What policies do proponents really favor?

Question

I've been having question withdrawal, so here are several. Answer as many as you wish. All are based on assumptions that I have seen contrarians make about AGW proponents.

1. Do you currently believe that nuclear power is worse, from an environmental standpoint, than fossil fuels?

2. Do you believe that corn-based ethanol is currently a feasible, green alternative to oil?

3. Do you believe that wind turbines should be illegal, because of the damage they cause to birds and bats?

4. Do you think that a strict tax on carbon emissions is currently a good idea all on its own, even in absence of AGW and ocean acidification?

5. Are you genuinely afraid to state your true political beliefs on the internet? Meaning, do you feel you must only support them indirectly, such as by feigning support for scientific theories?

6. Does belief in AGW require that one live a perfect life, free of any indulgence or wrongdoing? (Reason for asking: many apparently expect AGW proponents to not drive, use electricity, or even eat, solely because they do not deny that such actions have a negative impact.)

7. Do you feel that the existence of a corrupt and super-competent world government, (such as one capable of influencing 30+ years of scientific research), is generally a more terrifying idea than most environmental problems?

8. Do you feel safe that your government would never abuse its power by implementing taxes or laws with knowledge that they are less than ideal for its citizens, principally for its own gain?

9. Do you believe poorer nations should not have the opportunity to develop, because it would be bad for the environment?

10. Would you advocate mass killings to reduce global population?

11. Do you feel that the opinions of environmental extremists, such as members of VEHMT or ELF, accurately or closely reflect your opinions?

Answer 1

Here goes:



1. I cannot stand in the nuclear power camp unless we overcome the disposal issue. And since I live one mile from the designated evacuation site for the San Onofre Nuclear Power plant, I’m all too aware of the potential for a disaster. We just had a pretty good shaker last week, for instance. Nuclear Power plants near earthquake faults? Not a good idea, really.

2. Corn-based ethanol fuel is not a viable solution to our energy problems. Far better ones exist.

3. Wind turbines are fine when placed appropriately and measures put into place to reduce avian mortality.

4. A carbon tax would serve as a great source of revenue and as a reminder of the impacts of how we do business.

5. I am not afraid to state my political beliefs, but I am cautious. Way too much work to pick and choose my words to ensure that I’m not just shooting from the lip when I’m worked up, for instance. (Re: Obama oil-drilling policy announced recently).

6. I strive to lead a life that reflects what I know about our impacts to the planet. It feels like an indulgence to me to have a campfire when I go camping. But I try to offset the carbon impacts in other areas. I believe that if we all did this the world would be a better place.

7. We do not live in a utopian world. I do what I can, which isn’t much given the situation.

8. I expect any and all tax monies generated to be spent wisely. Doesn’t happen, but since I work for a government entity, I treat all property as my own. I am well aware that the money to replace any given item is money that could have been used for another purpose. Many employees not so conscientious.

9. Poorer nations should absolutely be “allowed” to develop, and should receive as much encouragement, incentives & assistance to blossom in a way that improves their lot and reduces their impact on the planet.

10. God, no.

11. Not generally. Any point they have is generally lost due to extremism.

Answer 2

1. No, I prefer efficiency and clean power generation such as wind and solar, but until there is an alternative such as say fusion we have few choices. Between nuclear and coal, nuclear is without a doubt the lesser of two evils. 2. No environmentalist worth their salt ever though corn-based ethanol was an alternative. Now algae is a different story. 3. Not old enough, but from what I have read it wasn’t much of a concern. 4. No. 5. It was an elementary introduction to the problem for the general public, and did a reasonable job with those limitations. Unfortunately, because it was Gore the right immediately had the negative knee JERK reaction. 6. I own a pickup truck, because I need a pickup truck and I use it as a pickup truck. When I don’t need to carry anything I use my Toyota Yaris. I believe people should make purchases based on their needs and there is no way a mother needs a 4x4 H2 to take the kiddies two blocks to school. 7. No, but they should be educated on both the environmental impact and the heath impacts of eating meat. 8. Not at all, especially here in Canada where the colour black can be used to partially heat a house in the winter. 9. As an anthropologist I have to say that H&G did have advantages. Hunter-gatherers were after all the first leisure society and when agriculture was invented it was all downhill from there. It is now too late simply because there are too many of us that need feeding and we must deal with agriculture along with all the problems it brings with it. 10. No. 11. No, population does need to be reduced, but I believe that birth control and the education of women should be the tools. 12. No, not “more taxes the better”, but better taxes that make people pay for the damage they do to the commons that is owned by all of us.

