[phlanx]

Yes... one grants greater power to governments, including the power of foreign governments to dictate policy in your country.

The other is a free-market approach that limits the power of government and puts choice in the hands of the people.

Elliot

Elliot

If you do not understand cultural influence is greater than political power, then I suggest you take a good look around - you will find influences from other countries everywhere, covering your entire life

On this issue, the reduction in pollution should be one that you should support, and if you can see the dangers in leaving for another generation or two while the market decides then you are being disrespectful to your children and your children's children

The power that any givernment has is purely financial - they are not forcing policy rather providing economic incentives to push what everybody sees as a fundaemental issue

[tomder55]

"The Copenhagen Conference is about the world's Lilliputians tying down its Gullivers."

Investors.com - China, India Cancel Out Copenhagen...

[phlanx]

WHat I really love is when people think we shouldn't try to do something because it may be too hard to do

It always interests me when people point out that the effects you are trying to do will be cancelled out by another

May I sugest where do we try to sort the pollution out if people are going to be defeatist from the outset

[tomder55]

And what I love is politicians who create crisis for the sole purpose of profiting from it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...nt/03gore.html

The US has anti-pollution regulations up the kazoo . Our air quality hasn't been this clean in decades . And as new technology enters the markets it gets cleaner still .
We don't need artificial guidelines dictated to us by people who's dual goal is environment and also a large dose of knocking down the US economy.

[phlanx]

Why wouldn't a politician profit from something that is wrong with the world!

Isn't better to have a businessman in office than a unionist?

Where on earth Tom have you got the idea the climate agreement is designed or has anything to do with the US?

[ETWolverine]

WHat I really love is when people think we shouldnt try to do something because it may be too hard to do

It always interests me when people point out that the effects you are trying to do wil be cancelled out by another

May I sugest where do we try to sort the pollution out if people are going to be defeatist from the outset

You make the typical argument that I hear over and over again from those on the left. The argument is essentially the same for all issues:

"If you don't support the leftist way of making change, you must be for the status quo."

Just because I don't support a GOVERNMENT-RUN or GOVERNMENT-ENFORCED reform doesn't mean that we want things to remain the same.

We are not saying that we shouldn't try to clean up the environment. We are just saying that 1) global warming isn't the reason to do it, and 2) government regulation isn't the method to do it.

As we have argued before, there are plenty of GOOD reasons to protect up the environment... if only so that my kids have the opportunity to hunt, fish and hike as I had the opportunity to do, and also to keep loggers in business as well. But don't give me this BS about global warming, a non-existant problem that was made up for POLITICAL purposes.

And as we have argued before, the best way to reform environmental consciousness is to create products that people are willing to use on their own, without having the government FORCE them to use it.

Let's face it... excon is right about the power of lobbyists in the USA. EXXON-MOBILE and the other oil companies are going to do everything they can to make sure that government never mandates electric cars and hybrid vehicles. And they have the power to make sure that the government never does it. Which means that government regulation will never happen in any meaningful way anyway, even if I were to support it (which I don't). Ditto for the coal industry and every other form of "dirty" fossil fuels.

So if government can't force the issue, then the only possible solution is a free market solution. If the auto makers can make good, affordable hybrid and electric cars that people want to drive, people will buy them. If someone can come up with a cheap, clean alternative fuel source, people will use it. And no government mandate will be necessary.

If government really does have the power to mandate such things, it is a power that they should not have, and that I do not favor them using. If they LACK that power due to lobbyist influence, then they can't do it anyway. Either way, the solution is not bigger government. The solution is a free market solution.

Elliot

[phlanx]

Elliot

There are outside the US more than two choices available to political views, I am neither a republican or democrat

Since when did I argue that cleaning pollution has anything to do with global warming, I am not convinced that global warming is man made, I do however think pollution is unnecessary

Note of interest : In today's high court in the UK it has been made law that climate change and the reasons is now officially recognised as a philosophy

Do you read into things or do you read what is in front of you!?

