What possible incentive do we have to NOT go green.

[Axeman]

For the purpose of this argument I will assume that GLOBAL WARMING IS A MAGICAL CONSPIRACY.

Why?

To stress my point..

Maybe you can all shed some light on this subject, because I honestly cannot wrap my head around this idea.

It is a FACT that industry itself pollutes. Im not saying lets all sing Kumbayah and eat granola forever, but even if industry is not causing a radical climate shift, you still have chemicals going into the ocean killing fish or disrupting the ecosystem. That is just a minor point however that I do not want this discussion to latch onto.

Another point is that oil WILL RUN OUT. Oil is a non-renewable resource, and for those of you that are incompetent when it comes to basic English word structure, once it goes away, it is NOT GOING BACK.

Far too many *well every* country allows huge chunks of its foreign policy to be completely swayed and dominated by this stranglehold Oil has on us. The United States and the west are in bed with some of the worst violators of human-rights for OIL. WHICH WILL GO AWAY.

Now oil may just be one part of this equation but it is deffinatley the coefficient. Once you can maximize the use of synthetics to create lubricants used to power the gears of various machines, WHICH ALREADY EXISTS, we can take a step closer to "going green."

Then there are the prospects of alternative energy. Though the only 2 current viable ones are geothermal and wind, as Uranium is a non-renewable resource as well as Oil thus meaning that Nuclear Fission, or in the very long term even Fusion, is useless. Also many components of Solar Panels currently being used are non-renewable and are very expensive to produce, but hopefully we can overcome this hurrdle in the next few years, which I would be all up for.

So other then spending money already allocated for being spent in this recession on green infrastructure which would in turn give people jobs, why are so many conservatives afraid that going green is going to turn everyone into bible burning pot smoking anti-Christs?

Other then initial expenses, there is absolutely no reason I can see to not going green that is good for everybody, unless you are currently an oil company CEO.

[Simon Cashmere]

Conserve resources sure, use things more efficiently sure.

But using Global Warming as the pretext for expensive global taxation and global government is not on. Introducing the Carbon Tax, with exemptions granted to the rich and full freight for the poor. It's a gigantic con to move everyone to world government in the name of the environment, and to erode national sovereignty.

[Salem1]

Excessive global warming turns Sweden into Spain and stops a giant block of ice from obliterating everything in Scandinavia and sinking us way below sea level again every once in a while, unless we find some other means of preventing that (which isn't impossible). Bring on global warming, I'm not complaining pretty sure that the people who are causing it will when they que to get to northern Siberia however.

[The.Delegate]

So other then spending money already allocated for being spent in this recession on green infrastructure which would in turn give people jobs, why are so many conservatives afraid that going green is going to turn everyone into bible burning pot smoking anti-Christs?

Haha! Well said.

[humvee2800]

So other then spending money already allocated for being spent in this recession on green infrastructure which would in turn give people jobs, why are so many conservatives afraid that going green is going to turn everyone into bible burning pot smoking anti-Christs?

Building and designing that infrastructure gives people jobs.

Going green is not just a global warming or kyoto thing, it is supposed to be a part of business ethics

Corporate social responsibility

or the responsibility a corporation has to society, based off its responsibility to its stake holders, which includes those around its production facilities.

Mind you most pollution is caused by traffic anyways.

[Exarch]

green tech is expensive cuz it's still new

and cows farting also contribute to methane and climate cange

[Kjertesvein]

I'm sceptic, maybe it's my age and lack of faith in humans, but this is my view:

I know that a power plant, which a new one opens up every week in China, is twice as polluting as half my countrys pollution. Then I think of an old Norwegian proverb:

Alt det lille hjelper, sa den gamle dama og pissa i havet

• "Everything helps', said the old woman and pissed in the sea"

It is a FACT that industry itself pollutes. Im not saying lets all sing Kumbayah and eat granola forever, but even if industry is not causing a radical climate shift, you still have chemicals going into the ocean killing fish or disrupting the ecosystem. That is just a minor point however that I do not want this discussion to latch onto.

This is very true, and I have nothing against stoping shady shark fin killings and other conservating projects.

Another point is that oil WILL RUN OUT. Oil is a non-renewable resource, and for those of you that are incompetent when it comes to basic English word structure, once it goes away, it is NOT GOING BACK.

I well aware of that, but I will do just fine, so I don't rush.

Far too many *well every* country allows huge chunks of its foreign policy to be completely swayed and dominated by this stranglehold Oil has on us. The United States and the west are in bed with some of the worst violators of human-rights for OIL. WHICH WILL GO AWAY.

I'm not incuded in that, but that's very very true and it's a good point.

Now oil may just be one part of this equation but it is deffinatley the coefficient. Once you can maximize the use of synthetics to create lubricants used to power the gears of various machines, WHICH ALREADY EXISTS, we can take a step closer to "going green."

True.

