backtop


Print 60 comment(s) - last by The Sword 88.. on Nov 12 at 1:05 AM

A new survey shows that the majority of people are willing to do their part to help the environment, even if it isn't easy

A new poll by BBC News provides perhaps the most comprehensive to date look at the current level of public awareness of environmental issues and public initiative to make sacrifices in hopes of fixing them.

The large study surveyed 22,000 people in 21 countries, including many in the two largest CO2 polluters, the U.S. and China.  Four out of five people stated they would probably be ready to make lifestyle changes to reduce emissions.

Taxes were a bit stickier issue.  Taxes on oil and coal enjoyed a smaller base of support, but still represented the majority opinion, with 50% for them and 44% opposed.  Many of the opposed stated that they would change their opinion to support if it could be guaranteed that the funds would be diverted to finance alternative energy or alternative energy research.

The total figures were that 83% of people either were ready or were probably ready to make sacrifices in their daily lives to help the environment.

People in the U.S. and Europe agreed that fuel prices would have to rise in order to get people to lower their consumption, as they are stuck in their ways.

Italy and Russia did not agree, as these countries are already experiencing dramatically fossil fuel costs.

South Korea, India, and Nigeria also showed smaller margins of support for higher energy costs, though the majority of responders still felt that higher costs would be needed to lower consumption.

Interestingly the Chinese were the most willing to support taxes on polluting fossil fuels.  A whopping 85% of Chinese surveyed supported taxes on fossil fuels to reduce reliance on them.

While experiencing many recent quality concerns, including tainted cancer drugs, China has been rapidly becoming a world leader in many technology sectors.  The results of this survey demonstrate that despite past problems the Chinese people have a strong desire for their country to develop into an environmental leader.

In total 22,182 people were interviewed in the following countries:

UK, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt,France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, thePhilippines, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, and the United States.

Interviews occurred either face to face or via telephone between May 29 and July 26, 2007.

Increased public awareness can be attributed to a broad array of sources.  One is the mass media -- news channels have been increasing their environmental issue coverage.  Another source of awareness is simple observation. People see pictures of rainforests stripped bare and it becomes blatantly obvious the need to protect our planet.  The U.N. also can take some credit for its constant climate research, as well as research into other environmental topics, such as deforestation and biofuels

A little credit even can go to recent Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Al Gore, whose movie "An Inconvenient Truth" brought an increased public interest in environmental issues.

Regardlessly of who convinced these people that helping the environment was a good idea, that is the conclusion they have come to.  It appears that the majority of people finally are ready and eager for environmental change -- politicians listen up, these are thoughts of your constituents.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

One other comment
By masher2 (blog) on 11/6/2007 10:35:02 AM , Rating: 3
This wasn't a "study"; it was a poll. And given it was conducted by the BBC's environmental department -- which certainly has a very large axe to grind -- I tend to be rather suspicious of poll bias. One can easily construct a nonscientific poll to validate any position one wishes.

Without seeing the actual poll questions or polling methodology (which the BBC didn't reveal), we just can't say for sure how accurate these results are.




RE: One other comment
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/6/2007 10:48:33 AM , Rating: 4
Indeed. Isnt that statistics 101? How to word a survey to skew the results in the direction you want it to show? Piece of cake. I bet I can poll 200 women and find that 80% do not support suffrage for women. It's all in how I word the question :)


RE: One other comment
By zombiexl on 11/6/2007 11:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet I can poll 200 women and find that 80% do not support suffrage for women


Did you happen to see the manshow where they did that?


RE: One other comment
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/6/2007 2:01:11 PM , Rating: 3
Yes. It was very very sad.


RE: One other comment
By zombiexl on 11/7/2007 3:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was funny. Makes me laugh at how stupid we are getting as a society.


RE: One other comment
By Spuke on 11/8/2007 2:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
We aren't just getting stupid, we have been, generally, stupid for a LONG time.


RE: One other comment
By Screwballl on 11/6/2007 10:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
I would have liked to see more of a religious standpoint on this as well since many religions see their god as the primary source of planetary control and that man has little to no impact on the big picture. Since religions carries such a heavy weight in many countries, that would explain at least a portion of those opposed.

just another perspective...


RE: One other comment
By SavagePotato on 11/7/2007 9:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
The sooner the world accepts that religions are a sham the better off it will be. Why in an age of what would appear to be far greater enlightenment about our world and universe do we need to still be having holy wars ala the crusades.

