Umm, Rush - so what do you suggest?

What do you mean? Presently? Next generation breeder reactors with fuel recycling.

Sounds good, but there is a security problem (just again shortly ago in Sweden) and where do you plan to deposit all the radioactive waste? It's sad, though - nuclear energy could be "the solution" elsewise, don't know if the problems are solveable.

I have the feeling that you don't get what I suggest anyways. It's about keeping the high life standard we actually have, but using improved tech and creating new jobs that way. But the average worker will have to earn at least enough to be able to afford it - meanwhile in the US they earn 1/411th of their bosses income, yay!

This means nothing. I agree that improved technology will help the situation. But the ratio of incomes between janitor and CEO means nothing. Why does it matter that Oprah makes 411 times what the guy that sweeps her studio makes?

*sigh* Is my english that bad? I just stated that the average worker needs a "fair" payment to be able to afford investment into energy saving and improving economy by domestic demand. How helpful is it if in the end of "the race" only 5% of the people will control 90% of the money. So 5% will be able to buy a car, now that will cost some jobs. This is economical nonsense, who is got to buy all the stuff that gets produced if 95% of the people will not be super-rich, actually 80% will be poor.

Houses will be build / improved to save energy -> more jobs.
Cars will be fuled by alternative energy -> more jobs.
Alternative energy production has to be build up -> more jobs.
Industry develops more efficient and less polluting production methods and exports -> more jobs.

Eh, that's just an opinion call. Drive the costs of these things up, houses, cars, et cetera, and demand drops.

Exactly. So the "average" worker needs to be able to actually buy a new, less polluting car. He needs to be able to isolate his house. This generates a boost for the economy. But actually it's just about cutting down payments, so people usually don't have the money for it.

Informed is the keyword here Rush. How are people to get informed?

I have no idea. That is up to them. To learn as they wish, or not. To take classes. Or not. To read various sources and points of view. Or not. They are free, they do as they wish.

Does everyone have equal access to the information?

I have no idea. It doesn't matter. No one on earth has ever had equal access to information and they never will because information by its very nature is unequally distributed.

Are they even aware it is there?

I have no idea. That is up to them. Not me, or you, or DA.

Who is controlling the education system in your utopia?

"Utopia," that's not a word I used. The parents who have children are responsible for educating their children.

Are they training people up to be free thinkers or consumers? There is no free choice without education and access to all the information. However..if the information agenda is being set by people who are trying to maximise profits then that will never happen.

I have no idea what this means. People learn for themselves (or not). I can't train you to be libertarian, anymore than you can train me for the Borg collective. Individuals are responsible for what they learn (or not), and no one has the right to force them to choose otherwise.

The freedoms you go on about are an illusion.

This is argument? What freedoms did I go on about, and why are they an illusion? Because you sez so?

The only freedom that exists truly, is the right to yourself, to be free from the interference of others. That's it, there's nothing else, and I have never suggested otherwise. There is no freedom to be free from the laws of reality. One must eat to live. One must act to survive.

Rush, in a democracy it DOES matter, because people have to elect a representative in the end. It is of utterly importance that people are not just manipulated by media and their shareholders trying to advertise their point of views and the system they profit the most perosnally. But I'll give you the point that it's very likely the majority does not care and that's why democracy ain't working anymore and politicians do no longer care for their country and citizens but their own wallet.

That freedom extends even to you Rush...to believe as you like...oh and feel free to exercise your freedom of choice to not think beyond your wallet.

Exactly. That's what freedom is. It means that no one else has to think as you do, regardless of your opinion about it.

No actually Rush, freedom is that you don't have to think like everyone else...get it straight.

Now the all knowing Rush will entertain us with the copious amounts of knowledge that he thinks he has that makes him believe that he can tell me what I know and and don't know without the least bit of knowledge of who I am.

For 99.999% of the economic decisions you make (i.e., all of them) you cannot think beyond your wallet. You don't have enough information. There's too much out there.

Wow that's deep...that's a rather large assumption...and completely off the mark.

I don't believe I claimed to know about every step used to make everything that I use in my daily life; however I do use my freedom of choice to become informed so that I may make better decisions as to where I choose to spend my money. Often those choices at my expense are for the betterment of the environment.

