backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by BRMarshall.. on Aug 12 at 6:27 PM

If Britain goes carbon free does that mean no more life as we know it?

The Liberal Democrats -- currently Britain's third largest political party -- are pushing to ban not just sports cars, SUVs, and all other manner of "gas guzzling" vehicles, as some have suggested in the U.S., but all petroleum and diesel vehicles off the streets of Britain by 2040.  If isn't -- at least in part -- electric, it won't be allowed on the streets.

The plan is currently in its final stages and would be voted upon at the socially liberal party's upcoming conference in Glasgow, UK.

The proposal, according to a draft obtained by The Telegraph, states:

By 2040, only ultra-low carbon vehicles will be permitted on UK roads for non-freight purposes.

In other words, only hybrids, battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) would be legal.  Anything else -- in terms of consumer vehicles (including taxis and other small commercial vehicles) -- would not be.

Currently, the British do not buy many electric vehicles.  In 2012 a total of roughly 2 million cars were sold to British buyers.  Meanwhile the top-selling hybrid electric vehicle, Toyota Motor Corp.'s (TYO:7203) Prius moved only 13,000 units (about 0.6 percent of total sales), while the Plug-in Prius saw 470 sales -- even more miniscule.  In total only 3,600 PHEVs or BEVs have sold in the UK since the launch a £5,000 ($7,750 USD) tax incentive in mid 2010.

By contrast nearly 435,000 hybrids were sold in the U.S. last year [source], accounting for approximately 3 percent of sales.  While BEV sales were slow, combined BEV and PHEV sales moved nearly 53,000 units in the U.S. in 2012.  These numbers indicate that the U.S. is likely selling at least twice the number of electric vehicles and hybrids -- percentage wise -- as Britain.

A second plank of the proposed platform calls for airfare taxes to be replaced with a more significant carbon tax.  The party describes:

[Air passenger duty would be replaced with] per-plane duty, charged in proportion to the carbon emissions created by that journey.

That move is intended to stoke the use of biofuels and cut down on "frivolous" air travel.  

One thing such critics of these proposals will likely appreciate is that the party calls for expansion of Britain's nuclear power and natural gas shale exploration/extraction.  The proposal calls on cutting legal red tape to increasing use of nuclear and natural gas for the nation's energy.  

Nuclear energy
The plan does call for the expansion of clean nuclear energy. [Image Source: Corbis]

Among the proposed changes would be to allow for fracking -- hydraulic fracturing -- a process in which pressurized/heat water and chemicals is injected into sites containing oil or natural gas in order to extract it.  The process is controversial as some have suggested it might cause earthquakes; however, at present the evidence supporting that hypothesis remains far from conclusive.  The proposal to drop the party's opposition to fracking does come with some provisions.  The party writes:

[Fracking can commence so long as] regulations controlling pollution and protecting local environmental quality are strictly enforced, planning decisions remain with local authorities and local communities are fully consulted over extraction and fully compensated for all damage to the local landscape.

Experts have estimated that 700 million barrels of oil or more a year could be extracted from oil shale in two areas of Surrey and Sussex.

The proposals -- which aim to create a "zero-carbon" Britain (a rather humorous term, surely) might not be taken seriously were it not for the Liberal Democrats' key role as kingmaker in the British government.  By entering into a coalition with the center-right Conservative party (while ironically bucking the center-left Labour Party), the Conservatives were able to command leadership of the country, including the role of prime minister, which is currently filled by Conservative party leader David Cameron.

In order to stay in power, the Conservative government must make major concessions to their Liberal Democrat allies, despite having a significantly larger head count in Parliament.  Thus as absurd as the idea of banning all non-electric vehicles from the streets of Britain sounds, if the Liberal Democrats pass the proposal, their Conservative allies may be forced to listen.

Source: Telegraph



Comments     Threshold


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

Oh boy..
By flyingpants1 on 8/7/2013 8:39:31 PM , Rating: 1
I think we can all agree banning ICE cars outright is very extreme. But that's only in terms of today's standards. In the future, ICE cars will be rightfully regarded as pumping poisonous gas everywhere.




RE: Oh boy..
By FITCamaro on 8/7/2013 8:55:37 PM , Rating: 1
Algae based diesel. Everything that comes out of a tailpipe came out of the air to begin with.


