Climate Change Report

#276
#276
Grand Vol said:
Here's the thing as I've stated before about the international side of things.

The Paris Treaty was a bad deal for a lot of nations across the board, the US included. It gave a pass to high polluting nations like China and India because of their "developing" economies and set strict standards on others. Trump basically told the truth, the Paris Treaty was unfair and I'd dare say behind closed doors a lot of governments around the world agreed with him. Just didn't have the balls to follow the US leadership in the matter.

After Trump withdrew from the Paris Treaty, many whined and gnashed their teeth and said "oh yeah! We'll do it anyway!" Isn't doing something voluntary always preferred to having the government mandate it? Isn't it also a form of leadership to allow States and local municipalities to set their own standards? Let's face facts here, any time you get the federal government involved in anything, it becomes a mess. It's way easier for a local government to say "we're buying NG powered buses for our transit system because they are environmentally safer" instead of being forced to.
Click to expand...
You still seem to misunderstand the fundamental structure of the Paris Agreement. It did not give a pass or set strict emissions standards for any nation. Every nation voluntarily submitted their own INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution). Based on your second paragraph, you should support the structure of the Paris Agreement.

I see lots of complaining that we haven’t provided solutions. Well you, like Trump, haven’t offered up anything regarding the agreement other than “Paris BAD!” What, specifically, would make it a better deal? When will Trump release his demands? It sure seems like he doesn’t have a clue, and his supporters are equally willing to **** all over something they haven’t given any thought because politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN Ribs
#279
#279
tumscalcium said:
I know you haven’t. I’m saying these “Experts” haven’t offered up anything other than “Do something”.
Click to expand...
The physical scientists generally refrain from prescribing specific policy solutions, at least in their research. That’s the realm of the social sciences. Of course, everyone has their own opinions…

The best post in this thread imo got overlooked. Here’s an idea:
Weezy said:
We don't need to sign an international agreement. Set a carbon tax, a real one, and hit imports with a carbon tax as well. Return as a dividend to offset some price increase.

Or nationalize the energy industry and go all nuclear/hydro/wind.
Click to expand...
There’s no need to nationalize. I saw several posts discussing central planning. There is no need for that. A carbon tax would work bottom-up. Most economists are in agreement that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be the most elegant and efficient solution. Either cut an equal amount of corporate, payroll, and income taxes, or return the revenue directly via dividend as Weezy suggested. And a border adjustment could preclude the need for international agreements.

By the way, if Trump actually wanted to make a deal here I think he would find a surprising amount of bipartisan support for nuclear energy nowadays if it were promoted in the context of a serious climate change strategy. A carbon tax would be a huge boost to American nuclear power.

Oh, and right on que, just yesterday:

House lawmakers introduce first bipartisan carbon tax bill in a decade
 
#280
#280
BartW said:
There are plenty that still deny the fact that it’s even happening, but most have at least moved on to stage 2 climate denial in recent years.

Anyway, do you also remember that Reagan and Bush used the power of the market through cap-and-trade to fight lead pollution, ozone depletion, and acid rain? Do you remember how industry lobbyists bitched and moaned that any regulation would destroy the economy? No, you didn’t, and now 30 years later we use unleaded gasoline, have less acidic rain, the ozone hole is recovering, and it was all so painless you didn’t even notice!
Click to expand...

Lots of countries still use leaded gas
 
#281
#281
BartW said:
The physical scientists generally refrain from prescribing specific policy solutions, at least in their research. That’s the realm of the social sciences. Of course, everyone has their own opinions…

The best post in this thread imo got overlooked. Here’s an idea:

There’s no need to nationalize. I saw several posts discussing central planning. There is no need for that. A carbon tax would work bottom-up. Most economists are in agreement that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be the most elegant and efficient solution. Either cut an equal amount of corporate, payroll, and income taxes, or return the revenue directly via dividend as Weezy suggested. And a border adjustment could preclude the need for international agreements.

By the way, if Trump actually wanted to make a deal here I think he would find a surprising amount of bipartisan support for nuclear energy nowadays if it were promoted in the context of a serious climate change strategy. A carbon tax would be a huge boost to American nuclear power.

Oh, and right on que, just yesterday:

House lawmakers introduce first bipartisan carbon tax bill in a decade
Click to expand...

A "revenue neutral" tax sounds a lot like the theory of digging yourself out of a hole.

"Something strange is happening with a now-banned chemical that eats away at Earth's protective ozone layer: Scientists say there's more of it—not less—going into the atmosphere and they don't know where it is coming from."

"Measurements from a dozen monitors around the world suggest the emissions are coming from somewhere around China, Mongolia and the Koreas, according to the study. The chemical can be a byproduct in other chemical manufacturing, but it is supposed to be captured and recycled."

"Either someone's making the banned compound or it's sloppy byproducts that haven't been reported as required, Montzka said."