The point being, that's just what you think about the decisions you have made. You actually don't have enough information to make "informed" decisions as you seem to be using the term. They aren't "better" decisions per se (better as compared to what?), they're simply what you want, they're simply making you feel better about yourself. You do as everyone else does--you value what you buy over what you have in your wallet.

Also deep and also off the mark...Websters dictionary defines "informed" as (having or prepared with information or knowledge; apprised). So I take from your statement that you believe that nobody is "informed" because they may not have all of the information...again this is a very myopic way of looking at things. Who are you to assume that my decisions are driven by what is economically in my favor...when I clearly stated earlier that I make my decisions in favor of the environment at personal cost to me. Why you might ask. Well because I care.

Good for you, I'm glad you have the freedom to make these choices. But I'm going to lobby the gov't to take your computer away from you, because I think you use too much energy.

Ok...now that was about the least intelligent things I have read on this thread. Not that I didn't expect it considering your prior posts. I'd get great joy form comparing my energy bill with yours, considering what you have stated. On the other hand reading the above statement again it seems to me like you feel you don't have those choices. Interesting...very interesting...or maybe it's rather that you don't want to make those choices. Could it be?

It was a joke, designed to illustrate why it doesn't make sense to comment on others based on what one "feels." I would never restrict your freedom, ever. You live as you wish.[/quote]

Poorly executed and vastly hypocritical considering your above highly presumptive post regarding me.

But say you use less power than some, so what?

So...just that I use less power then "some" meaning that I actively reduce my environmental impact by choice which is more then I can say for many people.

There are people who think you use too much.

Another poor attempt at humor, or were you really serious this time?

Should they be allowed to tell you what you do? Should you be allowed to tell the family of six that they have to live as you do? That their children must be uncomfortable because you would set their thermostat differently than they have chosen to?

I don't believe I ever stated that I was trying to tell a family of six what to do, I don't believe I stated that I would tell them to set their "thermostat differently" or even tell them how to set their thermostat, and where exactly are you going with this? It seems like you are intentionally trying to put words in my mouth and twist what I have said to meet your own ends, which really doesn't make much sense because I never said it.

Should some guy in Burkina Faso be able to tell you that you must shut your computer down because global warming "caused" some storm that might kill him?

Beyond your propensity to use vastly dissimilar metaphorical statements in an attempt to make a point, it should be noted that I am referring mainly to what my country and the citizens that are part of it "can do" to reduce the effects on global climate change (aka...global warming). However I do find it rather amusing that you use the present tense and the future tense in the same statement. Please tell me how exactly "global warming 'caused' some storm that 'might' kill him?" I dare say, that really was scraping the bottom of the argument barrel.

Can you tell everyone to shut down BOINC because it uses too much power? They value the knowledge gained over the resources used. But the use of those resources causes global warming.

Sure I could, and it is their freedom to make an informed decision.

I make energy conscious decisions, regularly. Every bulb on my property is a compact florescent. Yet, some of the outside ones shine all night because it keeps my house safer. I value the fact that it is harder to break into a well-let home, more than I value the money used to pay the electric bill.

Ah...but to throw your earlier assumption back at you for the purpose of argument and amusement alone...tell me you didn't consider too, while you were doing your part, the fact that those bulbs last longer, and since they use less power. it has a positive impact on your wallet. Come on now, be honest. Were you solely driven by your want to do your part or was there an economic drive there as well?

---

No Rush, you don't get it.

Au contraire, I do get it. I get that if you people don't come up with something better than "the U.S. must sign a piece of paper," you're doomed.

You are saying "If net total emissions do not fall....." Wow, let's all just give up now! We have the ultimate choice. Do we try to reduce CO2 emissions and try to lower atmospheric greenhouse levels? Or, do we sit back and wait for 10, 20 or 30 years and see how things pan out and then let our children be the judge and suffer the consequences?

I've never said to give up. What I have said is that gov't force will not save you. Kyoto failed. Even countries that willingly signed the silly thing and wanted to meet their goals did not.

The position is very simple. X will happen if total emissions are not cut. The total emissions will not be cut because significant emitters have been exempted. Therefore, spending trillions to not cut total emissions is a complete waste.

