Coffeehouse Thread

28 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Detour to Clean Capitalism

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    iStation

    inevitable detour to clean capitalism?

    contaminated capitalism...

    1997- U.S. refusal of ratification of Kyoto Protocol
    2001 9/11
    2001 Enron collapse
    2003 Iraq War
    2005 Bioethanol
    2007 High-price of crude oil
    2007 Price inflation
    2008 Contaminated food in China
    2008 Bailout to real estate bubble in U.S.

    too expensive!

    to creative clean capitalism...
    we need brain power instead of oil power...

    Heroes of the Environment - Heroes of the Environment 2008 - TIME
    http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1841778_1841816_1843874,00.html
    Smiley

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    It's ironic. When we discovered that global warming was a real issue and it needed addressing, it took a long time for science to work out how to sell its importance to the world, but we're getting there.


    In Japan, we're selling it as "new technologies".
    In eastern Europe we're selling it as "ability to make use of Kyoto and carbon credits to make hard cash".
    In the third world we're selling it as "cheap, mobile energy that's easy to get hold of and you grow it yourself"
    In the States we're selling it as "internalising energy, and reducing demand on dodgy terrorist states like Russia and Iran"
    In China we're selling it as "get onboard, or Beijing will be flooded"
    In western Europe we're selling it as "this is a serious environmental issue that needs to be tackled in this generation, not left to your grandkids to sort out".

    All of the above arguments are true, but it's a bit depressing that politicians are so stupid that if you don't phrase it right, they don't listen. It's only relatively recently, after things like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and the huge payoffs by Exxon Mobil that scientists have cottoned on that evidence and facts just can't compete with a media campaign.

    The world is stupid, but the execs at Exxon will definitely go to hell.

  • User profile image
    iStation

    How about using the money of the bailout package not for banks but for a future New Deal, giga watt solar power plants.
    Smiley

  • User profile image
    tfraser

    iStation said:
    How about using the money of the bailout package not for banks but for a future New Deal, giga watt solar power plants.
    Smiley
    I certainly hope you are joking.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    iStation said:
    How about using the money of the bailout package not for banks but for a future New Deal, giga watt solar power plants.
    Smiley
    Yes, that would make sense ... which is why it probably won't happen.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    evildictaitor said:
    It's ironic. When we discovered that global warming was a real issue and it needed addressing, it took a long time for science to work out how to sell its importance to the world, but we're getting there.

    In Japan, we're selling it as "new technologies".
    In eastern Europe we're selling it as "ability to make use of Kyoto and carbon credits to make hard cash".
    In the third world we're selling it as "cheap, mobile energy that's easy to get hold of and you grow it yourself"
    In the States we're selling it as "internalising energy, and reducing demand on dodgy terrorist states like Russia and Iran"
    In China we're selling it as "get onboard, or Beijing will be flooded"
    In western Europe we're selling it as "this is a serious environmental issue that needs to be tackled in this generation, not left to your grandkids to sort out".

    All of the above arguments are true, but it's a bit depressing that politicians are so stupid that if you don't phrase it right, they don't listen. It's only relatively recently, after things like "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and the huge payoffs by Exxon Mobil that scientists have cottoned on that evidence and facts just can't compete with a media campaign.

    The world is stupid, but the execs at Exxon will definitely go to hell.
    When did we find that out? And when did science sell the idea?

    All the money we pour in the so called global warming, to keep 25.000 people or so at work, could be used for totally different goals. Goals that actually can improve our standard of living and goals that actually can be measured and proven with hard facts.

    Like food and water for 3rd world countries. Cure for aids, cancer and other deseases.

    What have all the gazillion dollars/euros/pounds we poured into climate change prevention brought us? Two years more on earth? So we dont die all in 3040 but in 3042! WTG! Meanwhile people are dieing all around us that we can actually help now, not in 1000 years, but now.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    tfraser said:
    iStation said:
    *snip*
    I certainly hope you are joking.
    I dunno.

    I would rather see the money put to something a little more useful long term, instead of using it reinforce the banks' notion that whenever they screw up, the government will use public money to bail them out.

    Yup, I have heard that if they don't bail them out, that the world as we know it will come to an end; I'm just not altogether convinced.

  • User profile image
    tfraser

    Ray7 said:
    tfraser said:
    *snip*
    I dunno.

    I would rather see the money put to something a little more useful long term, instead of using it reinforce the banks' notion that whenever they screw up, the government will use public money to bail them out.

    Yup, I have heard that if they don't bail them out, that the world as we know it will come to an end; I'm just not altogether convinced.

    Economic stability is a long term issue. Where will the money to invest in renewable energy come from if the present financial problems continue to get worse?

    Also, if the proposed bill is passed then it won't be reinforcing the notion that banks have such a liberal safety net. Part of the conditions of the deal are that much more strict regulations will be imposed on them with the intention of preventing this crisis from occurring again.

    In Australia we already have these laws in place, so while the rest of the world's banks are being injected with funds from governments ours are able to remain self-sufficent because they were never involved in such risky investments.

  • User profile image
    iStation

    tfraser said:
    iStation said:
    *snip*
    I certainly hope you are joking.
    The money of the bailout package -> giga watt solar power plants -> increase of solar cell production
    -> housing with solar panel -> stopping depreciation of real estate
    -> job creation -> decrease of default for real estate
    -> increase of bank saving
    -> happy banks!

    Solarjobs.com - Find a Job in the Solar Industry
    http://www.solarjobs.com/
    Smiley
    too sanguine?!

