NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/29/annan.climate.change.human/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto

The first comprehensive report into the human cost of climate change warns the world is in the throes of a "silent crisis" that is killing 300,000 people each year.

More than 300 million people are already seriously affected by the gradual warming of the earth and that number is set to double by 2030, the report from the Global Humanitarian Forum warns.

Of the 300,000 lives being lost each year due to climate change, the report finds nine out of 10 are related to "gradual environmental degradation," and that deaths caused by climate-related malnutrition, diarrhea and malaria outnumber direct fatalities from weather-related disasters.
The vast majority of deaths -- 99 percent -- are in developing countries which are estimated to have contributed less than one percent of the world's total carbon emissions.

The report warns climate change threatens all eight of the Millennium Development Goals-- a set of goals agreed on by leading nations in 2000 that aim to reduce extreme poverty by 2015. The goals include eradicating hunger, reducing child mortality, and halting the spread of diseases including HIV/AIDS and malaria.

Around 45 million of the 900 million people estimated to be chronically hungry are suffering due to climate change, the report says. Within 20 years that number is expected to double. At the same time food production is expected to fall, driving food prices up 20 percent.



Sometimes the police have those gun buy back events to try to curb the number of deaths caused by guns. Is it now time to do that with SUVs?

Interesting. Let me look up the report(the actual research) through my academic stuff.
Well not there yet, I will give Jstor another week.
Curious about the methodology.

Interesting. Let me look up the report(the actual research) through my academic stuff.
Well not there yet, I will give Jstor another week.
Curious about the methodology.

It's pretty much what was predicted. (not the numbers but the fact that disease, starvation and thirst would be the leading causes of climate change deaths)

Sometimes the police have those gun buy back events to try to curb the number of deaths caused by guns. Is it now time to do that with SUVs?
And here I thought that crooks just traded in their old and broken down guns at those buy-backs so they could go out and get a knock-off uzi or something.

As for the causes of death that are being blamed on global warming, malaria inis a complete joke. That's caused by poor misquito control and that's caused by bans on pesticides in the name of safeguarding the environment.

As far as hunger goes, you'd think that more CO2 and a slightly warmer, longer growing season would be preferable to getting buried under a glacier which is what would happen if we didn't have greenhouse gases like CO2, water, gaseous hydrocarbons, etc.

See, I don't trust the word of some rich, excessively white, bourgeois psuedo-liberals that think the only thing wrong with the world apart from all the evil humans is that there aren't enough bicycle paths. For them, it's not about saving the world or their fellow man, it's about making their own patch of land safe for their volvos and jettas. If it were about ending world hunger they'd be cheering the efforts of scientists and true humanitarians like Norman Borlaug instead of trying to shut them down and regulate everyone into go organic.

It's all narrow self-interest disguised as compasion or thrust upon the greater public to cash in on their inexplicable compulsion to asuage some imagined guilt. Con artists are entertaining when all they do is put on a show and skim a few bucks, they become downright irritating when what they do costs lives.

And here I thought that crooks just traded in their old and broken down guns at those buy-backs so they could go out and get a knock-off uzi or something.


Good point. We need to nerf the uzi versions of SUV's first. :tongue:


As for the causes of death that are being blamed on global warming, malaria inis a complete joke. That's caused by poor misquito control and that's caused by bans on pesticides in the name of safeguarding the environment.


Have pesticides ever been 100% effective? You can spray till your fingers turn blue and it still won't get all of them so there is nothing to stop migrations. And normal migration maximums are moving farther away from the equator each year due to the climate shift.

As far as hunger goes, you'd think that more CO2 and a slightly warmer, longer growing season would be preferable to getting buried under a glacier which is what would happen if we didn't have greenhouse gases like CO2, water, gaseous hydrocarbons, etc.


Growing season loses it's potential during extreme droughts. Yes we do have to have natural greenhouse gasses to survive. But before man over did it, all the natural heat from the sun could make it's natural journey back into space. But now less heat can escape.


See, I don't trust the word of some rich, excessively white, bourgeois psuedo-liberals that think the only thing wrong with the world apart from all the evil humans is that there aren't enough bicycle paths. For them, it's not about saving the world or their fellow man, it's about making their own patch of land safe for their volvos and jettas. If it were about ending world hunger they'd be cheering the efforts of scientists and true humanitarians like Norman Borlaug instead of trying to shut them down and regulate everyone into go organic.