I didn't say you shouldn't try effective solutions. I didn't say you shouldn't bring zero-emissions cars to the market (what's stopping you?) I didn't say you shouldn't build new generation breeder reactors as fast as you can. I didn't say you shouldn't get fusion reactors on-line as fast as possible. I didn't say you shouldn't try. I didn't say you should give up.

I did say the non-economic solutions are doomed to fail and they have. I did say that signing a treaty that does not cut total net emissions will not save you. I did say that no matter what you feel about them, actions that do not cut emissions in an increasingly populated world are doomed to fail you. I did say it doesn't make any sense to spend trillions on nothing.

I didn't tell you to give up--I told you not to waste your time on efforts that do not cut total emissions.

What if they do fall? What if the actions we take now mean that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels slow and then drop? What if the inaction we take now mean that the increase in CO2 levels continue to accelerate? I know I'd prefer to spend my sons colledge education (I will tell him) in reducing CO2 levels so that he has the opportunity to enjoy life in the future with his head out of the sand.

What if? What if they don't? All you've got so far is ever-increasing emissions, except a bunch of countries have signed a piece of paper. Before that piece of paper, you had ever-increasing emissions. Now, after the piece of paper, you have what? You guessed it, ever-increasing emissions.

The point is very simple: signing a piece of paper will not lower total emissions and therefore will not save you.

The actual question I asked is what would you tell your son if you spent his college education and didn't reduce CO2 levels whatsoever? That you utterly and completely wasted it and it had no effect whatsoever? That you could just have easily thrown his college education into a lake?

We do have the ability to do something.

If Kyoto is any indication, no, you don't. If exempting countries is any indication, then no, you don't.

If we do nothing then the overwhelming consensus is that we will be right royally screwed. Let's try and do something so that we end up just a little screwed and are able to get passed it.

Good luck.

I would start by cutting total emissions. The way to cut total emissions is through the things I mentioned above, not by holding hands and singing "Kumbaya," hoping the gov't saves you.

It's better to try then do nothing. Kyoto is not perfect, but what do you expect from a first step in a world that is ruled by globalisation? Zero emission cars could be indeed brought to the market. Powered by energy cells or H2 (need to solve the NOx problem), energy and H2 could be produced via solar energy. Only problem is that oil companies and lobby don't want to see it (political influence) therefore research/implementation is delayed and the average guy needs a decent payment to buy them once they are ready for mass production.

In a world of market liberalism it does not play a role if things "make sense" or not - only efficiency counts. This does not fit as a system for a living species, we are not just numbers. A market without protection mechanisms and directions is like a ravaging beast that even turns vs itself.

I get paid the same as everyone else that does my job who has the experience and qualifications I have.

Maybe in your immediate area (county or country), but not world wide.

I believe that I am safe to say that someone with equivalent qualifications in rural India or China will be paid less in terms of real buying power.

BillHyland you really aren't safe to say that...Here in the US I make six times in adjusted dollars what a person in India makes doing my same job does; however in India with the cost of living adjusted that same person has 3 times my purchasing power.

I also believe that with equivalent qualifications in the United States will be paid slightly more, depending on location and, again, in terms of real buying power.

If you want to increase your income, increase your skill set or move to where your skill set is in greater demand. This is an economic reality.

So now with that in mind and in reference to my job specifically you are suggesting that they outsource the workers not just the jobs.

---

There's nothing to see. I'm not responsible for any human being born on this earth. No one else is either. Your stating it doesn't make it so. You can choose to do all that you wish, or, you can choose to do nothing at all. Many people choose to help a little and do the best that they can for their families.

I have to agree to some level, since I have changed a lot due to personal experience. The sad truth is that most people are ungrateful and selfish or don't care.

But we still have to live together on one planet. The statements I do are meanwhile out of selfish nature, too - I want the best for myself, I want to live in an environment that is ok and without social tensions and huge criminality. This just includes in others having a "fair chance" and a responsible leadership for us all. That's what some greedy people don't get - enjoy what you have, strive for having more - but don't press the other's with their backs to the wall. It's better to enjoy 90% wealth then - loosing it all / ruining earth (remember you live on it, too) / being not satisfied because "the race" can't be won - if you overdo it.

The actual system sucks and is dangerous for us all, rich & poor, wherever we live.

Wow. Subscribe to the Daily Worker, do you?