Then there are the prospects of alternative energy. Though the only 2 current viable ones are geothermal and wind, as Uranium is a non-renewable resource as well as Oil thus meaning that Nuclear Fission, or in the very long term even Fusion, is useless. Also many components of Solar Panels currently being used are non-renewable and are very expensive to produce, but hopefully we can overcome this hurrdle in the next few years, which I would be all up for.

I can also book you 1 000 000 000 km\3 room for CO2 under the earth:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So other then spending money already allocated for being spent in this recession on green infrastructure which would in turn give people jobs, why are so many conservatives afraid that going green is going to turn everyone into bible burning pot smoking anti-Christs?

If it's jobs involved, then I'm all for it.

Other then initial expenses, there is absolutely no reason I can see to not going green that is good for everybody, unless you are currently an oil company CEO.

It IS expencive. SSB, the Norwegian National Statistic department have found out that completing the 20% cut before the 2020 goal in Norway: Every citizen have to pay 17 000 NOK = 3000 USD. The whole package will cost my country 72 000 000 000 (NOK) = 12 540 284 360.2(USD). These numbers can swing both ways and this number is for Norway only, and no number is steady just jet. However my sceptics on economy, if it will boost industry and we don't need a (world) war (II) to boost it -- then I'm all for it. All the way.



-Wille

[Erlinggra]

It IS expencive. SSB, the Norwegian National Statistic department have found out that completing the 20% cut before the 2020 goal in Norway: Every citizen have to pay 17 000 NOK = 3000 USD.

17 000 NOK / 10 years is 1700 each year or 300 USD/year/ capita. 300 USD per capita is about what it's costing us to have 100 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Kjertesvein]

17 000 NOK / 10 years is 1700 each year or 300 USD/year/ capita. 300 USD per capita is about what it's costing us to have 100 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Not a bad argument, but what about forign eviormental aid, do you know how much our goal is at?

Regards,

-Wille

[Erlinggra]

Not a bad argument, but what about forign eviormental aid, do you know how much our goal is at?

Regards,

-Wille

It’s currently at 1 % of GDP. The socialist and Christian party wants to bump it up to 2-3% which would bring it up to 20-30 billion NOK(4-6 billion USD)

[removeduser_487563287433]

Money I suppose. Although it would only cost 9% of the cost of the Iraq War to switch the entire world over to reneable energy sources.

[Count of Montesano]

I think part of the problem in America is the upcoming legislation to impose a new cap-and-trade system as well as major new carbon taxes. From what I've read of cap-and-trade, it seems like it could potentially be a major boondoggle for big energy companies (who will likely get cap credits for free or cheap) and a big expense for consumers. There's also a good deal of evidence that cap-and-trade actually reduces pollution in the long term.

I'm not against raising some carbon taxes if the money was used exclusively for R&D and tax breaks to sustainable energy. If anything, developing a green economy is one of the ways America and other First World countries can reinvigorate their economies. But there's no guarantee this tax money would actually be used to fund green technology.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Money I suppose. Although it would only cost 9% of the cost of the Iraq War to switch the entire world over to reneable energy sources.

And could probably be accomplished with just half the lies, if that..

[magpie]

Initial cost of living rise may be a disincentive, carbon taxes just used as another form of income tax and not used for what they were intended for. Yes I agree industrial pollution should be curbed, Toxic waste disposal needs to be controlled with proper penalties imposed. trade embargo,s slapped on countries that are destroying the rain forests. If people and goverments were really serious about Co2 emmisions then private car travel should be banned 3 days a week, This should reduce pollution by a fair amount, save on oil usage ect. and most likely abolish the need for carbon taxes.

[Enemy of the State]

Going green is fine if it's not forced. It will happen by itself.

[Erlinggra]

A nice easy and painless way of reducing CO2 emission in any western country that would not have any effect on the quality of life of people would be to ban petroleum plastics.

Going green is fine if it's not forced. It will happen by itself.

not soon enough.

[Kjertesvein]

Then who is blocking it? Social-Democrats? progress party? convervatives?

[Erlinggra]

Labor and central wants to increase it, but not by that much. Both progress and the conservative are against all increases.

[Erik]

Face it: the only reason Republicans are against "going green" is because their political opponents are in favor, and lacking any original ideas of their own they must oppose everything supported by the Democrats.

In Europe, where right-wing parties actually have some constructive ideas as well, pretty much everybody is in favor of going green.
Only the speed and degree of "going green" is debated, but that's just details.

[Ahlerich]

In Europe, where right-wing parties actually have some constructive ideas as well, pretty much everybody is in favor of going green.
Only the speed and degree of "going green" is debated, but that's just details.

thats jsut because we are way ahead wrapping our head around this issue. i remember a climate conference somewhere in south america in the early 90s. at that point amercia didnt aknowledge the climate change and its risks while most of europe started working on solutions and fired off the first projects.
so america is about 20 years back in regards to this issue. 20 years ago, at least in germany, it was mainly the greenparty beeing progressive and enthusiastic about this issue any most other partys were agains quick and big changes.