i have a few problems with that statment. 1. I feel that the bill should not punish the poor, and there should be a different bill which does good for the environment WITHOUT screwing over the poor. 2. Its not much of a fucking existance anyway if all your energy is being bought out (what about a switch of fuel types, that would do the trick). 3. Marxism would help the environment, as companies would be able to quit business practises that screw the environment over, as they are not in compotition with other companies and do not need tocut corners and use the cheapest fuel available to them, they would be able to use much better sources of energy, as it will not make them loose ground to competators or loose money on the whole.
who is enforcing these people from screwing the environemnt? and stopping people using as much co2? sorry i am not getting into a debate surrounding ideology, i did used to think marxism was a good idea in theory, but oncei had learnt more i moved away from it to a more eco-friendly liberal social view. the bill does not punish the poor, i gives them a CHANCE for people who do not use their quote to sell to those who need it (like redistribution). we can currently sell everything if we wanted to at current, let we don't sell everything to the rich, the poor in this country are not the poor in Africa, there is a huge difference. peacex
no, your nto catching my point at all. companies do not need to use all the crap energy sources to stay in compotition, so they can use clean and renuable energy, which is good for the environment. And it is not redistrbution. it is making energy a middle class privelage as we all know they will be able to afford the energy, not poor people.
again i will send you to the original post, they do not have to buy the co2 quota, you get from from being a citizen, and that is your limit for the year. if companies do not have to compete abd therefore do not use "crap" energy then why would they use re-newable which is more of a hassle, more expensive to set up etc, there needs to be global consensus on the environment, and i honestly 100% believe that marxism would not assist the environment, its one of the downfalls the ideology have, it talks about human nature and its problems, but doesn't deal with eco problems
enforcing environmental regulations on businesses is countrary to the owrkings of the free market. and does marxism give two fucks about the free market? and whilst you dont have to buy it, you are given itm it will be sold. Even under this crazy law (b/c people simply have different energy needs, there is no stopping that) you should nto be able to sell it on.
can i ask a question then on the theory of marxism, when eventually there will be no authority for anything- who will enforce environmental regulations? when the planet becomes under threat again and something needs to be globally, what will happen, most environmentalist know that marxism and their view cannot go together which is why i am not a marxist. i have never said this bill was perfect but it is a start... the reason you will be able to sell it is that people do have different energy needs, if you ride a bike everywhere, have a solar panelled house etc then why should you not make money while every one else is using co2? i think it is win win- we cut back on co2 and those who live an eco friendly lifestyle can make money for doing so
You seem to be mistaken in your perception of Marxism. Its nhilism (or 1 or two odd variations on anarchy) where there is no authority on anything. Under marxism, there will always be a government, and laws pased and suchlike things. Its just that they will be from the poeple, not parliamentarians. Under council communism for example, your own regions workers council could pass an act saying that all industry must use a different source of energy, or something else that would be good for the environment. It could also go national, and all regions would send there delegated votes along, and a national law could be passed, stating whatever they want it to, so long as it gets approved by the delegates. but its the poor that will end up selling it! nto because they use less energy, b/c they need the money
maybe i was wrong on marxism, but from what i have learnt from studying it at the moment is that it is is one of the ideologies that will do absolutely nothing for the environement and they do not go together. because there was not an environmental problem when marx was writing. however under a council communism it would require people to make this judgement with no real knowledge on the environment and how to solve the problems, so therefore could make the problem worse. In my opinion marxism and environementalism do not go together. you keep saying they will end up selling it, can you predict the future? what would they sell it for, the electricity for their house? but they can use the card for that. the poor do not sell everything they have, in this country the poor are not really poor.
poverty is relative, and it would mean that the rich would (no doubt about that) end up with mroe energy, which simply isnt fair. I also think it is simply wrong to sya that communism and enviromentalism cannot work together, i personally think it would be even easier for envionmentalists (not saying that it inherently improves the environment) but i simply believe that the bill is flawed.
everything is flawed, every bill is flawed because of the democracy you have to appease others. you can never appease all, democaracies are flawed, marxism is flawed.we are taught here at uni that marxism and environementalism cannot work together, and i totally agree, they do not. and i decided that this planet was more important at present then arguing over ideology. if this keeps our planet safe and means future generations have a planet to live on then i am okay with this bill. I am not a marxist, but an environementalist so therefore this bill is good news to me, but not for you because every bill to you is bad because everything to marx reflects expolitation
i think its crazy to take a step forward and at the exact same time, take one right back again. finding the balance is important, instead of going all or nothing on one issue. (ps, your lecturer is giving it one sided)
balance? can you elaborate, as you are a marxist, you cannot have both systems, as marxism is a full change. how do you know what we are taught here, we have many different lecturers, some come across as marxist, but they cannot teach that because they are supposed to be un-biased, come up with a brand of marxism that answers my questions i posted before and then i amy look more deeply at it
if in a marxist society, how would envornmental damge be found? how will the masses have the correct knowledge with how to deal with it? if the masses were in charge of production, why would everything be environmental friendly as you said, as these problem are not cared about by all the masses? these are the main questions for now
envoronmental damage would be found in the exact same way it is found now. it just the people doing ti would get payed a workers wage. There would be people who specialise in the field who would reccomend things, it just needs the peoples approval (and i cant see them rejecting a decent claim.) Basically, the main reason that corporations dont change to clean energy is because of competative prices offered by unclean fuel. Since the company would not be money motivated, there would be absolutely no reason for the company to continue working with unclean fuel, and there wouldtn be any real objections to a switch to clean energy.
this is a major concern i with modern 'marxists'. They presumesociety will stay the same even with huge change. why would development be the same? and i was talking far future, education under a marxist system would be awful, for instance are you going to force these student into careers? who decided whose job it is, to research eco problems. so therefore just because money is not involved then people become perfect good little people, who know exactely what is best for our planet and other species. money is not the only reason why we do not switch to clean fuel, why do people still drive, why do people still use so much electricty. i do not think modern marxists can even contemplate what society will become and the devestating affects the ideology creates.
i think they're a good idea in principal, though some of the points you dudes have touched are important...there's a similar scheme already in place for renewable energy. the government grants those who produce renewable electricity (currently not heat) renewable energy obligation certificates (rocs), which can be sold on to other companies. as you guys prolly know, part of the kyoto (sp?) agreement is to produce 10% of our energy by 2010, and 20% by 2020. annyways....companys who don't produce 10% can buy these rocs, and hence meet their objectives annnyways, the negative is that the rich gas-guzzling companies can still achieve their targets using the rocs, though they have to buy quite alot. this results in the positive....renewable energy is a baby, and it's hard to make money in the industry...these rocs are worth a fair bit, and makes it financialy viable to invest in renewable energy schemes a similar thing is true with this idea of the governments. the rich can still burn round in 4x4's they can't drive anyway...but it costs them, and who benefits? the poor you have to think, the poor aren't going to go without energy to earn a bit of money, unless they're incredibly tight, but then they aren't generaly poor for long....they will use as much as they need/can afford, and the excess they couldn't use anyway, they can sell on....hence altering the balance between rich and poor, even if it is just a hair's bredth movement edit-it's probably only just decoration for the government, and nothing will come of it
