Climate Change and the Ownership of Private Property (1 Viewer)

[TheRealTruth]

Although the paper was published in 2012, it is still very much relevant.

(PDF) Climate Change: Government, Private Property, and Individual Action

PDF | Climate change is a private property problem. Some may react strongly to such a bold claim—after all, private property is seen as a solution to... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

The argument that the ownership of private property is a large facilitator to climate change.

I heard some hyperbole over another story recently and ran across this more reasoned response to the problem.

Do you think there should be a global effort to reduce private property ownership as a way to facilitate real progress when it comes to the climate crisis?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I believe it has to do with over consumption. Private home ownership leads to people buying things to fill those homes, in many cases much more square footage than needed. Imagine how much less of an impact on the environment there would be if there were no private property ownership in the form of houses. This leads to move people living in city centers where public transportation can be used rather than inefficient cars.

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. Why would I move to the city if I couldn't own a house? Why wouldn't I just want to live in a house in the country?

There's a lot of work that needs to be done to show how private property ownership leads to over consumption, and what would you do to replace it?

I think there's a reason that article only had 83 views (and I was one of them)...

 

[SystemShock]

I'm sorry I did not clarify in my opening post, but if you had read the link I posted it is talking about Private Property in the terms of home ownership.

The example I used applies to cars, boats, houses...

I believe it has to do with over consumption. Private home ownership leads to people buying things to fill those homes, in many cases much more square footage than needed. Imagine how much less of an impact on the environment there would be if there were no private property ownership in the form of houses. This leads to move people living in city centers where public transportation can be used rather than inefficient cars.

Whether the government owns your house or you own your house has no bearing on the things you buy to fill that house.

Many people rent, yet they fill the house they live in with all sorts of junk. Further, I can have an almost empty house and have a higher carbon footprint than someone who hoards a lot of stuff.

People are not going to move to city centers just because they can't own houses in suburban areas. It makes no sense that someone would move from a suburban area because they can't own a house to a city where they can't own a house either.

 

[Beach Friends]

Why do you think that?

Well, the context of the thread seems like a dead giveaway.

Also, if you caught it - AOC's former chief of staff admitted that the Green New Deal was not really about the climate.

If we are going to avoid further polarization on the climate issue then we have to be honest that some of the advocates are seeking far more than a solution to climate change.

It amazes me that the only lesson from the 20th Century that seems to have stuck is that Nazism is bad.

Lost are the lessons from the Soviet Union, China etc about the dangers of the state robbing people of private property rights.

You see someone waiving a flag with a swastika and people rightfully go nuts. You see leftists in Portland waiving a flag with a hammer and sickle, and the reaction is, "how brave."

 

[samiam5211]

Well, the context of the thread seems like a dead giveaway.

Also, if you caught it - AOC's former chief of staff admitted that the Green New Deal was not really about the climate.

If we are going to avoid further polarization on the climate issue then we have to be honest that some of the advocates are seeking far more than a solution to climate change.

It amazes me that the only lesson from the 20th Century that seems to have stuck is that Nazism is bad.

Lost are the lessons from the Soviet Union, China etc about the dangers of the state robbing people of private property rights.

You see someone waiving a flag with a swastika and people rightfully go nuts. You see leftists in Portland waiving a flag with a hammer and sickle, and the reaction is, "how brave."

Im not sure why you thought that AOC ever meant for people to believe that the green new deal was only about climate change. Seems the “new deal” part would have tipped you off as to what it is about.

We need a total overhaul of our economy. Automation is going to eliminate half the jobs in the country over the next 20 years.

 

[coldseat]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. It seems like you believe like I do, that these changes need to happen, but you don't think they should be discussed in an open forum but rather behind closed doors? Please help me understand what you are saying.

I don't know if it would be better or not for the purposes of addressing climate change, to be honest. I haven't invested enough time in reading up about the ideas and the form it would take to even know if it's possible and would have a substantial effect on climate change. Governments (as exemplified by our own current administration) aren't always the best stewards of the environment either.

What I'm saying is that even if it did need to happen and it was the only way to save our planet/civilization, it still wouldn't happen. Not in the country we have today and the importance that people place on personal property rights. And I think discussing something like ending personal property rights in the name of climate change just invigorates the other side, that doesn't even believe climate change is occurring, to come up with all sorts of fear mongering and conspiracy theories that people who aren't as informed or invested in climate change policy would adapt as their own.