It's all narrow self-interest disguised as compasion or thrust upon the greater public to cash in on their inexplicable compulsion to asuage some imagined guilt. Con artists are entertaining when all they do is put on a show and skim a few bucks, they become downright irritating when what they do costs lives.

That was a good argument a few years ago. Until more researchers started visiting the poles. It used to take 1000s of years for polar ice to advance and recede. Now it has happened in just a few decades.

The most in depth polar ice study ever (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/)

Ha. I'd guess most of this is from malaria, which is all the fault of the beardy-weirdies in the first place.

Secondly, these asshats ought to stop trying to terrify people with the climate change boogeyman. The powers that be obviously don't believe in it, so they should knock off with the scare tactics.

Good point. We need to nerf the uzi versions of SUV's first. :tongue:
Or it's a stupid idea and the focus should be on nuclear for electricity and diesel for cars.

Have pesticides ever been 100% effective?
Nothing is 100% with that many variables but persistence makes perfect. Today there is no such thing as small pox in nature. We were headed in that direction with malaria and polio then we stopped. Now the bug-born illness is back to killing someone every fucking 15 seconds. Thanks, Bill Ruckelshaus, for condemning tens of millions of brown people to horrible death. :D

Growing season loses it's potential during extreme droughts. Yes we do have to have natural greenhouse gasses to survive. But before man over did it, all the natural heat from the sun could make it's natural journey back into space. But now less heat can escape.
And here I thought the top causes of greenhouse gases were decaying plants and forest fires. I should have known that it was we evil humans all along that were the top source of greenhouse gases.

That was a good argument a few years ago. Until more researchers started visiting the poles. It used to take 1000s of years for polar ice to advance and recede. Now it has happened in just a few decades.
Actually it's a good argument today and you didn't really even attempt to refute it. You just spun off on a tangent and hoped I wouldn't notice. This report didn't say that more people are drowning because of global warming, it said that more people are starving because of global warming and the solution to world hunger today is the same as it was 30 years ago: modern farming practices implemented world-wide so that everyone has the option to get fat.

Actually it's a good argument today and you didn't really even attempt to refute it.
It's a good argument against doing what we're currently doing. It's not a good argument against the general policy of acting in response to the threat (real or supposed) of climate change. I agree with your assertion that people should come first, and that western society is clinging to an established order that probably needs to dramatically change rather than deal with the problems of hunger and poverty properly, but to say that this means "pay no attention to the scare tactics" is missing a potent opportunity. We should be exploiting this chance to really change things and genuinely help end those problems, rather than letting it pass us by as a synthetic media construct or a passing phase in Earth's environment, however accurate either of those assertions may be.

these asshats ought to stop trying to terrify people with the climate change boogeyman. The powers that be obviously don't believe in it, so they should knock off with the scare tactics.

NOAA, NASA, the WMO, the EPA the British Antarctic Survey, The IPCC, the Nobel Prize Commitee, the National Snow & Ice Data Center and the US Supreme Court don't count as the "powers that be"?


Or it's a stupid idea and the focus should be on nuclear for electricity and diesel for cars.

Can't build the nuke plants anymore. Most of them need to be built next to a river. Too many water wars and extreme droughts in the future to chance it. Hybrid-biofuel cars would be more practical than diesel. Most people need electric or solar cars since most people drive under 60 miles per day. (day after day, week after week, no carbon emmisions because not a drop of gas would be needed)

Nothing is 100% with that many variables but persistence makes perfect. Today there is no such thing as small pox in nature. We were headed in that direction with malaria and polio then we stopped. Now the bug-born illness is back to killing someone every fucking 15 seconds. Thanks, Bill Ruckelshaus, for condemning tens of millions of brown people to horrible death. :D

And when things like this migrate then mutate, the situation gets much worse.

And here I thought the top causes of greenhouse gases were decaying plants and forest fires. I should have known that it was we evil humans all along that were the top source of greenhouse gases.

Pretty much just bad planning. Millions of gallons of gas used each year by people just sitting in traffic jams. A six pound gallon of gas produces 19 pounds of greenhouse gasses when used in an automobile. 9MPG pieces of crap. 18 wheelers moving cargo around instead of railways. On and on...