There is no "need" to have a subset of unemployed labor, or any of the rest of that marxist horse-hockey. The market rate is the market rate.

Still his statement is true. Funny thing is that often the people who defend market liberalism are the ones who get f... over the worst by it. Same goes for the soldiers who are sent to die to fill GWB&friend's purse. These guys are true patriots, simply believing that a president will always do the best for his country, defending him even if it becomes clear what's going on. I pity them as well as the market liberalists (and that's from the heart, I really understand why).

If you are a profiteer of market liberalism (don't know what you doing jobwise) simply ask yourself: are you really satisfied?

The answer on the board would be "yea, sure, look!" - but that's why I am asking you to ask yourself in a quiet moment. There are quite a buch of successful people who should be happy with their life but aren't.

It's not an ideological contest - it's about what truely is the best for YOU. Maybe it's also good for me and the rest of the world ( true market liberalism isn't but with useful regulations it's enourmous energy and power can be directed to the use of all of us who want to participate).

Are you sure you're not a Hindu?

Yes.

If you took down all the barriers to people helping themselves, and made sure everyone had access to education and free Healthcare then you wouldn't need such a huge welfare system.

Except that you cannot take down all the barriers to people helping themselves AND make sure everyone had access to education and free health care. They're mutually exclusive. Why? Because there is no such thing as "free health care." Health care and education have costs and someone has to pay them, those people that you force to pay those costs for others find themselves presented with nearly insurmountable barriers to helping themselves. A significant amount of their income is stolen from them to pay for Barbra Streisand. Now that's a barrier.

It is a by product of the need to have a subset of unemployed labour as demanded by the capitalist system. It ensures that people are grateful for what they can get and helps keep wages low and maximise profit.

Wow. Subscribe to the Daily Worker, do you?

There is no "need" to have a subset of unemployed labor, or any of the rest of that marxist horse-hockey. The market rate is the market rate.

You are being facetious and you know it. but perhaps you are right and we should help each get the education supplied by Harvard and Oxford. If we all worked together it could happen.

Except that I'm not being facetious. You are free to live your life as you wish. If it is important to you to find people who have not won in life's little lottery and send them to Harvard, you are welcome to do it. You are welcome to group together other people to help you if they wish to.

You are not welcome to force me to help you.

I think when the way a certain group of people are living (ie the industrialised nations) effect the entire planet then we do have to sit up and take action.

Which is the argument that is always used to initiate force. Dubya used that to invade Iraq, "the terrorists have to be stopped, they effect the entire planet, and I'm going to sit up and take action." Boy did he. Yay, Dubya. You may not agree with him, but so what? All you are arguing that is that it is OK to use force when you agree with it: "we do have to sit up and take action." Or look at your next paragraph. That's exactly what Dubya is doing.

Sometimes there really is no room for selfish behaviour. If people like some of the ones that post in this thread refuse to see that they need to do something, then we do have to enforce change from without. We simply do not have the time to convince everyone that there is a real problem. People will not willingly change until it directly affects them...by then it will be too late.

Ah, that's nice. Now you must think for them as well. This comment is fundamentally the problem: "If people like some of the ones that post in this thread refuse to see that they need to do something, then we do have to enforce change from without." Did it ever cross your mind that they don't agree with you? Did it ever cross your mind that they could say the same thing about your position?

That comment is why there is corporate welfare. And the Department of Defense. And a tax system that destroys people. And nuclear weapons. And B1-Bs and Trident submarines. Why? Because someone used the argument that those against such things refuse to see why they are important and therefore such things were imposed on them from without.

Again, the crappy principle is the same, you just disagree on what to spend the money on. You want to waste it on global warming. Others want to waste it on nuclear weapons and war in Iraq. You want to waste it on inefficient health care, others want to waste it on the CIA.

What have you really done? Created those nearly insurmountable burdens for those that can afford it the least. You built massive barriers to people helping themselves and gave them very very little in return.

Ah...anarchy and total breakdown of civil order on a mass scale. Ever wonder why no nation has ever been founded on anarchy? Because it doesn't work, and is really rather messy on several levels.

That's the argument akin to the statement "all for one, and one for one".

---

Exactly, that's why market liberalism can't work - and it proves so by calling for help whenever the situation gets out of hand.

