Forums - Politics Discussion - Margaret Thatcher's death proves why there will be no real action on Climate Change.

If you look at studies... you find that consumer focused carbon emission plans just don't work.

Raise the price of a barrel of Oil in California, and that barrel of Oil American's aren't using will be bought by China.


Set Carbon caps on countries and they end up just exporting their carbon emissions to China.


The only REAL way to cut carbon emissions is to cut production of carbon based energy, since any carbon based energy produced will be used SOMEWHERE in the world.

Which means... like Margaret Thatcher.  Going in to mining communities and oil drilling communties and detroying them.  Telling them we can't produce carbons anymore.

Around the Network
Global warming is not a threat in this century. We shouldn't do anything.

I sort of agree but disagree slightly with the idea she 'destroyed' these industries. What she did was finally remove the distortion which was preventing the free market to decide the viability of these mines.

If you want to reduce global emissions of CO2, you need to make cheaper alternatives available. Let market mechanics do their normal thing. Companies want to be profitable, and will only care about what impacts that. Margaret Thatcher abolished the subsidies that were artificially propping up the coal mines, which allowed the free market to do its thing and cause otherwise unprofitable mines to close. Likewise with oil, if you subsidise oil production, then you are artificially making sites that would otherwise be nonviable viable. Making nonviable sites viable through subsidies increases supply and thus reduces prices. In turn, other technologies that might be competitive become nonviable which stymies development in those alternative technologies.

In my view, every industry should be able to stand on its own two feet. If it can't then let it fail, if the demand is still there an alternative will take its place. Yes it will hurt industries and communities, help them re-train and move into a viable industry. With the billions saved in subsidies you don't have to pay it'll probably end up cheaper to do that anyway, and you may end up with significantly better technologies that would otherwise have been stuck in universities and labs.

At least Americans are not the ones causing it. Just makes everyone hate China all the more. Less jobs sent over there, less businesses who want to use China, less we depend on them. I would rather send all our jobs to Vietnam than to China. At least Vietnam does not have the resources to take advantage of any situation that America sends their way.

Companies will always find a way around whatever laws you throw at them. I would not blame her for anything. That is the reason businesses ( in general) move from State to state to other country. If they do not get what they want in one place, they will just move somewhere else. The same goes for the oil industry.

    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

China, actually, is debating a carbon tax, because they were freaked out by a study that said their agricultural output would be decimated if temperatures rose but 2* Celsius.

In the short term, you're correct, but in the long term the whole thing will pay off

Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
wow, i saw the thread title and didn't think it was possible but you did it. you make that connection.


Soon (~50 years time) the vast majority of our energy will come from nuclear

spurgeonryan said:
At least Americans are not the ones causing it. Just makes everyone hate China all the more.

Yeah, that's the nice thing about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions: As long as it isn't caused in our own country it doesn't matter, because greenhouse gas and climate change doesn't dare to cross national borders!

But in my universe, the average Chinese is still only responsible for about 1/3 to 1/4 of the carbon/greenhouse gas emissions of the average American.

Yall a bunch of hippies

Around the Network

You don't understand what Thatcher did.

Coal mining was owned by the state at the time. She could shut down mining because it was within her remit to do so. If it was a private concern, it would have shut LONG ago due to losing money. She then sold off what was left so it wasn't under state control.

What you're proposing is strict national regulation or ownership of those companies. That's the exact opposite of what she did. Also are you proposing invasion of Saudi Arabia? Really?


My opinion on this is that, yes, regulation and caps don't work because they are explitable.

We need to make oil UNECONOMICAL, not ILLEGAL. We can do this by investment and research (not subsidy) in alternative sources, I envision mostly nuclear with some renewable support until nuclear fusion is viable and then 100% that.