Treefort54 Party Headquarters
The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Printable Version

+- Treefort54 Party Headquarters (https://treefort54.com/mies)
+-- Forum: General Assembly (https://treefort54.com/mies/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Whistle-blowing (https://treefort54.com/mies/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza (/thread-2624.html)

Pages: 1 2 3


The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-24-2017

Hey Tardfort,

You wanna have mad scrabble about climate change, where I go somewhat diabolis advocai on the denier side?   Is anyone game for that?

WAT SAY U TARDFORT


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Gippy - 03-24-2017

I don't get the argument against clean energy. It is new jobs. it SHOULD be less pollution (though battery tech now is still kinda dirty to make). And OMG what if we actually make the world a better place in the process?


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Jehannum - 03-25-2017

(03-24-2017, 02:45 PM)Gippy Wrote: I don't get the argument against clean energy. It is new jobs. it SHOULD be less pollution (though battery tech now is still kinda dirty to make). And OMG what if we actually make the world a better place in the process?

I'm with you and Schwarzenegger on the Pascal's Wager portion of clean energy.

Plus, my power bill is $7.88 a month.


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - PuddleMonkey - 03-25-2017

(03-24-2017, 09:23 AM)more or less Wrote: Hey Tardfort,

You wanna have mad scrabble about climate change, where I go somewhat diabolis advocai on the denier side?   Is anyone game for that?

WAT SAY U TARDFORT

<conservative talking point> You need to get laid. </conservative talking point>


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Gippy - 03-25-2017

(03-25-2017, 01:29 AM)Jehannum Wrote:
(03-24-2017, 02:45 PM)Gippy Wrote: I don't get the argument against clean energy. It is new jobs. it SHOULD be less pollution (though battery tech now is still kinda dirty to make). And OMG what if we actually make the world a better place in the process?

I'm with you and Schwarzenegger on the Pascal's Wager portion of clean energy.

Plus, my power bill is $7.88 a month.

I'm not googling pascals wiener


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

(03-25-2017, 02:57 AM)PuddleMonkey Wrote:
(03-24-2017, 09:23 AM)more or less Wrote: Hey Tardfort,

You wanna have mad scrabble about climate change, where I go somewhat diabolis advocai on the denier side?   Is anyone game for that?

WAT SAY U TARDFORT

<conservative talking point> You need to get laid. </conservative talking point>

No, I have Brazzers and everything is really stretched out and excersized. Your concern for my penis is appeciated, however.

Wuv


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

(03-24-2017, 02:45 PM)Gippy Wrote: I don't get the argument against clean energy. It is new jobs. it SHOULD be less pollution (though battery tech now is still kinda dirty to make). And OMG what if we actually make the world a better place in the process?

How does climate science turn into tax incentives for clean energy?


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Gippy - 03-26-2017

You ask that like you already know the answer.


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

No.

But it might explain the reason why the right and the left debate the "science" becuase it isn't really about science, is it?


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Gippy - 03-26-2017

But why wouldn't we want tax incentives? Incentivize cleaner energy over dirty energy.
We give a ton of money to oil and coal. Give it to clean energy instead.

Oh, right, BigO tried that and the Reds shit their pants. Because you are right. The current debate is over which group of cronies get the fat stacks of cash.


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

But see thats sorta the problem I was getting to, people pretend its about science when its really about their political agenda.

Now me explaining to you why government does not need to incentize corporate profits is DOA Im afraid.


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Gippy - 03-26-2017

Gubermint should incentivize stagnant industries that the nation is dependent on. Otherwise we'd still be burning whale oil and living in toxic air spaces.


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - FuturDreamz - 03-26-2017

(03-26-2017, 01:29 AM)Gippy Wrote: Gubermint should incentivize stagnant industries that the nation is dependent on. Otherwise we'd still be burning whale oil and living in toxic air spaces.

?

The air is clean because EPA fines non-complaint companies, and when was the last time you used anything other than electricity and natural gas to heat and light your house? The government never incentivized migrating away from whale oil and toxic air, all it did was penalize the more dangerous things and let the natural progression of technology handle the rest.


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

(03-26-2017, 01:29 AM)Gippy Wrote: Gubermint should incentivize stagnant industries that the nation is dependent on. Otherwise we'd still be burning whale oil and living in toxic air spaces.

So, is it based on the SCIENCE or based on ECONOMICS?


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Gippy - 03-26-2017

(03-26-2017, 01:50 AM)FuturDreamz Wrote:
(03-26-2017, 01:29 AM)Gippy Wrote: Gubermint should incentivize stagnant industries that the nation is dependent on. Otherwise we'd still be burning whale oil and living in toxic air spaces.

?

The air is clean because EPA fines non-complaint companies, and when was the last time you used anything other than electricity and natural gas to heat and light your house? The government never incentivized migrating away from whale oil and toxic air, all it did was penalize the more dangerous things and let the natural progression of technology handle the rest.

EPA didn't exist until 1970
Wtf


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Gippy - 03-26-2017

(03-26-2017, 02:27 AM)more or less Wrote:
(03-26-2017, 01:29 AM)Gippy Wrote: Gubermint should incentivize stagnant industries that the nation is dependent on. Otherwise we'd still be burning whale oil and living in toxic air spaces.

So, is it based on the SCIENCE or based or on ECONOMICS?

Tea leaves.


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

Well you just made the JOBS argument about government incentivization of industry.

So I'm trying to understand if you understand what drives governmental involvement in the economy?


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Gippy - 03-26-2017

Its just one thing?


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

Wait, are you actually suggesting that economic involvement via tax incentives is about anything other than MOARJOBS?


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Gippy - 03-26-2017

Are you saying that it is only about jobs?


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

Well,, let's have an aside first.  please Google "political economics" and then tell me what the role of government is in society.

This is a fill in the blank question, not multiple guess, so I will give you 300 level credit for providing your open internet answer.  Cheating is encouraged.


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - Gippy - 03-26-2017

I'm sure I can find something to copy/paste.


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

It might be harder to define than you think.


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

"As presented in class, the best definition of the role of government in political economics is that governments primary function is the ________________ of _________ resources."


RE: The Climate Change Throwdown Extravaganza - more or less - 03-26-2017

HINT

Quote:[…] contributed to the rise of the welfare state and to an increase in the size of government relative to the private sector. In some countries, particularly the United States, the development of Keynesianism brought about a gradual shift in the meaning of liberalism, from a doctrine calling for a relatively passive state and an economy guided by the “invisible hand” of the market to the view that the state should actively intervene in the economy in order to generate growth and sustain employment levels.