The Greens really do want us back in the stone age ....
15 May 2009, 06:36 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Greens really do want us back in the stone age ....
From 'Rebound effects' of efficient energy resources could halve carbon savings, says study | Environment | guardian.co.uk
"... Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK said the work on rebound effects showed technology on its own was not a solution to climate change. "Any policy has to be not just about getting technology deployed but also about a strategy that includes tax and regulation. You can't just deploy new technology and hope it'll get you out of trouble. I get the sense that policymakers don't understand it fully."Sorrell agreed that rebound effect should be taken more seriously by governments when setting climate policy – in particular, making sure they focus on measures outside simple energy efficiency. "Our new understanding of the rebound effect reinforces the case for price-based measures, such as carbon taxes and emissions trading, to control emissions directly." ..."
They do get it, the fact that it is technology and cheap energy that drags nations/people out of poverty, but that doesn't fit with their Utoipian ideal of a lot fewer people on the planet living in *harmony* with it ....
Dave
"... Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK said the work on rebound effects showed technology on its own was not a solution to climate change. "Any policy has to be not just about getting technology deployed but also about a strategy that includes tax and regulation. You can't just deploy new technology and hope it'll get you out of trouble. I get the sense that policymakers don't understand it fully."Sorrell agreed that rebound effect should be taken more seriously by governments when setting climate policy – in particular, making sure they focus on measures outside simple energy efficiency. "Our new understanding of the rebound effect reinforces the case for price-based measures, such as carbon taxes and emissions trading, to control emissions directly." ..."
They do get it, the fact that it is technology and cheap energy that drags nations/people out of poverty, but that doesn't fit with their Utoipian ideal of a lot fewer people on the planet living in *harmony* with it ....
Dave
16 May 2009, 02:57 AM
#5
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone who's posted here is bang on the money - we need less people on the planet. All the interfering we've been doing by curing diseases and not killing each other often enough is the primary cause of climate change. Increasing taxes basically says that if you're rich enough then you can f*ck the environment up as much as you want. Legalising murder would put everyone on the same level and IMO is a much fairer solution.
16 May 2009, 06:43 AM
#7
Trending Topics
16 May 2009, 09:16 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,911
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone who's posted here is bang on the money - we need less people on the planet. All the interfering we've been doing by curing diseases and not killing each other often enough is the primary cause of climate change. Increasing taxes basically says that if you're rich enough then you can f*ck the environment up as much as you want. Legalising murder would put everyone on the same level and IMO is a much fairer solution.
16 May 2009, 09:30 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dave
16 May 2009, 11:03 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 May 2009, 05:56 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
I think any child related benefit payments should only be made for the first two children born of any single female. You want more, YOU pay for them. We have free sex education and free contraception in this country, so there is no excuse.
16 May 2009, 09:09 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That needs sorting out regardless I think any child related benefit payments should only be made for the first two children born of any single female. You want more, YOU pay for them. We have free sex education and free contraception in this country, so there is no excuse.
I think any child related benefit payments should only be made for the first two children born of any single female. You want more, YOU pay for them. We have free sex education and free contraception in this country, so there is no excuse.
18 May 2009, 12:39 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just accept we're doomed and get on with it. We cant make a sufficient difference, the end of manking will probably be in a few hundred years (after we've all gone to dust), so lets just make the most of it.............
18 May 2009, 02:00 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
The problem isn't people having children, its people not having protected sex. Without one you don't get the other if you get me.
If we were only allowed one child, what do you do with the ones you weren't allowed to have?
Respect and discipline are the single most lacking issues of our society. Bring back national service.
If we were only allowed one child, what do you do with the ones you weren't allowed to have?
Respect and discipline are the single most lacking issues of our society. Bring back national service.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Wingnuttzz
Member's Gallery
30
26 April 2022 11:15 PM