  • User profile image
    tfraser

    iStation said:
    tfraser said:
    *snip*
    The money of the bailout package -> giga watt solar power plants -> increase of solar cell production
    -> housing with solar panel -> stopping depreciation of real estate
    -> job creation -> decrease of default for real estate
    -> increase of bank saving
    -> happy banks!

    Solarjobs.com - Find a Job in the Solar Industry
    http://www.solarjobs.com/
    Smiley
    too sanguine?!
    That's probably a bit too optimistic. I doubt the banks will be happy at the end of that process because they will have been sinking since the decision to invest the money in solar power. Remember that the bailout fund isn't a surplus; it's money that the United States doesn't have, so it should only be used in the event of a severe emergency.

    I have nothing against solar power but at the moment it's not a high priority issue. Greenpeace activists will disagree with me here but if it was up to them we would be living in trees or something.

  • User profile image
    matthews

    iStation said:
    tfraser said:
    *snip*
    The money of the bailout package -> giga watt solar power plants -> increase of solar cell production
    -> housing with solar panel -> stopping depreciation of real estate
    -> job creation -> decrease of default for real estate
    -> increase of bank saving
    -> happy banks!

    Solarjobs.com - Find a Job in the Solar Industry
    http://www.solarjobs.com/
    Smiley
    too sanguine?!
    Handouts are awful no matter who they're going to.

    Better idea: slash government spending.

  • User profile image
    iStation

    tfraser said:
    iStation said:
    *snip*
    That's probably a bit too optimistic. I doubt the banks will be happy at the end of that process because they will have been sinking since the decision to invest the money in solar power. Remember that the bailout fund isn't a surplus; it's money that the United States doesn't have, so it should only be used in the event of a severe emergency.

    I have nothing against solar power but at the moment it's not a high priority issue. Greenpeace activists will disagree with me here but if it was up to them we would be living in trees or something.
    emergency = an unexpected and dangerous situation that you must deal with immediately

    But, what have we been doing since Kyoto Protocol?
    Many sage politicians in U.S. could have predicted this situation...
    I think this detour around clean capitalism has brought this emergency.
    We're spending much more money for oil than a decade ago!
    Wink
    too pessimistic?!

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Maddus Mattus said:
    evildictaitor said:
    *snip*
    When did we find that out? And when did science sell the idea?

    All the money we pour in the so called global warming, to keep 25.000 people or so at work, could be used for totally different goals. Goals that actually can improve our standard of living and goals that actually can be measured and proven with hard facts.

    Like food and water for 3rd world countries. Cure for aids, cancer and other deseases.

    What have all the gazillion dollars/euros/pounds we poured into climate change prevention brought us? Two years more on earth? So we dont die all in 3040 but in 3042! WTG! Meanwhile people are dieing all around us that we can actually help now, not in 1000 years, but now.
    Anti-science, anti-evidence. You sound like a creationist. Why spend all this money looking for signs of evolution when we already "know" that the world was made in 7 days? Why spend all this money on nasa when we "know" the sun goes round the Earth and the moon is made of cheese? Why bother trying to understand or solve global climate problems that threaten to displace millions of people around the world when Maddus Mattus "knows" that it's all a made-up socialist plot?

  • User profile image
    Jason I

    matthews said:
    iStation said:
    *snip*
    Handouts are awful no matter who they're going to.

    Better idea: slash government spending.
    You're half right - As most financial advisors would tell you, the way to get out of debt is to CUT SPENDING (what you said) and INCREASE YOUR REVENUE.  Remember, this bail-out/rescue/whatever you want to call it will be financed on borrowed money. Short of running the printing presses, the US does not have this kind of cash available onhand.

    In terms of increasing your revenue, I had an idea. I've read somewhere that most corporations (read: not mom & pop small businesses) pay little or no tax. What if you simply (ok, not simply) require them to pay the tax rate already here and not allow any 'tax credits / writeoffs'?  I'm sure many would say this would push businesses further and further away from the US. I'm sure, to some extent they'd be correct. But many businesses couldn't afford NOT to stay in the US: the market is too big. And a smaller profit is better than no profit at all, right?

    Just thinking aloud - I'm an amateur economist. Wink


  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    evildictaitor said:
    Maddus Mattus said:
    *snip*
    Anti-science, anti-evidence. You sound like a creationist. Why spend all this money looking for signs of evolution when we already "know" that the world was made in 7 days? Why spend all this money on nasa when we "know" the sun goes round the Earth and the moon is made of cheese? Why bother trying to understand or solve global climate problems that threaten to displace millions of people around the world when Maddus Mattus "knows" that it's all a made-up socialist plot?
    There you go, making it all personal again.

    I guess if you can't persuade someone with arguments, it's best to make it personal.

    Good job!

  • User profile image
    evildictait​or

    Maddus Mattus said:
    evildictaitor said:
    *snip*
    There you go, making it all personal again.

    I guess if you can't persuade someone with arguments, it's best to make it personal.

    Good job!
    I tried using evidence, but that doesn't work against your superior knowledge.

  • User profile image
    iStation

    We need innovations and collaborations to clean capitalism like this!

    Nippon Oil, Sanyo Eye JV for Thin-film Si Solar Cell -- Tech-On!
    http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20081001/158927/
    Smiley

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    evildictaitor said:
    Maddus Mattus said:
    *snip*
    I tried using evidence, but that doesn't work against your superior knowledge.
    Yeah, that superior knowlidge of mine is helpfull in all sorts of situations.

    Sticks and stones mate Wink

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.