Maybe it's just because it is the nature of man to find a reason to fight against all odds even when none exists. In the end I beleive religion is one of the biggest barricades holding back the human race.


RE: One other comment
By murphyslabrat on 11/7/2007 3:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
The crusades weren't a "holy" war, it was an attempt to colonize. The crusade was a venture taken under the flag of Catholicism, and even the Catholic rhetoric would have condemned it. Because it was taken under the catholic flag, you had to either join or find a really good alibi.

quote:
he sooner the world accepts that religions are a sham the better off it will be.

Yep, religion is a sham, including Atheism, Environmentalism, Scientism (The belief that science will solve all issues), Humanism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.
quote:
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

From the mouth of the infallible Answers.com ^^j


RE: One other comment
By Screwballl on 11/7/2007 3:05:35 PM , Rating: 1
I believe those without religion are living their lives as blind troglobites that are only out to live life for themselves. This does not surprise me with you as your comments are only here to degrade others that you disagree with and find a way to go against proven truths and reality of this world.
Most religion is not crusading or having holy wars, it is a belief in something that no man or scientist can explain or have an answer for (and NEVER will). Science cannot explain "forever" or "endless". There is a limit to any science of the "known" universe yet there is no end and science cannot explain this.
Religion is the one thing that has kept man civil and eternally learning despite a lack of knowledge of our own bodies much less this planet or the universe. There are always a few extremists but that is the exception rather than the rule.
If you look, a majority of scientists and the smartest people in the world are also very religious as well.


RE: One other comment
By murphyslabrat on 11/7/2007 4:02:29 PM , Rating: 4
Religion has not kept man civil, that is the "Me" or the "Ego", depending on your preference in philosophy, that has provided the framework of restraint. It is religion that has fleshed out that framework by stating the specific rules.
quote:
Science cannot explain "forever" or "endless". There is a limit to any science of the "known" universe yet there is no end and science cannot explain this.

Science is not limited by the concept of eternity or endlessness, it is merely the human mind that cannot comprehend it.
quote:
Most religion is not crusading or having holy wars,

Quite right, but...
quote:
There are always a few extremists...

No, the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, via 9/11, or Christianity, as with Holocaust, is not exclusively extremism. While, I admit, that if the level of devotion that some turn towards politics or their career is turned towards an interpretation of religion that calls for the deaths of "infidels," you can definitely get 9/11. However, I am a cynic (despite considering myself a very committed Reformed-Christian ^^j), in that I believe that most "Holy Wars" are the result of barebones capitalism: achieving material or abstract superiority.

Did you know that the Holocaust was perpetrated in the name of Christianity? The rhetoric was that the Jews killed Christ, and all of them were guilty for that (There was also a distaste for Jews in the first place, hence why it was readily accepted). Now, add in the belief that Caucasian males are superior to other races, based on evolution, and you have sufficient justification for one of the greatest travesties to scourge history.

However, to any Christian who "knows his stuff," these arguments appear for what they are: bull-shit. the Biblical accounts of Jesus show him as a man with authority, a man to whom God payed close attention. The Bible shows Him as God in human form. In the Gospel accounts, Jesus repeatedly performs incredible miracles, and escapes the Jews again and again. It is not until Jesus practically hands himself over to the Jews (one of his disciples betrays him, but he is recorded as knowing this the whole time) that he is taken and killed. Then, after Jesus rises from the dead, it becomes apparent that this was a master plan that was alluded to throughout the Bible. Jesus intended to die, the Jews would not have killed him but for the intent of God. In Jesus' own words (obviously translated and paraphrased, as I neither understand Hebrew or have an English Bible on me ^^j): "I am not creating an earthly kingdom, but a spiritual one. If I were creating an earthly kingdom, I would have my followers fight; but, instead, I have them serve."

Another issue is that the Bible does not respect race. Firstly, in the Old Testament (the older writings, from before Christ) the Jews themselves are God's chosen people, and are used as instruments of judgment on many people groups. Then, in the New Testament (the later writings, after Christ), every race has equal access to the grace of God through the Bible; starting with the Jews themselves!

With that said, the Crusade as a Christian movement and the Holocaust as a Christian movement both become utter bull-shit. The cause in the first was desire for land, wealth, and power; and in the second, it is a desire for land and a cause to motivate people to support their Grand War.
quote:
it is a belief in something that no man or scientist can explain or have an answer for

A final note: you would be surprised what science condemns and supports. The only way that science can support the theory of (Macro-) Evolution, is if it is assumed from the out-start. And, even then, you have trees standing through "millions of years", that are uniformly weathered across it.; as well as other such inconsistencies. The only reson for the belief that science does not support God, is that the visible majority scientists try to prove that (that is a visible majority, which is not the same as a real majority).

