Socialism and Global Warming

Dicuss? No one likes to be ordered around. I don't think I'll dicuss today.

Its not a conspiracy. Its a fact. Socialists use environmentalism to advance their agenda.

Don't believe me? Here is Oleg Danilovich Kalugin, former major general in the KGB:

We conducted a clandestine war with assassination if necessary . . . Our mission was to do everything we could to have a war without the fighting . . .We appealed to pacifists and told them, ‘You cannot have peace unless you stop the internal situation of the U.S.’ . . .We got environmentalists and told them, ‘Capitalists spend any amount of money even if it does destroy your precious nature.’ Well, at the time, the Soviet Union was the most polluted country in the world . . .”
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2003/spies031303.html

Click to expand...

It is natural for socialists in the environmental movement to see every solution to every environmental issue to be more government. Nothing nefarious about that. That is where socialists look for solutions. What is disconcerting is how many environmentalists of good will have bought into the Lysenkoism of some of the leaders. They so believe in socialism, they will, as did Trofim Lysenko, debase science in order to advance their cause. When Al Gore puts on a travelling show complete with cartoons of evil "Greenhouse Gases" beating up "Mr. Sunshine" and animations of New York City being swept away by a flood, you know the movement has come unglued.

Enough with the Lysenkoism already!

It is a poor analogy to climate change science. Lysenkoism was a campaign AGAINST mainstream science (Genetics) where as climate change theory is lead by mainstream science. Lysenkoism was limited to the USSR whereas climate science is a globally accepted phenomena. Lysenkoism was promoted by single individual with little or no scientific training, climate science has ten of thousands of learned supporters around the world. If anything Lysenkoism more accurately describes the climate skeptics, which are a small group challenging the scientific mainstream. There conclusions are not supported by scientific data and it is largely a political message masquerading as science (why is it that almost all skeptic article appear in opinion pages and political magazines?).

Now back on topic. The most prevalent solution presented for climate change is carbon trading with a reducing number of carbon credits. This is as far from socialism as you can imagine. The reason the market is not currently dealing with GHG emissions is due to a failing in the market system - no cost is attached to emissions. Attach a cost to emitting CO2 and the market will come up with a solution. It is the role of government to regulate the market by setting up such a system.

For example if we actually had to pay the true cost for gasoline (ie sequestering the CO2 emitted and cleaning up urban air pollution - sequestering the co2 produced from 1 gallon of gasoline would cost between $1 - $2) hybrids would become eminently attractive and SUVs would rapidly fall out of favor by market pressures.

Voegelin said:

Its not a conspiracy. Its a fact. Socialists use environmentalism to advance their agenda.

Don't believe me? Here is Oleg Danilovich Kalugin, former major general in the KGB:



It is natural for socialists in the environmental movement to see every solution to every environmental issue to be more government. Nothing nefarious about that. That is where socialists look for solutions. What is disconcerting is how many environmentalists of good will have bought into the Lysenkoism of some of the leaders. They so believe in socialism, they will, as did Trofim Lysenko, debase science in order to advance their cause. When Al Gore puts on a travelling show complete with cartoons of evil "Greenhouse Gases" beating up "Mr. Sunshine" and animations of New York City being swept away by a flood, you know the movement has come unglued.

Click to expand...

Voegelin said:

Its not a conspiracy. Its a fact. Socialists use environmentalism to advance their agenda.

Don't believe me? Here is Oleg Danilovich Kalugin, former major general in the KGB:



It is natural for socialists in the environmental movement to see every solution to every environmental issue to be more government. Nothing nefarious about that. That is where socialists look for solutions. What is disconcerting is how many environmentalists of good will have bought into the Lysenkoism of some of the leaders. They so believe in socialism, they will, as did Trofim Lysenko, debase science in order to advance their cause. When Al Gore puts on a travelling show complete with cartoons of evil "Greenhouse Gases" beating up "Mr. Sunshine" and animations of New York City being swept away by a flood, you know the movement has come unglued.

Click to expand...