RE: Oh boy..
By Mint on 8/7/2013 9:14:06 PM , Rating: 3
It'll be nice if it pans out, but it's looking a lot like cellulosic ethanol right now.

Molten salt reactors are the future of energy. It's a miracle of our universe that there exists a fuel one million times as dense as fossil fuels.

From there, I can't see biofuels beating out batteries or, failing that, hydrogen. We'll never get completely clean combustion anyway (I'm not talking about GHGs).


RE: Oh boy..
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/7/2013 9:14:10 PM , Rating: 1
Right, exactly like oil.

Oh, here's an idea: Lets use oil! It's relatively cheap, abundant, and the byproducts of combustion are not only beneficial, but necessary to life.

What's that? Al Gore says CO2 is poisonous and causes climate change? Never mind science, lets believe him on FAITH, and destroy our economies to enrich him and his cronies. Great plan all.


RE: Oh boy..
By flyingpants1 on 8/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: Oh boy..
By redbone75 on 8/7/2013 9:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Never mind science, lets believe him on FAITH, and destroy our economies to enrich him and his cronies.


Yeah, instead let's still ignore science and continue to enrich the oil cronies and continue to have FAITH in them that they will do good for us all. Cause that's working well for everyone.


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/8/2013 3:32:12 AM , Rating: 4
How many hundreds of millions of dollars did Al Gore make on carbon credits, again?

quote:
Cause that's working well for everyone.


Okay, let's play a game. A quick thought experiment, if you will.

Let's take away all the oil.

Now there's no cars, and almost no transportation relative to A: the population and B: the places people want/need to go. There's very little electricity. Can't grow enough food, so people start to starve. Can't treat everyone in hospitals, because hospitals need a lot of power. Can't use the military to protect everyone, 'cuz they're still dependent on the oil.

So what happens? Billions of people die. That's billions with a B.

So yes, it HAS worked out well for everyone, at least almost everyone. What has the oil business done? Hampered the Gulf coast's shrimping efforts? Killed a few seagulls and otters? Thrown a little more water vapor into our atmosphere?

How has oil NOT worked out amazingly for everyone, I wonder?


RE: Oh boy..
By lelias2k on 8/8/2013 10:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
Your game would be valid if in reality there wasn't a transition period.

Everything can be adapted, including ourselves.


RE: Oh boy..
By Solandri on 8/9/2013 1:21:46 AM , Rating: 4
Even with a transition period, he's mostly right. The fundamental measure here is productivity. How much work (food production, manufacturing, even making movies) can you as an individual get done per day? First you have to generate enough productivity to feed, clothe, and house yourself. Then enough to buy all the toys we like to play with. After that, you can work for more toys or take time off with family and relaxing.

In the old days, people spent most of their waking lives working in the fields just to grow enough food to survive. Each technological advance in agriculture leveraged cheap energy to increase the productivity per man-hour worked. At first it was water and wind to relive us from the labor of milling, but eventually we transitioned to coal, then oil as even higher density energy sources (yield more energy for a given cost) applied to more and more aspects of food production.

The only reason you have time to spend 8 hrs/day and 2 days a week reading web sites like this is because cheap energy has reduced the number of man-hours needed to provide what you need to survive. If you increase the cost of energy, your productivity decreases and either you have to work longer hours to enjoy the same lifestyle you have today, or your standard of living decreases.

Transition period is irrelevant. What matters is the relative cost of the two energy sources. That's why conservatives tend to be against "green" energy. It's not because they don't like the environment (which is a ridiculously naive assumption made by people who aren't even trying to understand what those with a different opinion are thinking). It's because switching to green energy sources before they're ready (i.e. before they're cost is competitive with fossil fuels) won't magically result in a better world. It'll result in a decreased standard of living.

Maybe that trade-off is worth it. Maybe the pollution from fossil fuels is damaging our lives more than the decreased cost of living if we were to give up fossil fuels. But that's a debatable argument that I rarely see debated. Usually I just see people who think that switching to green energy has only benefits and no disadvantages. If that's what you think, then you simply don't understand how the economy works. Holding all other things constant, increasing the cost of energy decreases the standard of living. The burden of proof is then upon those proposing the switch to green energy to prove that eliminating the negatives of using fossil fuels will benefit us enough to make it worthwhile.


RE: Oh boy..
By conq on 8/12/2013 9:07:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the old days, people spent most of their waking lives working in the fields just to grow enough food to survive.