Actually it's a good argument today and you didn't really even attempt to refute it. You just spun off on a tangent and hoped I wouldn't notice. This report didn't say that more people are drowning because of global warming, it said that more people are starving because of global warming and the solution to world hunger today is the same as it was 30 years ago: modern farming practices implemented world-wide so that everyone has the option to get fat.

You obviously didnt notice that the ice study shows that climate change is man's fault. (your only point was that it's a scam by rich people so I was trying to show you it most certainly is not) You can't fake global warming or it's results.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/29/annan.climate.change.human/index.html



Sometimes the police have those gun buy back events to try to curb the number of deaths caused by guns. Is it now time to do that with SUVs?
no its not.

at least not because of that statistic.

54 million people will die in '09-- 300,000 from "global warming". its not a firm enough cause of death or enough people.

plus, if global warming could be stopped by replacing a few big cars with smaller ones, it wouldnt be a crisis.

no its not.

at least not because of that statistic.

54 million people will die in '09-- 300,000 from "global warming". its not a firm enough cause of death or enough people.
Wasn't there a commercial like that to sell cigarettes?
:tongue:

plus, if global warming could be stopped by replacing a few big cars with smaller ones, it wouldnt be a crisis.

Unless oil companies pay to get some sort of junk science out that might say something like: "Global warming is a hoax so let's drill baby drill!!!" in order to continue to sell their devistating products. Let's hope that dosn't happen. Oops! Too late! :( (http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/gwdeniers.html)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/29/annan.climate.change.human/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto



Sometimes the police have those gun buy back events to try to curb the number of deaths caused by guns. Is it now time to do that with SUVs?

They'd have to offer a lot for SUV owners to sell their vehicles (I'd imagine enough to buy another vehicle of some sort).

As to the gun buyback programs, so you think the cops would be upset if I set up a table next to them, offering slightly more than them for certain models of firearms? I could really use a pump shotgun for clay/skeet shooting. :D

NOAA, NASA, the WMO, the EPA the British Antarctic Survey, The IPCC, the Nobel Prize Commitee, the National Snow & Ice Data Center and the US Supreme Court don't count as the "powers that be"?
Well, no. None of those have the power to make policy.

Can't build the nuke plants anymore. Most of them need to be built next to a river. Too many water wars and extreme droughts in the future to chance it. Hybrid-biofuel cars would be more practical than diesel. Most people need electric or solar cars since most people drive under 60 miles per day. (day after day, week after week, no carbon emmisions because not a drop of gas would be needed)
Firstly, yes you can build nuclear power plants. The alternatives are, currently and will likely remain for some time, far more pricey.
Second, hybrids are less efficient and more expensive than comparable diesel cars and biofuels are more environmentally destructive than standard oil, not less.
Third, who the fuck are you to tell the rest of the world what they can and can't own and operate? That's fucking fascism.

And when things like this migrate then mutate, the situation gets much worse.
So we should let tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of people die now because there is a remote chance that things might be just as bad a century down the line? I keep hearing on the news every year about how killer bees, sars, bird flu, swine flu, etc. are going to kill us all. We're all gonna fucking die in a matter of weeks. I'm still here and so are you. If wiping out disease-carrying parasites now means that hundreds of millions of people will live instead of die horribly then I'd do it and burn the next bridge when I get there.

Pretty much just bad planning. Millions of gallons of gas used each year by people just sitting in traffic jams. A six pound gallon of gas produces 19 pounds of greenhouse gasses when used in an automobile. 9MPG pieces of crap. 18 wheelers moving cargo around instead of railways. On and on...
Not all freight can be moved on rail, once it gets to a major city then the train has to stop and offload its cargo for local distribution. And some loads have to get there yesterday so a slowass train with lots of stops doesn't make much sense when you've got trucks and planes that can get the job done faster.

You obviously didnt notice that the ice study shows that climate change is man's fault. (your only point was that it's a scam by rich people so I was trying to show you it most certainly is not) You can't fake global warming or it's results.
You obviously didn't notice that I wasn't responding to the ice study, I was responding the study in the OP. That's the report and assertions this thread is about, not the other one you threw out because you couldn't think up a good rebuttal. You know you're on shaky ground when you're trying to derail your own thread.