You really contradict yourself, you want clean environment for your son to grow up in, which is happening now, and yet you wish to allow the market to take a generation to change over, by which time your son will be all grown up and the fish gone (a little extreme but you get my idea)

Regarding cars, lets forget the practical idea of electric cars at the moment, but if sales of electric cars continue, at some point they will surpass the petrol versions and at that point the oil companies can sing and dance all they like, they will be in a weak position - this is market pressure you agree with, and I do, and as long as the government can assist with speeding up the dleivery of electric cars to the market then what on earth is the problem

Your idea that any given government does not have a say in how or why certain issues should be handled is laughable - since the dawn of time, the man in charge has always had a say, just as his subjects have had an equal say back

[ETWolverine]

Elliot

There are outside the US more than two choices available to political views, I am neither a republican or democrat

Since when did I argue that cleaning pollution has anything to do with global warming, I am not convinced that global warming is man made, I do however think pollution is unnecessary

Note of interest : In today's high court in the UK it has been made law that climate change and the reasons is now officially recognised as a philosophy

Do you read into things or do you read what is in front of you!?

Given the hidden agendas of so many people who argue politics, I tend to read between the lines. It has served me well in the past, as my reading tends to be rather acurate.

You really contradict yourself, you want clean environment for your son to grow up in, which is happening now, and yet you wish to allow the market to take a generation to change over, by which time your son will be all grown up and the fish gone (a little extreme but you get my idea)

You assume that this will take a generation. Why? I think it can happen rather quickly. It didn't take all that long for the Blackberry to become popular. Or the Ipod. It doesn't take a generation for a new product do go into production and become popular. It just takes developing a good product and some good advertising.

Regarding cars, lets forget the practical idea of electric cars at the moment, but if sales of electric cars continue, at some point they will surpass the petrol versions and at that point the oil companies can sing and dance all they like, they will be in a weak position - this is market pressure you agree with, and I do, and as long as the government can assist with speeding up the dleivery of electric cars to the market then what on earth is the problem

It's not the government's job to "assist" with anything in industry. It has no legal authority to do so here. And if the government "assists" in anything, then it is violating its requirement and responsibility to maintain a fair business environment.

Your idea that any given government does not have a say in how or why certain issues should be handled is laughable - since the dawn of time, the man in charge has always had a say, just as his subjects have had an equal say back

Actually, from the dawn of time, goverrnments had the right to dictate, and the people had no right to argue whatsoever. If they did, they were either punished harshly or executed outright.

Then we came along, and we made (in part) this declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Within the Declaration of Independence is the justification for the limiting of the power of government... a "new Guard" for the future and security of the rights of the people.

Simply put, the government HAS NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to make such laws. And if they do, it is OUR responsibility as citizens to either reverse their course by voting them out of office and putting in others who will put right what was wronged, or else to eliminate that government and begin anew. That's the principal that lead to the Revolution and the principal that created the United States of American in the first place. And that is the principal by which we SHOULD be operating today... the principal that a government that has too much power is a danger the G-d-given rights of man, and must therefore be LIMITED in its power.

By arguing for greater power for the government, you are in essence, rejecting the very basis on which the USA was created in the first place. And while there are many who would agree with you, I am not one of them.

The government does indeed have a say in how certain issues are to be handled. Those issues, however, are spelled out in the Constitution. The government has no other powers than those listed in the Constitution, and the reason for that is the basis of our genesis as an independent nation. Any call to increase the power of government beyond the responsibilities listed in the Constitution is in essence a rejection of the reason we became a nation in the first place.

I don't expect you, as a Brit, to follow that principal. Your genesis is very different from ours for all that it was our revolt against your king that caused our creation. The principals that guided the creation and formation of the United States are different from those that created the UK. But these ARE our principals. And while it might be OK for you and your countrymen to create a government that has increased and increasing power, that is for YOU, not for us.