There you have it folks. Proof that anything and everything has to be a debate and political. Also evidence that if you are a true conservative, you can't care about the environment, unless of course it affects your hunting or off roading. I guess that, like in the 1970's, it will up to liberals to bear the full brunt of fighting for simple things like clean water to drink and clean air to breathe.

Voegelin said:

Socialists use environmentalism to advance their agenda.

Click to expand...

Yep. After their great experiment - the Soviet Union - crashed it's all they have left to try to convince the world to allow them to take over everybody's life.

I think the level of ignorance in this thread has reached critical mass. Implosion in 5...4...3...

KenH said:

Yep. After their great experiment - the Soviet Union - crashed it's all they have left to try to convince the world to allow them to take over everybody's life.

Click to expand...

Socialism is much more diverse than Stalinism.

It is unfortunate that climate change is seen by some as a socialist conspiracy as it's very much a capitalist problem. The Stern Report by ex-chief economist of the World Bank Nicholas Stern made it clear that the cost of abating climate change would be 1% of global GDP, whilst the cost of not doing anything will eventually cost 20% of global GDP. Quite clear what we should be doing, even taking into account Net Present Value of money.

Stern said climate change was the greatest market failure ever seen. Not accounting for externalities is one of the recognised problems with free markets - how do you count the costs of supposedly free resources that have impacts elsewhere - clean water, forests, the atmosphere? That's where carbon trading comes into effect, an imperfect mechanism right now based on how nations' carbon allocations are set but hopefully improving.

The fact that the USA is not involved in carbon trading shows that we are quite happy to cherry pick areas where capitalism suits us (free trade agreements with some nations, the financial markets, salaries), and socialist where it doesn't (trade quotas with China, sugar/cotton/steel subsidies)...

KenH said:

Yep. After their great experiment - the Soviet Union - crashed it's all they have left to try to convince the world to allow them to take over everybody's life.

Click to expand...

Oh please. There are many socialist states today. Norway is one of them. And our BNP is far higher than yours - per capita. We are a booming nation. Sweden is socialist. Denmark. Finland. Iceland. And indeed most of Europe.
Socialism far predates stalinism. And Stalinism is not truly socialism. Socialism can work - and indeed work best as part of a democracy, as it does here in Scandinavia. In fact, Socialism should be your system had you remained true to what you call your American ideal of equality. It elevates society's lowest. It recognizes human value and potential much more than your current economic system. It holds vast potential.

The free market you believe in is not as good as you claim. It has failed miserably in what you claim it would have done. FACT is completely different. The FACT is the rich elite who control a free market system as well as a capitalistic nation's government will not care if the earth's climate goes wacky. They have their money and power intact. That is what they care about. Moral values and ethics come second, if at all. The free market allows for exploitation of the third world and whatever laws they can. Many corporations today use a modern equivalent of slave labor and child labor to produce the goods we want. This and the moving of labor from the USA and the west to third world countries - in the long run undermining our own nations - is also a direct result of open borders and free market policies. Some corporations are known to even let human lives be forfeit in the name of profit. Alledgedly Coca Cola has murdered political activists in Colombia. And in India Coca Cola HAS drained the drinking water so much it has ruined the hygiene and agriculture in large areas. The result has been a complete outlawing of both Coca Cola and Pepsi from some areas in India. For THAT to happen takes a lot. Money has immense power, outlawing a product as powerful as these two requires courage and determination. And, it requires a defiance against free market policies.
The free market and capitalism also exist at the expense of the environment. The corporations will do whatever they can to make money. The most money they can. IF that means polluting more, that is what they will do. Why do you think the most capitalistic country with the freest market also pollutes the most in the world? Yes, that would be you. If your wonderous free market had worked as you claim, it would show. Your nation would not pollute this much. Your politicians would not complain to us when we enact laws that reduce automotive emissions. But they do. And you do.
I would require evidence in order to believe that capitalism and free market worked as you claim. So far I have only seen the exact opposite.

I always thought it was odd that some people believe scientists and socialist politicians have gotten together to form some massive conspiracy. Liberal politicians in the U.S. do use the issue to gain political capital, and perhaps engage in scaremongering from time to time, but then politicians also do that with crime and drug trafficking, which are both real problems.