Answer 3

1) Nuclear power is better, hands down. The only issue is waste disposal, we need to work on a better recycling process.



2) All ethanol breaks even. The amount of energy required to get ethanol to the required concentration (>95%) is equal to the amount (if not slightly more) than the amount of useful energy you get from it. Just look up azeotropes.



3) No, that is ridiculous. That would be like banning cars because of roadkill.



4) Offering more incentives would be a better approach.



5) Not really. Everyone is entitled to a belief, and I also value my integrity.



6) Not at all, but they should at least be making an honest attempt at at being more environmentally conscientious to avoid being a hypocrite.



7) I am support less governmental control, so a world government would be a living nightmare



8) No, not at all. (see answer number 7)



9) Nations should have the right to develop, using the environment as a reason to prevent the abolition of suffering is also ridiculous.



10) Insanity.



11) I loathe them, being too far on any side of the spectrum reflects ignorance.

Answer 4

1. Nuclear power is in no way worse than fossil fuels. The scare tactics come about as the result of past experiences due to degrading infrastructure and human error.



2. No I don't as it emits just as many greenhouse gasses as many fossil fuels.



3. No I don't. There are very few birds that die as a result of being caught in a wind turbine. There are more that die as a result of flying into windows. Should windows be made illegal?



4. It's one way of forcing the market to take a certain path. However it's not what I would choose myself.



5. No. If I don't agree with something I will tell you I don't agree with it regardless of who is behind it.



6. No. It requires using different technology.



7. I haven't really thought of it but I think any corrupt government is terrifying.



8. No. I know that governments everywhere do this. They want to make money to support their growing population.



9. No. They should develop with the right kind of technology though.



10. No. I would advocate an increase in knowledge. IT is well known that with an increase of knowledge the birth rates decreases.



11. I haven't really looked into either of these groups so I really couldn't tell you.

Answer 5

1-3) No.

4) In the absence of AGW and ocean acidification, any restrictions on carbon emissions would be pointless.

5) No. I've said it before: I'm a conservative.

6) No.

7) The idea of a corrupt but super competent world government (oxymoron?) able to influence scientific research so is far more frightening to me than any current environmental problem.

8) The government would like to think it's doing what's best for its citizens, but reality doesn't always follow suit.

9) No. Economic development doesn't have to equal environmental catastrophe.

10) No.

11) Not at all.

Answer 6

1. Do you currently believe that nuclear power is worse, from an environmental standpoint, than fossil fuels? A: NO, but Hydro- and Tidal power is cleaner than both.



2. Do you believe that corn-based ethanol is currently a feasible, green alternative to oil? A: Corn is a food in short supply - use sugar instead; if it makes Coca-Cola more expensive, so be it.



3. Do you believe that wind turbines should be illegal, because of the damage they cause to birds and bats? A: Yes, because Raptors are being sliced to extinction in Southern Australia, but more because they are visual and sonic pollution, and are no good at providing base power anyway.



4. Do you think that a strict tax on carbon emissions is currently a good idea all on its own, even in absence of AGW and ocean acidification? A: No, any Carbon Tax is a Tax on everything, and people are already struggling to make ends meet.