So while you may think that the idea that the government should have limited power is laughable, it is, in fact, the very basis on which this nation was created. I don't find the concept laughable at all. I find it to be the only true path to liberty and freedom of choice. Anything else is an abrogation or subjegation of liberty and freedom of choice.

Elliot

[phlanx]

HAHAHAHAHHA

Well if you mean by reading between the lines you think you can twist an argument to your liking is petty!

It didn't take a generation for the blackberry - but it took a generation for mobiles (cell) to become popular - or has the concept missed you by

So the government can't assist with business - now that's a concept! So the US government has put stimulas packages together - as just one of a million examples of where businesses benefit from the government domestically, and as for foreign assistance, don't the US government assist there either - I think they do - I would list some here but Google found millions!

So you think you invented democracy - sorry you are about 2200 years behind Greece on that issue, and as for all men equal, that took another hundred years before it came true, or has slavery just passed you by? Notg to mention the Magna Carta 500 years before your time, and list goes on! Your democracy is different to all others that is all, and as nobody has a perfect system yet, it is not clear which democracy is best

As regards your revolution ideas - again, that is how every rebellion or revolt is created - the suppressed attack the surpressors

AGAIN Stop reading between the lines - where the hell did I say greater government power??

I am stating that on some issues it is the repsonsibilities of a Government to assist with the introduction of a new product that will not only devolop new jobs, but provide a cleaner future for all the worlds citizens and not just the handful in america

It is still laughable that you think government assistance in certain areas in their attemot to grab power

I don't know if you have noticed this or not, but they already control you!

I presume you pay taxes, and are generally law abiding - so you are following their carrot mate - and one thing we in the UK hold dear is we don't need to carry photo ID if we wish not to!

I really think you have totally missed the point of democracy - or in fact any form of government - The People Always have the power!!

Again you are trying to put words in my mouth - if you can't read english Elliot, may I suggest you make a trip to England to learn!

I have no problem in accepting that your form of democracy is based on different ideals, but please do not hesitate for one second think you have the answer to it all because nobody does

I do suggest that you take a good look at what the governments do, because it is those in office that can dictate policy and influence markets, industry also has this power, and it is and will always be a combination of the two that works best for all men - ALL MEN Elliot, not just the ones that fit into a certain criteria

[tomder55]

Why wouldn't a politician profit from something that is wrong with the world!

Isn't better to have a businessman in office than a unionist?

I prefer citizen statesmen myself. What I despise is someone like the Goracle doing chicken-little imitation pretending to be a concerned citizen of the world when in truth his aim is to exploit the hysteria he creates to build a lucrative business for himself. A little disclosure here please ? Was this whole charade designed for your personal profit Gore ?Here's how it worked .

Step 1. Lobby the world, the country, and the government that it must do something big and soon to save the planet. In Gore's case, we have his book, his movie, his franchised PowerPoint brief, his Nobel Peace Prize, his Oscar, etc.

Step 2. Specifically lobby your government to spend big money on projects to save the planet. Better yet, make sure that money goes to very specific contractors. In this case, we have "smart grids", which the government is now spending $3.4 billion on. And specifically, a little company called "Silver Spring Networks" got $560 million from the government for it.

Step 3. Invest in those very specific contractors. In Al Gore's case, he has a company for this investing kind of thing: Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. His company, by coincidence I'm sure, had invested $75 million in Silver Spring.

Step 4. Collect big money from those investments. In Al Gore's case, he is also a "corporate adviser" to Silver Spring.

Al Gore defends all this as putting his money where his mouth is and investing in what he believes. That would almost make sense, were it not for the fact that money is made in this "industry" only because the government is sending dump-trucks full of money to these companies.

[phlanx]

I prefer citizen statesmen myself. What I despise is someone like the Goracle doing chicken-little imitation pretending to be a concerned citizen of the world when in truth his aim is to exploit the hysteria he creates to build a lucrative business for himself. A little disclosure here please ? Was this whole charade designed for your personal profit Gore ?Here's how it worked .

