This is just another version of the "Why don't liberals start more charities?" post. Next: Why don't all Christians move to Iraq? Don't they truly believe Christ told them to spread the good news to all those who don't believe?

Maybe those people decided to start charities and now they don't have time to cut their emissions.

I personally went the last five years without a car, live in a 273-square foot apartment, don't watch TV, and carpool on my annual vacation to GenCon. Am I holy enough to comment on CO2 emissions now? Gee, what a penance you have to make to be a liberal. Maybe I should switch to being a conservative. I can advocate my conservative value system of "the system works just fine exactly as it is" without having to give up a thing.

bush is anti environment. his ranch is Geo thermally heated and cooled. he got lucky and his house was built over a hot spring.

Probably not luck -- he bought the ranch as a campaign prop before his first run for Texas governor, so it was probably selected partially on its fuzzy wuzzy factor. I'm actually surprised that Gore never did that kind of thing to his home. Maybe all these people bought their houses in an era when people didn't look at politicians' houses, or when it was a big grand house instead of a green house that got you respect?

That's a luxury you have of being single, noumenon. Try living in a small house or apartment if you have children, and I assure you, the children will be removed.

I'm glad you agree.

people don't think about other peoples circumstances. they just think about theirs.

like gene keeps saying brad makes to much money. but how does he know. he doesn't know what brads circumstances are. maybe brads got a relative with cancer.

you cannot go by what your circumstances are when you want to take something away from others just because it feels good at the moment.

I think we could also call "carbon credits" indulgences. And if I remember my history correctly (I graduated from public school before they started revising history) - Martin Luther had an issue with the prelates in Germany selling these indulgences to get into heaven. He was correct in saying that it was allowing the wealthy to buy their way into heaven (which you can't do, regardless of what a piece of paper says) and part of his complaint to the Church was that they stop this practice as it was demoralizing to those who could not afford the indulgences and cruel to those who were buying them because they were worthless.

So here we have Mr. Gore buying indulgences (and I would love to see someone follow the money to see how much of it goes back into his pocket) to get to "heaven" - meaning a world free of guilt in using as much energy and leaving as large a CO2 footprint on the world as he wishes. Why - because he could afford the "get out of jail free" card.

Maybe someone should nail 99 complaints the front door of all "eco-friendly do-gooders". And start the list with carbon offsets.

I think we could also call "carbon credits" indulgences. And if I remember my history correctly (I graduated from public school before they started revising history) - Martin Luther had an issue with the prelates in Germany selling these indulgences to get into heaven. He was correct in saying that it was allowing the wealthy to buy their way into heaven (which you can't do, regardless of what a piece of paper says) and part of his complaint to the Church was that they stop this practice as it was demoralizing to those who could not afford the indulgences and cruel to those who were buying them because they were worthless.

So here we have Mr. Gore buying indulgences (and I would love to see someone follow the money to see how much of it goes back into his pocket) to get to "heaven" - meaning a world free of guilt in using as much energy and leaving as large a CO2 footprint on the world as he wishes. Why - because he could afford the "get out of jail free" card.

Maybe someone should nail 99 complaints the front door of all "eco-friendly do-gooders". And start the list with carbon offsets.

Actually, I would have no problem allowing someone who pollutes 1000 more than anyone else buying a hundred time his pollution productivity in carbon credit.

Since carbon credit are limited in availability, their price are going to rise is someone is buying them a lot (market rule #1). If their price are going to rise, companies that would usually buy carbon credit to compensate for their over-production of carbon emmission would find it more profitable to simple overhaul their engine and become more pollution-free.

Or, on the other hand, companies that have the technology to de-pollute would develop more, since they CREATE carbon-credit by de-polluting. What's the economical advantage of a company, right now, in the U.S. for DE-polluting? Almost nada (outside whatever fund the governement want to subvention them) (and outside whatever carbon credit they could sell to European country).

So, if carbon credit are getting more expensive, more companies will be create to de-pollute, since it's more profitable for them. Technology will improve out of experience, and on the whole, the person who polluted at first but bought a lot of Carbon Credit contributed a lot more than Joe Bloe who simply bought a new car.



It's because you don't understand the basis of my positions. I usually go on the side that I think will help the society the most. I think that a good social-net (for healthcare, etc...) (which you call "championing the poor") is better on the society than a simple economic free-for-all that America is in actually (whatever social program you may have, it's peanut compared with European countries and Canada, so it completely qualifies as "free for all")

On this side, I really think that the best way for the Earth to be saved is if there a buck to make to save it. I just hate the tree-hugger's side that peoples and companies should make sacrifices to stop polluting. It's inneficient. Simple cap the Carbon Emmission in every country would provide a business and market-friendly way to MAKE A BUCK saving the planet. You can attract WAY more people on your side if there is something to earn, rather than doing a "noble sacrifice".

Yes, and rural Americans will be impoverished because they won't be able to afford carbon credits, nor will they be able to afford hybrid cars. But that doesn't matter, I guess.



OK, at least you're honest. We can give the poor health care, but leave them stranded 15 miles from the nearest town because they can't afford carbon credits. Sounds like a workable solution to me.