Previewing my post, I think I sound a wee bit preachy. So, sorry about the raised volume, but please try not to go deaf.


RE: One other comment
By The Sword 88 on 11/12/2007 1:05:22 AM , Rating: 2
It is not just evolution that has holes in it. Read a non-Deity based account of the Creation of the Universe, ala the Big Bang, and it will be littered with scientific incositencies and mathematical impossiblities. Look at so many of our attempts to explain the origin of man, the universe, life and if you look critically you will jot be able to ignore these glaring holes and flaws in them. Yet so many try to pervert science to try and crush religion. Newton, Maxwell, and many other famous physiscist have been Christian and a rather large percentage of physicists today are Chistian as well. Many are also Jewish or any number of other faiths. I have no real stats but from my time at Fermi National Accelerator Lab with CDF I would say there more faithful people than not. I also cannot speak for Chemists or Biologists, though Darwin was a conservatve Christian, go on read his book.

Science does not disprove God, granted it doesnt prove God either, hence faith, and you are ignoring a huge body of scientific evidence if you claim that it does disprove God.


RE: One other comment
By SavagePotato on 11/8/2007 6:37:38 PM , Rating: 1
That would be troglodytes.

On the contrary I would categorize many religions as being home to some of the most intolerant and least enlightened individuals.

I think your still pouting because you were proven wrong about your knowledge on the history of the pentium2 line elsewhere. I do get a little carried away in pointing out flawed knowledge from time to time, but then who doesn't. When the source of the knowledge is defiantly ignorant regarding it's perceived truth it tends to create a situation of "egging on"

Now science may not be able to answer everything, there very well may even be some form of creator out there in the universe. Nonetheless I stand by my belief that every single religion on earth is just ideology to cling to for support. My opinion on the matter is my life is far to short to ever learn the mysteries of the universe, so I'll just have to settle for finding out what happens after death when it actually happens.

Now believing that everyone else that doesn't believe what I do, (aka the cornerstone of most religions) Is doomed to some form of eternal punishment, That is what I would call foolish. I was raised in a roman catholic background and one day the absolute foolishness of it all just came over me and made me realize I was wasting my time believing in such nonsense.


RE: One other comment
By Quiescent on 11/9/2007 8:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have a religion to believe in, but it's not like I don't want to help people. It's called basic morals. Most of us still live by the basic morals because they are right to live by. You don't have to believe in a religion to have morals and to live a happy, peaceful life, contributing to the community.

Some of the things in the Holy Bible have actually been proven to happen in history. For instance for the fact of the flooding. It occurred right where it said it did. It was caused by a giant piece of rock colliding into the earth.


RE: One other comment
By TomZ on 11/6/2007 11:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
I agree - the way one phrases the questions in a poll will have a large effect on the outcome. I'm not discounting this particular poll, but I would be interested to know whether it was designed with or without such bias.


RE: One other comment
By kelman6969 on 11/6/2007 1:08:23 PM , Rating: 4
The link to the article had a link a PDF document that gave some sample questions that I have included below in quotes. Other than the assumption that global warming/climate change is a problem, the rest seems pretty straight, but I am not an expert. I suspect the 85% who are willing to sacrifice lifestyle is reflective of the Evangelist "Al Gore" and his success at prostylesing some and influencing many to his ...... religion.