Now they instead spend it watching Jersey Shore and ESPN. My, my, my. How far we've come!


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/10/2013 4:42:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your game would be valid if in reality there wasn't a transition period.

I felt a little simplification was justified in light of the "let's enrich Big Oil" canard... as if the use of oil does nothing but.


RE: Oh boy..
By FITCamaro on 8/8/2013 4:04:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now there's no cars, and almost no transportation relative to A: the population and B: the places people want/need to go. There's very little electricity. Can't grow enough food, so people start to starve. Can't treat everyone in hospitals, because hospitals need a lot of power. Can't use the military to protect everyone, 'cuz they're still dependent on the oil. So what happens? Billions of people die. That's billions with a B.


Sounds like a lot of liberals dreams.


RE: Oh boy..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: Oh boy..
By FITCamaro on 8/8/2013 4:03:21 PM , Rating: 1
Ignore what science? Climate change "science"? That throws out any data that doesn't agree with their theory? Sounds like a good plan.


RE: Oh boy..
By Darkk on 8/8/2013 1:02:57 AM , Rating: 1
Hope you are being sarcastic. Oil may be cheap not but it's not unlimited supply. Sooner or later it will run out. So we have to make the changes NOW to ensure that our world continues. Watch Mad Max and let me know what you think.


RE: Oh boy..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/13, Rating: 0
RE: Oh boy..
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/8/2013 3:30:02 AM , Rating: 2
I had an actual LOL over that one. Darkk, you made my day.


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/8/2013 3:35:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sooner or later it will run out.

And long before it "runs out" it will simply become more expensive to get. And as it becomes more expensive, "alternatives" will start to look more attractive. And as those alternatives become more attractive, they will see greater and greater adoption.

It's almost like a self-correcting problem.

But hey, let's ignore the guy that's not making a penny to say these things, let's instead put our trust in Al "No, No Ulterior Motive Here" Gore as he makes half a billion dollars on carbon credits and enjoys his five lavish mansions and private planes. Hell, even Dubya is more environmentally friendly than Gore.


RE: Oh boy..
By Mint on 8/8/2013 8:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
EVs aren't going to replace oil overnight. It takes decades to first ramp up production capabilities and then flush out 200M existing cars. It's also important for the threat of alternatives to keep OPEC from further manipulating oil prices with their quotas.

As an aside, how did Gore get mentioned 3 times in this thread?


RE: Oh boy..
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/9/2013 6:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
Because more people know of him than say Maurice Strong, one of the real profiteers on the global warming hype train -- former CEO of Petro-Canada (a government oil company created in the 1980s to rob one region of Canada for the benefit of another) who helped create the Kyoto accord, and lives in Beijing with his new masters reaping the rewards.


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/10/2013 4:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
EVs aren't going to replace oil overnight.

Oil's not going to run out overnight, either.


RE: Oh boy..
By Mint on 8/10/2013 1:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, I never said it would. You are the one who brought up the irrelevant scenario of eliminating oil in an instant and having it destroy our way of live.

Secondly, that's perfectly compatible with a multi-decade transition into hybrids/EVs.


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/10/2013 4:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never said it would.

I described a gradual process of transition. You introduced the idea of such a transition "happening overnight". Your reply was utterly pointless.

quote:
You are the one who brought up the irrelevant scenario of eliminating oil

Incorrect.

quote:
that's perfectly compatible with a multi-decade transition into hybrids/EVs.

Yes, that is what I said. Congratulations, you're not COMPLETELY illiterate, just MOSTLY.


RE: Oh boy..
By jimbojimbo on 8/8/2013 1:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And long before it "runs out" it will simply become more expensive to get.
The problem is if everybody pushes EVs the demand for gas will decrease so it'll keep gas prices at a steady rate. Also, every oil producing country HAS to honestly report its capacity otherwise everyone will continue to think there's a good supply left but all of a sudden run out.


RE: Oh boy..
By SPOOFE on 8/10/2013 4:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the demand for gas will decrease so it'll keep gas prices at a steady rate.

Demand for "gasoline" may decrease, but demand for "oil" will continue to go up. "Oil" is used for more than just "gasoline", you know.

If demand for gasoline drops, so what? Doesn't that mean some other viable fuel/energy storage medium has been developed and become commonplace? The need to move things and people isn't going to go away.


RE: Oh boy..
By Paj on 8/8/2013 12:33:31 PM , Rating: 3
Sigh.

