Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:10 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 872 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Zhen Li wrote:
There's nowhere along the line any sensible person can hang their coat. However, if one is looking for credible pricing, only the market can provide credible pricing - if the cost doesn't come up in the market place, it doesn't really exist.


This is because the market externalizes the costs of cleaning up after itself onto the consumer. As the cost of cleaning up after the market becomes higher and more costly, eventually the consumer have no choice but to enact legislations which limit the markets power to sell highly polluting commodities, and to impose fees on those who use them.

It is similar to drugs — the human cost of cleaning up after drugs such as cocaine, meth and heroin are too high -- therefore, these commodities are strictly controlled markets in which a class of professionals is licensed to dispense them. Governments exist because markets exist. Markets exist because governments exist. Markets must be controlled and regulated (rather than planned), and carbon taxation is one way for governments to control the market in petrochemicals.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:23 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Posts: 998
Location: North Queensland, Australia
:good:

:namaste:
Kim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Quote:
This is because the market externalizes the costs of cleaning up after itself onto the consumer. As the cost of cleaning up after the market becomes higher and more costly, eventually the consumer have no choice but to enact legislations which limit the markets power to sell highly polluting commodities, and to impose fees on those who use them.

Well, you can't quite clean up after yourself as regards pollution in the air (planting trees doesn't specifically target particular carbon output), only change the technology. Of course, that begs the question as to whether one should really be considering carbon dioxide a pollutant. :lol:
Quote:
It is similar to drugs — the human cost of cleaning up after drugs such as cocaine, meth and heroin are too high -- therefore, these commodities are strictly controlled markets in which a class of professionals is licensed to dispense them. Governments exist because markets exist. Markets exist because governments exist. Markets must be controlled and regulated (rather than planned), and carbon taxation is one way for governments to control the market in petrochemicals.

Granted in some cases control and/or regulation, or banning, is a good idea. But the fact that one 'can' do such a thing as a government, doesn't imply that one must (or should) do such a thing, which is why this little causal loop isn't a universal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:30 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Posts: 998
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Zhen Li wrote:
Of course, that begs the question as to whether one should really be considering carbon dioxide a pollutant. :lol:

Look, I haven't got much time (or, frankly, patience) at the moment because I'm still cleaning up after a cyclone but I can't let that one go past.
Either you're trolling, or you are a denialist (as in: One who denies AGW while knowing that it is real) or you don't know the first thing about climate science.

Please own up and either go away or reform.

:jedi:
Kim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am
Posts: 2552
Sorry..having sworn off the thread I couldn't let THAT one go past...

That is your definition of a denialist Mr O Hara , one who denies AGW while knowing that it is true ?

That makes no sense at all.


I am a denialist because I DONT know that it is true.

I don't expect to have that view vindicated in my lifetime..

But I think the youngest forum members may see it.

Which of course means that I don't understand the science..

Which is in fact imo the actual universal position.

I will now leave you all to agree with each other and wax indignant..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm
Posts: 1270
Location: Gone Bush
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Either you're trolling, or you are a denialist (as in: One who denies AGW while knowing that it is real) or you don't know the first thing about climate science.

Simon E. wrote:
That is your definition of a denialist Mr O Hara , one who denies AGW while knowing that it is true ?

That makes no sense at all.

I am a denialist because I DONT know that it is true.

Denialism
In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event". Wikipedia

Simon E. wrote:
Which of course means that I don't understand the science...

Sounds more like you fit Kim's last category.

Simon E. wrote:
I will now leave you all to agree with each other and wax indignant...

We all know you'll be back. :smile:

_________________
May all beings be happy


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am
Posts: 2552
I am happy to embrace irrationality.
Its frequently a far more reliable guide to the reality of things in samsara than are rational conclusions based on data which by its nature is insufficient.

But I remain unconvinced by the psychobabbling of those who throw around definitions of 'denialism' which have been cobbled together to support their agendas.

We are seriously being asked to believe that those who are unconvinced by their arguments are secretly, really, subconsciously believers...

Rather like those Islamic fundamentalists who preach that really EVERYONE is a Muslim ..they just haven't realised it.


Last edited by Seishin on Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Foul language removed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Zhen Li wrote:
Of course, that begs the question as to whether one should really be considering carbon dioxide a pollutant. :lol:

Look, I haven't got much time (or, frankly, patience) at the moment because I'm still cleaning up after a cyclone but I can't let that one go past.
Either you're trolling, or you are a denialist (as in: One who denies AGW while knowing that it is real) or you don't know the first thing about climate science.

Please own up and either go away or reform.

:jedi:
Kim

No you. :guns:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:48 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Posts: 998
Location: North Queensland, Australia
dharmagoat wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Either you're trolling, or you are a denialist (as in: One who denies AGW while knowing that it is real) or you don't know the first thing about climate science.

Simon E. wrote:
That is your definition of a denialist Mr O Hara , one who denies AGW while knowing that it is true ?

That makes no sense at all.

I am a denialist because I DONT know that it is true.

Denialism
In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event". Wikipedia

Simon E. wrote:
Which of course means that I don't understand the science...

Sounds more like you fit Kim's last category.

Simon E. wrote:
I will now leave you all to agree with each other and wax indignant...

We all know you'll be back. :smile:

Thanks, dharmagoat :smile:
Simon, to me you sound like a genuine sceptic - one who says, "I haven't (yet) seen enough evidence to convince me but I am in principle willing to accept the truth of the proposition if I do see more evidence."
I don't see anything wrong with genuine scepticism. In the case of AGW, I hope genuine sceptics are interested or concerned enough to seek out more evidence. Doing so usually leads to acceptance of the theory and often leads to more concern about the way we're going.
That said, an educated person in western society these days who hasn't seen and heard enough about the issue to form an opinion is a bit ... unusual, let's say.

But the majority of self-identified sceptics, and the overwhelming majority of publicly active self-identified sceptics, are not sceptics at all. I called them "pseudo-sceptics" for a while but "denialists" is a better term. Some are "in denial" for the usual pop-psych reasons - simple aversion to truths which demand that they make changes they don't like - and that is, I guess, forgiveable up to a point, but many of the most vocal are simply lying and simply in it for the money and that is inexcusable.

:namaste:
Kim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
If you were to adjust your attitude Kim, do you admit that you might have to make an uncomfortable adjustment? Perhaps some personal compromise? And, to what extent have you attempted to disprove your own beliefs? Have you analysed the primary sources yourself? By your own admission, you haven't and won't, because you rely on the mainstream media, since you believe that they are a trustworthy source of truth under most circumstances.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:48 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Posts: 998
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Zhen Li wrote:
If you were to adjust your attitude Kim, do you admit that you might have to make an uncomfortable adjustment? Perhaps some personal compromise? And, to what extent have you attempted to disprove your own beliefs? Have you analysed the primary sources yourself? By your own admission, you haven't and won't, because you rely on the mainstream media, since you believe that they are a trustworthy source of truth under most circumstances.

Zhen Li, you are lying about me, and not for the first time. Please stop, and apologise.

:namaste:
Kim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Well, you said they can be relied upon to report the truth. That means you won't have to figure it out yourself. But of course I do apologise. :emb:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 872 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group