You know NOTHING of the programs we have other than what you have heard from the media, cikomyr, and you are in NO POSITION to make a judgment on the efficacy of those programs. I'm tired of foreign armchair bureaucrats decrying our system when they know absolutely nothing about how it operates.

well.. since Carbon emmission cap would mostly affect car manufacturers & transport companies, it would only affect the consumer's choice when they want to buy a new car.

For example, if there WAS a carbon cap, the gov could give a carbon emmission cap to the new car put in production. If a company finds it more suiting for itself to simply buy carbon credits rather than change it's standard, fin with me. The pollution emmited by their production will be balanced by the contribution they make. On the other hand, if a company find it more appealing to change it's standard, and make more carbon-free card, more fuel-efficient, they could, on the other hand, SELL carbon credit for every car sold, and make a supplemental buck out of it.

Because the system doesn't actually give any benefit to companies (except publicity & good reputation) who actually do something good about their product or governance, I don't see why they should change their ways.



I am no bureaucrat, nor even Union-member. In my country, I am considered a conservative (about economical matters). Study Actuariat Mathematics.
I despise Unions in Quebec, for they have big mouths and create way more injustice than they create (but I do think unions are sometime necessary). I find our healthcare system inneficient, for it does not allow private funding from someone who wants to be treated quicker (but I am not against universal system. Just allow people who wants more and/or quicker to pay for it). I think my governement's bureaucracy is way too big, that my people have no ambition.

However, since we *are* quite liberals in our politics, I would find it healthy to be a little more conservative. On the other hand, I know that America is by far one of the most conservative (economicly) country in the world, and I think it would be healthy for it to be a little more liberal. It is not the opinion of a union leader, nor a liberal who simply studied politics in our education-almost-free system. I try to know a lot, and for what I've seen in diverse papers, the U.S.A. could use a little more equality.

Cikomyr

well.. since Carbon emmission cap would mostly affect car manufacturers & transport companies, it would only affect the consumer's choice when they want to buy a new car.

Umm, you know I can not afford a new car right? I drive a 94 Ford Explorer, not the most gas economical vehicle, but it's mine. I paid $2500 for it and that was with my tax return. I can not afford a new car right now, what makes you think I could afford any car that would be eco-friendly?

Nissan Altima Hybrid $30,700

Toyota Camry Hybrid $30,500

Toyota Prius $25,666

Honda Civic Hybrid $21,641

Mercury Mariner Hybrid $27,055

I can not afford to get any of these cars at the moment. Will I have to pay the price because I can not afford to save my planet?

as I said, it would not affect the consumers until they will want to buy a new (really NEW) car. The only affected party - when it comes to car - would be the car manufacturers/sellers, and they would have to pay a carbon tax proportionnal to the excess pollution emmited by their car, while company who makes more fuel-efficient car will have higher income because of it.

You, as a simple citizen, would not have to pay anything in surplus because of such cap. Same thing about your personnal energy use, you would not be charged for your habits. On the other hand, if you want to buy new equipment (electro-menager in french.. damn, I don't know the word in english. You know, microwave, fridge, water-heater, etc...), there would be an inneficience-tax on energy, while efficient products would raise more profit.

Interesting concept, actually, cikomyr. While I don't agree as to the cause of global warming, you and I can definitely agree that green living is in all of our best interests.

I think this may be oversimplifying things a bit, but this is an idea I would definitely welcome to the debate, because it doesn't rely on nanny state, big government regulation, but rather on making greener choices more commercially viable.

And this is part of the problem in implementing your country's system.

The truth is, cikomyr, we DON'T have masses dying in the street because of poor health care. Our system is imperfect, yes, and there's a lot of corruption in it the way it stands, but the truth is, the vast majority of Americans enjoy decent health care. One of the biggest problems we have in providing for the poor is the HUGE numbers of illegal immigrants we have in this country (about HALF of the number of uninsured "Americans" you see bandied about so frequently, are illegal aliens, NOT Americans). Anything we do to help the poor winds up enabling the illegals and encouraging further illegal immigration. It is not unlike masses of seagulls that will descend on you in the park when they discover you're tossing out free bread.

I'm currently at work studying my position on addressing the health care issues (read: NOT crisis!) in America and developing a personal platform position (which I intend to take with me to the LP national convention). I believe there are workable solutions that don't rely so heavily on the nanny state.

That's a luxury you have of being single, noumenon. Try living in a small house or apartment if you have children, and I assure you, the children will be removed.

That's what's nice about being single. I can live my values by turning my air conditioning off in the summer without imposing them on anybody else.

Anyway, sure I could do more. That was my point -- when I was a Christian, even if I tithed and had daily devotions and didn't swear, I still wasn't doing mission work or feeding the homeless. It didn't mean I didn't "truly believe" in God. You act on your beliefs not just because you believe them, but because of how much utility you get out of following them. I feel good about myself when I bike to work, but I hate washing dishes. So I eat off styrofoam plates, even though I believe they're wasteful. The line from belief to action passes through a laziness threshold. That speaks to my character, not to the intensity of my beliefs.

I can always compare myself to the other single guys working at my job. They'll have an eight-room house for a single person, or a trailer with two bedrooms. Trailers are really nice these days, by the way. Better furnished than the house I grew up in, and not that expensive. I could afford it, but I'd rather use less energy.