In other words, it's a fairy tail to believe that we can even end personal property rights and entertaining the idea only makes it that more difficult to pass legislation and regulations that can help now. Especially, if the public is scared of what the end result might be.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Well, the context of the thread seems like a dead giveaway.

Also, if you caught it - AOC's former chief of staff admitted that the Green New Deal was not really about the climate.

If we are going to avoid further polarization on the climate issue then we have to be honest that some of the advocates are seeking far more than a solution to climate change.

It amazes me that the only lesson from the 20th Century that seems to have stuck is that Nazism is bad.

Lost are the lessons from the Soviet Union, China etc about the dangers of the state robbing people of private property rights.

You see someone waiving a flag with a swastika and people rightfully go nuts. You see leftists in Portland waiving a flag with a hammer and sickle, and the reaction is, "how brave."

Archie's Ghost didn't say that "some" advocates are seeking for more than a solution to climate change. He said that the climate change movement's true purpose was whatever the heck the paper with 83 views was advocating.

For example, if someone posted an article from some small paper that said in order to preserve the purity of the white race we need to build a wall, would it be a valid comment to say "At last the right wing movement against illegal immigration is showing its true purpose is white nationalism"?

 

[Beach Friends]

Im not sure why you thought that AOC ever meant for people to believe that the green new deal was only about climate change. Seems the “new deal” part would have tipped you off as to what it is about.

We need a total overhaul of our economy. Automation is going to eliminate half the jobs in the country over the next 20 years.

I think that she meant for people to believe that because that was the grand narrative. And I think it worked too. If you asked people on the street what the GREEN New Deal was about, I think a very high percentage of those folks would simply say, "climate change."

I do think automation presents challenges that we need to be taking far more seriously than we are. We have to come up with something better than let's put AOC in charge.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

And quite frankly the more conservatives back away from even acknowledging that climate change is happening, man is a major contributor of climate change, and that that contribution is associated with a significantly probability of high costs, you're going to cede the debate to people who have other agendas.

 

[Beach Friends]

And quite frankly the more conservatives back away from even acknowledging that climate change is happening, man is a major contributor of climate change, and that that contribution is associated with a significantly probability of high costs, you're going to cede the debate to people who have other agendas.

I see your point.

I hope you can see mine.

The more the Globalists/Marxists hijack the issue the more suspicious conservatives are going to grow.

There is a lack of trust, and it truly does seem like 2019 was the year that people on the left started saying out loud what we suspected they were thinking all along. Not just about climate, but on other issues as well. The early Democratic debates served to do what I thought they would do which was to force a race to the left.

Will everyone on stage raise you hands?

Hell yes, I am going to take your AR 15s.

 

[samiam5211]

I think that she meant for people to believe that because that was the grand narrative. And I think it worked too. If you asked people on the street what the GREEN New Deal was about, I think a very high percentage of those folks would simply say, "climate change."

I do think automation presents challenges that we need to be taking far more seriously than we are. We have to come up with something better than let's put AOC in charge.

AOC is way smarter than the right seems to be giving her credit for. Her political career is just getting started. Writing her off as a ditsy girl only puts her opponents at a disadvantage.

 

[samiam5211]

I see your point.

I hope you can see mine.

The more the Globalists/Marxists hijack the issue the more suspicious conservatives are going to grow.

There is a lack of trust, and it truly does seem like 2019 was the year that people on the left started saying out loud what we suspected they were thinking all along. Not just about climate, but on other issues as well. The early Democratic debates served to do what I thought they would do which was to force a race to the left.

Will everyone on stage raise you hands?

Hell yes, I am going to take your AR 15s.

What is a globalist to you?

Why wouldn’t you expect people pushing society towards globalism to care about an issue that impacts the entire globe like climate change. It seems you are ascribing nefarious intent to a moral consistency.

Letting them own an issue that impacts people isn’t how you beat people you disagree with.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I see your point.

I hope you can see mine.

The more the Globalists/Marxists hijack the issue the more suspicious conservatives are going to grow.

