It's not external controls of the US at all. That is the most backward way to look at it. It is a huge problem. It isn't some ploy to make the US alone pay for it. Everyone is paying.
question is in the details, everyone is paying the same per capita? per co2 emission? other pollutants? weighted by developmental index? & justification for those weights?
Personally I like the cap n trade system and it allows the free market to come up with the solutions. By everyone paying I mean paying for the investment in newer energy infrastructure
Cap'n trade is the same as the 1mb blocksize. Likely thought up by the same scam artists.
this is an interesting analogy. create artificial limit at protocol/legal level then rely on the "free" market to come up with a solution/work around.
No it isn't, horrible comparison. Also cap n trade is a tried and true system. It is how we eliminated CFC's and fixed the ozone.
CFCs and ozone are not essential ingredients to the life cycle. CO2 is as essential as oxygen and water. It's basically putting a cap on life itself.
Seems you dont understand what you are talking about at all. You have no scientific literacy, got it.
I teach fifth graders who know that CO2 is a major chemical in the life cycle on earth. Your comprehension is below a ten year old's.
Sure it is, but a balance is important. A person can die if they drink too much water as well. I never finished that bachelors of physics, but my science understanding is good enough.
Would you support a tax on all fresh water?
Coming from a nation with most of the worlds supply of fresh water that is an interesting idea. I do pay for the water and sewage to and from my home. About $1200 a year.
Like if you collect rainwater and use it to water your garden you have to pay a tax to use it.
Ah, if you collect it it isn't a service, so you wouldn't pay for it. People do that kind of thing already to reduce their water bill.
Yeah, and that is kind of stupid. What does it have to do with anything?
I saw an earlier post where you claimed to know intimately all the anti-climate change arguments. The fact that you don't know where I'm headed with this exposes your ignorance.
Considering all the multitrillion dollar companies that see going clean as a threat it becomes easy to see why you get lone scientists saying climate change is a lie. It is money.
I know the denier propaganda because I was one for years. I started to realise the deniers were wrong though after being exposed to more of the data. Deniers like to cherry pick.
I never said I didn't know where you are going. Scientists are not telling people to have less babies. There is huge difference between the data and a journalists writings.
Ok so if I want to heat my home with fire wood do I need to pay a CO2 tax? Do I have to pay a tax for exhaling? What about for having a child?
Depends on your country. In Canada the proposed carbon tax would only be for companies. You get a child tax benefit for children. I get almost half my income tax back for my three kids
taxes on companies are ultimately paid for by increased prices to the consumer.
Yes, this is true. Cap n trade is the best solution. Carbon taxes help disincentives sectors that would be best to see fail.
you want those sectors to fail but they are responsible for modern life. so what is the trade off? greatly improved life, & some env impact? or 1900's life & no env impact?
The change would require investment, but is an investment that would lower future costs. We know that climate change will require costly actions. The less climate change the less cost.
No, you are convinced they need to fail and you feel entitled to tell the rest of us what is good for us. Fossil fuels are the easiest tech to become developed.
It isn't about entitlement. You underestimate the damage their industry does. In the very least we need to use a carbon tax to make them pay for some of their damage.
So by all means force developing nations to stop using it.
We need the fossil fuel industry to fail, not want. It got us here, but is no longer required, and actually costs more than alternatives. The problem is the momentum the industry has.
you dont know what the future needs of society will be. eg there are ancillary techs associated with all types of energy that may become useful in the future.
I do though. We know that climate change will be a problem. We know it will cause massive future costs. So the longer the fossil fuel industry stays the more future debt we have.
banning the practice now limits future knowledge.
Hey there, I am new here. Can you please tell me how I get started? How can I change my profile pic and name? Where can I see my balance? Thx
click on the little dude in the upper right
Got it. Still a bit tricky on the phone. Guess I should set all up on my laptop.
yeah it's pretty simple on a PC. Welcome!
Would appreciate a follow sir ;-) thx
lol way to jump in. haven't tried posting on the phone. think someone is making an android app. (search the topics to find updates). & welcome
No, I'm saying would you support a world wide tax on the usage of the chemical compound H2O that goes to a central global coffer to be used for whatever "greater good" the UN decides.
Ah, okay. Where did you get an idea like that? A general sales tax wouldn't be so bad.
think Dash's point is that is the idea behind a CO2 tax. collected by gov, paid for by consumers/citizens, used for "greater good" ("cleaner" energy, climate education etc).
Think I replied to you instead of someone else. Maybe that is what he getting at. I was confused by the water reference.
Also it ends up giving back to the people in the form of a carbon tax credit. Like a sale tax credit. At least that is how they work in Canada. It keeps it revenue natural for the poor
Yup. Everyone pays except the corporations that move to China and pay zero taxes in exchange for becoming communists. The rich get richer, we get poorer, exactly according to plan.
Also, none of that has anything to do with climate change. It is not even a matter of having to pay, so much as cutting support for one set of industries, and investing in another.
Third, there is a big cost with moving to China. Mostly it is giving up your intellectual prortety to them and they dont intellectual property rights. This is slowly changing though.
Second, it is competition and emerging markets that drive companies to China. This doesn't make them communist either and China is using capitalist economic, with communist government
Wow is that uninformed. First of all it was the US that decided to move manufacturing to China, while boosting education and high tech manufacturing in the US.