If you want to talk about how climate change is killing 300k people every year that's fine. If you want to point to the peer-reviewed research that supports the claim that climate change is killing 300k people every year that's fine. If you want to hyperlink to some GP front group and say that's more reliable than impartial double-blind studies then that's not fine. If you want to say that impoverished brown people have to die through lack of food, shelter, medicine, pest control, equipment, energy, etc. so that you can feel like the planet is no longer in mortal danger even though it isn't then that's not fine. If you want to say that we should all live like impoverished third-worlders to save the planet then that's not fine. Actually it's fine for you to say those things but I have no respect for anyone who hold's such beliefs.

Firstly, yes you can build nuclear power plants. The alternatives are, currently and will likely remain for some time, far more pricey.


The last time construction began from scratch to build a nuclear power plant was 32 years ago. (River Bend in 1977) Why do you think that is?

Second, hybrids are less efficient and more expensive than comparable diesel cars and biofuels are more environmentally destructive than standard oil, not less.


A hybrid can do the same job as a gas car. They will be cheaper when in mass production. New forms of biofuel are very eco friendly.
http://corporate.evonik.com/en/press/press-releases/2009/090428_pm_biodisel.html

Third, who the fuck are you to tell the rest of the world what they can and can't own and operate? That's fucking fascism.

Many people want these emmision free cars. All these damm car lots filled with gas guzzlers with 1 little lone hybrid sitting there is fucking fascism. The hybrids and electric cars of today are not much more than collector items because they are so rare.

So we should let tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of people die now because there is a remote chance that things might be just as bad a century down the line? I keep hearing on the news every year about how killer bees, sars, bird flu, swine flu, etc. are going to kill us all. We're all gonna fucking die in a matter of weeks. I'm still here and so are you. If wiping out disease-carrying parasites now means that hundreds of millions of people will live instead of die horribly then I'd do it and burn the next bridge when I get there.
The thirst and starvations are going on now. The swine flu has not yet mutated. Disease migration is kind of like sending millions of people to another country with no innoculations. Anything can happen.

Not all freight can be moved on rail, once it gets to a major city then the train has to stop and offload its cargo for local distribution. And some loads have to get there yesterday so a slowass train with lots of stops doesn't make much sense when you've got trucks and planes that can get the job done faster.

The problem is, not enough railways. 18 wheelers should not have to travel cross country.

You obviously didn't notice that I wasn't responding to the ice study, I was responding the study in the OP. That's the report and assertions this thread is about, not the other one you threw out because you couldn't think up a good rebuttal. You know you're on shaky ground when you're trying to derail your own thread.


So if they were poor people you would be inclined to belive them more?

If you want to talk about how climate change is killing 300k people every year that's fine. If you want to point to the peer-reviewed research that supports the claim that climate change is killing 300k people every year that's fine. If you want to hyperlink to some GP front group and say that's more reliable than impartial double-blind studies then that's not fine. If you want to say that impoverished brown people have to die through lack of food, shelter, medicine, pest control, equipment, energy, etc. so that you can feel like the planet is no longer in mortal danger even though it isn't then that's not fine. If you want to say that we should all live like impoverished third-worlders to save the planet then that's not fine. Actually it's fine for you to say those things but I have no respect for anyone who hold's such beliefs.

What the fuck is third worldish about electric cars, a better power grid and all these other modern innovations that would make for a cleaner environment? You make it sound like a world of stone knives and bear skins.

A hybrid can do the same job as a gas car. They will be cheaper when in mass production. New forms of biofuel are very eco friendly.
Except you have to destroy natural ecosystems to grow crops for burning.


What the fuck is third worldish about electric cars,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Oka_kit_nev.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Reva_Electric_Car_2008.jpg/250px-Reva_Electric_Car_2008.jpg


that would make for a cleaner environment?
Lead and sulfuric acid. Just what I like in my soup!

The last time construction began from scratch to build a nuclear power plant was 32 years ago. (River Bend in 1977) Why do you think that is?
Because the incident at Three Mile Island was blown way out proportion for ratings and the story was pounced upon by luddite assholes in an effort to prop up their non-existant case for returning to the outmoded and failed ways of the long-abandoned past? A few seized that opportunity to ram down our collective throats their inadequate utopian ideas. Places like France and Switzerland are proof that it works damn well.

