With global warming, what is at risk - climate or freedom?

Question

This is the question asked by Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic. Please take a look at this this video and tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9WFDcZxT0s

Answer 1

inspirational video.

yes it is.

long video.

indeed

Answer 2

Freedom is not free.

It comes with responsibilities and self-control.

Those who cannot use it properly should not have freedom.

Protecting the climate is everybody responsibility.

Sacrificing a small amount of freedom to save the Earth is the right thing to do.

Answer 3

An excerpt from the NY Climate conference summary:  

That is, until you’re reminded of what the alarmists are planning. Which I quickly was at Tuesday morning’s final political forum.  For openers, CEI senior fellow Marlo Lewis painted a harrowing picture of an America in which CO2 had been declared a pollutant by the EPA.  He warned of an extension of Clean Air Act section 165 (preventing significant deterioration of air quality) to limit building and expansion permits for hotels, restaurants or any structure using natural gas for heating or cooking.  He then coined the phrase “policy terrorism” to describe potential EPA extortion—accept cap and trade or we’ll blow up your economy. Nice.

The words of MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: “Controlling Carbon is a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon you control life.” As an example of just how scary green policy may soon become, Morano noted “If polar bears are listed under the Endangered Species Act, then someone running a lawnmower in Miami could, theoretically, be cited for endangering the polar bear.” Dr. Michael R. Fox then pointed out how lessons learned by the nuclear industry—after its assault at the hands of “energy illiterate” activists—must be appreciated in dealing with the current attack by “climate illiterates.”

Earlier that morning, the president of the Czech Republic, Hon. Vaclav Klaus, received a standing ovation when he declared Europe’s emission reduction goals impossible to meet without lowering populations or creating widespread poverty. So, they’re wrong on the science. They’re wrong on the solutions. And, implementing their wrong solutions will impede freedom, r****d growth and, ultimately, destroy economies.  All while changing global mean temperatures not one single degree. Not one.

Answer 4

Climate is at risk. Not freedom.

If global warming continues unchecked, the resulting changes in climate will devastate our civilization.

BUT---taking action to solve the problem will INCREASE freedom, not threaten it.  Consider the implications of switching to alternative energy--long term:

>investment in new technology tha twill create new jobs and economic growth

>implemented on a large scale , solar, wind, and nuclear power are now LESS expensive than fossil fuels

>In America, developing mass transit will INCREASE consumer choices; at present most Americans are denied the choice to use alternative to driving for transportation

>eliminating the stranglehold ofthe fossil fuel interests means energy independance (and so the end of OPEC)

All the whining about "loss of freedom" is coming only from the special interests and their front-men.  And the only "freedom" tha tis in danger is their freedom to force their interests ahead of everyone else when it comes to energy policy so they can continue to rip us off.

Answer 5

None of the above.

Climate is a natural phenomenon, it will not become extinct, it will change.

Freedom could be improved a little, if we find alternative, renewable power sources for our energy needs, that will not depend on imports from countries like the OPEC members, since most countries that are the producers of fossil fuels, are notorious as far as personal freedoms are concerned, and lost of the vast and corrupting income from oil could cause a change for the better in these countries

Answer 6

Climate.

This is a typical denier complaint.  Once they realize they can't argue against the science, they try to make it a political argument.  As though it's an inalienable right to drive a gas guzzler and waste energy and produce excessive greenhouse gas emissions, putting the lives of all species on the planet in peril.

Answer 7

climate which would restrict our freedom

Answer 8

It is very scary the way this issue has been treated. It says a lot about the sanity of this country and the world. The way people bought into it without question, the lies told, the data "enhanced," and the gestapo like statements made by foolish people in the far left. This is a lot more about freedom, 1984 stuff. People need to wake up to these powerful forces floating around in the world waiting patiently to gain a foothold in a cause.

Answer 9

I didn't watch the video, but the obvious answer is freedom.

The GW fearing sheep cannot be reasoned with.  They aren't smart enough to see that they are being controlled by their fears.

They care SO much about the environment...I wonder when the last time any one of them picked up garbage from the roadside or scooped up floating refuse in the ocean.  I mean, with the exception for the one's on community service.

Baaa!

Answer 10

if your survival is at risk, then we all know the answer to this question.

Answer 11

Since global warming is now being proven false there is no problem.

Answer 12

Survival of the planet is at stake.

And please,   Glenn Beck???,  just another mouthpiece for the right-wingers and the 'kool-aid' drinkers.

'Ignore scientists just believe what I'm telling you.'

Gimmee a break.

Answer 13

both i guess :(

Answer 14

we need to do something about global warming, what's at risk, dying from global warming, or freedom? I would choose to give up my freedom.

Answer 15

freedom

Answer 16

Nearly all the extremism in this country is now on the right.   Ironically, they are the ones spouting off here about conspiracies from the left, which are non existant.

Exactly what kind of loss of freedom are you afraid of?

If our democracy has been co-opted by the interests of the massive corporations whose lobbyists have more influence over our govt policies than the American people,  then I guess our freedom is already at risk.  These are the same forces that spread the confusion about global warming.  The ones who are warning you about loss of freedom are in fact the ones who are taking it away.  

  Our addiction to oil is fundamentaly a threat to our freedom.  