Step 1. Lobby the world, the country, and the government that it must do something big and soon to save the planet. In Gore's case, we have his book, his movie, his franchised PowerPoint brief, his Nobel Peace Prize, his Oscar, etc.

step 2. Specifically lobby your government to spend big money on projects to save the planet. Better yet, make sure that money goes to very specific contractors. In this case, we have "smart grids", which the government is now spending $3.4 billion on. And specifically, a little company called "Silver Spring Networks" got $560 million from the government for it.

Step 3. Invest in those very specific contractors. In Al Gore's case, he has a company for this investing kind of thing: Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. His company, by coincidence I'm sure, had invested $75 million in Silver Spring.

Step 4. Collect big money from those investments. In Al Gore's case, he is also a "corporate adviser" to Silver Spring.

Al Gore defends all this as putting his money where his mouth is and investing in what he believes. That would almost make sense, were it not for the fact that money is made in this "industry" only because the government is sending dump-trucks full of money to these companies.

Firstly, I think some people saw the movie over here, but I think more people are interested in watching nature programs by Sir David Attenborough

Al Gore for whatever he stands for is doing things the american way

Not only is he making money from the idea, but he is creating jobs in the process

Change costs money - any change costs money, however it comes about, somebody has to pay for it

Regardless of the Global Warming philosophy and that is all that it is, scientists have been able for the first time in mans history to start to work out the effects that man has on himself and his environment

And whether global warming is or is not, the simple truth is pollution is not and will never be good for anybody or anything on this planet

So regardless of how's why or wheres, if the governments around the world start to initiate programs of change then:

Why should we wait for industry to catch up - when the system can and does assist in the scheduling program

[tomder55]

I suppose you have not familiarized yourself with the fiasco that was created when our government decided that it was in our interests to support ethanol from corn production.

Not enough time for me to deal with it now ;but I have commented on it here often . Suffice it to say it made bubble markets , creates food shortages ,and to top it off ;it was unproven that there were any advantages in converting corn into ethanol for cleaner emissions or energy independence. It just satisfied another lobby that did not give a damn about the cause they were promoting .

[phlanx]

There is a genral rule of thumb in a capitalised society

There needed to be Betamax for VHS to win and take the industry standard

I have seen people trying all sorts from all over the world, and nobody has come up with a definite way yet of providing SAFE energy for all

Until there is an industry standard, people will try all sorts of things to find the answer

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
Thomas A. Edison

[tomder55]

Yes ;that's my point too. The market will sort itself out . We do not need the government deciding the winners and losers.

[ETWolverine]

HAHAHAHAHHA

Well if you mean by reading between the lines you think you can twist an argument to your liking is petty!

It didn't take a generation for the blackberry - but it took a generation for mobiles (cell) to become popular - or has the concept missed you by

Really?

The first cellular networks launched in the USA were in the mid 1980s. By the mid 90s, everyone had a cell phone. As soon as their use became easy, affordable and convenient, people started using them. It didn't take a generation to catch on... not even close.

So the government can't assist with business - now that's a concept! So the US government has put stimulas packages together - as just one of a million examples of where businesses benefit from the government domestically, and as for foreign assistance, don't the US government assist there either - I think they do - I would list some here but Google found millions!

What they DO and what they are ALLOWED to do are two different things. A third is what they SHOULD be allowed to do.

So you think you invented democracy - sorry you are about 2200 years behind Greece on that issue, and as for all men equal, that took another hundred years before it came true, or has slavery just passed you by? Notg to mention the Magna Carta 500 years before your time, and list goes on! Your democracy is different to all others that is all, and as nobody has a perfect system yet, it is not clear which democracy is best

As regards your revolution ideas - again, that is how every rebellion or revolt is created - the suppressed attack the surpressors

AGAIN Stop reading between the lines - where the hell did I say greater government power??

