I love AOC part 2

[Yonadav]

If we are going to stop global warming, we need to do really big things and set extreme goals.

Well, being vegetarian is not authoritarian. Making government agencies try to force people into fighting global warming is authoritarian, and therefore immoral. Plus, it is probably counter-productive. Paradoxically, greater economic freedom generally decreases the CO2 emissions the society creates.
http://www.efdinitiative.org/sites/defau...2029_0.pdf

It absolutely will require us to operate on a different theory of economics.

What are you smoking?

it's important to note that none of that is in the green new deal.

So, then, what is? And where did the confusion come from?

I scanned the paper that you linked to. I didn't give it a close read, because that wasn't necessary. The paper is pretty loaded with junk. For example, while it is true that a country that can trade freely can reduce its emissions, its not true that this lowers global emissions-- US emissions can be reduced while China's increase. This has nothing to do with the US being more economically free than China.

The paper seemed to be written to present the appearance of legitimate research, but is really free market libertarian propaganda.

[FlatAssembler]

Well, being vegetarian is not authoritarian. Making government agencies try to force people into fighting global warming is authoritarian, and therefore immoral. Plus, it is probably counter-productive. Paradoxically, greater economic freedom generally decreases the CO2 emissions the society creates.
http://www.efdinitiative.org/sites/defau...2029_0.pdf
What are you smoking?
So, then, what is? And where did the confusion come from?

I scanned the paper that you linked to. I didn't give it a close read, because that wasn't necessary. The paper is pretty loaded with junk. For example, while it is true that a country that can trade freely can reduce its emissions, its not true that this lowers global emissions-- US emissions can be reduced while China's increase. This has nothing to do with the US being more economically free than China.

The paper seemed to be written to present the appearance of legitimate research, but is really free market libertarian propaganda.

Of course free market decreases global pollution. Free market encourages innovation, and innovation generally decreases pollution. If the price of gasoline drastically increases, which it will, there is more incentive to research the alternative sources of energy. Even people in less free countries can then benefit from those innovations that were invented elsewhere.

[Yonadav]

I scanned the paper that you linked to. I didn't give it a close read, because that wasn't necessary. The paper is pretty loaded with junk. For example, while it is true that a country that can trade freely can reduce its emissions, its not true that this lowers global emissions-- US emissions can be reduced while China's increase. This has nothing to do with the US being more economically free than China.

The paper seemed to be written to present the appearance of legitimate research, but is really free market libertarian propaganda.

Of course free market decreases global pollution. Free market encourages innovation, and innovation generally decreases pollution. If the price of gasoline drastically increases, which it will, there is more incentive to research the alternative sources of energy. Even people in less free countries can then benefit from those innovations that were invented elsewhere.

Wealth is the greatest correlating factor with carbon footprint. The wealthier you are, the bigger your carbon footprint. If free markets decreased global pollution, then your paper that argues the case for that wouldn't have been full of junk.

[FlatAssembler]

Of course free market decreases global pollution. Free market encourages innovation, and innovation generally decreases pollution. If the price of gasoline drastically increases, which it will, there is more incentive to research the alternative sources of energy. Even people in less free countries can then benefit from those innovations that were invented elsewhere.

Wealth is the greatest correlating factor with carbon footprint. The wealthier you are, the bigger your carbon footprint. If free markets decreased global pollution, then your paper that argues the case for that wouldn't have been full of junk.

How? The wealthier you are, more likely you are to buy solar panels and use an electric or a hybrid car (and the hybrid car, rather than electric car, is probably the best type of car both environmentally and economically).

[bennyboy]

Wealth is the greatest correlating factor with carbon footprint. The wealthier you are, the bigger your carbon footprint. If free markets decreased global pollution, then your paper that argues the case for that wouldn't have been full of junk.

How? The wealthier you are, more likely you are to buy solar panels and use an electric or a hybrid car (and the hybrid car, rather than electric car, is probably the best type of car both environmentally and economically).

First of all, a new car costs way more carbon than continuing to drive a very old one.  So if you have to buy a car, then an electric car is great.  Otherwise. . . keeping that old beater a couple more years is better.

Second, wealthy people consume more.  They also consume more expensive foods, which are expensive because they are imported from abroad.  They also travel more.

Yeah, solar panels are great.  But that's about 0.01% of what richer people spend their money on.

And also keep in mind that while countries like China and India pollute a lot, it's very much manufacturing, and so America and other rich countries own a lot of that damage as well, even though it's more indirect.