Here's how our politicians have sold out to corporate interests.

as reported by AP  

  "The House approved $18 billion in new taxes on the largest oil companies Wednesday as Democrats cited record oil prices and rising gasoline costs in a time of economic troubles. "

{this is a lie, it's not new taxes it's taking back tax breaks}

"The money collected over 10 years would provide tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy sources and for energy conservation. The legislation, approved 236-182, would cost the five largest oil companies an average of $1.8 billion a year over that period, according an analysis by the House Ways and Means Committee. Those companies earned $123 billion last year."

  That $18 billion which Bush and 40 Republican senators refused to take away from the oil company subsidies represents about 1/4 of those subsidies, for just one year, never mind the 10 years they are talking about.    Estimates for total subsidies to oil and gas are as high as $80 billion annually.  

  If we fail to initiate the changes in our energy infrastructure, we will not only fail to clean up the environment, we will be bankrupting our economy with the continuing hidden costs of oil and gas, which some estimates place as high as $800 billion a year.   This enormous waste of money is a threat to our freedom, as it limits economic oppurtunity for all of us.   Alternative energy on the other hand will be the biggest economic oppurtunity of this century.  And it won't have any of the hidden costs described here.  Far from limiting freedom, it will help solve our environmental problems, while at the same time giving us economic freedom and oppurtunity.

  How much  does our dependence on foreign oil threaten our freedom?  Think of the global conflicts over oil.  Our military costs of protecting oil shipments is up to $100 billion a year.  And that is not including the war in Iraq or the Gulf War.

  We will lose our freedom if we don't do anything about global warming.  

  

"The current system creates an energy policy by default through lower income tax rates for oil companies, government handouts, and hidden environmental costs," said Roland Hwang, author of the UCS report. "These subsidies fuel our unhealthy appetite for oil."

"The oil industry is spending millions each year fighting clean air laws, especially the electric vehicle requirement," said Ed Maschke, executive director of CalPIRG. "This spending not only eats away at the potential for cleaner air, increased employment and a promising new technology, but also the very heart of our democracy. We are committed to stopping this corporate attempt at buying influence which destroys our chance for clean air."

"Small modifications to standard coal makes the "new" material eligible for substantial tax credits that run close to $3 billion per year. The subsidy is one example of scores around the world ("clean coal" subsidies are another) that shift new product development costs and risks from the industry to the taxpayer. The subsidies reduce the pressure on the industry itself to innovate, and mask the competitive advantage of alternative energy resources with a more favorable environmental profile."



And these hidden costs aren't just in the U.S.

"Political efforts to keep domestic fuel prices low are common in energy-rich nations (to coopt opposition) and in developing consuming nations (ostensibly to reduce the hardships to poor citizens). The subsidies dampen fuel substitution and conservation, and are mostly captured by wealthier residents. As world energy prices rise, the fiscal cost of these policies can grow dramatically. In Yemen and Azerbaijan, for example, fuel subsidies were 9.2 and 12.7 percent of the gross-domestic-product (GDP) respectively during 2005. Consumption subsidies in non-OECD countries were running at an annual rate of roughly $250 billion based on 2005 data according to the International Energy Agency. Roughly 40% was associated with oil products. The largest subsidies existed in Russia ($40 billion); Iran ($37 billion); and China, Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, Ukraine, and Egypt (all in excess of $10 billion)."



  This is what Republican politicians don't want to let go of.  Not even the tiny portion which would be allocated for alternative energy tax credits.

It's continuing on the path we are on that is disruptive.  

  The video you referred to is full of half and non truths.  And fascism is a danger of the right, not the left.  Why is is that extremists on the right keep throwing out these accusations, everything from communism to fascism.  It is knee jerk reactionism, and it is wholly untruthfull.  No-one who is advocating for doing something about global warmig is interested in controlling you.  This is absolute rubbish put out by the far right propaganda machine.  It is so transparant, it boggles the mind that any of you believe it.

  

  And does this limit our freedoms as Americans?

from the Albion Monitor at  http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/a...

"And what it says is that the United States of America today has by far the most unequal distribution of wealth in the entire industrialized world. And the article says that:

Recent studies show that rather than being an egalitarian society, the United States has become the most economically stratified of industrialized nations. Even class societies like Britain, which inherited large differences in income and wealth over centuries, going back to their feudal past, now have greater economic equality than in the United States.

Then the article goes on to say:

Federal Reserve figures from 1989, the most recent available, show that the wealthiest 1 percent of American households, with net worth of at least $2.3 million each, own nearly 40 percent of the Nation's wealth."

"That in contrast to Britain where the richest 1 percent only own 18 percent of the wealth. So in other words, we are now living in a country from which the richest 1 percent own 40 percent of the wealth, which is more wealth than the bottom 90 percent.

The reality is that since 1973, four-fifths, 80 percent of the American workers have experienced falling or stagnant real incomes. "

When the ruling class can manipulate the economics of a nation to this extent, you have a loss of freedom for those trying to work hard to realize the American dream.  

And these are the forces that are trying to convince you that the threat comes from elsewhere.  And they are the same forces that resist the change to sustainable energy.  The system is rigged.  And those, who rig it, are busy convincing those less discerning citizens that any threat to this status quo is a threat to their freedom.  What a joke.

Contrary to what you may believe, liberals have absolutely no interest in communism or fascism(again fascism is a danger of far right extremism, not left wing).  What liberals do want is a democracy, that actually works for all of us like it is supposed to.  We are not content with a system that only benefits the rich and powerful.  Even Huckabee, a Republican,  sees this inequity in our economy.  Of course he was practically laughed off the stage of the Republican debate for having the temerity to mention it.

"I'd put my money on the sun & solar energy.  What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."      Thomas Edison, 1931