It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama calls climate change the ‘global threat of our time’ in Berlin address.

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies.[1] A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which government policy intervenes in the setting of prices. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy.


Yes, your free market is a pipedream.

It's largely because they would not regulate themselves, if they had regulated themselves there would not have been a need for the common man to work with the government to force them to undergo regulation. (EG food safety, pollution, clean air and water and so on.)

Basically they shot themselves in the foot, rather than doing what was/is right from the outset.

The fact that the people had to step in and raise the issue of pollution and safety over and over again to get the government to do something, just makes it that much more painful. In that with out the government stepping in they'd still be polluting... or people would have resorted to unlawful acts of destruction to get the point across. Which is why the rule of law and government is important, and its why you don't have people bombing TransCanada for example. Laws, and Regulations keep society functioning. (EG that government thing.)

The free market can only work if _all_ the market works towards the common good of all people. Which is to say it would have to self police itself, and not release any product (or by product) that was harmful or damaging in any instance. Which is where the 'Some pigs are more superior than other pigs,' quickly comes back to bite them in the arse. In that they would have to offset their profits against the public good, and they have not shown any inclination in ever doing so.

Sadly the mythical free market killed itself by not regulating itself for the common good of all; when it had the chance.

So you are stuck with what exists, until some utter catastrophe removes the current market state entirely and removes the stock market in the same motion; along with the banks and other industry captains.... and as a by product, 90% of the people you might know, (as in dead.)

Then the poor nomads left would have to create a structure to do so.... but as history has shown. It all falls back to "Some pigs are more important than other pigs." More rules, more laws and more regulations is what would come.

This is where I would paste in the Life of Bryan clip "Always look on the bright side of life." (If I were so inclined.)

So, rather than wishing for some corporate state to magically appear, which really would be bad news for those living in it. Work for better regulation and oversight, because the Free Market you wish for, isn't coming quickly or ever in America. They had their chance and blew it.

M.




posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Well hoorah for keeping those 'pigs' on a leash, and hoorah for the never ending regulating people out of existence.

But hey at least they 'saved the planet' uh no wait they don't pollution just gets 'redistributed' to somewhere else.




edit on 20-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Well hoorah for keeping those 'pigs' on a leash, and hoorah for the never ending regulating people out of existence.

But hey at least they 'saved the planet' uh no wait they don't pollution just gets 'redistributed' to somewhere else.




edit on 20-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Until every man, woman and child is dead, there will be some sort of pollution. Camp fires are a pollution source of a sort, some trash lasts forever, just ask an archaeologist. The choice is pretty simple, you either work for a better opportunity for your kids and or yourself, or you just give up and die.

Am I naive to think we can't move to a cleaner source of power. No, I just have to look at Germany, and ironically Japan, to see how they are achieving that goal. If they can do it, America can do it. Am I going to sit idly by and not raise my voice to insist on clean air, water, foods and the like? No. I do a lot of writing of emails to Congress and I also sign up on tons of petitions. My computer is running with the World Wide Community Grid, working with scientist and engineers in that manner so they can create cleaner technologies. I speak up, I vote, I act, I am doing something that I hope will have a positive impact on the future.

What are you doing?
M.




edit on 20-6-2013 by Moshpet because: M+A+T+H = 42

edit on 20-6-2013 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Please feel free to continue defending totalitarianism with that oh so hip rap.

Because that is exactly what it is.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Please feel free to continue defending totalitarianism with that oh so hip rap.

Because that is exactly what it is.


Oh thank you for your permission


Have fun with your dystopian freemarket pipedream too.


M.

edit on 20-6-2013 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Privateinquotations
 



You can't argue that all the gunk we pump into the atmosphere, the water, the soil is doing nothing adverse to the environment. To do so is so myopic it boarders on insanity.


I would like people to watch for this tactic of subtly defaming anyone who disagrees with you. It has become all too commonplace. You may think it an intelligent tactic, and i bet you are all about stopping bullying too.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Sure, because if he can't fix one countries problems, all while sitting at the (supposedly) highest position of power.

He has all of the answers to fix the entire planet's problems?

I get it now! He is saving all of the good ideas to be named at a later date.

Pointing out problems that people have know for a very long time is not going to fix anything.

As a member of ATS, I can attest to that observation.

Nothing but



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


Using a river that may meander isn't a good example of what you're trying to express. Not all rivers stay their course and it's due to sediment that they are passing through. The Mississippi River used to be almost constantly changing until the Army Corp of Engineers tried to force it into a path. Worked really well last I heard. :
Anyways, here's an explanation as to how a river's course may change over time and even small amounts of time because what you saw was a really bad example to try to compare what we do to and learning something new everyday is a good thing: pages.uoregon.edu...

There is so much that we do to this planet that is absolutely vile but let's talk emissions since people don't think that they actually have an effect.

www.kjct8.com...
www.forbes.com...

I swear most of you people whining about others' concerns about emissions either live in some rural part of the US where there may actually be a clear blue sky or you've been living in a city so long that you've forgotten how blue the sky actually is. Air pollution is a problem regardless of "climate change". All that crap in the air actually affects the respiratory system. People actually die from air pollution...



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Moshpet
 


I had no idea that some people love to play necon and police the entire planet.

However don't think government especially this one or any other government has the right to control the air we breathe or the water we drink.