Carbon monoxide and particulates are beneficial to life? Better brush up on your chemistry.

Like many things, CO2 is indeed vital for some biological processes. The problem is that there's too much of it.

Fats are vital for the body too, but you never hear nutritionists telling people to eat more fat for their health. Why? Because only a small amount is needed, and too much is harmful, leading to a range of health problems.

Nearly every chemical element/compound essential for life becomes hazardous beyond a certain amount.


RE: Oh boy..
By Camikazi on 8/8/2013 5:37:50 PM , Rating: 3
Am I wrong or isn't it true that at the time in our planets history that the world was at it's lushest point (plants everywhere and life abundant) was a time when CO2 levels were at their highest and MUCH higher than now? While there might be gasses that hurt the environment CO2 is not one of them, at least not in the amounts found now or even in the amounts climate change people say it will reach.


RE: Oh boy..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/2013 6:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
Hey hey hey!!! Don't come in here with actual provable facts about Earth's environment! Their awesome computer model technology shows otherwise!


RE: Oh boy..
By Mint on 8/10/2013 5:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
Life adapted to changing conditions like that over millions of years, not 100. This line of argumentation is rather pathetic.

What you should be arguing instead is that humans will adapt to whatever consequences come our way. We have bigger fish to fry than spending $5T for every 0.1 degrees of warming that we want to avert.


RE: Oh boy..
By EricMartello on 8/8/2013 11:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sigh.

Carbon monoxide and particulates are beneficial to life? Better brush up on your chemistry.


So you're operating under the notion that what's bad for humans must be bad for the planet? Take your own advice.

quote:
Like many things, CO2 is indeed vital for some biological processes. The problem is that there's too much of it.


Actually no, as another poster stated, when the CO2 levels on earth were substantially higher than they are today the life on this planet thrived. Temperatures were higher too and it was not a barren wasteland nor was it a maelstrom of unending superstorms.

quote:
Fats are vital for the body too, but you never hear nutritionists telling people to eat more fat for their health. Why? Because only a small amount is needed, and too much is harmful, leading to a range of health problems.


The way people process fats, sugars, cholesterol and other items that are frequently labeled as "bad" for you differ. I'd say that the health problems people experience is more from a lack of diversity in their diet, a shortage of nutrition, moreso than it is an excess of fats or sugars.

quote:
Nearly every chemical element/compound essential for life becomes hazardous beyond a certain amount.


The universe constantly and automatically seeks equilibrium; this process trickles down to earth. This universal balance does a great job of keeping things in check so I have no worries about our atmosphere suddenly (or gradually) becoming toxic...although it's inevitable that sometime in the future the earth as we know it today will cease to exist and there's nothing we can do about it now or in the future.


RE: Oh boy..
By Paj on 8/9/2013 10:14:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you're operating under the notion that what's bad for humans must be bad for the planet? Take your own advice.


Carbon monoxide, not dioxide. It's toxic to humans and animals. Its the leading cause of death by air pollution, and its produced in engine exhaust, along with C02 and heaps of other compounds.

quote:
Actually no, as another poster stated, when the CO2 levels on earth were substantially higher than they are today the life on this planet thrived. Temperatures were higher too and it was not a barren wasteland nor was it a maelstrom of unending superstorms.


You're right, but it's very unlikely that organisms of today (including many food crops) would be able to survive such conditions, as a result of the millions of years of evolution that have taken place. Also, the higher temperatures would melt the ice caps, leading to sea level rise.

quote:
The way people process fats, sugars, cholesterol and other items that are frequently labeled as "bad" for you differ. I'd say that the health problems people experience is more from a lack of diversity in their diet, a shortage of nutrition, moreso than it is an excess of fats or sugars.


It's both. A imbalanced diet is bad for you, so too is an excess of anything. Vitamin A is essential to the body, but only in minute quantities. Too much leads to death.

quote:
The universe constantly and automatically seeks equilibrium; this process trickles down to earth. This universal balance does a great job of keeping things in check so I have no worries about our atmosphere suddenly (or gradually) becoming toxic.


Equilibrium isn't; constant though. It can occur over long timescales, but if the balance is shifted over a short period of time then the results can be very violent or unpredictable. Massive hurricanes, solar storms and other natural phenomena are an example of this.