There is a lack of trust, and it truly does seem like 2019 was the year that people on the left started saying out loud what we suspected they were thinking all along. Not just about climate, but on other issues as well. The early Democratic debates served to do what I thought they would do which was to force a race to the left.

Will everyone on stage raise you hands?

Hell yes, I am going to take your AR 15s.

I don't necessarily disagree, but the funny thing is, I would say that you see a growing vocalization and radicalization on the left in response to strong rightward shift of the Republican party and lack of compromise on that side of the equation.

I used to be considered a Republican. My stances haven't really changed that much, but after a while everyone like me was shoved out of the Republican party and told we were liberals.

The more conservatives push back against things like racial inequality, poverty, and a refusal to even except that there are problems and you might need to make compromises, the stronger the push back is going to become.

 

[V Chip]

The early Democratic debates served to do what I thought they would do which was to force a race to the left.

We’ve been racing to the right for 40+ years. We NEED to race to the left.

And c’mon, one or two outliers no more make the point that the environmentalists want to take over private property nor the liberals want to seize your AR 15s than do the one or two white nationalist outliers in an Administration make the point that the conservatives want to do away with all black people, or the one or two fundamentalist outliers prove that conservatives want to throw out the constitution in favor of a Christian theocracy. Sure we can find a few who actually think that, but acting as if their ideas are even close to prominent in either side is fear-mongering and othering.

 

[Beach Friends]

I don't necessarily disagree, but the funny thing is, I would say that you see a growing vocalization and radicalization on the left in response to strong rightward shift of the Republican party and lack of compromise on that side of the equation.

I used to be considered a Republican. My stances haven't really changed that much, but after a while everyone like me was shoved out of the Republican party and told we were liberals.

The more conservatives push back against things like racial inequality, poverty, and a refusal to even except that there are problems and you might need to make compromises, the stronger the push back is going to become.

It really is a bizarre time in our nation's history. I have repeated this before - it's as though we are sitting in the same theater, watching the same screen, but we are seeing two different films.

I saw a graph the other day that purported to show how the Democratic party and the Republican party moved over the years. The GOP had moved back and forth, but was fairly consistent. The Democratic party in contrast had taken an extreme left turn.

As far as equality, I tend to agree with an analogy made by the pundit Douglass Murray. It seemed we were on a train that was just about to pull into our desired location when all of a sudden someone decided to fully accelerate and we went right past the depot and we are now heading off the tracks.

I am not sure that our differences are reconcilable.
I genuinely believe that our best hope is for the Democrats to get destroyed in the 2020 elections so that they will have to reevaluate. Just being honest, right now they seem like silly people who believe that the answer to everything is to demonstrate that they are more woke than the next person.

 

[V Chip]

I saw a graph the other day that purported to show how the Democratic party and the Republican party moved over the years. The GOP had moved back and forth, but was fairly consistent. The Democratic party in contrast had taken an extreme left turn.

I’d be really interested in seeing that graph and the source of that graph.

 

[Beach Friends]

We’ve been racing to the right for 40+ years. We NEED to race to the left.

And c’mon, one or two outliers no more make the point that the environmentalists want to take over private property nor the liberals want to seize your AR 15s than do the one or two white nationalist outliers in an Administration make the point that the conservatives want to do away with all black people, or the one or two fundamentalist outliers prove that conservatives want to throw out the constitution in favor of a Christian theocracy. Sure we can find a few who actually think that, but acting as if their ideas are even close to prominent in either side is fear-mongering and othering.

It's not just one candidate. The Democratic front runner, Biden, has made comments about gun control that were so foolish I was compelled to make a thread about it.

The Democrats will have full legislative power in Virginia next month, and they are already promising gun legislation so offensive to rural Virginians that the last I heard 30 counties have declared themselves to be 2d Amendment sanctuaries. In response the Democrats are floating the idea of calling out the National Guard to enforce the expected legislation.

 

[Beach Friends]

I’d be really interested in seeing that graph and the source of that graph.

Do you know how to transfer money via PayPal?

J/k.

I will try to find it and post it.

 

[V Chip]

last I heard 30 counties have declared themselves to be 2d Amendment sanctuaries.

I wonder if conservatives will be as disdainful of those sanctuary counties as they are of sanctuary cities...