1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

CO2 emmissions make largest jump ever in 2010

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by Narz, Nov 17, 2011.

  1. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    39,672
    Location:
    US of A

    So it doesn't matter what the effects on anyone else is so long as you get what you want? That's not real libertarianist philosophy.
     
  2. G-Max

    G-Max Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,556
    Or that I'm just being facetious :p

    As long as I'm not violating anyone's rights, it's perfectly compatible with my philosophy.
     
  3. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    39,062
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    As far as I can tell, foisting pollution onto the unconsenting IS violating people's rights.
     
  4. G-Max

    G-Max Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,556
    Life, liberty, and property are rights. Clean air and water aren't (not that this has anything to do with CO2 levels).
     
  5. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    39,672
    Location:
    US of A
    You are deliberately choosing to harm others for your benefit. How is that compatible with liberty?
     
  6. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    39,062
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    How does clean air and water not fall under 'property'? If I used to have clean air and water, and then you spill pollution onto it, how doesn't this fail the libertarian ideal?

    (And I know what you mean about CO2 not really 'applying' to this field, but it's a good proxy for where the logic lies. 99% of the concerns about CO2 are about how we're essentially modifying someone else's property)
     
  7. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    25,497
    Location:
    New York City
    Right, because liberty & property are worth so much when you don't have clean water to drink. :rolleyes:

    What good are property rights when your land is flooded or when you nation suffers a severe drought & food prices quadruple. These are all possibilities connected to climate change which is connected to CO2 levels. The small-minded conception of liberty which says "Get off my lawn & leave me alone, I'll buy what I want, pollute how I want, do what I want" is going to have to perish in the near future.
     
  8. G-Max

    G-Max Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,556
    Not really. Please, name one person who has been harmed by my contribution to global CO2 levels.

    Something about the fact that nobody owns the atmosphere or international waters, perhaps? Meanwhile, if you do keep a private supply of water and air like any crazy hardcore survivalist should, then that's not the air or water that I'm polluting, is it?

    Flooding: I can move, not that a town built 100m above sea level is likely to experience flooding.

    Drought: hey look, all of that Canadian permafrost is now arable farmland! w00t!

    Y'all are seriously underestimating human adaptability.
     
  9. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    39,672
    Location:
    US of A
    When everyone thinks like that, everyone is harmed.
     
  10. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    25,497
    Location:
    New York City
    It's all about "I", I noticed. What about people too poor to move or adapt. Adaptation & evolution occur most rapidly when a large portion of a species population is wiped out and only a small subset survive.
     
  11. G-Max

    G-Max Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,556
    ...assuming that anyone has actually been harmed yet, or ever will, as a result of humanity's CO2 output, which has yet to be demonstrated.

    Nobody is "too poor to move or adapt". Our species used to be nomadic, remember? We were moving and adapting eons before we had even invented money. Also, keep in mind that we're not talking about flash-floods here. We're talking about the melting of ice caps over hundreds of years. Surely, that's a sufficient window of time to find a new place to live via Craigslist or whatever.
     
  12. Silurian

    Silurian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    5,546
    Following that logic nations on the west side of the pacific could put their toxic waste onto ships and burn it just outside American territorial waters. The toxic fumes would be carried by the wind to shore and so reduce pollution of the sea. Since the air and water does not belong to anyone the Americans will not be concerned and the sensible ones can look on Craigslist for a place to buy some clean air and water.
     
  13. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    39,062
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    I think it has, but the political discussion is more important. The effect of CO2 will become more clear to you and me as time goes on, and the nature of this discussion is such that it cross-applies to other hypotheticals (such as air pollution)
    Ah, but this was before true 'property'. Now the land is owned, and so if you need to move you'll *need* the permission of people who already own property to take some of their property. Or, like nomads of old, you can use violence.

    And remember, if you're needing to move because your property has been degraded, your ability to afford to move will be reduced. A farmer who thrived before, when the aquifers were full, the CO2 balance was correct for grains, and there wasn't sever seasonal flooding (because of snow capture of water) is poorer and has less assets as the pollution builds up to ruin the value of his property.

    Your idea that 'no one' owns the atmosphere seems wrong. It's clear that every human makes rampant use of it, and so it's probably more reasonable to suggest that we all own it. Or else we get into strange scenarios like where you are 'okay' with me moving a tire-burning plant upwind of your house. The analogies are more similar than dissimilar.
     
  14. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    39,672
    Location:
    US of A

    Actually, it has. Many people would just rather hurt others than be inconvenienced themselves. And so they reject the evidence.
     
  15. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    25,497
    Location:
    New York City
    Many of the recent weather disasters (droughts, tsunamis, etc.) may be related to global warming.

    Right, so people watch their children starve to death because they choose to. What kind of idiot would let flies suck the last drops of moisture from their child's eyes when they could just go on "Craigslist or whatever". Apartment wanted : Hi, I'm a starving East African refugee, looking for somewhere I won't die. No ride or job but I have references... well, most of them are dead but anyway, you have to pick me up cause I can barely walk, I don't even know how I'm typing this as I have no access to a computer".

    Yeah, but nowadays people don't appreciate your migrating into their territory. Not to mention many nomads humans perished along the way.

    I don't think you understand the predication if you think it will take hundreds of years for the coastlines to change. There are already islands underwater that weren't before. If Miami is not underwater in 50 years I'll be very surprised.
     
  16. TheLastOne36

    TheLastOne36 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    14,045
    That's not what Global Warming is. Entire regions of continents could become significantly cooler and arid due to change in global temperature levels and it's effects on climate.

    The Canadian Tundra wouldn't become useable. It would become arid.
     
  17. G-Max

    G-Max Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Messages:
    2,556
    Buying clean air and water? That's for losers. Sensible people buy filters to make their own clean air and water :D

    Good, because I'm freezing my rocks off here.

    Okay. How is this different from our current setup? Either way, I'm renting a room in a house that I don't own...

    That's why it's a good idea to sell your property before it becomes covered in the carcasses of drowned polar bears :rolleyes:

    Alternatively, you could convert the land for non-farming purposes (i.e., the Indian Casino effect).

    This kind of contradicts the concept of "ownership".

    Whether I'm okay with it or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you're not violating my rights by doing so. I can choose to move, or I can choose to tolerate the smell of burning rubber. I'd probably go with the latter because I have almost no sense of smell.
     
  18. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    39,062
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Well, if your world view is such that you'd support the rights of a neighbor to burn tires next to your property, I guess that's your worldview. I won't be able to create common ground on the CO2 issue, if your perception of property rights is like that.

    Because of that, it doesn't really matter what you think of CO2 science. I mean, it matters because the world is better if people are as informed as possible, but you and I will never agree on what needs to be done regarding CO2, regardless of whether you ever perceive it as causing problems. The burning tire problems is an analogy for CO2 concerns, and you're okay with someone polluting the air you intend to breathe. I am not :)

    Agree to disagree!
     
  19. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    44,606
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    So why should I take any of your arguments seriously?
     
  20. Verbose

    Verbose Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    9,294
    Location:
    Sweden / France

Share This Page