RE: Oh boy..
By EricMartello on 8/9/2013 3:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Carbon monoxide, not dioxide. It's toxic to humans and animals. Its the leading cause of death by air pollution, and its produced in engine exhaust, along with C02 and heaps of other compounds.


Let me put it another way:

A forest fire burns down huge swaths of greenery and an average person's perception of this event is pure destruction. In reality, the immolation of a forest renews life, improves biodiversity and allows plants that require fire to take root.

Transpose this to CO or CO2 emissions being harmful to mammals - not really. We cannot breath either of these gases but their presence is not toxic to us (i.e. chlorine gas would be toxic even if we held our breath). As levels of CO or CO2 rise, plant life and simple life forms like algae follows suit and helps balance this out to ensure that these gases do not displace the O2 and N that mammals and other complex life breaths.

Life is very adaptable and while there is no doubt that sucking an exhaust pipe is going to kill a human, it's not going to kill the planet.

quote:
You're right, but it's very unlikely that organisms of today (including many food crops) would be able to survive such conditions, as a result of the millions of years of evolution that have taken place. Also, the higher temperatures would melt the ice caps, leading to sea level rise.


If the change was gradual, which it is likely to be, then the plants will adapt to the changes in climate. Palm trees have adapted themselves to thrive in warm climates where strong storms are frequent. That is why they have slender trunks and long, thin leaves rather than branches and broad leaves.

Even if the change happened quickly; plant and animal life will return after an initial shock.

And who's saying that higher sea levels are a bad thing? It's presented as a bad thing because today a lot of people live on or near the coast...but even if the glaciers and ice caps melted 100%, there would still be plenty of inhabitable land available.

quote:
It's both. A imbalanced diet is bad for you, so too is an excess of anything. Vitamin A is essential to the body, but only in minute quantities. Too much leads to death.


Then we agree on this point, because doesn't having a balanced diet imply having a diverse diet? You can't survive by only eating chocolate bars, although it would be a delicious way to die.

quote:
Equilibrium isn't; constant though. It can occur over long timescales, but if the balance is shifted over a short period of time then the results can be very violent or unpredictable. Massive hurricanes, solar storms and other natural phenomena are an example of this.


Actually it is constant as all counter-forces seek to exist in a state of balance, whether it is hot and cold or whether it is an interaction between matter and anti-matter.

The natural phenomena you listed can be viewed as the universe's attempt to restore balance, not offset it. The point you're overlooking is that our existence as humans on this planet is itself an imbalance...at some point we're going to have to return to zero. Humans like to believe that a balanced universe means they get to be a part of it, which is not true.


RE: Oh boy..
By BRMarshall on 8/12/2013 6:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
Al Gore flies all over the world telling other people to conserve energy. He warns of sea-level rise and buys a huge home on the coast. He puts more carbon in the air than anybody I personally know. Al can do this because he is doing it for the greater good? Give me a break. I drive my manual transmission car and get well over 30 mpg in combined driving. Not perfect, but I try to walk the walk.


RE: Oh boy..
By Samus on 8/8/2013 1:31:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Everything that comes out of a tailpipe came out of the air to begin with.


Millions of things become carcinogenic through combustion. By-products of Algae at room temperature is safe, at 1200f, much like anything else considered safe, the story changes.

The fact of the matter is just about anything can be carcinogenic when raised to its breaking temperature.

Cellulose Gum, an ingredient in shampoo, soaps and even some food, is an airborne carcinogen when its temperature exceeds 140F.

Triclosan, an antibacterial agent found in floor cleaners, soap, paint, hand sanitizer, etc, is not only carcinogenic, but is linked to muscular dystrophy.

Lauramide (DEA and/or TEA) is a very common carcinogen found in many skin products, conditioners, and even toothpaste. It causes cell mutation and cancer in animal tests. Since it is a naturally occurring substance, it is even marketed in "natural" products.

We're all going to die sooner rather than later. So I leave one wise mans words:

"Everyone who has ever drank water has died"

And he is dead now. Probably not from water, but who knows.


RE: Oh boy..
By Paj on 8/8/2013 12:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
Its not is the same form though. It might have the same atoms going out as coming in, but in the act of burning it undergoes chemical changes, many of which are hazardous.


RE: Oh boy..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/2013 12:13:03 AM , Rating: 2
See? See what I've been talking about? Some of us saw the writing on the wall years ago with Obama and his radical EV anti-ICE agenda. But you people labeled us crazies and "Fox News wackos".