As soon as you mention allowing government to make decisions as to which businesses or industries it will help, you are granting them more power. As soon as you allow them to create incentives for certain businesses, you are granting them more power. As soon as you say that they should regulate businesses, you are granting them more power. This isn't reading between the lines... it is simply the result of implementing your ideas.

I am stating that on some issues it is the repsonsibilities of a Government to assist with the introduction of a new product that will not only devolop new jobs, but provide a cleaner future for all the worlds citizens and not just the handful in america

And I am saying that it is NOT their job to do so, and giving them the power to do so is the same as giving them the power to choose which businesses they will help succeed and which they will push toward failure. You are, in effect, granting them the power to slew the playing field in whatever direction THEY think is the right way to go rather than letting the PEOPLE determine what they want through an open market.

It is still laughable that you think government assistance in certain areas in their attemot to grab power

I don't know if you have noticed this or not, but they already control you!

Yes, I did notice. That's why I am trying to roll back their power.

I really think you have totally missed the point of democracy - or in fact any form of government - The People Always have the power!!

Funny... Clete would (and has) argued otherwise.

But the fact is that we only have power over the government as long as we EXERCISE IT. Power ends as soon as we allow the government to dictate business and industry policy and allow them to get away with it. Power ends as soon as we give the government more power over us than we have over them and allow them to dictate to us what kinds of toilets we can use, what kind of lights we can use, and what kind of cars we can use. We only have power over government if we are willing to limit its power.

Again you are trying to put words in my mouth - if you can't read english Elliot, may I suggest you make a trip to England to learn!

Perhaps you should make yourself more clear.

I have no problem in accepting that your form of democracy is based on different ideals, but please do not hesitate for one second think you have the answer to it all because nobody does

Yes I do. You ought to try it my way... then you'll have all the answers too.

I do suggest that you take a good look at what the governments do, because it is those in office that can dictate policy and influence markets, industry also has this power, and it is and will always be a combination of the two that works best for all men - ALL MEN Elliot, not just the ones that fit into a certain criteria

Yes, industry does have power... but only as long as PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO BUY THEIR PRODUCTS. That is where people get their power in the free market... by choosing what they buy and from whom. That is as direct a form of control as has ever been created by man, and it gives us the final say on any product, business or industry. But if we allow government to have more influence over the market than WE do, we are giving up control of not only the government, but the economy as well.

I for one do not wish to give up that control.

You, apparently have no problem doing so.

Elliot

[phlanx]

A generation is classed at 20 years

You state 1984 start, and the us used them first in your market

Here it was more of late 90s before everyone had one

So Whether you class 10 years or 15 years as considerably shorter really makes no difference, SHOULD we really wait 10 -15 years for people to realise that using a 100w light bulb vs the 11w lightbulb is just plain stupid, but seen as their stupidty effects my right to freedom of choice, then why not ban the thing in what most people see as the correct choice to make

So instead of waiting 10 years plus, we can save a shed load of energy in months!

The problem with any document of words is that two people can read them two different ways - so you say they shouldn't be doing something, yet I don't here of impeachments or arrests?

How have you got from providing incentives to green engergy devolopment, which is a response to the peoples cries, which is democracy TO giving them more power? The leap is too much for me to understand?

I refer my right honourable gentlemen to the Miners Strike of the 80s in this country, here we had an industry that needed to be reformed

The workers opposed it, even though it was no longer economically viable to be run.

