Swipe to go to another post.
This is interesting, but how they price the GHG and land use could easily be questioned. In the end it is an economic way to reduce consumption. If the industries pay the costs of said "natural capital" then they would have to raise the prices of their products and naturally reduce the amount sold. I don't really see a difference here from paying for carbon credits, but it sounds better. :)
Cool new buzz word - "natural capital".
Tired, old agenda - climate change, we're all gonna die hysteria.
They list all the stuff they hate, well the top five anyway. Coal, cattle ranching, steel, wheat farming and coal power. Everything you need to turn the world back to the mid-1800's!
I wonder where human beings are on their list of threats!
"The majority of unpriced natural capital costs are from greenhouse gas emissions (38%), followed by water use (25%), land use (24%), air pollution (7%), land and water pollution (5%), and waste (1%)."
My take: greenhouse gas is BS, so knock that off the list. Water use, using water isn't necessarily a problem, it is a renewable resource, the question is how it's being managed. Land use is a major issue when it comes to deforestation, both in terms of biodiversity and climate. Air pollution is a real one, same with land and water pollution, and waste.
So their estimate is about double what I would consider valid. Although, if one was to re-balance the weighting of those numbers to reflect the reality that deforestation is the primary factor behind humanity's destruction of the natural world and the primary way we've been altering the climate, the total might be the same.
The truth of the matter is the earth has a finite ability to deliver resources. We could mitigate that if we developed a clean, infinite energy source and were able to take mining into space. But with our present ways, the clock is ticking down to collapse. But that's the story of life on earth; evolve or perish.
If all the attention and resources that are being directed towards fighting CO2 were directed towards fighting deforestation instead, the natural world would be in much better shape.
As for emissions, nobody wants to burn fuel, so when a technology comes along that eliminates the need to burn fuel, we'll switch without anyone forcing us. That's the prize people should be seeking, not carbon taxes, that just makes the status quo more profitable for the government, that's a disincentive to real change. It puts the government in a conflict of interest. Now if you're asking them to cut emissions, you're asking them to cut a source of revenue. Carbon taxes are a payoff, an indulgence. The solution is technological, so if the government is going to do anything to solve it, they should be funding public research into alternative energy.
Outstanding! Comprehensive! Smart!
And, rejected by the progressive agenda!
"So, Mr. Maze, what is your home address, please?
And, when do normally arrive?
Are there any witnesses family members that live with you?"
Thanks Budwick, I plead the 5th. lol
Well said, M!
No way is it unsustainable. When the better technologies become more attractive than the current ones, the demand will shift to those and make the older ones obsolete (like it has always in the past). The problem with the doomsayers is that they never can conceive of new creativity and inventions which replace the "current way of life" as civilization progresses and improves and becomes continually more sustainable.
I mean, yeah, we can do that by investing in alternative energy, finding a way to get the extra co2 out of the atmosphere etc. The issue is all the people who won't admit there's a problem
For help please contact us here.
You're using the touch version of Amirite, you can switch to the full site.
© amirite.com 2017. Icons by DryIcons.