A hybrid can do the same job as a gas car. They will be cheaper when in mass production. New forms of biofuel are very eco friendly.
Diesel cars are cheaper, have a history of reliability, provide more power, and aren't limited to urban stop-and-go traffic. And the first couple Prius makes were found to have a greater dust-to-dust environmental impact than the Hummer H3 so I wouldn't be cheering for them. As for the biodiesel, I don't think a press release from a company's website counts as peer-reviewed research.

Many people want these emmision free cars. All these damm car lots filled with gas guzzlers with 1 little lone hybrid sitting there is fucking fascism. The hybrids and electric cars of today are not much more than collector items because they are so rare.
No, that's fucking choice. The market responds to demands and the majority of people demanded a vehicle they could comfortably fit the whole family in. Most hybrids like the prius are half car and not much else and give no better milage than a diesel.

The thirst and starvations are going on now.
And modern tech could be stopping that but isn't because bourgeois luddites think that outdated living is where it's at. Organic food, for example, is bullshit. And human shit, they use the euphamism "night soil" so they don't repulse potential buyers at the bazaar. The past fucking sucked, the standard of living today is awesome and it should only get better tomorrow.

The swine flu has not yet mutated.
And it won't. That was just a fucking scare for ratings like every other apocolypse scenario that has failed to produce any results.

Disease migration is kind of like sending millions of people to another country with no innoculations. Anything can happen.
Actually it's more like people getting sick and passing it on via contact or contamination, as is the case with the aforementioned night soil fertilizer.

The problem is, not enough railways. 18 wheelers should not have to travel cross country.
The problem is that rail is slower than a plane and confined to a track.

So if they were poor people you would be inclined to belive them more?
I question the motives of anyone who claims to be a humanitarian and then bashes the work of actual humanitarians. I also question the relaibility of activist groups making grand proclomations of impending doom since so few ever seem to come true. And I fucking hate the UN and don't trust anyone affiliated with the organization because it's full of thieves and sends child molesters to poor countries in turmoil with a "never set foot in court" card.

What the fuck is third worldish about electric cars, a better power grid and all these other modern innovations that would make for a cleaner environment? You make it sound like a world of stone knives and bear skins.
A better grid based on what? Nuclear can provide the base-load, wind and solar can't so we'd have to deal with rolling blackouts.

GE food, pesticides, modern farming equipment, etc. is what will provide enough food to keep everyone alive. Organic mandates would likely kill because organic subsistence agriculture is already causing millions of folks to expire prematurely. In the history of agriculture, the time before genetic manipulation of any kind was a fucking dark age. The genetic manipulation that went on before what we've got now was good but still inadequate. It's like nuclear power, it is the fucking future, it's just not the future you want.

It's now 2:30 and I'm going to bed. Dunno if I'll pick this up later.

Except you have to destroy natural ecosystems to grow crops for burning.

No you dont. Jatropha plants can be intercropped with other cash crops such as coffee, sugar, fruits and vegetables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatropha

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Oka_kit_nev.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Reva_Electric_Car_2008.jpg/250px-Reva_Electric_Car_2008.jpg


No one said that they have to have a boring design.
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Lead and sulfuric acid. Just what I like in my soup!

I like fresh vegetables in my soup. Drought reduces the amount of those vegetables. Hence the starving people.



Because the incident at Three Mile Island was blown way out proportion for ratings and the story was pounced upon by luddite assholes in an effort to prop up their non-existant case for returning to the outmoded and failed ways of the long-abandoned past? A few seized that opportunity to ram down our collective throats their inadequate utopian ideas. Places like France and Switzerland are proof that it works damn well.

France and Switzerland have more dependable water sources.

Diesel cars are cheaper, have a history of reliability, provide more power, and aren't limited to urban stop-and-go traffic. And the first couple Prius makes were found to have a greater dust-to-dust environmental impact than the Hummer H3 so I wouldn't be cheering for them. As for the biodiesel, I don't think a press release from a company's website counts as peer-reviewed research.
The first couple of Prius? Things have changed a bit.

No, that's fucking choice. The market responds to demands and the majority of people demanded a vehicle they could comfortably fit the whole family in. Most hybrids like the prius are half car and not much else and give no better milage than a diesel.