"M6. Please tell me if you think each of the following will definitely be necessary, probably be necessary, probably not be necessary, or definitely not be necessary in order to address the problem of climate change or global warming? READ IN ORDER AND ROTATE
a) To increase the cost of the types of energy that most cause climate change, such as coal and oil/petrol, in order to encourage individuals and industry to use less.
01 - Will definitely be necessary
02 - Probably be necessary
03 - Probably not be necessary
04 - Definitely not be necessary
VOLUNTEERED (DO NOT READ)
99 - Don’t know / No answer
b) For individuals in [country] to make changes in their lifestyle and behaviour in order to reduce the amount of climate changing gases they produce.
M7. Would you favour or oppose raising taxes on the types of energy, such as coal and oil/petrol, that most cause climate change in order to encourage individuals and businesses to use less of these? Would you . . . READ IN ORDER. CODE ONE ONLY.
01 - Strongly favour
02 - Somewhat favour
03 - Somewhat oppose
04 - Strongly oppose
VOLUNTEERED (DO NOT READ)
99 - Don’t know / No answer
FORM A:
ASK TO HALF SAMPLE OF THOSE WHO ANSWER “STRONGLY OPPOSE” or “SOMEWHAT OPPOSE” or “DK/NA” in M7.
M8A. What if the revenues of this energy tax were devoted only to increasing energy efficiency and developing energy sources that do not produce climate change? Would you… READ IN ORDER. CODE ONE ONLY.
FORM B:
ASK TO OTHER HALF SAMPLE OF THOSE WHO ANSWER “STRONGLY OPPOSE” or “SOMEWHAT OPPOSE” or “DK/NA” in M7.
M8B. What if this energy tax was introduced at the same time as your other taxes were reduced by the same amount, keeping your total taxes at the current level even with the energy tax? Would you . . . READ IN ORDER. CODE ONE ONLY.
01 - Strongly favour
02 - Somewhat favour
03 - Somewhat oppose
04 - Strongly oppose
VOLUNTEERED (DO NOT READ)
99 - Don’t know / No answer"


RE: One other comment
By Screwballl on 11/7/2007 3:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
one key part says it right there... how many of those polled are educated enough on the subject to give a reasonable and educated answer?

the key lies right here:

quote:
VOLUNTEERED (DO NOT READ)
99 - Don’t know / No answer


I bet a majority of those polled are not educated enough to give an answer to portray an adequate representative of this world. I would say less than 5% of this world is. I know I am not. I can give an opinion based on lack of knowledge but presented as facts and call myself Al Gore but that doesn't mean I know any more than the average citizen.


RE: One other comment
By smitty3268 on 11/6/2007 1:40:01 PM , Rating: 3
I don't really doubt that the poll itself is accurate, what I doubt is the honesty of those replying. Everyone says they're for the environment, and I don't think many people are willing to admit publicly that they really don't care enough to make any kind of sacrifice.


RE: One other comment
By Spuke on 11/8/2007 2:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take your statement a bit further and say that our actions, as a group, have already demonstrated that we are not interested making a change for the environment even though, in a perfect world (and on any poll or survey), we would.

That said there are exceptions. When there is a tangible benefit to us, then we are willing to actually MAKE changes.

For example, I started swapping regular light bulbs to CFL's, although I understand they maybe trading one bad thing for another. My only reasoning to change to CFL's is that is may lower my electric bill. If there was no benefit to me, I would not have bothered. And I'm still not entirely convinced that my bill will be lower. It'll be a while before I know for sure.


The Chinese Position
By masher2 (blog) on 11/6/2007 10:29:19 AM , Rating: 4
The Chinese support higher taxes on fuel because they're currently swimming in pollution. But the answer to their problems isn't less consumption-- its modern pollution controls on their cars, factories, and power plants.

Those controls will, in general, tend to slightly increase overall consumption...but they'll result in a thousandfold or more reduction in smog and other emissions, far more than they could hope to accomplish through reductions in fuel demand.

What most people don't realize is the price of energy is the single most important factor determining overall standard of living. We're an energy-driven society...which explains why most of us don't need to spend 14 hours a day laboring in the fields any longer. Raising the cost of energy is a "solution" thats far worse than the disease.




RE: The Chinese Position
By svenkesd on 11/6/2007 12:40:21 PM , Rating: 5
Raising the price of fossil fuel based energy will allow other technologies to become competitive and when the alternative technologies mature they will become much cheaper. That can't happen now because the price of fossil fuels is so cheap relative to other sources.


RE: The Chinese Position
By murphyslabrat on 11/7/2007 3:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent, we handicap the one so that it is competitive with the other. Reminds me, ever so vaguely, of the 1900 era import taxes, which happen to be a largely suspected cause of the Great Depression era. They thought the taxes would help the economy too.

Maybe there is a long-term advantage to such a tax, but it is a costly one. So, do we sell our souls to the devil for cash (will take check or credit ^^j), no. The solution, however, is not to screw the American industry, and it is not to screw the consumers.


RE: The Chinese Position
By Spivonious on 11/8/2007 12:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
As long as fossil fuels are relatively cheap, people will still use them. However, I don't think the government should step in and control the pricing of energy products. Alternative fuels are steadily gaining in popularity and it will not be too much longer until the price of those alternatives will be competitive with fossil fuels. Let capitalism work.


RE: The Chinese Position
By smitty3268 on 11/6/2007 1:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What most people don't realize is the price of energy is the single most important factor determining overall standard of living.

