1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Climate Change? Nahhh ...

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Riptide, Oct 23, 2015.

Page 74 of 352
  1. Oggiedoggie

    Oggiedoggie Well-Known Member

    I like to view that as an epic wrestling match between Mother Earth and Jesus!


    (OK, it’s more like one of the great great great ... grandchildren of Mother Earth vs. Jesus version 2021.4.23, but any promoter has to be a bit dramatic to get a crowd to show up.)
     
    Oggiedoggie, Apr 23, 2021
    #877
    HanSenSE likes this.
  2. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Influence over, what, the regular person? No, not much. The HOW DARE YOU was a bit of theater that backfired as much as it thrilled progressives; Thunberg isn't really even like that. Her life, because of her values, is a stupendous pain the ass, though, and unsustainable on even a modest scale. She has to cross the Atlantic on small boats provided to her by the movement, in essence. Nobody else be a itinerant climate preacher like that.

    I'm not talking about her influence. I'm talking about a movement that used her as a strategy.
     
    Alma, Apr 23, 2021
    #878
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You kind of need to redefine what a subsidy is to call paved roads a subsidy. Using that reasoning, you can call anything you want a "subsidy" if you ascribe some benefit to something else.

    Regardless, paved roads weren't the result of some politicians deciding to centrally plan the modes of transportation people would have to use. They came about because of the immense consumer demand for automobiles. The chicken came before the egg.

    EV subsidies have not been convoluted benefits that you need to do mental gymnastics around to connect some dots to a supposed benefit. When you hand people money from others for buying an EV that is actual subsidization. When you force manufacturers of gas-powered cars to hand over money to EV manufacturers in a regulatory credit scheme, that is an actual subsidy. When you have companies given low-interest loans (many of which were never paid back because the companies went bust) that is actual subsidization.
     
    The Big Ragu, Apr 23, 2021
    #879
  4. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    As you've pointed out, everything in our economy is some form of subsidy at one level or another. I just happen to support a subsidy that will help provide a safer, calmer natural environment for my grandkids than one that will help provide a third vacation home for an oil company or weapons manufacturer CEO.
     
    TigerVols, Apr 23, 2021
    #880
    Neutral Corner likes this.
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not pointing that out.

    In a pure world, governments provide roads because they are a public good -- i.e. they are subject to a free rider problem, and won't get provided without people being compelled to pay for them. Without the government, perhaps we'd have private toll roads, and people would pay for them that way. But however that gets done it's a direct relationship in which people pay for the roads they want, and they get the benefit of the roads they paid for.

    In the case of EVs, for more than 100 years, demand for them was non-existent, and then you had politicians hand picking an industry, then hand picking winners and losers within that industry. ... and forcing other people, including the direct competitors to that industry, to pay for the benefit the politicians gave them. There is no direct benefit. It's robbing Peter to give preference to Paul, because you have decided Paul is more worthy.

    If you had a guarantee that the choices those politicians make are not going to be corrupt choices, and that they will actually provide that environmental benefit you are suggesting, maybe that sort of command economy would be fair and good. But that is never the case. It's why every centrally planned form of government makes people worse off.

    On top of it, there is the opportunity cost of forcing people into someone else's hand picked solution for something. Let's say we're all in agreement that we are destroying the planet, and our hope is that we can develop cleaner technologies that can either slow that process or stop it. The opportunity cost of politicians directing where capital gets funneled (we have fixed resources) is the unknown cheaper and more efficient technologies that were disadvantaged as a result, but would likely achieve your goals way better if people were deciding for themselves where their investment capital should be deployed.
     
    The Big Ragu, Apr 23, 2021
    #881
    Batman and Alma like this.
  6. I Should Coco

    I Should Coco Well-Known Member

    Good discussion going on here. Someone (Hermes? NeutralCorner?) noted that the divisive politics of our times will sink Biden's initiative even faster than potential economic disruption/sacrifice, and I agree with that.

    It was more than 40 years ago (!!!) that Jimmy Carter asked Americans to turn their thermostats down a bit and conserve energy to reduce our dependence on Middle East fossil fuel. His appeal sunk like a rock and we were a much less fractured country then.

    It's nice to believe we could be "all in agreement that we're destroying the planet," but we couldn't even all agree on the science about spreading COVID. Or whether or not vaccines work.

    If Columbus made his trip in 2020 rather than 1492, there would be sharp disagreement about the world being flat because WE NEED TO STOP SOCIALISM!!! And also because DON'T BELIEVE HIM HE'S A RACIST.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to finish mowing my lawn with my reel mower ... :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2021
    I Should Coco, Apr 23, 2021
    #882
    OscarMadison likes this.
  7. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Alma, Apr 25, 2021
    #883
  8. I Should Coco

    I Should Coco Well-Known Member

    Only two (well, three if you count D.C.) states had a majority of people who believe global warming will harm them personally: California and Hawaii.

    You would think Alaskans would be in that group ... but I guess all that stuff about rising sea levels and ice breaking up in the Arctic Circle is fake news.
     
    I Should Coco, Apr 25, 2021
    #884
  9. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    If I lived in Alaska, I'd probably be rooting hard for it.
     
    Twirling Time, Apr 26, 2021
    #885
  10. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Alma, Apr 26, 2021
    #886
  11. Driftwood

    Driftwood Well-Known Member

    People don't like to hear it, but commercial cattle farming is an environmental disaster.
    I can't speak knowledgeably about the cow farts thing, but cows destroy the land where they are kept. All the mud and poop runoff goes into the creeks and on down stream.
    I'm not talking about someone keeping a handful of cows on a family farm. I'm talking industrial level numbers.
    I've had the state environmental department on a guy about a mile out the road from me at least three times.
     
    Driftwood, Apr 26, 2021
    #887
    Inky_Wretch likes this.
  12. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    A lot of things are though. Playing sports is a disaster when figuring in all the travel and fans travel that must take place. Global trade is. It’s not like China’s pollution counts less than ours does.

    China simply does not have the ego or performative shame many Americans do in thinking we are solely responsible and also can change the free world with our behavior.
     
    Alma, Apr 26, 2021
    #888
Page 74 of 352
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page