Yet these new electric car companies can't keep up with demand. When the waiting lists are eliminated and prices brought down from mass production, very few will want the gas guzzlers available today.

And modern tech could be stopping that but isn't because bourgeois luddites think that outdated living is where it's at. Organic food, for example, is bullshit. And human shit, they use the euphamism "night soil" so they don't repulse potential buyers at the bazaar. The past fucking sucked, the standard of living today is awesome and it should only get better tomorrow.
Things can get better tomorrow but it will take the right decisions and a lot of effort.

And it won't. That was just a fucking scare for ratings like every other apocolypse scenario that has failed to produce any results.
It showed up in the Spring of 1918 then mutated during the summer, killing 50 million. There is a bit of cause for concern.

Actually it's more like people getting sick and passing it on via contact or contamination, as is the case with the aforementioned night soil fertilizer.

Birds, mosquitos and such also pass it on. They pass it on more as the Earth gets warmer because they move farther away from the equator.

The problem is that rail is slower than a plane and confined to a track.

Many people would wait the extra time if it were cheaper.

Only 300k?

To have any impact it should be 100-150 times that.

<.<

>.>

What? Are you suggesting global warming shouldn't solve itself?!? :confused:

edit:
Really, 300000 is a pitiful number.

I still want to read the methodology.

How do they figure this out? The deaths, which causes do they count as caused by 'Climate Change'.

How do they figure this out? The deaths, which causes do they count as caused by 'Climate Change'.
Waiting for the report to show up on JSTOR, so I can read that.

Interesting. Let me look up the report(the actual research) through my academic stuff.
Well not there yet, I will give Jstor another week.
Curious about the methodology.

or you could go here:
http://assets.ghf-ge.org/downloads/humanimpactreport.pdf

methodology is described in some detail starting on page 83 (the 93rd page of the pdf)

...

Sometimes the police have those gun buy back events to try to curb the number of deaths caused by guns. Is it now time to do that with SUVs?

No.

The SUV/light truck/gas-guzzler has been a big seller for the last thirty years, to buyers who predominantly have no use for the extra mobility, extra carrying capacity, or extra horsepower. It is conspicuous consumption, wasting money in purchase price and in fuel cost, in a modern version of potlatch: demonstrating your power and wealth by wasting it for no good reason.

It's not going to end now. It will go on, for decades even as fuel becomes more expensive and as public opinion turns against waste for no reason.

Let them do it. Tax them within an inch of being able to afford their wheeled Taj Mahals, so that their potlatch funds more reasonable alternatives for more reasonable people. It's a win/win, when one of the parties is throwing their money away for no good reason. They will throw more, in taxes, just to prove the same stupid point, that they can afford to drive around in a house. Meanwhile, government takes revenue and spends it (hopefully) in obsoleting oil entirely.

Your proposal, a buy-back, is a lose/lose. Government tries to outdo the conspicuous consumption by paying money for scrap, and the gas-guzzling pet dinosaurs are granted a spurious value which they do not possess on the open market.

SUV owners bought the pieces of shit. The longer they drive around and the more it costs them, the bigger fools they look. Let's not bail them out, let's not patronize them. Let's not pretend that they made an honest investment mistake. Let's just laugh at them, take their money in punitive taxes, and charge them recycling fees when they finally realize that having a big car doesn't make them a big person.

It's a small part of a wider problem. Private transportation is a small part of greenhouse gas emissions ... but as long as we have volunteers for the role of "ecological vandal" ... volunteers to troll the streets in a chicken suit, pointing to themselves and yelling "dickhead, right here. Look at me, I'm a dickhead" then it would be sheer waste not to let them do their thing.

Consciousness-raising. It's usually the other side which does it.

No.

The SUV/light truck/gas-guzzler has been a big seller for the last thirty years, to buyers who predominantly have no use for the extra mobility, extra carrying capacity, or extra horsepower. It is conspicuous consumption, wasting money in purchase price and in fuel cost, in a modern version of potlatch: demonstrating your power and wealth by wasting it for no good reason.

It's not going to end now. It will go on, for decades even as fuel becomes more expensive and as public opinion turns against waste for no reason.