---

Of course free market decreases global pollution. Free market encourages innovation, and innovation generally decreases pollution. If the price of gasoline drastically increases, which it will, there is more incentive to research the alternative sources of energy. Even people in less free countries can then benefit from those innovations that were invented elsewhere.

You are making stuff up, and it's not good stuff. Innovation means an increase in productivity, and productivity is fueled by. . . fuel.

[Yonadav]

Wealth is the greatest correlating factor with carbon footprint. The wealthier you are, the bigger your carbon footprint. If free markets decreased global pollution, then your paper that argues the case for that wouldn't have been full of junk.

How? The wealthier you are, more likely you are to buy solar panels and use an electric or a hybrid car (and the hybrid car, rather than electric car, is probably the best type of car both environmentally and economically).

Sure, if you're wealthy you are more likely to virtue signal. And yet the carbon footprints of the wealthy are by far the largest. You're talking about some wealthy people doing some things to feel good about themselves. They aren't significantly lowering their carbon footprint.

[FlatAssembler]

First of all, a new car costs way more carbon than continuing to drive a very old one. So if you have to buy a car, then an electric car is great. Otherwise. . . keeping that old beater a couple more years is better.

That would be more of an argument against the Green New Deal (which would force almost everyone to buy a new car) than for it, don't you think?

They also consume more expensive foods, which are expensive because they are imported from abroad.

It's not like it necessarily took more CO2 to produce that food. Meat produced near-by costs more CO2 than fruits and vegetables produced far away and having traveled to here.

Innovation means an increase in productivity, and productivity is fueled by. . . fuel.

What are you talking about? Productivity today usually requires electricity, and it can well be produced from nuclear energy or the solar energy.

And yet the carbon footprints of the wealthy are by far the largest.

Then how it is that the environment tends to be more polluted in poorer countries?

[bennyboy]

Then how it is that the environment tends to be more polluted in poorer countries?

Because rich people don't normally burn shit in their back yards. They buy stuff from China or India, who pollute on their behalf.

---

First of all, a new car costs way more carbon than continuing to drive a very old one.  So if you have to buy a car, then an electric car is great.  Otherwise. . . keeping that old beater a couple more years is better.

That would be more of an argument against the Green New Deal (which would force almost everyone to buy a new car) than for it, don't you think?

I don't know that this is true. Link?

They also consume more expensive foods, which are expensive because they are imported from abroad.

It's not like it necessarily took more CO2 to produce that food. Meat produced near-by costs more CO2 than fruits and vegetables produced far away and having traveled to here.

Link.

Innovation means an increase in productivity, and productivity is fueled by. . . fuel.

What are you talking about? Productivity today usually requires electricity, and it can well be produced from nuclear energy or the solar energy.

If that were true, then great. But that's not the reality. Most industrial growth is fueled by oil and coal. The USA given its very large sunny areas (like Arizona), could fulfill ALL its energy needs with renewables. I mean-- basically, free energy to make whatever they want.

[FlatAssembler]

They buy stuff from China or India, who pollute on their behalf.

Yeah, the rich countries get cleaner environment on the backs of the poor countries forced to pollute their environment. Except, how it is then that the percentage of people who die of pollution worldwide has been decreasing in the last 50 years, rather than increasing?
http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/data/

Link.

You are a vegetarian, right? I believe I saw you say that in another thread. Then you are probably aware of this:
https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts
But facts matter only as far as they support your agenda, right?

The USA given its very large sunny areas (like Arizona), could fulfill ALL its energy needs with renewables.

No. Statistics disagree on this one, but the most generous study to support your case here I've seen shows the US could fulfill around a third of its energy needs from the renewable sources. Besides, why exactly would you care about it? You are from South Korea, and not from the US, right?

Answer me this question, and I might take you seriously about this: why exactly do you think the Green New Deal would, if implemented, have different effects than the Great Leap Forward did?

[Amarok]

So your going to repeat rubbish and link more fringe sites and you wonder why we don't take you seriously 

---

How? The wealthier you are, more likely you are to buy solar panels and use an electric or a hybrid car (and the hybrid car, rather than electric car, is probably the best type of car both environmentally and economically).

Sure, if you're wealthy you are more likely to virtue signal. And yet the carbon footprints of the wealthy are by far the largest. You're talking about some wealthy people doing some things to feel good about themselves. They aren't significantly lowering their carbon footprint.

Reasoning with Flatty is worthless as he is immune to facts