Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

looking for opponent, CO2 regulation

BackBlast
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 7:30:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm new around here and would like to try my hand at a formal debate and I'm looking for an opponent.

The question could be, "Should we implement the 80 by 2050 plan for carbon regulation?" or some such. I'd like to take the con side, no action rather than 80 by 2050.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 9:45:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 7:30:14 PM, BackBlast wrote:
I'm new around here and would like to try my hand at a formal debate and I'm looking for an opponent.

The question could be, "Should we implement the 80 by 2050 plan for carbon regulation?" or some such. I'd like to take the con side, no action rather than 80 by 2050.

What is "the 80?"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
BackBlast
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 4:06:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 9:45:27 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 7:30:14 PM, BackBlast wrote:
I'm new around here and would like to try my hand at a formal debate and I'm looking for an opponent.

The question could be, "Should we implement the 80 by 2050 plan for carbon regulation?" or some such. I'd like to take the con side, no action rather than 80 by 2050.

What is "the 80?"

It's the most commonly suggested political proposition that I'm aware of. It's the goal of cap-n-trade, when people say we should "do something", this is that something in the minds of the policy makers. 80% reduction in CO2 from 1990 levels by 2050. It has a few shorthand references like 80 by 50. I should have been more clear, I thought more people were familiar with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Obama promised it in the lead up of the previous presidential election cycle, though obviously no serious moves have been made in that direction.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 4:09:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 4:06:56 PM, BackBlast wrote:
At 9/23/2011 9:45:27 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 7:30:14 PM, BackBlast wrote:
I'm new around here and would like to try my hand at a formal debate and I'm looking for an opponent.

The question could be, "Should we implement the 80 by 2050 plan for carbon regulation?" or some such. I'd like to take the con side, no action rather than 80 by 2050.

What is "the 80?"

It's the most commonly suggested political proposition that I'm aware of. It's the goal of cap-n-trade, when people say we should "do something", this is that something in the minds of the policy makers. 80% reduction in CO2 from 1990 levels by 2050. It has a few shorthand references like 80 by 50. I should have been more clear, I thought more people were familiar with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Obama promised it in the lead up of the previous presidential election cycle, though obviously no serious moves have been made in that direction.

Thank goodness no serious moves. fvck the co2 regulators.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 4:48:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 4:09:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:06:56 PM, BackBlast wrote:
At 9/23/2011 9:45:27 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 7:30:14 PM, BackBlast wrote:
I'm new around here and would like to try my hand at a formal debate and I'm looking for an opponent.

The question could be, "Should we implement the 80 by 2050 plan for carbon regulation?" or some such. I'd like to take the con side, no action rather than 80 by 2050.

What is "the 80?"

It's the most commonly suggested political proposition that I'm aware of. It's the goal of cap-n-trade, when people say we should "do something", this is that something in the minds of the policy makers. 80% reduction in CO2 from 1990 levels by 2050. It has a few shorthand references like 80 by 50. I should have been more clear, I thought more people were familiar with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Obama promised it in the lead up of the previous presidential election cycle, though obviously no serious moves have been made in that direction.

Thank goodness no serious moves. fvck the co2 regulators.

You won't be saying that when how bad we are destroying the planet becomes a reality to you and everyone who thinks like you. Nothing will destroy earth, yet the human species can be destroyed and it will be if we continue on this path of global destruction.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 4:51:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 4:48:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:09:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:06:56 PM, BackBlast wrote:
At 9/23/2011 9:45:27 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 7:30:14 PM, BackBlast wrote:
I'm new around here and would like to try my hand at a formal debate and I'm looking for an opponent.

The question could be, "Should we implement the 80 by 2050 plan for carbon regulation?" or some such. I'd like to take the con side, no action rather than 80 by 2050.

What is "the 80?"

It's the most commonly suggested political proposition that I'm aware of. It's the goal of cap-n-trade, when people say we should "do something", this is that something in the minds of the policy makers. 80% reduction in CO2 from 1990 levels by 2050. It has a few shorthand references like 80 by 50. I should have been more clear, I thought more people were familiar with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Obama promised it in the lead up of the previous presidential election cycle, though obviously no serious moves have been made in that direction.

Thank goodness no serious moves. fvck the co2 regulators.

You won't be saying that when how bad we are destroying the planet becomes a reality to you and everyone who thinks like you. Nothing will destroy earth, yet the human species can be destroyed and it will be if we continue on this path of global destruction.

Even if CO2 is a problem, geothermal solutions can solve it for less than a billion dollars.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 5:22:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 4:51:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:48:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:09:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:06:56 PM, BackBlast wrote:
At 9/23/2011 9:45:27 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 7:30:14 PM, BackBlast wrote:
I'm new around here and would like to try my hand at a formal debate and I'm looking for an opponent.

The question could be, "Should we implement the 80 by 2050 plan for carbon regulation?" or some such. I'd like to take the con side, no action rather than 80 by 2050.

What is "the 80?"

It's the most commonly suggested political proposition that I'm aware of. It's the goal of cap-n-trade, when people say we should "do something", this is that something in the minds of the policy makers. 80% reduction in CO2 from 1990 levels by 2050. It has a few shorthand references like 80 by 50. I should have been more clear, I thought more people were familiar with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Obama promised it in the lead up of the previous presidential election cycle, though obviously no serious moves have been made in that direction.

Thank goodness no serious moves. fvck the co2 regulators.

You won't be saying that when how bad we are destroying the planet becomes a reality to you and everyone who thinks like you. Nothing will destroy earth, yet the human species can be destroyed and it will be if we continue on this path of global destruction.