Market liberalism sounds good, but is a fata morgana. In the end it hurts us all, even the ones who think they profit (and do so in the short run).

Ah...anarchy and total breakdown of civil order on a mass scale. Ever wonder why no nation has ever been founded on anarchy? Because it doesn't work, and is really rather messy on several levels.

That's the argument akin to the statement "all for one, and one for one".

You should read up on the Spanish revolution if you want to hear about a successful Anarchist society.

or read here about what it actually means:

Anarchism and society

or here:

Zapatistas

---

Reality Internet Personality

Sounds good, but there is a security problem (just again shortly ago in Sweden) and where do you plan to deposit all the radioactive waste? It's sad, though - nuclear energy could be "the solution" elsewise, don't know if the problems are solveable.

Where do we put it? The same places we put it now, keeping in mind that breeders and recycling will help mitigate much of that problem. You need to cut total emissions. While there are security and disposal problems with nuclear waste, those are nothing compared to the apocalypse that people who feel as you do are predicting. Hence the point of breeders and recycling/reprocessing the waste.

*sigh* Is my english that bad? I just stated that the average worker needs a "fair" payment to be able to afford investment into energy saving and improving economy by domestic demand. How helpful is it if in the end of "the race" only 5% of the people will control 90% of the money. So 5% will be able to buy a car, now that will cost some jobs. This is economical nonsense, who is got to buy all the stuff that gets produced if 95% of the people will not be super-rich, actually 80% will be poor.

No, your English seems passable.

But your definition of “fair” is different from mine, “fair” isn’t some universal concept that can be applied to all situations. That’s why I asked you specifically why it matters that Oprah makes 411 times what the guy that sweeps her studio makes. Tell me why it matters that Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are a multi-millionaires, and some of their fans can hardly afford the books that they line up to buy. Some (most?) of the richest people in the world are in the U.S., yet even the poorest here have cars, mobile phones, cable TVs, and microwave ovens.

In a free society, the rich never control all of the money. They can’t. They never have. They never will because an ever-rising standard of living prevents it. The economic pie gets bigger and bigger because the creation of wealth isn’t a zero sum game. Opie, Mikey, and Noamy didn’t take their money from their fans by force, those fans lined up to willingly give it to them.

The May Day crowd has been wheezing about 5% of the people controlling all of the money since the beginning of time, yet it never seems to happen. Why? Because in free societies wealth is continually created. Because some of the rich go bankrupt. Because “the rich” don’t actually control all of the wealth. Because people invent things. Create new services. Do something better, cheaper, and faster than someone else. Climb the economic latter.

Exactly. So the "average" worker needs to be able to actually buy a new, less polluting car. He needs to be able to isolate his house. This generates a boost for the economy. But actually it's just about cutting down payments, so people usually don't have the money for it.

I have no idea what this means.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Rush, in a democracy it DOES matter, because people have to elect a representative in the end. It is of utterly importance that people are not just manipulated by media and their shareholders trying to advertise their point of views and the system they profit the most perosnally.

That sounds real nice. But in reality it is not what happens. Why? Because as I said, people are free to learn as they wish, or not. To take classes. Or not. To read various sources and points of view. Or not. They are free, they do as they wish. They get degrees in religious studies or women’s studies or basketweaving—none of which give them the tools to understand the world around them. They will never have access to everything as no one on earth has ever had equal access to information and they never will because information by its very nature is unequally distributed.

For all the “manipulating” that “media” and “shareholders” do, there is every bit as much manipulation by Moveon.org, or Emily’s List, or Dirt First! or Sierra Schlub, or the Daily Worker. They promote an ideology because they cannot fathom that not only do other people not agree with them, those other people couldn’t care less what Dirt First! thinks about anything.

Furthermore, given that you and Es haven’t managed to get them all into Harvard, you cannot even force them to learn anything, nor accept what they are presented when they do, nor even to agree with you about climate change.

Since you cannot get into their heads, you cannot determine what they know or don’t know. You have no idea whether they are manipulated or not, all you know is that many of them don’t agree with you. And you do not have the right to force them to think otherwise.

Not to mention that no one lives in a democracy. Were that ever to happen here, I would be the first one on the plane to Hong Kong.

But I'll give you the point that it's very likely the majority does not care and that's why democracy ain't working anymore and politicians do no longer care for their country and citizens but their own wallet.