The Liberal's in Congress and this fascist in the White House are the real wackos you should all be worried about.


RE: Oh boy..
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/8/2013 3:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
I generally get upset when people bash Americans as stupid (being one of the few Canadians who actually likes our neighbors to the south), but considering that nasty piece of work Obama was re-elected...


RE: Oh boy..
By Reclaimer77 on 8/8/2013 3:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I generally get upset when people bash Americans as stupid (being one of the few Canadians who actually likes our neighbors to the south), but considering that nasty piece of work Obama was re-elected...


You know what, I said that in anger and despair many times after Obama's, impossible, reelection. But those are the words of a bitter and confused person.

I don't believe Americans are stupid. I do believe, however, they've become so apathetic they simply don't put forth the effort to inform themselves on important issues. Critical thinking is becoming a lost ability.

Sure I could, and often do, blame the media. They've done a horrible job of holding Obama accountable for, well, ANYTHING. Journalists and reporters have put Liberal ideology above the truth, abdicating their responsibility of informing the public.

But at the end of the day, if Americans simply cared more, things would be better.

We see it right here on Daily Tech: "bah both parties are crap! Just don't even vote or care about issues anymore, there's nothing that can be done. There's like lobbying, and oh god corporations and bla bla bla!".

I see that here like every day, it's just the sort of apathy and cop-out that has lead to where we are.


RE: Oh boy..
By Captain Orgazmo on 8/10/2013 6:12:14 AM , Rating: 2
As usual, Rush coined it right: low-information voters.


RE: Oh boy..
By Belard on 8/8/13, Rating: -1
RE: Oh boy..
By kyleb2112 on 8/8/2013 6:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
Must be nice to be a progressive these days. You get to constantly push for government control over every aspect of people's lives while simultaneously calling other people fascists.

And I see you object to the one voice of dissent from the most obsequious press in US history. No red flags there? That doesn't bother you just a little? Because, man, if I ever held identical views to 90% of the media gate keepers, college professors, and movie actors, I would rebel just on principle.


RE: Oh boy..
By LRonaldHubbs on 8/8/2013 10:24:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fascism is a RIGHT-WING way of thinking. Use something called a DICTIONARY and learn the meaning of words.

Here, let's see what the dictionary has to say:

fascism - noun
1) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Hmm, looks like you're wrong. Next time you tell other to read a dictionary, try reading it yourself first. Alternately, you may first need to learn how to read and comprehend.

FYI, the political spectrum is not merely left and right, there is also a veritcal axis which spans from libertarianism to authoritarianism. Fascism is extreme authoritarianism. Throughout history, and even today, there have been examples of both conservative and liberal fascists.


RE: Oh boy..
By Cloudie on 8/8/2013 10:37:55 AM , Rating: 3
'Liberal fascists'. Erm, what? Do you even know what liberal means? It is the complete opposite of authoritarianism lol. I'll give you the first definition from the oxford dictionary:

"willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas"

Does that sound like authoritarianism to you? lol. I just don't get why in the US the word liberal has had its meaning transformed into the opposite of what it is and also become this loaded, "offensive" word??

No doubt, because it suits certain people's agendas. You meant 'left wing fascist' ultimately.


RE: Oh boy..
By LRonaldHubbs on 8/8/2013 10:58:24 AM , Rating: 1
You are of course welcome to dispute my use of the word liberal, but your last sentence clearly indicates that you knew what I meant. For all practical purposes, liberal = left wing and conservative = right wing in US politics simply because that is how so many people talk about it. And I agree, the pervasive use of 'liberal' as a derogatory term is tiresome.


RE: Oh boy..
By ClownPuncher on 8/8/2013 12:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, US political terms. Much like our systems of measurement, the rest of the world has no idea what we are talking about. I still don't get why so many people use terms like "liberal" or "conservative" incorrectly. It just confuses our poorly educated voting base even more.


RE: Oh boy..
By Dr of crap on 8/8/2013 11:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
Were that the other parties were "included" with the normal Reps and Dems. While I hate having to label yourself as belonging to a political party at all, I not have a problem being ANYTHING other than the two parties now in power. AND YES they are in "power".


RE: Oh boy..
By Paj on 8/8/2013 12:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know what fascism means.


RE: Oh boy..
By ven1ger on 8/8/13, Rating: -1
"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














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