Yabby

"Everyone wants to save the environment, as long as it does not cost them their job."

I wish you wouldn't perpetuate this false dichotomy between the environment and jobs. Environmental conservation and job creation are not mutully exclusive. They can and should go hand in hand.

Sadly, Bronwyn, it is no "false dichotomy". It's real life.

>>I wish you wouldn't perpetuate this false dichotomy between the environment and jobs. Environmental conservation and job creation are not mutully exclusive. They can and should go hand in hand.<<

The reality is that they don't.

"Preserving the environment" is, quite literally, an additional business expense. Especially so, when we include measures that are intended to combat climate change.

Additional expense means a more expensive product. A more expensive product means lower sales volumes (or, if you want to be economically pedantic, means lower aggregate production across the economy). Lower aggregate production means less money available to pay wages which means (either) lower pay for all, or fewer people (i.e. more unemployment).

Lower pay for all means a contraction of the economy as a whole, and a lower standard of living.

Because, regrettable though it may be, environmental conservation, of any kind, does not come for free. Ask any miner. Ask any builder or architect. Ask any supermarket chain. Ask any bus company.

Ask anyone, in fact.

Except a public servant.

Pericles
fair reasoning to a point however it all depends.Technology tends to make jobs not destroy them.
All that would happen would be that the power changes.
i.e. If we were to phase out petrol driven cars the need for transport would still exist car would still be bought, sold, repaired serviced etc so those jobs are still there.
The loser might be big oil and some of their employees there will still be a need some petro chemicals but...some one has to make the fuel for the cars. So in the case of electric. someone has to make batteries and all those wind or power generation panels some one has to sell them etc.In short there will probably be a net gain in jobs there always has been.

I see Fractelle's point clearly. In most discussions on change of any kind the vested interests always scream loss of jobs and run scare campaigns...threaten the government that they'll campaign against them if the govt doesn't acquiesce.

My point has always been that it is this self interest of capital especially big capital that is counter to our future (through innovation) democracy and possibly our species survival.

Yabby
As the primary question relates to the topic I 'll try one more time.
There is a difference between physical potential and attitudinal.
The latter can depend on many more variables.
Not all twins are the same there are documented differences between late separation of the ovum to early separation and then again the most common difference is between those that come from dual eggs and the prior.
As usual you are descending down the logic pole and trying to bolster it with insults.You still don't display any understanding of scientific reality...have a good day

......"OK I may have misunderstood your parameters Sorry

PS. I don't deliberately start a conflict if I do it's by accident or oversight because I'm trying to put too much in so it makes sense. When reading my fallible utterances please consider context and any nuance that is probably intended.

By all mean challenge me but the comments like "day release" were neither by error nor add to your complaint. In future I'll be more circumspect regarding you.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 10 May 2009 8:25:13 PM"

Circumspect is good. Me too.

Day release was a mistake,-but I had to write it that way because though one can use capitals, there is no facility for putting a phrase in red and underlining it;-twice.

Now I'll explain. I'm not so much astonished that YOU would exercise such a free interpretation of what I actually said;-but what motivated YOU (meaning you in particular), to interpret thus. It shows how you were thinking.

This thread has trod a fairly curvy route, but in general, its been permeated with women saying something, and men interpreting what they were saying-according to how the male responder felt about such issues! It had little to do with what they were actually saying!

You did the same. That really threw me, and frankly I DID think you had lost it.

"...I don't need to be stimulated by what amounts to titillation in everything from argy bargy in conversations, magazines , nude pictures et al...." (E)

That is an insult, because it is untrue. And because you are Examinator, and not Yabby/Houelles/or Anti;- nobody except me said anything.

'Ally' or 'enemy', I will call out anyone who does this.

So your apology counts for little if you go on to rationalise such an insult. It's sad.

Examinator, you can waffle on and try as many times as you like,
you can introduce as many red herrings as you like, but you have
been unable to show that my initial statement was incorrect.
That is the point!

You can try ad hominems as you have. You can try insults, but
don't be amazed when they are returned. I am no Xtian, I do
not turn the other cheek lol.

Bronwyn, your idealism is wonderful, as a skeptic I'm waiting to
see real results. Green jobs can certainly be created with huge
Govt subsidies, but again that is at a cost to the taxpayer.

There is much talk about green energy, but already companies are
in a queue to tap Govt funds, for their demonstration plants.

Yes we can make windmills etc, but I have yet to see how that
won't push the price of electricity through the roof. Most
consumers won't even install a solar hot water system on their
roof, despite the many subsidies.

When the cost of electricity does go through the roof, watch
all the public servants and others claim a pay rise, for it is
not them who want to pay the cost, everyone else should pay.

Or of course do what is popular on OLO, just blame large
companies!

There was an interesting debate on the BBC World debate last
night. The crux of it is, that if you want third world countries
to preserve their rainforests, then you the Western consumer should
pay them to preserve it.

So don't kid yourself that it won't cost you. So how much are you
prepared to lower your standard of living, for the benefit of
the environment?

Ginx,
I was rationalising nothing, merely explaining the thought linkages.
Your words were Something like “if we were all polite it would be boring.”
Q: Why would it be boring?
A: it's not colourful enough
Q: What is colourful ?
A: Judging by your stouche with who ever ' not enough conflict' (to me that means argy bargy)
Q: why do you need colour when the subject provides the colour?
A: Perhaps it is a function of today the greater need for simulation (alternate meaning).

Q: what are other examples to clarify the point...
A: as listed.
Statement.: I was not saying that YOU specifically needed, or said hence the brackets. In effect they were to signify that they were only other example of society's need for the over the top to take notice.

And the accompanying conditioned short thought time span of most of the public.

I surmise this lead you to make an incorrect assumption. In that I will accept some complicity in that I didn't make my thoughts clear enough to you . Therefore I apologised and promised to be more cautious.
I accept you are angry but I can't assuage that only the part Where I failed i.e. the clarity.
None of this is judgemental merely observational (except on my failure to explain clearly enough) Again sorry for that