5. Are you genuinely afraid to state your true political beliefs on the internet? Meaning, do you feel you must only support them indirectly, such as by feigning support for scientific theories? A: I have no idea what you mean: I'm a fiscally conservative Liberal, who doesn't believe in Global warming or socialism (neither stack up). No fear here.



6. Does belief in AGW require that one live a perfect life, free of any indulgence or wrongdoing? (Reason for asking: many apparently expect AGW proponents to not drive, use electricity, or even eat, solely because they do not deny that such actions have a negative impact.) A: If AGW was a proven fact, I'd rather cut down trees and plant new seedlings to mop up the carbon, than destroy our industrial capacity, and cause social collapse.



7. Do you feel that the existence of a corrupt and super-competent world government, (such as one capable of influencing 30+ years of scientific research), is generally a more terrifying idea than most environmental problems? A: The World Government is corrupt and Super-Incompetent: it's called the United Nations, and is an almost complete waste of time and money.



8. Do you feel safe that your government would never abuse its power by implementing taxes or laws with knowledge that they are less than ideal for its citizens, principally for its own gain? A:NO; never forget that power corrupts and elected officials seize power by being better liars than the other guy.



9. Do you believe poorer nations should not have the opportunity to develop, because it would be bad for the environment? A: NO: Africa needs to industrialise and no environment could be worse than the conditions they endure now.



10. Would you advocate mass killings to reduce global population? A: No, murder is morally wrong, whatever the end, it doesn't justify the means. Earth's carrying capacity is about 1 Billion with zero technology, at least 6 Billion with 20th Century technology and governance, and over 100 Billion with sufficient technology, goodwill and good governance. We need to lift the rest of the World to our standard of living: this should be the main objective of all foreign Aid.



11. Do you feel that the opinions of environmental extremists, such as members of VEHMT or ELF, accurately or closely reflect your opinions? A: No. When World Socialism collapsed as a self-evidently failed concept at the end of the Cold War, many of the socialist nut jobs who worshipped Stalin, MAO and Castro jumped ship and joined the Environmental movement, where their main objective is still to destroy Capitalism.

Answer 7

4. Do you think that a strict tax on carbon emissions is currently a good idea all on its own, even in absence of AGW and ocean acidification?



From Energy Probes website (an environmentalist group)



"Energy Probe was also first to recognize -- again in 1974 -- that market prices were necessary to induce energy conservation, and succeeded in convincing the federal government to let oil prices rise to the World Oil Price."



This is also the reason why Europe had higher energy prices, even before Kyoto.



8. Do you feel that the existence of a corrupt and super-competent world government, (such as one capable of influencing 30+ years of scientific research), is generally a more terrifying idea than most environmental problems?



Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.



9. Do you believe poorer nations should not have the opportunity to develop, because it would be bad for the environment?



Dana's answer is a good example. By not allowing many third world countries to access their natural resources and use cheap energy or as Dana says "We should assist poorer nations in developing in a way that minimizes their environmental impact", you are impacting development.

Answer 8

1. It is obviously better. The problem is that it isn't economical. It has to be subsidized.

2. I think it may be useful to reduce air pollution. Otherwise it is a terrible waste of effort. Perhaps they can figure something a little better, such as algae or other plant but corn isn't the answer.

3.No but they are typically not economical and need massive subsidies to compete

4. There already is. Governments make far more revenue from oil and other fossil fuels than do oil companies. Incidentlly they make more than tobacco companies too.

5. Obviously not. I am a conservative. I mostly agreed with Dana's answers but he is completely wrong that his political beliefs don't influence his AGW. He just doesn't know it.

6. No but people like Al Gore shouldn't be so hypocritical.

7.I think Trotsky and Stalin pushed a socialism that believed in class and was more of an international socialism. Mussolinini and Hitler pushed a type of socialism that utilized nationalistic zeal to mobilize military conquest. Most people who favor a world government are from one of those two camps or offshoots.

