The REAL reason for the Climate Crisis

Post Reply New Topic

Before I consider the idea can you name one idiology that works?

False assumption - my politicians have agreed to do their part to stop climate change, and help other countries do their part.

I don't think your solutions would remotely work btw. There's no reason to think nationalised corporations will be any more climate friendly, and quite a lot of reason to think it will reduce innovation.

I don't know anything about the politicians in my own constituency. There will of course be different stances on climate change/crisis among politicians, as with any other issue.

I don't think the op has heard of aeroplanes

You're missing the point. Nationalization of companies is to prevent the rich from moving their companies abroad because of the rising taxation due to the climate changes.

There's one thing I don't get... I don't get that people in this thread now at page 2 still don't understand what I'm saying.

Here's one more attempt to explain the obvious:

1. Climate changes require MONEY. Lots of money, money that can ONLY come through TAXES.

2. Rich people will move their companies (and themselves) to other countries because of the rising taxes.

3. To prevent no.2 from happening, I suggest nationalization of their companies to ensure they don't move their companies elsewhere, to ensure we have a sound economy to pay for the climate changes.

4. Furthermore, to prevent the rich (and everybody else who refuse to pay higher taxes) from leaving the country, I suggest that we build a wall to keep people INSIDE the country, not a wall to keep people outside.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 27 Nov 2019, 5:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Total nationalization won't work. It has had a history of "not working." Nationalization tends to take away individual incentive---thereby keeping production down.

Probably the best economic model I've seen is that which is found in the Scandinavian countries. A strong compromise between socialism and capitalism.

Read my post above yours. Nationalizing the companies don't mean it shouldn't be RUN privately. The state could just as well lent the company back to its original owners. The nationalization idea's ONE AND ONLY function is to prevent it from leaving the country.

I get what you're saying.

I don't believe most people would go for that. They would be scared that we're becoming socialist. That's the way people in the United States think.

Of course they won't - in any westernized country. People have too much freedom, and that's the reason for the global warming. We need to cut down on civil rights and ban people from leaving their countries without permission, to ensure enough taxes to pay for the climate.

Socialism isn't bad. It's just badly applied.

Every country in the world needs to ensure enough taxes to pay whatever neccessary to reduce global warming.
We need to take drastic measures to ensure this. Even if it means a ban on people leaving in their own countries, so be it.

Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 27 Nov 2019, 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't agree with that.

I don't believe in denying civil rights to people. I just don't. No matter what. We are not in such dire straights that we need to do that. Not even the most liberal or "leftist" person here would advocate that.

I believe in having freedom of movement. I want to travel to all the countries in the world.

What you're proposing won't fly. It wouldn't fly with me. I value my freedom of movement, without getting stopped and frisked all the time.

What we have to do is to implement more alternative energies-----hydroelectric, solar, wind especially.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 27 Nov 2019, 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Liberals never want to cut down on liberties, of course. That's why they're liberals.
Authoritarianism is sometimes neccessary to ensure the welfare of the common good.



This costs too much money than current taxes can pay for. You need to increase tax revenue, but as soon as you do this, people will leave your country.

That's why the ban on leaving is neccessary.

Ain't going to happen.

And I wouldn't want that to happen.

It's a violation of basic human rights.

That would be fascism.


Even immediately after 9/11, in NYC, I was only asked for ID once----when I wanted to go below 14th Street. That was the day after 9/11. I've never had my bags searched when I got on the subway. The reason why we can do this....is because we are one of the strongest democracies on the planet.

This country could have easily become a fascistic country. I am sure there were some who would have advocated for that. But we stood firm in our democratic principles for the most part (except for the Patriot Act).

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 27 Nov 2019, 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Then "good luck" with global warming.

Drastic measures are neccessary for the survival of humanity.
Authoritarianism and denial of basic human rights is sometimes a neccessity for the survival of humanity.

Nope. Drastic measures are not needed. We are not in an imminent crisis.

It was thought that "drastic measures" were needed in Germany in 1933. Then Hitler came to power. You know the rest.

Hitler was wrong about his "crisis" (which he invented). Global warming isn't an "invention", its a reality and humanity is in imminent danger!

But when and how will it end?

Isn’t there a risk of authoritarian leaders pushing their agenda too far, leading to perceived persecution and then, perhaps, anarchy? Historically, denying people human rights hasn’t been a good thing.

Change needs to come about by gentler means. The risks outweigh the present danger.