Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19888)

TCD 04-03-2014 02:59 PM

Oh, come on...can't just have Yellen print more money? Doesn't that fix everything else? :rolleyes:

Troy64 04-03-2014 03:10 PM

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Limekiln (Post 215721)
Because the financial ramifications would be disastrous to our economy. The passage of cap and trade, or some variation of it, would drive energy costs through the roof.


Exactly.

poconoron 04-03-2014 03:16 PM

Sounds like Orwell's "1984" in 2014
 
Crackdown ordered on climate-change sceptics

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/enviro...cle4051905.ece

redhawk 04-03-2014 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geogymn (Post 215698)
They have through taxes and fees. Nearly every household needs two bread winners and progeny are unaffordable.
You might be able to afford one or two but not seven like in my parents time.
Who can afford seven I-phones? I-pads or what ever they are called.

Of course, sooner or later someone has to bring politics into it. Progeny unaffordable?? DUUH, you keeping up? We're in another baby boom.
Taxes? Everyone wants the services and the comfort. People can afford to keep their thermostats at 70 - 80, run AC all summer. Gas hogging SUV's.

I think the taxes should be higher. ANd they should be based on what people consume. People with more than one car should pay more. People with more than one house should pay more. There should be a garbage tax. The more disposed goods, the higher the rate. GAs taxes and sales tax and registration on cars should be based om MPG The more gas consumed, the higher the tax. People with more than one child pay higher taxes based on the number of children.

backwoodsman 04-03-2014 03:54 PM

I think 70 should be the maximum age limit, who needs these old grumps around anyway. Constantly going back and forth to the doctors office , burning up fossil fuels and contributing to global warming in the process. Come to think of it they're making the doctors rich so they can afford big gas hog SUVs.

Yep, Old folks, they're the problem.

vtflyfish 04-03-2014 03:55 PM

I would encourage all to read Jared Diamond's book Collapse, which examines a number of societies that did. While you're at it, read David Graber's book Debt: The First 5,000 Years, which details how the concepts of obligation, fairness and codes of conduct came into being. That will give you a context for answering the two questions I posed earlier.

The answer given (too G-D expensive) is an incredibly short-sighted and unsustainable approach.

TCD 04-03-2014 04:11 PM

Hawk, I agree with much of what you said, that those who consume more should pay higher taxes. But I have to fact check you on birth rates - US and World birth rates are at a record low:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news...irth-rate-low/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate

There are some groups in the US with high birth rates, but without venturing into "PC" territory, I think it's safe to say they're not the ones with two houses and two SUVs.

But right now our incentive system rewards more kids, not less kids. Try reversing that, and see how fast the "PC" community brands you as a "racist."

Neil 04-03-2014 05:08 PM

Interesting little tid-bit from Limits to Growth the 30 Year Update. The best way to decrease birth rates is by increased education and standards of living.

I doubt they consider owning 2 SUV's and McMansions as reasonable targets for increased SOL, more like clean drinking water and 3 square meals a day.

Birth rates in Quebec are very, very low. I guess if the SOL goes up high enough no one can afford kids any more. (sounds like a Yogi Berra-ism)

Schultzz 04-04-2014 12:54 AM

"I think the taxes should be higher. ANd they should be based on what people consume. People with more than one car should pay more. People with more than one house should pay more. There should be a garbage tax. The more disposed goods, the higher the rate. GAs taxes and sales tax and registration on cars should be based om MPG The more gas consumed, the higher the tax. People with more than one child pay higher taxes based on the number of children." -Redhawk

That's not a bad idea even though it would make my contribution a lot higher too, but folks would soon learn how to save the planet wouldn't they? Hit them in their pocketbook and watch them scramble to conserve.

"I think 70 should be the maximum age limit, who needs these old grumps around anyway. Constantly going back and forth to the doctors office , burning up fossil fuels and contributing to global warming in the process. Come to think of it they're making the doctors rich so they can afford big gas hog SUVs.

Yep, Old folks, they're the problem." - Backwoodsman

Not a bad idea either, but why wait till 70? How about 60? Turn them loose in the ADK with just a knife and see how long they last.

Either remedy is very radical and though the former has some merit neither one will happen. But I'm ready. As I said in another post I always "carry" when hiking and I always bring a 14" Bowie knife along. I have experience as a survivor be it the jungle, (military), the forest, or the city. :)

Troy64 04-04-2014 08:26 AM

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time
 
You all are starting to sound like the movie, Soylent Green.

redhawk 04-04-2014 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD (Post 215734)
Hawk, I agree with much of what you said, that those who consume more should pay higher taxes. But I have to fact check you on birth rates - US and World birth rates are at a record low:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news...irth-rate-low/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate

There are some groups in the US with high birth rates, but without venturing into "PC" territory, I think it's safe to say they're not the ones with two houses and two SUVs.

But right now our incentive system rewards more kids, not less kids. Try reversing that, and see how fast the "PC" community brands you as a "racist."

I stand corrected. I swear I saw some thing not to long ago that said we were in another boom. Maybe someone accidently put on Fox News.

But no matter how you cut it, something has too be done. Even with "lower birth rates" we're still propagating too fast. Add to that the fact that we are living longer and it's a real crisis.

I watched an interview with the Dali Lama and he cited the following as the top three concerns for humanity in this order.

1. The Environment (which I would assume includes climate change)
2. Over population
3. The gap between the rich and the poor.

