Libertarian ideology cant handle AGW, so they pretend it doesnt exist.

[Mithrae]

Dem and GOP ideology are mostly just selling points- they tell that to people so they could get votes, other than a few differences they are nothing more than cogs in the machine for big business and the military industrial complex. The Libertarians arent deceptive like that.

Democrats use 'liberal' rhetoric and Republicans 'conservative' rhetoric for broadly similar ends. Telekat and others have suggested that the same is being done with 'libertarian' rhetoric too. Seems reasonable. In fact it would be very surprising indeed if that were not the case: If liberalism were caricatured as freedom with 'big government,' a libertarian caricature as freedom with 'small government' is the wet dream of any 'big business' campaign against all those pesky regulations.

 

[PoS]

Well, it looks like in this thread, they are so dedicated to their principals that they can't even admit AGW exists or needs a solution.

Because libertarians dont believe that government should be involved in the environment either way, thats why. Any problems should be resolved through voluntary means.

Democrats use 'liberal' rhetoric and Republicans 'conservative' rhetoric for broadly similar ends. Telekat and others have suggested that the same is being done with 'libertarian' rhetoric too. Seems reasonable. In fact it would be very surprising indeed if that were not the case: If liberalism were caricatured as freedom with 'big government,' a libertarian caricature as freedom with 'small government' is the wet dream of any 'big business' campaign against all those pesky regulations.

Actually big business prefers the status quo of big government since they have lobbyists and can bribe politicians to protect them with legislation and subsidies. Libertarians believe in open competition with no regulations or subsidies so most big business doesnt want that because they know all their advantages and political influence will be lost.

 

[ARealConservative]

Sure. But that won't happen, and everyone knows it. So why not a revenue neutral tax?

your premise is libertarians have no solutions, I just gave a portion of the libertarian solution. moving your goal post to include if people will allow the libertarian solution just invalidated your initial premise.

This is only a small part of how libertarian ideology is best position to handle AGW.

The current system where we spend more on military might then all our allies combined fits with democrats and republicans both. history shows neither party has any way to stop this growth and that is certainly a big part of the problem.

democrats and conservatives have a system that requires us to continually increase our consumption in order to keep the national debt in check. That is certainly part of the problem.

 

[Threegoofs]

your premise is libertarians have no solutions, I just gave a portion of the libertarian solution. moving your goal post to include if people will allow the libertarian solution just invalidated your initial premise.

This is only a small part of how libertarian ideology is best position to handle AGW.

The current system where we spend more on military might then all our allies combined fits with democrats and republicans both. history shows neither party has any way to stop this growth and that is certainly a big part of the problem.

democrats and conservatives have a system that requires us to continually increase our consumption in order to keep the national debt in check. That is certainly part of the problem.

So your solution is to have the polluters (emitters of fossil fuel CO2) pay for the environmental costs.

Would the mechanism be a carbon tax or cap and trade? And I think we've heard from a few libertarians that a tax is just out of the question.

 

[ARealConservative]

So your solution is to have the polluters (emitters of fossil fuel CO2) pay for the environmental costs.

Would the mechanism be a carbon tax or cap and trade? And I think we've heard from a few libertarians that a tax is just out of the question.

my solution is to end the corporate welfare for those entities that directly profit from fossil fuels. The cost is already subsidized by tax payers. End that. Make those that profit pay for the costs.

the further solution is to end our massive military spending. end our ability to inflate our monetary system and encourage increased consumption. end our ability to borrow from future generations to spend today. Libertarian ideas would work directly toward curbing AGW. the ideology least able to handle it is the progressives who will put their fears of AGW to rest the minute the economy recedes. the minute humans actually consume less, they cry about how poor are being harmed by the recession and immediately dream up plans to get consumers consuming again.

 

[Verax]

Because libertarians dont believe that government should be involved in the environment either way, thats why. Any problems should be resolved through voluntary means.


Actually big business prefers the status quo of big government since they have lobbyists and can bribe politicians to protect them with legislation and subsidies. Libertarians believe in open competition with no regulations or subsidies so most big business doesnt want that because they know all their advantages and political influence will be lost.

You seem to only see one side of the story. Big business also likes weak or no government regulation as it can monopolize and rig the markets without government as well. If you don't think this is true look at the titans of industry from 1850-1900 in the U.S. This is the period that kicked off government intervention and unions as a response from the people to protect themselves.

The answer lies in effective regulation that is constructed to fairly represent all parties, not just big business.

