Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-06-2015, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Taos NM
5,342 posts, read 5,086,591 times
Reputation: 6756

Advertisements

A costal tax instead of a carbon tax would solve the issue nicely. Most all of the issues with global warming have to do with people living by water. Preventing carbon use isn't worthwhile and global warming has more benefits than drawbacks. Sooooooooo much land is underused because our world is too cold and dry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2015, 05:52 PM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
4,023 posts, read 3,789,108 times
Reputation: 6550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
A costal tax instead of a carbon tax would solve the issue nicely. Most all of the issues with global warming have to do with people living by water. Preventing carbon use isn't worthwhile and global warming has more benefits than drawbacks. Sooooooooo much land is underused because our world is too cold and dry.
I would like to see some data to back this up. Ports are historically the largest cities, so of course they have plenty of pollution but I think we have roughly the same carbon footprint per person everywhere. Actually in some cities, like NY, since living spaces are small we probably have less climate controlled space per person and therefor a smaller per person carbon footprint. But this is a guess. Anyway, please provide some data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Taos NM
5,342 posts, read 5,086,591 times
Reputation: 6756
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach View Post
I would like to see some data to back this up. Ports are historically the largest cities, so of course they have plenty of pollution but I think we have roughly the same carbon footprint per person everywhere. Actually in some cities, like NY, since living spaces are small we probably have less climate controlled space per person and therefor a smaller per person carbon footprint. But this is a guess. Anyway, please provide some data.
It's not that they produce more carbon, it's that they are at a big risk for storms floods and rising sea levels. NYC won't fair well if Antarctica melts but Indianapolis will be just fine. Nyc people will have to relocate and recover the cost of lost real estate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2015, 11:50 PM
 
Location: Europe
2,729 posts, read 2,690,776 times
Reputation: 4210
Quote:
Originally Posted by zonest View Post
the majority of the problem is from the third world and they will NOT stop having too many kids, paving over the Earth, destroying forests, damming rivers, etc. So you're going to see this problem (if it IS man-caused) just gettting worse, not better.
By third world you mean poor, some african, asian etc.?


Not so simple. For example west first factory world brings old technology to a third world, rich west use third world as a dump by removing factory there and leaving all the dirt for them. Look at tourism and impact of tourism to locals, it is not only positive, sometimes it is only negative without positive sides.

Just look what your fridge, car, clothes, house, electronics, food, life style habits, travelling etc are causing to Earth.

WWF Footprint Calculator


Ask yourself: Who is buying those furnitores and other products from the rainforests? Who is a starter of a aluminium factory, who has money to buil it up? Who is buying jewellery digged from Earth? Who build nuclear power stuff?

"first world" need to change and stop dirting the Earth. Just think how much only plastic wrappings are coming to one household, all the packages etc. and other waste, food waste etc. And no, it does not "disappear" when garbage collector takes it away from your sight. Everything causes its own type of problems.

Green living and organic living is the only way to keep this planet livable. And it means every each one has to live green lifestyle. Few green here and there cannot fix the damages that majority of people are causing.

Start with zero waste challenge. Start by researching every products producing system with transporting it to you. Where your food is coming? Could you choose local, organic, grow by yourself?. No it is not coming from food store, it is delivered and caused climate change by many ways before you eat it. Where your dump goes? No, it does not disappear either.

Not that I would support making kids in poor countries just to die in hunger etc. but depend of the place, problems are different than here.


When you probably need 4 planet and your kid(s) need more too..... Think whos kids are producing more waste? Who is using this all? Who is bying it all?

People CAN fix the Earth, majority of them just don't want to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2015, 04:40 AM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
4,023 posts, read 3,789,108 times
Reputation: 6550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
It's not that they produce more carbon, it's that they are at a big risk for storms floods and rising sea levels. NYC won't fair well if Antarctica melts but Indianapolis will be just fine. Nyc people will have to relocate and recover the cost of lost real estate.
I got moderated, but I had a serious question; I guess my way of asking was too direct and possibly rude. Anyway, this line of thought seems to place more burden on those affected by sea rise than those causing it. I think the burden should be on those causing the problem out of fairness and to incent them to stop,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2015, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Taos NM
5,342 posts, read 5,086,591 times
Reputation: 6756
Quote:
Originally Posted by soUlwounD View Post
By third world you mean poor, some african, asian etc.?


Not so simple. For example west first factory world brings old technology to a third world, rich west use third world as a dump by removing factory there and leaving all the dirt for them. Look at tourism and impact of tourism to locals, it is not only positive, sometimes it is only negative without positive sides.

Just look what your fridge, car, clothes, house, electronics, food, life style habits, travelling etc are causing to Earth.