Those are pretty much what my picks would have been, although for number 3 I might have chosen human apathy.

redhawk 04-04-2014 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 215758)
"I think the taxes should be higher. ANd they should be based on what people consume. People with more than one car should pay more. People with more than one house should pay more. There should be a garbage tax. The more disposed goods, the higher the rate. GAs taxes and sales tax and registration on cars should be based om MPG The more gas consumed, the higher the tax. People with more than one child pay higher taxes based on the number of children." -Redhawk

That's not a bad idea even though it would make my contribution a lot higher too, but folks would soon learn how to save the planet wouldn't they? Hit them in their pocketbook and watch them scramble to conserve.

"I think 70 should be the maximum age limit, who needs these old grumps around anyway. Constantly going back and forth to the doctors office , burning up fossil fuels and contributing to global warming in the process. Come to think of it they're making the doctors rich so they can afford big gas hog SUVs.

Yep, Old folks, they're the problem." - Backwoodsman

Not a bad idea either, but why wait till 70? How about 60? Turn them loose in the ADK with just a knife and see how long they last.

Either remedy is very radical and though the former has some merit neither one will happen. But I'm ready. As I said in another post I always "carry" when hiking and I always bring a 14" Bowie knife along. I have experience as a survivor be it the jungle, (military), the forest, or the city. :)

I agree that old folks are a bic part of the problem. We're living past what would be considered a "natural" age and no one wants to give it up. Well most don't. Now people go through extraordinary means to stay alive even though the quality of life is not that great. But whats the answer? make available counseling to people who have terminal illnesses to make a decision of holding on or letting go and you'll be accused of forming "death squads".

As a 72 year old I will be the first to admit that I have lived beyond my usefullness to the tribe. Unfortunately I am in great health except for the emphysema. But when my time comes, I just want to let go. No extension, no extraordinary means. I recycle, have a fuel efficient car, cook mostly fresh food, keep the thermostat down, etc. So I try to leave as little a footprint as possible. I really belive that after a certain age, nature should be left to take it's course without interference by medicine or science.

geogymn 04-04-2014 03:08 PM

" Windwalker" (1980) A good movie about another old Native American, albeit one with a different disposition, who feels he has lived out his usefulness. One of those rare Indian movies that doesn't have one cowboy in it.
We all leave footprints, we can only hope we are leading followers in the right direction.

Schultzz 04-04-2014 03:45 PM

"As a 72 year old I will be the first to admit that I have lived beyond my usefullness to the tribe. Unfortunately I am in great health except for the emphysema. But when my time comes, I just want to let go. No extension, no extraordinary means. I recycle, have a fuel efficient car, cook mostly fresh food, keep the thermostat down, etc. So I try to leave as little a footprint as possible. I really belive that after a certain age, nature should be left to take it's course without interference by medicine or science." (that's called a living will)

You certainly do not lack humility which nowadays is rare indeed and though your interpretation of usefulness is debatable you still have value. I for one am glad you are still here for you add a special quality to this forum of genuineness, authenticity and candidness with your outspoken honesty as our "Senior Resident Curmudgeon".

cityboy 04-04-2014 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 215775)
I agree that old folks are a bic part of the problem. I really belive that after a certain age, nature should be left to take it's course without interference by medicine or science.

I agree 100%. Other than aspirin I don't take medicine. I rarely get sick and I expect to live at least another 30 years (in good health). I say to each their own but living with Alzheimer or a nursing home is not living to me. If you are not aware and can't appreciate the world around you what is the point of living.

redhawk 04-04-2014 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geogymn (Post 215776)
" Windwalker" (1980) A good movie about another old Native American, albeit one with a different disposition, who feels he has lived out his usefulness. One of those rare Indian movies that doesn't have one cowboy in it.
We all leave footprints, we can only hope we are leading followers in the right direction.

Great Movie. Language (Northern Cheyenne), Regalia and customs are all authentic. Of course an Englishman, Trevor Howard plays the main role, but he does a good job.

geogymn 04-05-2014 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 215786)
Great Movie. Language (Northern Cheyenne), Regalia and customs are all authentic. Of course an Englishman, Trevor Howard plays the main role, but he does a good job.

T. Howard played both sides of the character spectrum as Captain Bligh and Windwalker with subtle assurance.

cityboy 04-05-2014 07:58 AM

As I mentioned earlier the latest IPCC report did not have the anticipated galvanizing effect.

A new Gallup poll shows that 43% of Americans are not concerned about Climate Change versus just 34% who are.

The skepticism does not vary with education level.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168236/am...l-warming.aspx

redhawk 04-05-2014 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 215788)
As I mentioned earlier the latest IPCC report did not have the anticipated galvanizing effect.

A new Gallup poll shows that 43% of Americans are not concerned about Climate Change versus just 34% who are.

The skepticism does not vary with education level.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168236/am...l-warming.aspx

Most Americans are not too concerned about anything other than themselves and they're too short sighted to realize the effect that climate change will have on them and theirs long term.

randomscooter 04-06-2014 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 215800)
Most Americans are not too concerned about anything other than themselves and they're too short sighted to realize the effect that climate change will have on them and theirs long term.

Isn't it interesting that people put so much weight on the opinions of the uninformed rather than seeking out the truth. Some of us are just so darned sure of ourselves that it never occurs to us to step back and put our own views to the challenge. It's much easier to seek out "our own kind", in this case the uninformed masses.

An excerpt regarding "skepticism":

Quote:

Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted...

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."
I would suggest that Americans' skepticism, as expressed through the results of polls, may be of the above sort. And not just those Americans on one side of an issue, but rather all of us. We all need to step back occasionally and challenge our beliefs. On the question of whether most, or even many, Americans will do so, I remain, well, skeptical.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.