It had to be reformed, we couldn't allow it to continue in its present form, so here you have the responsibility of the government making a decision that is of the benefit to the country

Incidentally we are on the verge of going through the same mess with Royal Mail, but that is a different story

You cannot leave it up to the market to always make the right choices for itself, just as you can't leave it up to the government

It is a combination of all the factors that make up the checks and balances within a system

Pollution - VERY BAD! Green Energy GOOD! It is so hard to appreciate the simplistic nature of the decision, that you have to refer to a document that was written before pollution really started to effect people

If you don't understand my comments you can always ask for clarification instead of assuming

If your way worked for everybody then everybody would be doing it - let me know how many are in your camp :)

It is still amusing to find someone who thinks they have total control over their lives. Come on we have covered this point already so I will shut up on this

The government has always played an influence in the market because the market has the money and can influence the government

However, the government can create industries by making laws or imposing certain import/export taxes that will reflect what the social thoughts are for the day

Are you trying to tell me that you think the government doesn't influence the markets with the acts of laws and taxes, and if so are you saying that the government shouldn't have that right or power over the market?

[ETWolverine]

When you say things like "pollution-Bad" you really need to define what you mean.

Define pollution. Does it include CO2? Because if it does, I would argue that it is NOT bad.

"Green energy- good"? For whom? The 11w lightbulbs that are supposed to give off as much light as a 120W lightbulb generally don't. The light is dimmer, colder, and causes me to have headaches. The electric cars that are generally supposed to be more efficient than a gas fueled vehicle run out of juice after only 100 miles... and are therefore NOT efficient for long trips. Therefore, these products are NOT the best or most efficient items on the market FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING FORCED TO USE THEM. Despite your assumption that they are.

So you are making assumptions about what people are "supposed to know" that may or may not be true. And you are concluding that if YOU know it to be true, it must be true, and that if anyone DOESN'T believe the same way, they are either evil or stupid, and must therefore be controlled by government.

I'm saying that your assumptions about what is best for people have not been proven true, and that the only way for them to be proven true is to let the people decide for themselves... via the free market.

And for that reason alone, the government should NOT have influence over the markets, should not be allowed to control the markets, and should not have the power to determine what people should buy, use or sell.

If you really want to know what's best for the people, let the people make the decision. Otherwise all you are doing is making an unproven assumption and turning it into a government mandate.

Simply put, the government neither knows me nor cares what my needs are. Therefore, they cannot make the decisions that are in my best interest. I can.

Elliot

[phlanx]

So you think pollution is co2 - interesting

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms

You also think that pollution is acceptable in any form if it can be justified - questionable!

You think electric cars only go for 100 miles - interesting, besides I was using them as an example, I could quite have easily stated Hydrogen Fuel Cars

You try to make argument based on pinpointing or nit picking a specific section, using energy saving light bulbs is just one way where we can reduce the energy cost

Or has America got all the energy it needs and doesn't rely on foreign markets for most of its use - have I got this wrong??

Tell you what Elliot, you go and live right next door to an industrial area that is pumping out pollutants all day - I am sure you and your son will be more than happy to do that

Problem is pollutants don't just stay around an area, they tend to travel downwind, so what happens in another country can effect me and my family - that's why I have said several times -

Freedom Choice does not give anyone the right to take away anothers freedom of choice

Pollution from man is just stupid, especially as we can all work to providing cleaner air

None of what I have said is referring to global warming - I am still not convinced either, I am referring to what man can do to clean up his act

And whether you think the market should chose or not it is not as simple as allowing the minority to ruin what the majority want, or has the basis of democracy completely been thrown out of the window in favour for marketing trends?

[tomder55]

So you think pollution is co2 - interesting

Our stupid Supreme Court has ruled C02 a pollutant and our EPA is running with the ruling to impose regulations on business under the pretext.
http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php

[phlanx]

Salvo Tom

I appreciate most governments target Co2 specifically, but take a Diseil Engine in a car - it will produce :

* carbon (soot);
* carbon monoxide;
* aldehydes;
* nitrogen dioxide;
* sulphur dioxide;
* polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

None of which anybody would like to breathe in but we all do

So regardless of what ever crap all our governments spout on, and why they do, the facts are this

If you want to carry on in a system where pollutants are consistently pumped into the air, then please by all means try sucking on an exhaust pipe, if you want clean air, simply start switching to energy saving products that are being supplemented by the governments to get them to market quicker

It's a no-brainer