WWF Footprint Calculator


Ask yourself: Who is buying those furnitores and other products from the rainforests? Who is a starter of a aluminium factory, who has money to buil it up? Who is buying jewellery digged from Earth? Who build nuclear power stuff?

"first world" need to change and stop dirting the Earth. Just think how much only plastic wrappings are coming to one household, all the packages etc. and other waste, food waste etc. And no, it does not "disappear" when garbage collector takes it away from your sight. Everything causes its own type of problems.

Green living and organic living is the only way to keep this planet livable. And it means every each one has to live green lifestyle. Few green here and there cannot fix the damages that majority of people are causing.

Start with zero waste challenge. Start by researching every products producing system with transporting it to you. Where your food is coming? Could you choose local, organic, grow by yourself?. No it is not coming from food store, it is delivered and caused climate change by many ways before you eat it. Where your dump goes? No, it does not disappear either.

Not that I would support making kids in poor countries just to die in hunger etc. but depend of the place, problems are different than here.


When you probably need 4 planet and your kid(s) need more too..... Think whos kids are producing more waste? Who is using this all? Who is bying it all?

People CAN fix the Earth, majority of them just don't want to.
Instead of starting with that end goal, I think it's easier to get a lot of people to do the very easy tasks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReachTheBeach View Post
I got moderated, but I had a serious question; I guess my way of asking was too direct and possibly rude. Anyway, this line of thought seems to place more burden on those affected by sea rise than those causing it. I think the burden should be on those causing the problem out of fairness and to incent them to stop,
Regardless of climate change the coasts are extremely risky to build on, especially in the U.S. Look at New Orleans. They got rebuilt with money from the taxpayers because New Orleans is just an awful place to build.
And sea level varies so much already. Look at Alexandria Egypt. Plus, in geological time earths climate and sea level is very variable. Why implement a costly tax on the rest of the country when the sea level would is going to move up and down regardless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 11:02 AM
 
2,485 posts, read 2,212,202 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
LOL. yeah people living in yurts are a bigger cause of global warming then the tons of electricity I use, and my 2 vehicles. And all the meat I eat, and electronics and other mass produced items I have. yup!

Sigh. Theres so many things wrong with the OP, I figured I'd touch on the one no one else had mentioned yet.
Not true. Countries like India and China are going through tremendous industrialization. What you produce as a person is not comparable. Not to mention that China for instance is becoming a nation of drivers. So they're in their middle-class also own vehicles the way you do. A lot of them also on vacation homes and vacation vehicles.

There are also more people in the rest of the world then in the Western world. I think that the whole climate change thing is led by Western elites without considering the economic development of the Third World. Let's face it. Countries like China and India are seeking to outcompete many western countries and establish their place in the world. And that is much more important than dealing with climate change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,494 posts, read 33,233,414 times
Reputation: 7609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm View Post
My father's 1969 Dodge Dart could hit 120 mph on level ground with a tailwind. I don't know the gas mileage. Probably bad. But get this. You are clearly too young to know about this but in 1972. My father used to take us out driving every Sunday afternoon. We would pile in the Dodge and go tooling around at freeway speeds while sitting ON our seatbelts. Emphasis on seatbelts. There were not yet the over the shoulder harnesses that you call seatbelts today. Wait, there's more... airbags... you've heard of those? In 1972 if you asked someone what an airbag was they might have trouble giving you an answer.
Shoulder belts were required on cars built after Jan. 1, 1968.

I owned a '66 Dodge Dart GT V-8. It averaged 16 mpg.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2015, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,494 posts, read 33,233,414 times
Reputation: 7609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
It's not that they produce more carbon, it's that they are at a big risk for storms floods and rising sea levels. NYC won't fair well if Antarctica melts but Indianapolis will be just fine. Nyc people will have to relocate and recover the cost of lost real estate.
Well, we all know how some predictions end up:

From 1975

"The world's climatologists are agreed... once the freeze starts, it will be too late."

- Douglas Colligan in Science Digest.

NYC will fare okay because Antarctica won't loose its ice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2015, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Cape Cod
24,332 posts, read 17,065,160 times
Reputation: 35600
The trouble is the developing world. America has already had its industrial revolution and we are now getting better and better when it comes to cutting emissions. With Obamas latest attack on coal fired plants we will need to make a call down to Scotty to up the amps on the Dilithium crystals and we will be OK...... That is a Star trek reference for those who don't know but it seems that Obama has all these good ideas but no idea how to implement them. We can't just cut emissions without having an alternative source to take up the slack... but back to the real problem..

The real problem is the Earth has too many people and all these people are demanding a higher level of living and resources are being used up.

America can embrace the green living model as much as possible but we live on a planet with a whole lot of other people that don't give a darn about being green. They only care about not going to bed hungry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top