Read more at: Emissions of banned ozone-eating chemical somehow are rising
 
#282
#282
Those cave men created a big mess when the glaciers melted thousands of years ago. Then it froze over again. Damn humans are a disgrace.
 
#283
#283
BartW said:
The physical scientists generally refrain from prescribing specific policy solutions, at least in their research. That’s the realm of the social sciences. Of course, everyone has their own opinions…

The best post in this thread imo got overlooked. Here’s an idea:

There’s no need to nationalize. I saw several posts discussing central planning. There is no need for that. A carbon tax would work bottom-up. Most economists are in agreement that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be the most elegant and efficient solution. Either cut an equal amount of corporate, payroll, and income taxes, or return the revenue directly via dividend as Weezy suggested. And a border adjustment could preclude the need for international agreements.

By the way, if Trump actually wanted to make a deal here I think he would find a surprising amount of bipartisan support for nuclear energy nowadays if it were promoted in the context of a serious climate change strategy. A carbon tax would be a huge boost to American nuclear power.

Oh, and right on que, just yesterday:

House lawmakers introduce first bipartisan carbon tax bill in a decade
Click to expand...
I agree that a carbon tax is the best option. However, the French nationalized their electricity sector and so far, it's the only example of a decarbonized grid sans hydro.

I disagree on the Paris Agreement. It's a bunch of politicians patting themselves on the back when in reality it will accomplish nothing. Setting targets is hot garbage when there's no chance they are met. It's even more ridiculous when Germany and China are praised as climate leaders. Both are hooked on coal for the foreseeable future. If Germany gives up coal, it is going to be for the Russian gas. I expect much of Europe to start turning the Russian gas as renewables flame out on them.
 
#284
#284
BartW said:
You still seem to misunderstand the fundamental structure of the Paris Agreement. It did not give a pass or set strict emissions standards for any nation. Every nation voluntarily submitted their own INDC (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution). Based on your second paragraph, you should support the structure of the Paris Agreement.

I see lots of complaining that we haven’t provided solutions. Well you, like Trump, haven’t offered up anything regarding the agreement other than “Paris BAD!” What, specifically, would make it a better deal? When will Trump release his demands? It sure seems like he doesn’t have a clue, and his supporters are equally willing to **** all over something they haven’t given any thought because politics.
Click to expand...

Bolded is the problem.

Let's put it this way, that's like asking a person "hey, Ralph, how much in taxes would you like to give the government? It's a voluntary number you come up with."

"Well, Bob, I'm just kinda getting started in the marketplace, so I really don't want to pay taxes at all."

"Yeah, I can understand that. Even though you make a bunch of money now, you're still 'developing' in the market so let's defer that tax level for like 15 years. Sound fair?"

"You mean I get to make as much money as I want over the next 15 years and not pay a dime? What happens if I become the worlds wealthiest person in the next couple of years? What if I tell you to piss off in 15 years?"

"Sure, Ralph, you can do anything you want over the next 15 years. And I don't know if you become the world's wealthiest person in a couple of years. We'll have to see about that. And we'd sincerely hope you wouldn't tell us to piss off. That'd make us a little angry or something."

Now, you can play politics all you want with this nonsense and be like some other mouthbreathers around here claiming "Trump Drone" when it comes to my stance on this. But there is no way the Paris Agreement was fair by any means to developed countries by forcing them to reduce carbon emissions while China and India got a pass because they are "developing." Wouldn't it be far better in their "developing" economies to go green now instead of giving them a pass for nearly a decade and a half? Isn't China producing a metric crap-ton of solar panels? Why not wind turbines? Why not additional hydroelectric? (other than the environmental crowd screeching about that as well) Why not nuclear? Why not develop technologies in the offshore hydropower realm and corner the market on that one?

No, the Paris Agreement was not good for anyone except making a select group of environmental activists happy. You know it, I know it, the world knows it and Trump knew it when he pulled us out. So, what would make it a better deal? Making China, India and others set hard targets in carbon reductions or piss off.

Which is exactly what they would have told the world had the issue been forced when the Agreement was being hammered out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and RavinDave
#292
#292
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain
#296
#296
LouderVol said:
fatasses being fatasses.
Click to expand...
Mostly driven by suicide and opioid overdoses. The more younger people die the higher the effect on life expectancy. That’s why 100 years ago the life expectancy was 60 or something. Plenty of people lived longer than that, but infant mortality was high and that negatively impacted the average.
 
#298
#298
Matt2496 said:
They actually have linked the lowered life expectancy to suicide, which is now at its highest point in 50 years. That's what is so startling.
Click to expand...

Apparently the new liberal/progressive world isn't all it's cracked up to be. Us old farts could have explained that, but youthful euphoria or hysteria - disillusion in any case - prevents younger generations from listening to old farts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#299
#299
Old farts are responsible for the massive debt pile and unfunded liabilities. Enjoy spending our paychecks. And no, you didn't pay for that. You spent it, and filled the SS fund with IOUs, except it's more like you owe us's.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top