 

[Verax]

my solution is to end the corporate welfare for those entities that directly profit from fossil fuels. The cost is already subsidized by tax payers. End that. Make those that profit pay for the costs.

the further solution is to end our massive military spending. end our ability to inflate our monetary system and encourage increased consumption. end our ability to borrow from future generations to spend today. Libertarian ideas would work directly toward curbing AGW. the ideology least able to handle it is the progressives who will put their fears of AGW to rest the minute the economy recedes. the minute humans actually consume less, they cry about how poor are being harmed by the recession and immediately dream up plans to get consumers consuming again.

Ending fossil fuel subsidies would be great but this is after a trillion? dollars worth of subsidies over the last century which entrenches a massive and mature market that can still bully everyone to a large degree. Just ending subsidies will not stop fossil fuels from being the primary source of energy for decades.

 

[Threegoofs]

my solution is to end the corporate welfare for those entities that directly profit from fossil fuels. The cost is already subsidized by tax payers. End that. Make those that profit pay for the costs.

the further solution is to end our massive military spending. end our ability to inflate our monetary system and encourage increased consumption. end our ability to borrow from future generations to spend today. Libertarian ideas would work directly toward curbing AGW. the ideology least able to handle it is the progressives who will put their fears of AGW to rest the minute the economy recedes. the minute humans actually consume less, they cry about how poor are being harmed by the recession and immediately dream up plans to get consumers consuming again.

That's a solution, but ineffectual. There is not a massive amount of subsidies- not in relationship to profits.

You seem to skip over the envirornmental cost issue. The CO2 released is having a very real negative effect upon the environment. How do you suppose the fossil fuel emitters should pay for that?

 

[ARealConservative]

Ending fossil fuel subsidies would be great but this is after a trillion? dollars worth of subsidies over the last century which entrenches a massive and mature market that can still bully everyone to a large degree. Just ending subsidies will not stop fossil fuels from being the primary source of energy for decades.

my goal is not to stop making fossil fuels the primary source of energy, it is to remove the reasons for an artificially low price. Scientific progress is the method to eliminating it.

 

[ARealConservative]

That's a solution, but ineffectual. There is not a massive amount of subsidies- not in relationship to profits.

You seem to skip over the envirornmental cost issue. The CO2 released is having a very real negative effect upon the environment. How do you suppose the fossil fuel emitters should pay for that?

you support an economic system that encourages increased consumption. Artificially increasing the cost of goods while still encouraging a global increase in production is an ineffectual solution.

 

[Threegoofs]

you support an economic system that encourages increased consumption. Artificially increasing the cost of goods while still encouraging a global increase in production is an ineffectual solution.

Thanks for telling me what I support. Would you like some more straw for your creation?

You avoid the point. If fossil fuels are cheap enough and entrenched enough to be attractive without subsidy, what solution do you have to cut CO2 emissions?

 

[ARealConservative]

Thanks for telling me what I support. Would you like some more straw for your creation?

You avoid the point. If fossil fuels are cheap enough and entrenched enough to be attractive without subsidy, what solution do you have to cut CO2 emissions?

you are welcome.

I already outlined several ways a libertarian form of government would reduce co2 emissions in reply 55.

 

[Threegoofs]

you are welcome.

I already outlined several ways a libertarian form of government would reduce co2 emissions in reply 55.

LOL.

End military spending is your answer. And then magically CO2 goes away.

Why don't we just end war by telling everyone to be nice to each other?

 

[ARealConservative]

LOL.

End military spending is your answer. And then magically CO2 goes away.

Why don't we just end war by telling everyone to be nice to each other?

I also said we would end printing money which allows the worlds largest consumer to import low cost goods and export depreciating dollars. America consumes more then any other nation because of the economic system put into place, not because we just love to pollute more.

 

[Verax]

my goal is not to stop making fossil fuels the primary source of energy, it is to remove the reasons for an artificially low price. Scientific progress is the method to eliminating it.

Like I said though, the artificially low price has already sailed, nothing is going to change that at this point, the infrastructure is firmly in place. The subsidies they get now only has a marginal effect on pump prices, its chump change in the big picture. Remove the subsidies and put an increasingly fat tax on them is the only way to do this. We have to kill the industry, having it trickle all that carbon out over a longer period isn't going to do anything but buy slightly more time to figure out how we're going to mitigate it. However as more carbon is released it just makes the problem more difficult to deal with.

What scientific progress is going to eliminate it? We need solutions now, we have a growing clean energy market, we don't have 20 to 40 years to wait for the hydrogen industry or whatever else to mature. Decades from now almost all of the profitable fossil fuels to produce will have already been extracted and emitted so long term fixes are invalid.