Even if CO2 is a problem, geothermal solutions can solve it for less than a billion dollars.

Water pollution, soil pollution, and air pollution air all major problems. Geothermal might be able to help the world become less dependent on fossil fuels, but that is only part of the problem. People need to change how they think of human activity and the earth. Also, the damage that has already been done to the planet will take a lot more to fix than just changing our energy source.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
BackBlast
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 6:13:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 4:48:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
You won't be saying that when how bad we are destroying the planet becomes a reality to you and everyone who thinks like you. Nothing will destroy earth, yet the human species can be destroyed and it will be if we continue on this path of global destruction.

What does it mean to "destroy the planet" ?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 7:02:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 6:13:16 PM, BackBlast wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:48:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
You won't be saying that when how bad we are destroying the planet becomes a reality to you and everyone who thinks like you. Nothing will destroy earth, yet the human species can be destroyed and it will be if we continue on this path of global destruction.

What does it mean to "destroy the planet" ?

In modern lingo, when the grass in your yard turns brown, then the planet is dying and on the verge of total annhialation, at least that is what THE scientists say.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 7:19:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 6:13:16 PM, BackBlast wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:48:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
You won't be saying that when how bad we are destroying the planet becomes a reality to you and everyone who thinks like you. Nothing will destroy earth, yet the human species can be destroyed and it will be if we continue on this path of global destruction.

What does it mean to "destroy the planet" ?

He means "greatly alter the global climate."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 7:24:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 4:06:56 PM, BackBlast wrote:
At 9/23/2011 9:45:27 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 7:30:14 PM, BackBlast wrote:
I'm new around here and would like to try my hand at a formal debate and I'm looking for an opponent.

The question could be, "Should we implement the 80 by 2050 plan for carbon regulation?" or some such. I'd like to take the con side, no action rather than 80 by 2050.

What is "the 80?"

It's the most commonly suggested political proposition that I'm aware of. It's the goal of cap-n-trade, when people say we should "do something", this is that something in the minds of the policy makers. 80% reduction in CO2 from 1990 levels by 2050. It has a few shorthand references like 80 by 50. I should have been more clear, I thought more people were familiar with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Obama promised it in the lead up of the previous presidential election cycle, though obviously no serious moves have been made in that direction.

While I support regulating CO2 emissions (simply through a tax), I don't support a particular goal, saying things need to hit this level by this time.

For one, the price of solar is dropping so fast that it will take over as a primary energy source. While it cannot take the entire load, it can take over about 40% (at maximum, pending the area, from 30% to 50%), and the rest can be made from Nuclear, Wind, Geo, and Hydro, no problem at all. So not a lot needs to really be done. Applying a tax merely makes fossil fuels more expensive and so allows the other sources to reach the economic tipping point quicker.

That's good enough in my book.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 9:27:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 7:24:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
For one, the price of solar is dropping so fast that it will take over as a primary energy source. While it cannot take the entire load, it can take over about 40% (at maximum, pending the area, from 30% to 50%), and the rest can be made from Nuclear, Wind, Geo, and Hydro, no problem at all. So not a lot needs to really be done. Applying a tax merely makes fossil fuels more expensive and so allows the other sources to reach the economic tipping point quicker.

That's good enough in my book.

Yes indeed, the price of solar is dropping fast! And so is their stock!

...you should buy some of that Oregon, great investment.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

That's good enough in my book.
BackBlast
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 12:39:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 7:24:25 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:06:56 PM, BackBlast wrote:
At 9/23/2011 9:45:27 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 7:30:14 PM, BackBlast wrote:
I'm new around here and would like to try my hand at a formal debate and I'm looking for an opponent.

The question could be, "Should we implement the 80 by 2050 plan for carbon regulation?" or some such. I'd like to take the con side, no action rather than 80 by 2050.

What is "the 80?"

It's the most commonly suggested political proposition that I'm aware of. It's the goal of cap-n-trade, when people say we should "do something", this is that something in the minds of the policy makers. 80% reduction in CO2 from 1990 levels by 2050. It has a few shorthand references like 80 by 50. I should have been more clear, I thought more people were familiar with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Obama promised it in the lead up of the previous presidential election cycle, though obviously no serious moves have been made in that direction.

While I support regulating CO2 emissions (simply through a tax), I don't support a particular goal, saying things need to hit this level by this time.

For one, the price of solar is dropping so fast that it will take over as a primary energy source. While it cannot take the entire load, it can take over about 40% (at maximum, pending the area, from 30% to 50%), and the rest can be made from Nuclear, Wind, Geo, and Hydro, no problem at all. So not a lot needs to really be done. Applying a tax merely makes fossil fuels more expensive and so allows the other sources to reach the economic tipping point quicker.

That's good enough in my book.

I'm willing to concede on the exact regulations put forth in you want to debate the topic. But I would need you to more clearly define the levels of taxation you intend. Attempting to move forward without a clear goal in mind is a weak position IMHO.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 1:34:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/23/2011 7:02:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/23/2011 6:13:16 PM, BackBlast wrote:
At 9/23/2011 4:48:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
You won't be saying that when how bad we are destroying the planet becomes a reality to you and everyone who thinks like you. Nothing will destroy earth, yet the human species can be destroyed and it will be if we continue on this path of global destruction.

What does it mean to "destroy the planet" ?

In modern lingo, when the grass in your yard turns brown, then the planet is dying and on the verge of total annhialation, at least that is what THE scientists say.

NO, that's what "politicians"say. Scientists say nothing of the sort.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%