8. I feel safe that Democrats are attempting to vastly increase taxes at a time of near economic depression exacerbated by their reckless spending. If they don't try to enact carbon taxes or a VAT, I will humbly admit I was way off base. In truth, they are menace to our freedom and prosperity. Those who trust them are part of the problem.

9. We don't have any right to stop them, morally or legally

10. Obviously not.

11. I think many (if not most) of them belong behind bars.

Answer 9

1. It depends who is running the nuclear facility. Nuclear power is a safe as its least competent operator. Most countries should not operate nuclear facilities.

2. No, the energy return is negligible. However the corn ethanol infrastructure can be converted to utilize other feedstocks.

3. No. The harm from different options needs to be examined and the least harmful options promoted.

4. Yes because fossil fuels are non-renewable and a tax would direct the finite resource to the highest value uses. If the carbon source were renewable then I would oppose a tax.

5. I am generally conservative, but pragmatic. I can support good policies independently of their source.

6. No.

7. Yes. Environmental problems might kill me in 20 years. A corrupt government can kill me today.

8. Politics as usual.

Answer 10

In March of 2002, since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, scientists and environmentalists have been working together to put forth a climate change plan for reducing the amount of cumulative greenhouse gases. Part of the plan includes advertising campaigns encouraging people to turn off lights in homes and offices, when not in use. Governments are subsidizing the research and development of energy sources that are sustainable or environmentally friendly, such as solar energy, wave power, wind power, bio-fuels, and geothermal power and hopefully these sources of energy will become available for us to use in the near future. All of these are much better alternatives than petroleum oil, since they are clean sustainable energy sources. Nuclear energy is relatively clean but risky. We should always be mindful of the horrible consequences of a mishap whether due to human error or otherwise. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are the litmus tests for this reasoning, not to mention the possible inadequate methods of disposing of the toxic waste.



As regards energy conservation and protecting the natural environment, there are many things that we can do as consumers to reduce the amount of fossil fuels that are burned that cause air pollution and severe and irregular climate change. Think about it, simply deciding to use a reuseable cloth bag for shopping as opposed to using the usual alternatives (paper or plastic) would be tremendous energy saver and we would have a greener healthier planet and, as consumers, we would have more money from what we could save by conserving energy.

Answer 11

1. No. Big problem, but order of magnitude smaller impact.



2. No, it’s a net energy and environment loss.



3. No. I don’t see any alternative but to make sure they are sited correctly, wind is part of the triad that will get us off carbon. Off shore has the biggest potential and can be placed outside migration corridors. We need to make profit the last consideration rather than the first, which it is now. There are going to be trade offs.



4. Yes. Fossil fuel extraction and processing has a huge environment cost even before the stuff is burned. The general principle should be that environmental costs are included in the total cost and then the market can determine.



5. No. Afraid of what? There is no more anonymity anyway. Part of our problem is that scientists are not speaking for themselves. Scientists should advocate policy based on conviction, not shrink from debate because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. When the message comes through the politicians, the media and the vested interests it is distorted.



6. No. Truth is truth. What you do or believe doesn’t change anything. The tree still falls if no one hears it. If you accept AGW and don’t do anything about it that just makes you a hypocrite. It is a herculean effort to go against our entire accepted way of doing things, and you have to keep it up for the rest of your life. The only thing that will change is you’ll feel better when everyone else realizes it too.



7. More terrifying in the short term. Less in the long term. I assume competent means they won’t arbitrarily detain and abuse dissenters. If the choice is between a perpetually abusive government and environmental collapse, I’d have to respond with give me liberty or give me death. That is, I’ll take death by loss of environment over death by torture. The ironic thing is that by delaying action on environmental sustainability, we are almost guaranteeing draconian repressive measures in the future to mitigate the effects of global panic.