 

[ARealConservative]

Like I said though, the artificially low price has already sailed

no, it has not sailed. We have made considerable progress in nuclear technology yet have a virtual freeze on the use of that technology

 

[fedup]

Yeah I don't think many in the U.S. support actual socialism. What some people support are moderate socialist policies of a hybrid system with capitalism. Nobody wants state owned, state controlled business or authoritarian fiscal equality.

Not sure that's an accurate definition of socialism either. Certainly better than the right's, but still flawed in assuming socialism has to involve an authoritarian state.

 

[Verax]

Not sure that's an accurate definition of socialism either. Certainly better than the right's, but still flawed in assuming socialism has to involve an authoritarian state.

That's pretty much what I meant, the capitalist / socialist hybrid society of the U.S. is an example. When people criticize left-wing socialist leaning policies they always point to failed communist / socialist states that were authoritarian and absolute, a dictatorship, nobody in the U.S. really wants anything like that and it doesn't have to be that way. It is a really old and tired strawman.

 

[Threegoofs]

I also said we would end printing money which allows the worlds largest consumer to import low cost goods and export depreciating dollars. America consumes more then any other nation because of the economic system put into place, not because we just love to pollute more.

So instead of pretending to have a libertarian solution, you solve the problem with a pretend solution.

Look at it this way. Your idea is put in place (stopping tax credits to energy companies, asking if they would, pretty please, pay for defense...because taxes are baaad) and that doesnt change CO2 output at all. What then?

 

[TeleKat]

That's pretty much what I meant, the capitalist / socialist hybrid society of the U.S. is an example. When people criticize left-wing socialist leaning policies they always point to failed communist / socialist states that were authoritarian and absolute, a dictatorship, nobody in the U.S. really wants anything like that and it doesn't have to be that way. It is a really old and tired strawman.

Hey Verax :2wave:

Hmm I think that's a bit of a stretch. I tend to see the US as more of a corporatist state. I understand that there are many, myself included, that would prefer a socialist/capitalist hybrid system...but I'm not sure that the United States is a good example of such a system.

As for the rest of your post, I agree 100%. The thing to bear in mind is that socialism and communism have ultimately become buzzwords that might as well be defined as "the arbitrator of all that is bad, and the absence of all that is good." Communism/socialism, like Fedup mentioned, cannot be concretely defined by a good chunk of the American population. Which is pretty sad.

 

[TeleKat]

Because libertarians dont believe that government should be involved in the environment either way, thats why.

Hey PoS, how ya doing? :2wave:

I don't think libertarianism precludes (reasonable) environmental regulation. There is a strong libertarian case to be made for environmental protection as pollution and other forms of environmental destruction are a threat to the safety/liberty of individuals. Both those living currently and those who will acquire the world we leave behind.

Obviously there are those that take environmental regulation to the extreme, going so far as to mandate the use of certain lightbulbs and vehicles (that are ironically even worse for the environment) but I don't think reasonable, legitimate environmental regulation is against libertarian principles.

 

[BobbyO]

So instead of pretending to have a libertarian solution, you solve the problem with a pretend solution.

Look at it this way. Your idea is put in place (stopping tax credits to energy companies, asking if they would, pretty please, pay for defense...because taxes are baaad) and that doesnt change CO2 output at all. What then?

Why worry about it? There had been no global warming in the 21st century, despite a tremendous growth of co2 output.

 

[Threegoofs]

Why worry about it? There had been no global warming in the 21st century, despite a tremendous growth of co2 output.

Libertarian, eh?

 

[Jack Hays]

Partisanship and silencing science | Climate Etc.

Christopher Snowden has an article Groupthink attacks on science has a long history (behind paywall; google the title and you can get in). Excerpts:


Take Katherine Flegal, a statistician at the US Centres for Disease Control. Last year, she and her colleagues published a systematic review of 97 studies in The Journal of the American Medical Association and concluded that mild obesity produced no extra mortality risk and being merely overweight resulted in a small reduction in mortality risk.


Despite being supported with a ream of data, the study was savaged by the public health lobby. Walter Willett, one of the world’s most prominent anti-obesity campaigners, said: “This study is really a pile of rubbish and no one should waste their time reading it.”


A spokesman for the National Obesity Forum said, “It’s a horrific message to put out at this particular time”, and absurdly suggested that Flegal’s “message” was that we can “eat ourselves to death with black forest gateaux”. Willett later organised a symposium in which speaker after speaker denounced *Flegal and her work. . . .

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wow, what is it with these anti-libertarian threads all of a sudden?

Someone unable to defend his own, refuted ideology on its own merits, is left only to try to attack competing ideologies. This ties in, of course, with one of the basic wrong-wing principles, which is to try to achieve “equality” by tearing down the successful rather than by correcting the failures.