Doesn't Europe have relatively high energy prices? They seem to be doing pretty well when compared to, say, a middle eastern country with incredibly low energy costs. Or Russia, etc.


RE: The Chinese Position
By Ringold on 11/6/2007 1:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
He said single most important factor, not the only one.

Compare Europe with America, and the visible difference in long term growth, interest rates and so forth make it more obvious.

Russia lacks almost any of what one could call social capital; that goes a long way towards explaining it. It also doesn't help that oil doesn't create many jobs for a large economy. The Middle East and Russia are also starting from a low base -- and they are growing, I believe, much quicker than Europe itself, generally.


RE: The Chinese Position
By smitty3268 on 11/6/2007 3:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying it isn't important, I just don't see how you can say it is the single most important factor when Europe has probably the 2nd highest living standards and some of the highest energy prices. It seems like that would be proof of the opposite.


RE: The Chinese Position
By TomZ on 11/6/2007 4:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
Europe might otherwise have the highest standard of living, except for their slightly-socialist leaning that allows such policies as the high fuel taxes. But I think many in Europe accept this as a reasonable compromise.


RE: The Chinese Position
By masher2 (blog) on 11/6/2007 4:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "Europe has probably the 2nd highest living standards and some of the highest energy prices"

Europe doesn't have some of the highest energy prices in general. It has high gasoline prices. The price Europe pays for oil, coal, natural gas, and electricity generated by nuclear and hydroelectric are on par with the rest of the world.

Furthermore, Europe's standard of living is high today because of centuries of investment in infrastructure, education, and other areas. Comparing a nation like France to one that, 100 years ago had almost no dams, universities, factories, and almost no roads at all is a bit misleading. That historical investment-- made long ago-- is still paying dividends.

But today, that investment is not just being spent, it's being squandered. To see how Europe (and the US, for that matter) will be in the future, one must examine a different metric -- economic growth. And here, one sees the cracks. European economic growth is microscopic, compared to nations like China, Russia, Qatar, Dubai-- all nations with overall energy costs below the world average, incidently.


RE: The Chinese Position
By smitty3268 on 11/6/2007 6:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
European economic growth is microscopic, compared to nations like China, Russia, Qatar, Dubai

Still, that's like saying the economic growth of a company like Microsoft isn't as large as the economic growth of a startup company with 10 employees. It's a lot easier for the new guy to expand.

quote:
The price Europe pays for oil, coal, natural gas, and electricity generated by nuclear and hydroelectric are on par with the rest of the world.

Well yes, it's a global market. Everyone except the producers tend to pay a similar price before taxes. I thought you meant the after-tax price of energy, or does Europe only tax gas and not the other forms?

quote:
Furthermore, Europe's standard of living is high today because of centuries of investment in infrastructure, education, and other areas. Comparing a nation like France to one that, 100 years ago had almost no dams, universities, factories, and almost no roads at all is a bit misleading. That historical investment-- made long ago-- is still paying dividends.

I think that was probably my point, that history and the general state of a countries social, political, and economic systems mean far more than the price of energy. But if you take that out, (and that is an awful, awful lot to take out), then all other things being even I might agree with you. It's just that all other things aren't ever even, so that kind of comparison isn't very useful IMHO.


RE: The Chinese Position
By Keeir on 11/6/2007 6:39:26 PM , Rating: 2
Not to agree or disagree but

quote:
I think that was probably my point, that history and the general state of a countries social, political, and economic systems mean far more than the price of energy.


Alot of the current state of things has to do with the long term cost of energy in the country. IE, One of the main reason why cities are generally located on water ways and civilization generally followed sea coasts is that the cost of transportation is significantly lower along rivers/seas that on land.

I might say something more along the lines of

The average cost of energy production is the most significant factor in level of material consumption and trade in a society.

The marginal cost of additional energy production is the most significant factor in rate of growth in material consumption of a society.

"Standard of Living" is something that relies on more than how many hours you work or how many Wiis are connected to your TV.

Oh and I oppose punative taxes on energy production. Who ever discovered the "next" energy technology and brings it to market stands to make billions if not trillions of dollars. Thats already a powerful economic incentive.


RE: The Chinese Position
By Ringold on 11/7/2007 2:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
countries social, political, and economic systems mean far more than the price of energy.


I did say social capital to cover my own bases at least.

quote:
Still, that's like saying the economic growth of a company like Microsoft isn't as large as the economic growth of a startup company with 10 employees. It's a lot easier for the new guy to expand.


