Billions for Climate Change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

How can cleaning up and going green be profitable?

---

http://www.interfaceglobal.com/sustainability.aspx

Yossarian, if you have confidence in the IPCC, this is from their fifth and recent report,which there seems to be agreement upon within the science community. Of course there are skeptics that appear in the minority. The chart is from a separate source, but is common.

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."



http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/pro...ig/jul_wld.png

Everybody has a chart to go along with their agenda. Its called advocacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

Everybody has a chart to go along with their agenda. Its called advocacy.

---

Perhaps people with charts and people with agendas have a linear relationship, then.

The Simplicity Institute has a number of interesting publications on the response to climate change: http://simplicityinstitute.org/publications

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gardenarian

The Simplicity Institute has a number of interesting publications on the response to climate change: http://simplicityinstitute.org/publications

---

From the Charter of Sufficiency:

We affirm that property rights are justifiable only to the extent they serve the common good, including the overriding interests of humanitarian and ecological justice.

This is entirely offensive to the foundational principles of the Constituion of the United States. Property rights are equal in importance individually as personal human rights. The founding fathers held the defense of property rights as essential to the establishment of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is the reason for their response to taxation without representation. Government often first targets property rights through various means as punishments or ways to invalidate individual freedoms. Property rights are not only a first line of defense against abuses but they enable the other rights to follow. It is the essence of the revolution that a citizen could remain on his own land and protect it from richer men. Property ensured power to any citizen and is the conduit by which self reliance and self government flows.

As a result I see the simplicity movement as vulnerable and unsustainable if it gives up these certain rights...property among them.

additionally, ideas of "degrowth and a steady state economic model". go hand in hand with efforts driving acceptance of the climate change wealth redistribution scheme. The fundamental flaw being global governmental meetings are an attempt to force change from the top down and not from bottom up grassroots individual consciousness. As such it will never work and will undoubtedly fuel aggression and violence as a response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

From the Charter of Sufficiency:

We affirm that property rights are justifiable only to the extent they serve the common good, including the overriding interests of humanitarian and ecological justice.



As a result I see the simplicity movement as vulnerable and unsustainable if it gives up these certain rights...property among them.

additionally, ideas of "degrowth and a steady state economic model". go hand in hand with efforts driving acceptance of the climate change wealth redistribution scheme. The fundamental flaw being global governmental meetings are an attempt to force change from the top down and not from bottom up grassroots individual consciousness. As such it will never work and will undoubtedly fuel aggression and violence as a response.

---

As for your first point, property rights are certainly a hallmark of our Constitutional rights. Many some committed simple-livers feel the same way. I think of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin who espouse distributism, which contrary to what the name suggests, says that the right of everyone to own property is essential for equality and social justice.

Quote:

---

According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right,[11] and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism, therefore, advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership.[12] Co-operative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.[Wikipedia]

---

Also, here is an article from The American Conservative outlining how distributism would help everyone:

Quote:

---

Returning to America, the task of tackling poverty can seem overwhelming. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world, while drug use is so endemic that it would now seem that opium is the opiate of the people. But chief among our priorities must be to increase ownership amongst the poorest and to ensure them a living-wage “floor.”

How will this be accomplished? Not mainly through government. No, this vision will be accomplished by envisioning, rather than alienating, business leaders; envisioning them to do things differently in the capitalist economies in which we find ourselves.

---

As far as your second point, this whole climate change summit among world leaders would not have happened if it hadn't been for the individual consciousness and grassroots efforts of thousands of committed scientists and environmentalists. Let's see how this moves forward. Sure there's a chance the movement will be bastardized by the Top, but right now, I'm encouraged by this step in the right direction.

De-growth does not strip our freedoms--it's just a way of restructuring the economy. It doesn't necessarily "redistribute" wealth--i.e. take from you to give to me. It gives us different motivations to spend and save. Gardenarian's website had a good overview of what it would look like living in a de-growth economy.

http://theconversation.com/life-in-a...enjoy-it-32224


Gardenarian: I think I had been to that site once a long time ago, but thank you for the link! I'm looking forward to bookmarking it delving in!

Catherine, I think when I get a chance I'd definitely like to address some of the sticking points....and they are substantial. For instance, how are nations going to punish other nations who do not comply with voluntary reductions? Or as they would like to softly phrase it......"facilitate implementation or promote compliance". Re: CNN Obama Praise Climate Change Agreement. Especially since none of this will be presented to Congress or be funneled through the representative government. In other words, forced down the throats of dissenters. More to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

Catherine, I think when I get a chance I'd definitely like to address some of the sticking points....and they are substantial. For instance, how are nations going to punish other nations who do not comply with voluntary reductions? Or as they would like to softly phrase it......"facilitate implementation or promote compliance". Re: CNN Obama Praise Climate Change Agreement. Especially since none of this will be presented to Congress or be funneled through the representative government. In other words, forced down the throats of dissenters. More to come.

---

I admit that I haven't read the details on this accord.. so I'll try to come back to the table prepared. But I guess my question for you since you are a law enforcement professional, to what extent do concerns about enforcement drive the need for the law? How do you balance that? It's hard to enforce texting while driving, but the law is still critical, and the individual has to be held accountable for his/her behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

From the Charter of Sufficiency:

We affirm that property rights are justifiable only to the extent they serve the common good, including the overriding interests of humanitarian and ecological justice.

This is entirely offensive to the foundational principles of the Constituion of the United States. Property rights are equal in importance individually as personal human rights. The founding fathers held the defense of property rights as essential to the establishment of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is the reason for their response to taxation without representation. Government often first targets property rights through various means as punishments or ways to invalidate individual freedoms. Property rights are not only a first line of defense against abuses but they enable the other rights to follow. It is the essence of the revolution that a citizen could remain on his own land and protect it from richer men. Property ensured power to any citizen and is the conduit by which self reliance and self government flows.

As a result I see the simplicity movement as vulnerable and unsustainable if it gives up these certain rights...property among them.

additionally, ideas of "degrowth and a steady state economic model". go hand in hand with efforts driving acceptance of the climate change wealth redistribution scheme. The fundamental flaw being global governmental meetings are an attempt to force change from the top down and not from bottom up grassroots individual consciousness. As such it will never work and will undoubtedly fuel aggression and violence as a response.

---

I'm inclined to agree with you. I can't envision the commissariat wise and fair enough to set up as arbiter of "the common good" or "ecological justice" in determining the extent to which my rights are "justified".