Well, that’s the system you seem to want. One where some people (anybody) can lobby the gov’t to use force against others because the original people agree with it. Since the use of force isn’t governed by principle, but by what people feel, you get different results. You get politicians that reward huge corporations with corporate welfare. You get war in Iraq and the CIA.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No actually Rush, freedom is that you don't have to think like everyone else...get it straight.

That’s a semantic distinction. Freedom is the right to yourself. The right to your labor, the right to think as you wish. Which also includes that no one else has to think as you do, regardless of your opinion about it, and that you don't have to think like everyone else.

Now the all knowing Rush will entertain us with the copious amounts of knowledge that he thinks he has that makes him believe that he can tell me what I know and and don't know without the least bit of knowledge of who I am.

I’m not all knowing. I do know that the amount of economic information about any given product or service dwarfs your ability to learn it. There were millions of economic decisions that went into creating something as simple as the pencil sitting on your desk. From the decision to mine the metal for the eraser holder, to the decades old decision to plant the trees, to the sourcing of the graphite, the paint, and the printing. What the employees are paid at the pencil factory, the rubber factory, the mine, the paint factory, and the graphite factory. Was so-called free trade sourcing used. The costs involved for the packaging and marketing. The refining of the rubber, what type and how much. Whether all of the factories use sustainable resources. Shipping. And on and on and on and on and on and on, ad infinitum. You cannot possibly hope to know all of that or even a small fraction of it. Therefore, your knowledge is limited to whether you value the pencil more than the money you used to pay for it.

Extrapolate that to your computer that has 1000’s of parts, and the dilemma increases by orders of magnitude. I don’t need to know what you know or have the least bit of knowledge about who you are to know that you cannot ever hope to know enough about all the products and services that you use in your daily life.

Wow that's deep...that's a rather large assumption...and completely off the mark.

It’s not deep or off the mark. As I noted above, you cannot know enough because the information involved is overwhelming.

Also deep and also off the mark...Websters dictionary defines "informed" as (having or prepared with information or knowledge; apprised). So I take from your statement that you believe that nobody is "informed" because they may not have all of the information...again this is a very myopic way of looking at things. Who are you to assume that my decisions are driven by what is economically in my favor...when I clearly stated earlier that I make my decisions in favor of the environment at personal cost to me. Why you might ask. Well because I care.

Every decision you make is economically in your favor. You gain something from all of them. If you choose to pay a bit more for a “free traded” pencil, you gain in that you feel good about yourself. You gain in that you valued the pencil more than the money, just as the seller valued the money more than the pencil. But you can’t possibly hope to know how many resources went into that pencil, or the ultimate impact of that pencil on the environment. As noted above, the amount of information is orders of magnitude more than you could ever hope to learn about a pencil.

Hell, the pencil you bought may have used more resources than one of the other ones. You would never know, let alone know for the myriad of products and services you use in your life.

That you “care,” really means nothing. But it does illustrate what I’ve said previously. You gain value from believing that that “free traded” pencil (or your carbon footprint, or whatever) somehow lessens your impact on the earth. More power to you.

Poorly executed and vastly hypocritical considering your above highly presumptive post regarding me.

You would have be more specific. I’m not being hypocritical, I’m illustrating why using what people feel about others isn’t a rational way to better the planet.

So...just that I use less power then "some" meaning that I actively reduce my environmental impact by choice which is more then I can say for many people.

Good for you. I’m glad you are happy with your choices. Hopefully you can understand that the reason you have the freedom to make those choices is that the decisions of others aren’t forced upon you.

Another poor attempt at humor, or were you really serious this time?

I’m serious. Your carbon footprint is still many many times the footprint of some of the super poor. They don’t want to die because of your use of resources, therefore you use too much for them. Can you understand why you don’t want them telling you that you refuse to see? Or that you must do what they see as fit for you?

I don't believe I ever stated that I was trying to tell a family of six what to do, I don't believe I stated that I would tell them to set their "thermostat differently" or even tell them how to set their thermostat, and where exactly are you going with this? It seems like you are intentionally trying to put words in my mouth and twist what I have said to meet your own ends, which really doesn't make much sense because I never said it.