8. Ha, that’s funny. You should read Howard Zinn “A People's History of the United States”. Not really analogous though - your question applies to monetary or political gain for politicians and their real constituents, the capitol holders. Cutting pollution and other environmental initiatives aren't big political winners. Environment is different - it's about taking power from the vested and returning it to the citizens at large. But they do gain by manipulating policy. Which, for instance, is what cap and trade is all about. They make it look like they are doing something for the environment and rake in money allocating permits, while setting up brokers for a windfall, and taking kickbacks or favors from big polluters who are allowed to continue business as usual. If environment wasn't politicized we would just have a carbon tax.



9. False choice. We should help them avoid our mistakes because it will benefit everyone, them most of all. As you have phrased the question, if this means they should not be allowed to repeat our mistakes, so be it. A simple tax on carbon will accomplish this. It will be cheaper for them to go green. And fair because everyone pays the tax.



10. What kind of question is that? So some extremists have said the natural world would be better off without humans. But the truth is still the truth. The natural world would be better off without thoughtless stupid destructive megalomaniacal humans. Does this imply support for genocide? Maybe In the mind of the crazed radical environmentalist or the reactionary cornucopian theist fundamentalist, who each probably pine for the extermination of the other side anyway. If we would educate and empower the poor of the world, especially women, the birth rate will drop on its own. But in the mind of the cornucopian fundamentalist, birth control and family planning is tantamount to mass extermination. The fundamental question is whether you believe in fairy tales like humanities ability to expand forever and the second coming or if you believe in tangible things like rationality, physics and fundamental limits. You should know that by our collective complacence and hypocrisy we already cause countless unnecessary deaths every year, while we commence the largest mass extinction of species in millions of years, while we continue to destroy the remaining unspoiled natural world and resources - stealing from future generations. After we are done making a mess of this place we will come to the long overdue realization that rebuilding what we have destroyed is going to be a bit harder than the choices we needed to make to prevent the destruction in the first place. The fundamental problem is denial - denial that there are fundamental limits, a fundamental limit to the human population that can be sustained. I may be a hypocrite but at least I don’t pretend the problem doesn’t exist.



11. Political extremism in defense of the environment is no vice, but violence can never be justified. The ends never justify the means. If you must employ unjust means to meet your end, then your end is corrupt. The interesting part is that entities that sacrifice human lives and the natural world for gain and profit are just as wrong as the ELF. Violence only makes more violence.

Answer 12

1) Nuclear is clearly preferable to fossil fuels from an environmental standpoint. By a long shot. My only concern about nuclear power is economic. If we can find a way to build nuclear power plants which are economically competitive with renewable power - which they're currently not - I'm all for it.



2) No, corn-based ethanol is no better than gasoline from an environmental standpoint, but it is an important stepping stone to better biofuels, including other sources of ethanol like switchgrass.



3) No way. Far more birds are killed by flying into buildings than wind turbines. Oddly the people who oppose wind energy for this reason don't seem to want to tear our skyscrapers down.



4) I'm iffy on this one. There are benefits to putting a price on carbon besides environmental issues - from economic (green, domestic jobs) to national security (decreased dependence on foreign oil), etc. I read today that veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan overwhelmingly support a climate and energy bill, despite being heavily politically conservative.

http://votevets.org/news?id=0325



That being said, in the hypothetical scenario where AGW and ocean acidification weren't problems, we could accomplish these goals without a carbon tax specifically. We could instead increase taxes on oil, for example.



5) No, I'm very liberal. A member of the Green Party, though I usually vote for Democrats. My politics have nothing to do with my opinions on climate science, however.



6) No. We need to work to minimize our environmental impact, but obviously we're never going to eliminate it.



7) I would prefer a one world government to catastrophic climate change. But I'm not really concerned about a one world government forming, corrupt or otherwise. That's a somewhat insane conspiracy theory.