This is where Europe presently fails -- horribly. It's a false assumption that simply because Europe has established enterprise that there is no room to grow. America has even a more vibrant "full" economy (as private enterprise makes up a larger percentage of GDP), and yet a large percentage of workers in the United States work for firms that are roughly in their early or start-up years. Almost all job growth in the US since the 80s has been due to small business. Europe, on the other hand, has very limited venture capital spending, very few young start up firms, and very few young workers working at these firms. The difference comes down to innovating with business practices, models, products and services -- American's are doing it, foreign countries are doing, Europe is by and large not. This plays in to the European socialist view of profit somehow being dirty and that labor is exploitation, and generally recognized, along with much needed further labor market liberalization and social spending cuts, as one of the critical problems facing Europe going forward.

As far as Europe and energy costs go, I was under the impression that Europe's end consumers paid higher rates than American's do due to regulated markets and local monopolies. It also doesn't help that Russia has Europe by the collective coconuts, though that may not mean anything for day to day prices.


RE: The Chinese Position
By Hacp on 11/9/2007 11:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
Remember World War 2? Europe had to build from scratch since most of the infrastructure had collapsed.


RE: The Chinese Position
By dever on 11/7/2007 4:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget, China is already under communism. They have already been conditioned to believe that government knows better than individuals, and freedoms should be sacrificed for whatever a bureaucrat deems the public good.


RE: The Chinese Position
By Ringold on 11/7/2007 9:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
You'd be surprised..

I read recently of a local-level government in China that tried to cap fuel prices, ostensibly to help the people. Instead, they rioted and had it repealled because it offended their sense of free market capitalism.

Political freedom? Not much. Economic freedom? Catching up. Capitalist spirit? They're putting us to shame :\


sounds like...
By Moishe on 11/6/2007 1:59:01 PM , Rating: 2
Right up any government's alley. More justification for fleecing the citizens "for their own good".

The consumer loses, the government and the oil producers win.

I'm all for reducing oil consumption as long as it doesn't require us to have a reduction in lifestyle. If you raise the price of gas too much then I lose the freedom to live/work where I choose. Hell, let's just go all the way and let the government just tell me where to work, what to drive, what to say, and give me my allotted pay at the end of the week. That way they can just tell me I need $5 for gas + $20 for food and keep the rest. Ohh, and your BMI is too high Mr. Smith, we're reducing your food money to $15 because you obviously don't need more food.

Hate to break it to you folks who think that the environment is far more important than people. Sorry, but this is just a way for some people to get more rich off the backs of the people who do the actual work.

I think it's a crying shame that in order to be "GREEN" you must hurt the common man. Not make things more efficient. Not give people alternatives methods to get the same work done with less pollution... Just sit on the little guy until he's so dry that he gives up and becomes another chump sucking on mama welfare's teet.




RE: sounds like...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/6/2007 2:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
Because individual people are relatively intelligent. Collectively people are extremely stupid. History has shown us this, and its not likely to stop anytime soon.


RE: sounds like...
By Moishe on 11/6/2007 2:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
yep... the collective is easier to control. Sad thing is democracy looks more and more like dictatorship.


RE: sounds like...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/6/2007 2:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
The U.S. is a Republic just FYI. Democracy is pretty much Anarchy. True Democracy or Anarchy are disasters waiting to happen.


RE: sounds like...
By Hacp on 11/10/2007 12:12:22 AM , Rating: 2
The words democracy and republic have very broad meanings. The United States can fit into both categories.


RE: sounds like...
By Ringold on 11/6/2007 3:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just sit on the little guy until he's so dry that he gives up and becomes another chump sucking on mama welfare's teet


If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

quote:
Sad thing is democracy looks more and more like dictatorship.


" Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - B Franklin

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents." James Madison

"All of this has happened before. And it will happen again." - The Cylons

See? The Cylons know us better than we know ourselves..


RE: sounds like...
By Moishe on 11/7/2007 9:46:33 AM , Rating: 2
That is why the Cylons will win every time :) God bless the better-than-human robot overlords!


RE: sounds like...
By Ringold on 11/7/2007 2:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
Especially the Six's and Boomers. Conquer me any time.


Oil Tax? No thanks.
By cochy on 11/6/2007 11:10:48 AM , Rating: 2
Ya that's what we need. How will a tax lower consumption? I will still drive the same distance to work every day. My home still needs the same amount of heating during the winter. Gas is expensive as it is. Not too mention the cost of basically every all goods will go up to off set increased cost to ship them and/or make them. You want lower consumption? Develop more efficient technologies and stop making our lives more expensive.