Ohfercrissakes, this is getting to be a waste of time. I’m just illustrating principles here. I’m not suggesting that you did/do this. I’m demonstrating why other people choose to live their lives differently than you do, and by extension, why the decisions you make are different than the decisions others make. You are happy ostensibly reducing your footprint. They are happy providing a better life for their children. Neither one is wrong, and both of you value the resources you use to make your lives better.

Beyond your propensity to use vastly dissimilar metaphorical statements in an attempt to make a point, it should be noted that I am referring mainly to what my country and the citizens that are part of it "can do" to reduce the effects on global climate change (aka...global warming). However I do find it rather amusing that you use the present tense and the future tense in the same statement. Please tell me how exactly "global warming 'caused' some storm that 'might' kill him?" I dare say, that really was scraping the bottom of the argument barrel.

Again, is this really that hard? Maybe it is your English, but this is really pretty simple.

Those that think as you do claim that human caused climate change will cause cataclysmic weather patterns and ocean levels that will kill people. Therefore, yes, global warming will cause storms (water levels, et cetera) that will kill him. Since it is the emission of carbon caused by your use of resources that causes global warming, yes, the guy in Burkina Faso can feel that you (and everyone else) must shut down your computer and use less. Do you want what he feels about it enforced upon you? If not, if you feel he is wrong, you can understand why others do not want what you feel enforced upon them.

Sure I could, and it is their freedom to make an informed decision.

No, it is their freedom to make their own decision, period. It doesn’t have to be informed, and you would never know either way whether it was or not. And that means that many of them will not only never agree with you, they don’t even care what you think about their choice.

I didn’t mean it in the sense that you couldn’t “tell” them, I meant it in the sense that you cannot force them to shut it down.

Ah...but to throw your earlier assumption back at you for the purpose of argument and amusement alone...tell me you didn't consider too, while you were doing your part, the fact that those bulbs last longer, and since they use less power. it has a positive impact on your wallet. Come on now, be honest. Were you solely driven by your want to do your part or was there an economic drive there as well?

Ummmm, can you even read? Has the whole purpose of this discussion utterly and completely and totally eluded you?

I mean, duh. I wasn’t motivated whatsoever, let me repeat that, I wasn’t motivated WHAT. SO. EVER. by a want to “do [my] part.” Not one iota. The sole reason was economic. I did it because “it has a positive impact on [my] wallet.” I did it, without gov’t force, because it made good economic sense.

Saving the planet is just gravy.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

It's better to try then do nothing.

Nope. Not if you are wasting resources. Waste is waste. Spending what may amount to trillions of dollars for no cut in total emissions is a waste because if the amount now is too much, it doesn’t matter if in the future the amount is still significantly more than now, but slightly less than it might have been. The resources (money) are then just wasted.

And I never suggested not doing things. I said not to waste resources doing things that are no different than doing nothing.

Kyoto is not perfect, but what do you expect from a first step in a world that is ruled by globalisation?

I expect people to wise up and quit wasting time. I expect them to look past their ideology and embrace solutions that actually cut emissions.

Zero emission cars could be indeed brought to the market. Powered by energy cells or H2 (need to solve the NOx problem), energy and H2 could be produced via solar energy.

Do it. The world needs these things NOW.

Only problem is that oil companies and lobby don't want to see it (political influence) therefore research/implementation is delayed and the average guy needs a decent payment to buy them once they are ready for mass production.

Right. The oil companies somehow control the brains of every thinking person on earth, therefore they prevent those same people from inventing or creating better cars. Honda can’t sell you a zero-emission car because Exxon/Mobile said they can’t, huh? The vast conspiracy prevents you and every single person who thinks like you do from selling one of Martin’s 80 mpg cars, eh? Sheesh.

In a world of market liberalism it does not play a role if things "make sense" or not - only efficiency counts. This does not fit as a system for a living species, we are not just numbers. A market without protection mechanisms and directions is like a ravaging beast that even turns vs itself.

More empty ideology. You could bring a zero emissions car to market right now. BMW made five or six zero-emission 7 series cars. Of course, they cost several million dollars each, but so what, right? Do you think that since they aren't economically viable people will still buy them?

Do you think it would be “efficient” to put those cars on the market? Or do you think it would be inefficient, and therefore wasteful?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I have to agree to some level, since I have changed a lot due to personal experience. The sad truth is that most people are ungrateful and selfish or don't care.