8) Taxes are implemented by politicians, and particularly in the USA, are extremely unpopular. Thus politicians don't propose new taxes just for fun. The best way to get votes in our country is to cut taxes. And it's not like politicians get a cut if new taxes are implemented. This idea that liberals get a hard-on from implementing new taxes is ridiculous. We simply acknowledge that sometimes taxes are necessary. I don't like paying them any more than the next guy, nor do politicians like proposing them.



9) We should assist poorer nations in developing in a way that minimizes their environmental impact. But we certainly shouldn't hinder their development.



10) Obviously not. This myth arises from discussions about population control, which is mainly about benign issues like birth control and improved education. It has nothing to do with mass murder.



11) No, I don't like ELF or approve of their methods. Or PETA - they're a dishonest group. And I often disagree with Greenpeace. But there are many environmental groups I like.

Answer 13

Hi Dawei,



Sorry to hear that some infantile person has been trying to get your questions deleted. i hate it when people do that - why come on YA if you don't want to hear from all sides? Anyway, I know this question isn't aimed at me, but what the hell. Here goes . . .



1) From an environmental standpoint nuclear is clearly better than fossil fuels as there is less pollution that is harmful to *populations* of flora and fauna - health risks to long-lived humans are another issue.



2) No way - pushed millions into real poverty - see this report leaked to the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy (actually, i might post a question on that one - i think it's quite newsworthy, don't you?)



3) Personally, no. I think evolution will take care of it (note for the hard of thinking, evolution can refer to behaviour patterns as well as genetic make up - see "behavioural evolution"). I actually like wind turbines - there's some up in the Lake District in the UK and you can see them from the M6 as you pass. They look so cool! Build them in my back yard, any day (if i can use the electricity off them).



Besides - i am a sceptic on limits to efficiency as well - i think turbines will get far more efficient in years to come, although wave power looks to be the far better bet for continual power.



4) No, on so many levels. To detail them would be a post in itself.



5) What do you think? Hell, no! I call 'em as i see 'em.



6) Actually, I respect people like Pegminer who admit to driving an old and gas-guzzling SUV because they like it. BUT, i do have a problem with those same people then looking to criticise others for their beliefs. Did you ever see that BBC survey of the UK where they found that those who espoused most concern for climate change were the biggest emitters of Co2? They tended to be wealthier and therefore consume more, use the internet more (big user of electricity in toto) and fly abroad more. I don't think you have to live like a hermit to be green, but hey - don't knock others for their opinions when you enjoy the fruits of a carbon-based economy yourself. That is the height of hypocrisy to me. Once you're off-grid, or substantially powered by renewables, then let's talk.



Analogy: I'll listen to a vegetarian about eating meat and animal welfare. Their behaviour shows a coherent belief in what they argue for. I might not agree with them, but i will listen seriously.



7) Ultimately, yes. Environmental problems CAN be fixed (timescale is another matter). But look at corrupt and ruthless regimes - how many hundreds of millions have died under them?



8) No - as i think most 'bad' governments truly believe in the rightness - or the necessity - of what they do. Look at Mao or Soviet Russia - the good of the people in general was held to outweigh the rights of the individual. Therefore, as the state had the good of all at heart, it could do no wrong and the individual didn't matter.



9) You and i will never agree on this, as i believe climate change activists **in effect** hinder real development in developing countries. Did you know the world bank is voting **right now** on whether to not finance a power station in South Africa as it might contribute to global warming?



10) Clearly not for me, this question.



11) Again, as per (10) but i would say that there is rhetoric, and then there is the result. The rhetoric may change, but what is the end result? E.g. If the ELF demands "re-wilding" of large areas for nature and to keep humans out on an ideological basis, but the WWF wants "nature reserves" with humans largely kept out for "biodiversity" what is the result of both policies?

.

Answer 14

1 no

2 no

3 no

4 no

5 no

6 no

7 ????

8 yes

9 no

10 no

11 yes - neither of those 2 groups are extremist in the way the ALFare for example.

Answer 15

it don't make 1 damn diffrense what the govment do bcuse gnomes are going to take over the universe