What controlling people not enough?



So corporations should be allowed to pollute the air that we breathe and the water we drink and the government should have no say in the matter? Even a big business shill such as yourself knows that without regulations the planet would be in even worst shape.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I don't agree with much of what Obama says but I do have to agree that climate change is a threat. How big of a threat, I don't know. What I do know is that we are creating some of this problem. We are cutting down way too many trees to build new roads, shopping centers and parking lots that we don't need in order to create building jobs and hire people for new retail stores.

They are tearing the trees down where I live and widening a road that doesn't need it. They are also building many mcmansions in my area where forest once was. It makes me really angry to see this happen.

Why does this matter? Trees breathe in carbon dioxide and release the oxygen in the air for us to breathe. ( We also release carbon dioxide every time we exhale.) I wonder if asthma has any connection to this. Trees are also necessary for rain. they create cold and humidity that enables rain to fall. Trees also soak in rain, helping to stem floods and landslides. Trees also provide food for us and every creature on this planet. Trees also produce shade, which helps stem the drying up of the land. As you know, most of Texas is in yet another drought. We are in stage 3 drought where we can only water our lawns once a week. We are also in a building boom here.

To me, this is a part of climate threat that is preventable. I agree that the economy needs help but I don't agree that depleting our planet of trees is worth all the building to help our economy. We have a tendency of short-sightedness and not to see the long term effect.

Thank you for listening.
edit on 21-6-2013 by texasgirl because: Added a word

edit on 21-6-2013 by texasgirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
odd - haarp shows up and things heat up or how do they turn up the heat to re-enforce their speeches...huhh...if they would shut their traps the climate might return to normal.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I wonder what the cost of his "Carbon Footprint" is going to be on his Africa trip ?



I see another knee-jerk response from a hypocritical President........



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by Indigo5
Without the government telling corporations what they can or can't spew into streams, lakes, oceans and the air...you would have 11 fingers and one eye right now or likely be dead.

Not sure how to even start with this kind of ignorance.


BS.

There is no way of telling what would happen if corporations were in charge. They have been the bane and blessing of the average person more then once...in this century. Countless times over humanity and corporations existence.



WHAT??? Sure there is. Plenty of examples of what happens when Corporations are left to pollute unchecked.

Sorry...but this claim plus Neo's is outright effen DELUSION...

Let's start here...Thousands of other examples, but let's start with this one...



Bhopal: the Union Carbide gas leak

December 3, 1984 has become a memorable day for the city of Bhopal in Madya Pradesh county, India.

Shortly after midnight, a poisonous gas cloud escaped from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide factory. The cloud contained 15 metric tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC), covering an area of more than 30 square miles.

The gas leak killed at least 4,000 local residents instantly and caused health problems such as oedema for at least 50,000 to perhaps 500,000 people.

These health problems killed around 15,000 more victims in the years that followed. Approximately 100,000 people still suffer from chronic disease consequential to gas exposure, today. Research conducted by the BBC in 2004 pointed out that this pollution still causes people to fall ill, and ten more die every year. This event is now known as the worst industrial environmental disaster to ever have occurred.


Read more: www.lenntech.com...
edit on 21-6-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by texasgirl
 


reply to post by texasgirl
 


They should use bricks. When I see those tornado's in the US flattening all those houses I don't understand why they don't build houses from stone in tornade sensitive areas. Over here there are almost no houses made from wood. I know it can be a bit more expensive although you don't need much maintance, if any and the house will most likeley will be standing after a tornado. And of course the other reasons you mentioned.
At least be smart when cutting trees and or replant trees.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yeah let''s talk about IGNORANCE like more regulation that destroy's business, and levying more taxes that destroy business 'save's the planet'.


Eff the planet...how about the PEOPLE...that drink cancer water and breath toxic gas...Government is responsible for protecting the people who employ them to do exactly that.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Plugin
 


Actually to be fair, the lumber industry does often re-forest where they cut. It makes better business sense for them. They routinely replant trees in areas where they cut so that they can just go back and cut those trees down again. Trees are a renewable resource, as far as a business policy goes, replanting ensures that the lumber industry never goes out of business.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by texasgirl
 


reply to post by texasgirl
 


They should use bricks. When I see those tornado's in the US flattening all those houses I don't understand why they don't build houses from stone in tornade sensitive areas. Over here there are almost no houses made from wood. I know it can be a bit more expensive although you don't need much maintance, if any and the house will most likeley will be standing after a tornado. And of course the other reasons you mentioned.
At least be smart when cutting trees and or replant trees.



Big price difference and a steep demand on finances in rural areas. Even in wealthy nieghborhoods in the US, stone or brick is often reserved for only the facade facing the street.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Pollution is the "global threat of our time". Pollution is what causes climate change, not CO2 alone. I'm far from an environmentalist yet I can see what is going on in this world. We are out of control.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


A reinforced concrete home can be built for near the same price as a stick built house. It can incorporate strips for nailing siding on. It may not be the best choice for up north here where there is a lot of cold weather but it would work great down in those areas mid country. It would also lower air conditioning costs. A normal roof system could be added to the concrete slab flat roof.

If I lived down south I would build that sort of house for the cooling effect alone. The inside could be finished with a cement plaster and be smother than drywall. I'd install a generator in a cement outbuilding also.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join