Or they simply disagree with you. Which doesn’t make them selfish or ungrateful. They may not care what you think, but you don't care what they think, so all is well.

But we still have to live together on one planet. The statements I do are meanwhile out of selfish nature, too - I want the best for myself, I want to live in an environment that is ok and without social tensions and huge criminality. This just includes in others having a "fair chance" and a responsible leadership for us all. That's what some greedy people don't get - enjoy what you have, strive for having more - but don't press the other's with their backs to the wall. It's better to enjoy 90% wealth then - loosing it all / ruining earth (remember you live on it, too) / being not satisfied because "the race" can't be won - if you overdo it.

This is just your opinion. Others will agree with it or not as they see best.

The actual system sucks and is dangerous for us all, rich & poor, wherever we live.

Again, an opinion call. You are entitled to it.

Still his statement is true. Funny thing is that often the people who defend market liberalism are the ones who get f... over the worst by it. Same goes for the soldiers who are sent to die to fill GWB&friend's purse. These guys are true patriots, simply believing that a president will always do the best for his country, defending him even if it becomes clear what's going on. I pity them as well as the market liberalists (and that's from the heart, I really understand why).

More of your feelings, more power to you.

If you are a profiteer of market liberalism (don't know what you doing jobwise) simply ask yourself: are you really satisfied?

I’m a profiteer of market liberalism, just as you are. The fact that you live in first world society and own a computer and have the luxury time to post here is ample proof of that.

The answer on the board would be "yea, sure, look!" - but that's why I am asking you to ask yourself in a quiet moment. There are quite a buch of successful people who should be happy with their life but aren't.

Much like their choices concerning lifestyle, this is something that is solely their responsibility. They are responsible for themselves.

It's not an ideological contest - it's about what truely is the best for YOU. Maybe it's also good for me and the rest of the world ( true market liberalism isn't but with useful regulations it's enourmous energy and power can be directed to the use of all of us who want to participate).

It is about what is truly best for you. That’s the whole point. It isn’t about what you would like to see forced upon others who don’t want it, or about what they would like to see forced upon you when you don’t want it.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Ah...anarchy and total breakdown of civil order on a mass scale. Ever wonder why no nation has ever been founded on anarchy? Because it doesn't work, and is really rather messy on several levels.

No, because I’m not an anarchist. Ever wonder about the glaring logical and conceptual flaw in the sentence “Ever wonder why no nation has ever been founded on anarchy?”

That's the argument akin to the statement "all for one, and one for one".

Which may address anarchy, but does not address anything I’ve stated, and has little relevance to the discussion.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Exactly, that's why market liberalism can't work - and it proves so by calling for help whenever the situation gets out of hand.

Free markets don’t call for help. Ever. They are non-thinking, non-feeling, non-entities, that transmit information between buyers and sellers. Nothing more.

Market liberalism sounds good, but is a fata morgana. In the end it hurts us all, even the ones who think they profit (and do so in the short run).

Empty rhetoric. Why because you sez so?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Ah...anarchy and total breakdown of civil order on a mass scale. Ever wonder why no nation has ever been founded on anarchy? Because it doesn't work, and is really rather messy on several levels.

No, because I’m not an anarchist. Ever wonder about the glaring logical and conceptual flaw in the sentence "Ever wonder why no nation has ever been founded on anarchy?"

Actually..there have been Anarchistic societies throughout history that worked very well.

---

Reality Internet Personality

That’s a semantic distinction. Freedom is the right to yourself. The right to your labor, the right to think as you wish. Which also includes that no one else has to think as you do, regardless of your opinion about it, and that you don't have to think like everyone else.

How very Marxist of you.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Actually..there have been Anarchistic societies throughout history that worked very well.

What? How could that possibly be? Open and free markets? No MOD? No NHS?

Say it isn't so!

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

That’s a semantic distinction. Freedom is the right to yourself. The right to your labor, the right to think as you wish. Which also includes that no one else has to think as you do, regardless of your opinion about it, and that you don't have to think like everyone else.

How very Marxist of you.

It's not marxist at all if it applies to everyone from tank wipe to CEO.

If I have a right to my labor, you do not have the right to take it from me. Which you continually advocate, i.e. heath care and education.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...