisis.

Taking money from the working population to fund the fascist elitists who control the government = leftist agenda.

So you have clarified that you agree with Andaras, by making it clear that you're saying the exact opposite thing? As anyone who had even read Karl fucking Marx would know, the cornerstone of leftist theory is that money goes from the rich to the poor, not vice versa.

Ever noticed that on Earth, both poles pretty much look the same? Cold, white, long winters?

We need a new phrase. They are Polar Duplicates of each other.

Well, naturally. Marx was, afterall, completely wrong when he assumed any state would ever wither away. However, if you were to go look up someone like Kropotkin or Malatesta, true anarchist leftists, you'd realise there is a massive difference.

Well, I don't quite know right now. If greenhouse gas emissions, and various other pollutants, are priced properly, I will adjust my consumption choices accordingly and you'll see how much I was willing to pay.

I would give some money, if Al Gore didn't create it...(or worsened it...)...

As much as I want the environment to "get better"...George Bush might waste it on another pointless war...
I don't know, probably none

Nothing. Let the tree-hugging hippies that are worried about it, pay for it.

I'm not sure I understand why I'd be expected to pay anything for a carbon trading system. Isn't it the premise of this system that the companies that pollute more will pay the companies that pollute less?

Or am I thinking of something else?

I'm not sure I understand why I'd be expected to pay anything for a carbon trading system. Isn't it the premise of this system that the companies that pollute more will pay the companies that pollute less?
Yes, but where the competitive situation allows it, they'll pass those extra costs on to consumers. That would apply to power generators and petrol stations in particular.

The poll has effectively two sides. Those who claim they are willing to spend all their money on it (although this is hypothetical, reality may be different) and those who dont want to pay a cent. good luck for a government finding the middle ground :p

Yes, but where the competitive situation allows it, they'll pass those extra costs on to consumers. That would apply to power generators and petrol stations in particular.

I suppose that's true, although it makes it difficult to determine how much of my income will actually be going to support the system. I think, though, that I'd be willing to pay my share of those extra costs.

People dont want a rise in the petrol price. Lets not consider the fact that the same percent of income is being spent on petrol as 10 years ago, people still complain about the price.

The biggest problem is agriculture. If you put carbon pricing on agriculture the basic need for food will increase in price. This will mean that the poor and minimal wage earners will cry for more money and they will get it.

I think that allowing carbon pricing will lead to a big spike in inflation. My savings will suddenly loose value :(

Whenever we have the "big switch" I'm sure we will end up paying more than it actually costs. If done right it really is not all that much. The electric car was invented 100 years ago and a widmill is just a fucking stick in the ground with blades on top.

Those who created Global Warming (the ruling class bourgeois) will of course be insured to pay NOTHING for it, all the costs will be taken by toiling working people.

thats silly. It was as much the consumer's fault for rampant demand for cheap products as it was the bourgeois. if it was such a big deal to consumers they could have opted for home spun clothing, hand grown food that was carried to the store on the back of a mule. but seeing as how no one wants to pay 10 times more for the end result they instead opt for the environmentally unfriendly but cheap product.

Leave the Dutch out of this.
No I will not! Their insatiable lust for wooden footwear is to blame for the destruction of many of Earth's forests.
And don't get me started on how those windmills are slowing the movement of the atmosphere.

No I will not! Their insatiable lust for wooden footwear is to blame for the destruction of many of Earth's forests.
And don't get me started on how those windmills are slowing the movement of the atmosphere.

Well im sure you wear clothes, live in a house, use heating/cooling, travel in a car and so on. Any personal responsibility by you? Or is it just easier to blame faceless big business?

Well im sure you wear clothes, live in a house, use heating/cooling, travel in a car and so on. Any personal responsibility by you? Or is it just easier to blame faceless big business?

What the hell are you babbling about? :confused:

People are very quick to blame business for pollution and climate change. But lets not forget who gives the business their role. Its the consumer. Its you and me

I don't use the idiotic lingo of the commies but the point is the same. Leftist, who can't get their policies and ideology in the front door, are attempting to get those policies implemented through the use of global crisis.

Taking money from the working population to fund the fascist elitists who control the government = leftist agenda.

'Left-wing' and 'Right-wing' are meaningless designation which exist solely in the realm of bourgeois political activity, so while you 'rights' and 'lefties' have your pointless semantic arguing, us real Communists are working to liquidate the entire system bourgeois property is based upon.

I support liberals and conservatives as a rope supports the hanging man, both are supports of capitalism and thus no different in my eyes.

Also, you probably should give up on those silly French political designations, you should also know that 'leftist' is an insult in most revolutionary Communist circles, it's pretty much the worst insult because it implies being nothing but a bourgeois liberal.

So you petty fools can keep have your acrimonious debates and discussions over the tiny semantics of how each of you like capitalism in a different way, 'leftists' are not revolutionary, they are reactionary.