RE: Oil Tax? No thanks.
By TomZ on 11/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Oil Tax? No thanks.
By rdeegvainl on 11/6/2007 12:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
I see it as horrible, how will they survive the spread of zombies with such high population densities?


RE: Oil Tax? No thanks.
By Ringold on 11/6/2007 1:54:11 PM , Rating: 3
It'll lower consumption, partly in the way TomZ astutely pointed out regarding how it's worked in Europe, but also in a way less obvious (to the masses).

You're right. You still need to drive from A to B every day, and at best, may do so a little slower, may combine trips, etc. Miles must be logged however. As your fuel budget expands faster than your income, what must happen? Discretionary spending on consumer goods must be sacrificed; less eating out, fewer name brands, longer cycles between replacing old items, smaller TV's, smaller homes, etc. That slows the economy, and if the effect is large enough, could spur nasty unemployment if phased in too quickly. Either way, long term growth takes a hit.

If people looked at it that way, that they'd be throwing large portions of future potential buying power out the window, they may see it a little differently when models like the following show all will be jolly almost regardless of what we do.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/dice_m...

Not to mention.. government funding of renewable energy.. there is far too much profit to be made even in the short term for the government to have a legitimate role here. Venture capital is pouring in to the field. If free markets do anything well it's pick the most efficient winner, and if governments do anything well it's not picking such winners. Has America forgot the 70s? Of course, politicians can't keep their pork-laden hands off.


RE: Oil Tax? No thanks.
By Moishe on 11/6/2007 2:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
See... now you're thinking.
Cochy has to sacrifice. You've got to downsize your wants and needs in order to fit in with what someone else dictates. Sacrifice in itself is not bad... but forced sacrifice is a lot closer to slavery and oppression.

I think that forward progress would be a plan that allows people to be free to pursue their own wants and needs all while developing more efficient energy. We can have both.


RE: Oil Tax? No thanks.
By Spuke on 11/8/2007 3:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
No, you can't have both. The sheeple have been conditioned to believe that you can have only one OR the other, not both (or both not). This is what those that want to oppress would like us believe.

All I know is this, they can pry my pursuit of happiness from my cold, dead fingers.


RE: Oil Tax? No thanks.
By Hacp on 11/10/2007 12:09:46 AM , Rating: 2
When something becomes too expensive, and there is a substitute, people will choose the substitute. In this case, more public transportation, bikes, and smaller cars.


Ready?
By jorgenman on 11/6/2007 5:51:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A new survey shows that the majority of people are willing to do their part to help the environment, even if it isn't easy

This is the kind of ridiculous conclusion that you can draw from a poll. If people are "ready" to do their part, then they're already doing it. If they're not already making real sacrifices to help the environment, then they aren't ready to.




RE: Ready?
By TomZ on 11/6/2007 6:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! Your comment is the best one here, IMO.


Good grief-
By fictisiousname on 11/7/2007 9:33:12 AM , Rating: 3
Sure some would be willing to "sacrifice" for the environment...
I'd rather separate my recyclables from true garbage so the recyclables don't end up in the landfill.

I'd rather walk to the store than drive, if the store is a mile or two away.

But "enjoy" some group artificially increasing the cost of energy...and then "enjoy" the higher energy costs trickling down on EVERY item I buy? right.

Riddle me this, batman. Why is it that "Green" energy devices have ridiculously inflated claims of their ability to produce energy, attempt to avoid discussing the hazardous side effects (such as disposal of batteries) and carry a premium in cost as compared to an equivalent fossil based form of energy, such as a propane generator?

Signed
someone who wanted to build a 5KW system off the grid.




RE: Good grief-
By Spuke on 11/8/2007 4:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
someone who wanted to build a 5KW system off the grid.
I've always wanted to do that but it costs too much. A 2KW system would be more cost effective although it wouldn't completely remove us from the grid.


Why get government involved?
By Schrag4 on 11/6/2007 11:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe I'm incredibly naive, but I've always felt that once the initial costs of a lot of energy reduction technologies come down a bit, I'd be willing to switch, and I think many others, including big businesses, will too. One example would be a switch to LED lighting. As far as I know, the production and disposal of LED lights isn't hazardous to the environment (like some other 'green' technologies). But good LED lights, from what I'm told, are EXTREMELY expensive. Once they come down to 10 times the price of traditional filament bulbs, I'll replace all my lights, because in the 'medium' run (not just the long run), I'll save tons of money by using less electricity and not buying replacement bulbs. This is just one example.