Scientists whose job it is to study climate and longterm change agree that the planet is warming up, and that human activity is at least partly to blame. Companies don't bother trying to reduce emmisions or build more efficient cars for exactly the reason chaim gave, that there's no cost attached. I'd vote for someone who came up with reasonable ways to attach such a cost, preferably including tighter standards and some system to trade pollution credits.

I agree with the OP, ignoring the problem and labeling it a socialists conspiracy will just ensure that when people finally realize something needs to be done they'll vote for those "socialists" who have been warning them about it.

Zimfan said:

Companies don't bother trying to reduce emmisions or build more efficient cars for exactly the reason chaim gave, that there's no cost attached.

Click to expand...

What???

Are you aware what the mandated emission controls on a new car cost? Been to an appliance store recently and looked at the energy ratings of fridges and air-conditioners? Read about the EPA cracking down on CO2 emissions from bakeries and wineries? We have a highly regulated economy. There is a huge cost to any business which violates clean air or other standards. They can be put out of business virtually overnight.

I had retail commerical property in the Mojave desert, two miles from the nearest house. Our unincorporated community of 2,500 was 18 miles wide and 38 miles long. I had to put shades on my two outdoor 150 watt lightbulbs to cut down on "light pollution". We had a community well 1,200 feet deep. The EPA was checking us all the time even though no one drank the water (too many minerals). You wouldn't believe the regulations businesses which do no manufacturing have to comply with. And if you manufacture....you better have good lawyers who can help you navigate the maze of laws restricting your operations.

Voegelin said:

What???

Are you aware what the mandated emission controls on a new car cost? Been to an appliance store recently and looked at the energy ratings of fridges and air-conditioners? Read about the EPA cracking down on CO2 emissions from bakeries and wineries? We have a highly regulated economy. There is a huge cost to any business which violates clean air or other standards. They can be put out of business virtually overnight.

Click to expand...

First, the cost to reduce these emissions has not been assumed by any companies, the cost ahs always been passed on to the consumer. Second, to avoid the huge cost of violation, a fine, don't break the law. This is like me complaining about the huge cost of driving 120 mph on the highway. Third, what's so wrong about the people who have polluted water and air paying to clean it?

God forbid we actually have clean air and water.

Voegelin said:

I had retail commerical property in the Mojave desert, two miles from the nearest house. Our unincorporated community of 2,500 was 18 miles wide and 38 miles long. I had to put shades on my two outdoor 150 watt lightbulbs to cut down on "light pollution". We had a community well 1,200 feet deep. The EPA was checking us all the time even though no one drank the water (too many minerals). You wouldn't believe the regulations businesses which do no manufacturing have to comply with. And if you manufacture....you better have good lawyers who can help you navigate the maze of laws restricting your operations.

Click to expand...

The EPA didn't want you to drink water that wasn't safe for consumption? The horrors.

Voegelin said:

What???

Are you aware what the mandated emission controls on a new car cost? Been to an appliance store recently and looked at the energy ratings of fridges and air-conditioners? Read about the EPA cracking down on CO2 emissions from bakeries and wineries? We have a highly regulated economy. There is a huge cost to any business which violates clean air or other standards. They can be put out of business virtually overnight.

I had retail commerical property in the Mojave desert, two miles from the nearest house. Our unincorporated community of 2,500 was 18 miles wide and 38 miles long. I had to put shades on my two outdoor 150 watt lightbulbs to cut down on "light pollution". We had a community well 1,200 feet deep. The EPA was checking us all the time even though no one drank the water (too many minerals). You wouldn't believe the regulations businesses which do no manufacturing have to comply with. And if you manufacture....you better have good lawyers who can help you navigate the maze of laws restricting your operations.

Click to expand...

Hm. You have a highly regulated economy? I thought your nation was all fo free trade and capitalism?

I love regulations. Within limits. Like emissions control. We have a good system here, which rewards those who buy cleaner cars and products. It also pays you in the form of savings to get energy efficient products. Like power saving lightbulbs. Or more modern inverters instead of old style ACs.