Well I agree with FTL on most of the issues mentioned except the climate issue seems to be based on nothing but traditional conservative talking points. I just don't buy the whole argument that scientists are lying about what is happening in our environment because... they want to tax us?
First of all, scientists work under the laws of the universe, not the laws of man, and while there are always exceptions, on the whole these people deal with theories and facts and the scientific method, and are much more logical and cognitive than the average person. I just can't imagine them being easily persuaded to throw all their training out the window and purposefully lie.
Second, the whole "the government is doing this so they can tax you" argument is such B.S. The government can, and does, tax just about everything we do. It doesn't need any new theory or idea or proof in order to tax us more. If the idea of climate change is fully defeated, the government is still going to tax us just as much as they were going to in the first place.
Third, who in their right mind, when they hear an environmental issue they don't fully agree with, tries to bash the idea with ANTI-environmental arguments ? OK, so you don't think a carbon tax, or higher car mileage standards, or improved smokestacks on power plants, or whatever is the best way to keep our environment clean? Fine, so what would you do instead? But most of these wingnuts just attack the idea over and over as if they are actually AGAINST the environment. Now here I will say that FTL is pretty good, as they point out that the government is the biggest polluter, and all their waste and wars and burning of fuels is far larger than any savings we could get by more efficient cars or any other one savings. But the typical anti-environmentalists lose all credibility with me, because who is against the environment? Who wants dirty water or extinct species or more disease and famine? These people rarely say, "well more efficient smoke stacks on power plants would make a small difference, but it wouldn't be nearly as effective as investing in new technologies like plug in hybrids" or something. No, they just attack point by point, why doing X is a STUPID, RIDICULOUS idea. Well, you know what? Maybe a 30 MPG restriction is not the best idea, but the government makes terrible ideas all the time, and most of them are much worse than something like this.
What about the idea that there are some externalities that can't be measured by any center of trade or "market"? Such as the fact that your Hummer spews smoke into the air that incrementally reduces the air quality the rest of us breathe? That's why I don't mind something like a gas tax, which forces those people to pay for some of these externalities. But you won't get much logic or reasoned argument from the anti-environmentalists, which is always the first sign you are dealing with luddites--refusal to accept logic and reason.
Here's another issue that won't be popular with the 100% free marketers: How about subsidizing solar or wind systems installed at the home? These units, once paid for, have ZERO incremental energy cost. The problem is, the payback period (15-25 years) is longer than the average person resides in a home (7 years). Therefore, it is not economically feasible to pay for such a unit, knowing that when you move you will not recoup the cost. Solar and wind units are rare, precisely for this reason, and the amount of energy savings over the short ownership period is not large enough to demand an increase in a home's sales price equal to the units value. However, if the government subsidized (tax credits, direct subsidy, etc.) the purchase of these units, so that almost all homes had them installed, then, on average, when one enters his fourth home (7 x 3 = 21 years later), he would be receiving free energy. Each time you moved, you would likely be buying a house that had a solar or wind system, generating free power that you could take advantage of. The subsidy would not have a net "cost" to the public as its upfront cost would be offset over the energy savings over the next 20 years. Then from that point on, the system generates 100% FREE ENERGY for the rest of its life, generating enormous savings for everyone in the future. OK Even if you can find some reasons not to support a plan like this, it is a fairly logical and reasonable solution to the problem, which is not what you see coming out of the anti-science crowd. They have no solutions, only faith based arguments.
The Free Talk Live BBS
Author
Topic: FTL is becoming anti-science (Read 19554 times)