Let them do it. Tax them within an inch of being able to afford their wheeled Taj Mahals, so that their potlatch funds more reasonable alternatives for more reasonable people. It's a win/win, when one of the parties is throwing their money away for no good reason. They will throw more, in taxes, just to prove the same stupid point, that they can afford to drive around in a house. Meanwhile, government takes revenue and spends it (hopefully) in obsoleting oil entirely.

Your proposal, a buy-back, is a lose/lose. Government tries to outdo the conspicuous consumption by paying money for scrap, and the gas-guzzling pet dinosaurs are granted a spurious value which they do not possess on the open market.

SUV owners bought the pieces of shit. The longer they drive around and the more it costs them, the bigger fools they look. Let's not bail them out, let's not patronize them. Let's not pretend that they made an honest investment mistake. Let's just laugh at them, take their money in punitive taxes, and charge them recycling fees when they finally realize that having a big car doesn't make them a big person.

It's a small part of a wider problem. Private transportation is a small part of greenhouse gas emissions ... but as long as we have volunteers for the role of "ecological vandal" ... volunteers to troll the streets in a chicken suit, pointing to themselves and yelling "dickhead, right here. Look at me, I'm a dickhead" then it would be sheer waste not to let them do their thing.

Consciousness-raising. It's usually the other side which does it.

Just remember that not everyone that has a SUV/Light Truck buys it to be a "big person". I use my Silverado RCSB, and the bed of my truck shows it (lots of scratches, a couple of dents, and some of them came from moving my friends yesterday). My uncle has a Tahoe, and takes it on long trips with his son, his live in girlfriend, and her kids, all while towing a camper trailer.

No.

The SUV/light truck/gas-guzzler has been a big seller for the last thirty years, to buyers who predominantly have no use for the extra mobility, extra carrying capacity, or extra horsepower. It is conspicuous consumption, wasting money in purchase price and in fuel cost, in a modern version of potlatch: demonstrating your power and wealth by wasting it for no good reason.

It's not going to end now. It will go on, for decades even as fuel becomes more expensive and as public opinion turns against waste for no reason.

Let them do it. Tax them within an inch of being able to afford their wheeled Taj Mahals, so that their potlatch funds more reasonable alternatives for more reasonable people. It's a win/win, when one of the parties is throwing their money away for no good reason. They will throw more, in taxes, just to prove the same stupid point, that they can afford to drive around in a house. Meanwhile, government takes revenue and spends it (hopefully) in obsoleting oil entirely.

Your proposal, a buy-back, is a lose/lose. Government tries to outdo the conspicuous consumption by paying money for scrap, and the gas-guzzling pet dinosaurs are granted a spurious value which they do not possess on the open market.

SUV owners bought the pieces of shit. The longer they drive around and the more it costs them, the bigger fools they look. Let's not bail them out, let's not patronize them. Let's not pretend that they made an honest investment mistake. Let's just laugh at them, take their money in punitive taxes, and charge them recycling fees when they finally realize that having a big car doesn't make them a big person.

It's a small part of a wider problem. Private transportation is a small part of greenhouse gas emissions ... but as long as we have volunteers for the role of "ecological vandal" ... volunteers to troll the streets in a chicken suit, pointing to themselves and yelling "dickhead, right here. Look at me, I'm a dickhead" then it would be sheer waste not to let them do their thing.

Consciousness-raising. It's usually the other side which does it.

Hehehe! Have to agree with you there. That part of my post was really just a joke. Really we are only just one hurricane away from $10 a gallon gas. Then those idiots will start to think: (while pushing their SUV to a gas station) "maybe if I don't talk on the cellphone while driving, I can be just as safe in a smaller car"

You guys might want to check this out on ABC tomorrow night.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Earth2100/Story?id=7697237&page=1

Let them do it. Tax them within an inch of being able to afford their wheeled Taj Mahals, so that their potlatch funds more reasonable alternatives for more reasonable people.
The problem is separating people who are just wasting gas and road space for the show from people who actually need such a vehicle. And that's fairly hard to do without being excessively intrusive.

A possible solution could be progressive taxation based on engine power and fuel consumption, seeing as practical use of a truck requires much less power than driving it as a car. But that still opens up issues of taxing out the wrong guy, or the targets finding a workaround. Like sticking a 9-volt battery into the 3-ton truck and calling it a hybrid.