What I'm getting at is that once these energy saving techs become cheap enough, nobody's going to stick with the old, more expensive technologies. So why should we tax people for using (what will become) more expensive, old technology? Is it just to get money for R&D for these new, energy saving technologies? I have the mind-set that government involvement can only mess things like this up, by causing shortages that raise prices for all kinds of things, like ethanol (in the US) is doing for just about all of our food. $4.00 a gallon for milk. Yikes! Now I have to decide whether my kids will have strong bones or go to college. I'm only joking, of course, but can you see why I don't want the government involved?




RE: Why get government involved?
By Moishe on 11/6/2007 2:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
It's not about saving the environment... it's about power.
Power to control what people do. Power to take people's money. The environment is just a tool to gain power.

Who cares about your kids when there could be a dying Glossy Ibis somewhere? I'm being sarcastic of course, but that's the general attitude.

I think you're right about making it cheaper. The majority of people are not against saving the environment, but they ARE against saving the environment "at all cost" or at the cost of their own freedom. If you give me efficient energy at a slightly higher rate then I'm willing to put up the dough to make sure we're not polluting. If not, then you're just asking me to give something up for something you believe in.

See, this is not a solution, it's a step back. It's humans taking "one for the team". A real solution would offer an alternative energy form that allows humanity to progress and reduces pollution.


what about the being hip/cool factor?
By kattanna on 11/6/2007 1:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
just how many people are saying what they think people want to hear?

like when they do surveys of people asking do they do illegal drugs.. or do you have a drinking problem. You know most people arent telling the truth due to embaressment.

how many people on this survey answered what they think is the right answer.. but not particulary what they want to do themselves?




By Ringold on 11/6/2007 3:27:09 PM , Rating: 2
I love the "How many sexual partners have you had?" polls.

Well, hot damn, I don't know! 50? :p


Sure they would
By tcsenter on 11/6/2007 5:36:11 PM , Rating: 3
This is one of those useless 'would you be willing to help save the life of a child - yes or no' polls, which appeals to a modicum of basic decency possessed by even our most ethically-challenged members of society, where the respondent is free to 'envision' the extent or degree of the costs/consequences that would be required of them.

Now ask them if they would still be willing to save the life of a child if it meant giving up a kidney.

OK, now ask them if they would still give up a kidney after explaining all of the potential risks and complications.

OK, now ask them if they would still give up a kidney after explaining they would be unable to work for a month with no compensation.

OK, now ask if they would still give up a kidney if it might not be not covered by insurance and could cost them $20,000 out-of-pocket to pay for their end of the procedure.

So on and so forth...until we get to a more realistic number like 10% of respondents who still feel so altruistic when confronted with the reality of what its going to cost them.

I'm surprised the number was not closer to 90% who responded they are ready to change their lifestyle for the sake of the planet, so long as they are free to envision what "change my lifestyle" would encompass (i.e. any change that would not be uncomfortable for me).




Lifestyle?
By iFX on 11/9/2007 10:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
I think the entire idea of a lifestyle is bogus. My "lifestyle" changes moment to moment. I, as a human, will do whatever is best for me at any given time. I don't say "well for the next ten years I am going to make my life revolve around destroying this planet!". When that time is up I then don't say "Now, the next ten years will be devoted to saving this planet!".

People do what's best for them at any given moment. Is that a lifestyle? It's a buzzword to me.




I don't know
By just4U on 11/11/2007 9:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
I feel everyone that I can think of would be fine in making minor commitments as long as it doesnt affect their lives in a drastic fashion. I know for some countries who signed on to Kyoto, to meet those commitments now means drastic change which people are not prepared to do... and neither are their governments.

I don't really know but I find that it's all set up like a trick question. Yes everyone is for the environment after all. I dont know anyone out there who isn't but were not all fanatical nut cases willing to go to extremes (or worse willing for others to go to extremes) on hearsay about the doom of the planet. But some will take a poll like this and say SEE!?! SEE??! the world population is for the changes "WE" recommend. Which ofcourse, is not the case.

For me the whole environment issue is a big mystery but I do do my part in a small way. Not because of crack pots predicting the end of the world as we know it but rather, because it's a good thing to do. You know?

There is far to much uncertainty surounding this whole issue and I find myself running around in circles as I always wonder what sort of agenda the people have who come out with these polls, reports, or what have you.

A die hard would say I am in Denial, but I don't know.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki