[noemon]

Nope.

"Research shows that carbon taxes effectively reduce emissions.[8] Many economists argue that carbon taxes are the most efficient (lowest cost) way to tackle climate change.[9][10][11][12][13] Seventy-seven countries and over 100 cities have committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.[14][8] As of 2019, carbon taxes have been implemented or scheduled for implementation in 25 countries,[15] while 46 countries put some form of price on carbon, either through carbon taxes or carbon emission trading schemes.[16]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#:~:text=A%20carbon%20tax%20is%20a,like%20more%20severe%20weather%20events.

Your source is from 2019. Go to wiki, find the citation, click on it and it will take you to a news article from 2019 at a place called "econofact". This is quite comical mate.

All that is now outdated nonsense. Carbon taxes "reduce" emissions superficially not in reality and by penalty, by forcing people to pay money to replace their cars, which in turn causes more environmental damage as it increases consumerism and throws more cars into the streets, more steel, more batteries, more CO2, more extraction and so on and forth.

These are fake metrics with no leg to stand on.

Think about it, one says this year 1000 cars produced 1000 tonnes of CO2, next year 1000 new cars(but actually 1000+1000=2000) produced 900 tonnes of CO2 in total!

But what about the CO2 cost to produce these extra replacement 1000 cars to replace the older ones? And what about the CO2 cost to produce the money to buy them? And what about the CO2 cost to scrap them? And what about the CO2 cost to pay the "carbon taxes"?

All unaccounted for, ALWAYS, never factored in because that would give people heart-attacks, nosebleeds and severe dissociative disorders.

It's all fake. It's all about getting you in the rat race so you can be taxed and get you into the credit tit several times over and over and over.

[late]

It's all fake.

Nope.

We have to change, and the number of tools we have are limited.

We will develop new ones, but at this point in time, the Carbon Tax is the best.

It does need to be part of an actual plan, for example, it needs to be incremental. There needs to be more mass transit, and the development and deployment of the Smart Grid etc.

That hasn't happened much, but it will. The spectacular growth of ebikes, and the building of infrastructure to support that growth, surprised the heck out of me.

We are in a transitional period.

[JohnRawls]

They appear to be total lunacy, we are collectively suffering from inflation and we are doubling our energy prices with green tarrifs, subsidies, balancing costs, to sustain a myth.

We are at the same time offering billions to farmer, livestock producers to ditch their farms because cows fart too much CO2, at a time when fertiliser costs are through the roof driving our primary sector and food prices into oblivion.

One by one governments across the west and even Labour are ditching their "green" religion pledges.

Consumers and the market should decide what kind of new technologies are mature enough and not expensive industrial strategies that lead to nowhere.

Why? The market rarely decided this kind of stuff in the first place and only decided on maturity or cost-benefit of all technologies. Otherwise we have always guided our own technological development. It is not like we developed LCD panels, transistors, modern processors, internet, cameras etc out of pure market instinct.

All of that was designed by super heavy taxes and need for military use. Capitalism is just tricky in that sense that it trickles down to consumer use over time but the basic principle of Keynsianism still holds as long as the military industry and technology has private sector foundation for it, even if it is subsidiesed heavily. That was the whole foundation of post-WW2 economic boom to a large degree. Not the only factor but you get it.

Vast majority of the technology and advancement that you use right now is based on military hardware from your computer, processor, monitor, internet, phone, GPS, guidance systems or even basic manufacturing tools to light weight and composite materials.

That is why I am not really worried about Green lunacy or the new Cold War arms race honestly. Western economies are private business based and the tech and money they all trickle down to the private sector. John Meynard Keyns wasn't exactly wrong with his ideas. But that model has flaws that it can't be run forever in the same way as any model so it needs times when something else can fix for its flaws. Hence we have monetarism also or what Raegan did.

[noemon]

LCD panels, transistors, modern processors, internet, cameras etc out of pure market instinct.

Confirm this astute propaganda.

Post the state grants as gdp % for all these on a timescale, then compare it to the green lunacy penalties, grants, subsidies and market bans on the GDP % and timescale.

You are clearly confusing a state helping minimally a tech product to be developed with states imposing inferior tech on the market over decades with extreme penalties, bans and money. You are comparing a pebble with Mt Everest. While saying "here be a pebble, no problem if we throw Mt Everest money".

We are in a transitional period.

Why transition to a car that is proven to be dirtier than petrol?

Is that backwards transition?

[late]

Why transition to a car that is proven to be dirtier than petrol?

Is that backwards transition?

As I pointed out earlier, lithium will be forgotten when we develop better batteries. You have a part of a point, change will release carbon, be it a power dam, or an ev, or whatever.

But over the life of that dam, carbon emissions will be over 90% lower.

Problems have solutions, and giving up is not a solution, it's a suicide note.

[noemon]

No it is not 90% over that life, but 9000% percent.

That is what is a suicide note, lying to your own self by sweeping emissions you dislike under the rug while pretending to be saving the environment when you are only throwing coal into the fire to sustain the financial engines of credit.

[JohnRawls]

Confirm this astute propaganda.

Post the state grants as gdp % for all these on a timescale, then compare it to the green lunacy penalties, grants, subsidies and market bans on the GDP % and timescale.

You are clearly confusing a state helping minimally a tech product to be developed with states imposing inferior tech on the market over decades with extreme penalties, bans and money. You are comparing a pebble with Mt Everest. While saying "here be a pebble, no problem if we throw Mt Everest money".



Why transition to a car that is proven to be dirtier than petrol?

Is that backwards transition?

For example. Around 40-60% of all high tech engineers/personal and so on in the US during the cold war were in or related to military industrial production. The same number for the Soviets was 90%. And the situation was not that different in Europe at the same time.

The difference though that our military industry is private both in Europe and US so the advances trickled down to what you use right now.

LCD were radar pannels. Processors/Transistors were guidance computers for ballistic missiles. Electronics and circuitry were used for minituarising weapons. Advanced alloys and materials were made for submarines, planes and so on. Internet is an intelligence sharing network and command and control. Cameras were for satellites.

So we invested around 15-10% of ALL OF OUR GDPs per year durring that time as a large subsidy to advance those technologies.

[noemon]

So we invested around 15-10% of ALL OF OUR GDPs per year durring that time as a large subsidy to advance those technologies.

Are you on drugs? This is a serious question.

Are you averaging out US military spending across the world to appropriate US military tech?

Are you confusinfg US military spending with investment on R&D for the internet?

For example. Around 40-60% of all high tech engineers/personal and so on in the US during the cold war were in or related to military industrial production. The same number for the Soviets was 90%. And the situation was not that different in Europe at the same time.

No sense from this, it is intentionally cryptic and convoluted because you know what kind of nonsense you are trying to make out, are you saying 40-60% of US military spending was for the development of the internet?

Post the GDP% required by the US to develop the internet. Then the GDP% for LCD's.

Then compare either 1 with the green religious madness. Show how the US banned telephones to promote the internet. Show how the US banned the sale of older tv's to promote LCD's with penalties for every old tv sold. Show how the US imposed tv tarrifs on energy bills to promote LCD's.

Like of like is what is required. And you will not find like-for-like to justify this religion.

Your line of argument is comical. Might work with some ignorants but the fact remains you are comparing a single grain of sand with Mt Everest.

[JohnRawls]

Are you on drugs? This is a serious question.

Are you averaging out US military spending across the world to appropriate US military tech?



No sense from this, it is intentionally cryptic and convoluted because you know what kind of nonsense you are trying to make out, are you saying 40-60% of US military spending was for the development of the internet?

Post the GDP% required by the US to develop the internet. Then the GDP% for LCD's. Then compare either 1 with the green religious madness.

It is the same thing just an far smaller scale though. We are subsidising development of technology in one direction then it was for the military now it is green tech in general. At the end of the day both military spending and the current green policies are tax money going in to one direction or the other.

I am not averaging US military spending it was one example. Here is for the G7



We still average probably around 7-8% of whole GDP accross all West for the cold war. Note, we are talking of all GDP here. After the Cold War was over then all that technology trickled much faster in to civilian sector.

8% percent is an investment of around 4 trillion per year with modern numbers. Actually probably 5-5.5 trillion per year if you don't take just Europe and US but also include Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and so on in to the mix.

[noemon]

Smaller scale?

Try quantum level smaller.

7-8% of GDP for military expenditure is not 7-8% for the development of the internet.

Try 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000..................% of gpd for the internet.

And no it's not the same thing, nobody criticises any government having a fund for R&D. Usually 1-2% of GDP, maybe up to 5%.

This is still online and should always be. But you are reaching, this is still online while another 10-20% of GDP directly or indirectly is sacrificed for the marketing promotion of inferior tech outside the R&D funding, rendering your argument into a strawman of quite epic proportions.

[late]

No it is not 90% over that life, but 9000% percent.

That is what is a suicide note, lying to your own self by sweeping emissions you dislike under the rug while pretending to be saving the environment when you are only throwing coal into the fire to sustain the financial engines of credit.

From the work I've seen, hydropower emits over 90% less than coal or gas...

You are dodging the obvious. We have to deal with climate change. There's a ton of stuff we can do.

[noemon]

You are dodging the obvious without saying anything or just repeating the things I have said.

I praised hydro-power as the ONLY viable green technology since the antiquity, very early on in this very thread.

That is not what the green religion is wasting our money on however as that would be way too succesful and would not enable the recycling of epic consumerism.

You are supporting tons of more emissions, tons of more mining, tons of more consumerism, wasting money everywhere for inferior products, while totally ignoring, hydro, nuclear and the cleaning of our oceans. Instead you are purely focused on defending totally failed policies of pro-consumerism, pro-finance, pro-credit and pro-proletarisation that result in extremely high inflation instead as we push from all sides and the demand and the supply and the money supply and the interest rates.

All at the same time.

It's quite astonishing actually what people and media can get other people to support purely for vanity and virtue-signalling.

[late]

hydro, nuclear and the cleaning of our oceans.

I talked about hydro.

I'm not a reactionary, nuclear power has to be part of the mix.

Creating a regulatory power to deal with the oceans is a great idea, but it wouldn't have much to do with reducing carbon emissions.

This is a 2 sided problem, one part of this is engineering, the other side is implementation. Things like doing the R&D to develop the Smart Grid is one thing. Actually doing it is something else entirely.

Problems have solutions, but I am not sure that human nature does.

[JohnRawls]

Smaller scale?

Try quantum level smaller.

7-8% of GDP for military expenditure is not 7-8% for the development of the internet.

Try 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000..................% of gpd for the internet.

And no it's not the same thing, nobody criticises any government having a fund for R&D. Usually 1-2% of GDP, maybe up to 5%.

This is still online and should always be. But you are reaching, this is still online while another 10-20% of GDP directly or indirectly is sacrificed for the marketing promotion of inferior tech outside the R&D funding, rendering your argument into a strawman of quite epic proportions.

I mean investment in military was investment in great many technologies including scaling of production of those technologies. It is not 0.00000 but basically all that money or vast majority of it. Invention of technology itself is not the only part of it but its implementation and mass production and so on are also very, very important.

Many people have problems understanding the difference between invention/something new and innovation. Innovation is when you introduce value so it is on levels beyond just r and d, meaning it is implemented or mass produced for value of some sort.

And military spending was exactly that r and d, introduction in to mass production, training of people, introduction of mass production, iteration and so on.

[noemon]

I mean investment in military was investment in great many technologies including scaling of production of those technologies. It is not 0.00000 but basically all that money or vast majority of it. Invention of technology itself is not the only part of it but its implementation and mass production and so on are also very, very important.

Many people have problems understanding the difference between invention/something new and innovation. Innovation is when you introduce value so it is on levels beyond just r and d, meaning it is implemented or mass produced for value of some sort.

And military spending was exactly that r and d, introduction in to mass production, training of people, introduction of mass production, iteration and so on.

You have clear trouble understanding that US military expenditure IS NOT R&D expenditure on "green tech" or the "internet" tech.

Your claim is comical. And you seem incapable to understand that US green-religion spending is totally ON TOP of US military spending and ON TOP of R&D spending.

[JohnRawls]

You have clear trouble understanding that US military expenditure IS NOT R&D expenditure on "green tech" or the "internet" tech.

Your claim is comical. And you seem incapable to understand that US green-religion spending is totally ON TOP of US military spending and ON TOP of R&D spending.

My claim is that in essence it is something similar. US and all other Western countries have guided development of technologies through state funded money. This is nothing new. It is not that much different to military spending just a vastly smaller scale though.

[noemon]

It's not something similar. It is ON TOP of all these stuff you claim, so it's totally irrelevant, not somewhat irrelant, BUT totally.

It's a silly strawman your claim.

Nobody criticised either military spending or R&D spending.

The Green religion is ON TOP of all that and at an extreme voiume when you combine all the green religious penalties, fines, subsidies, bans, ULEZ's, carbon taxes, levies, balancing costs, recycling, mining, etcetera.

Your claim is government needs to money for R&D, they already do. They need to spend some R&D for military, they already do and that's fine.

The Green religion is ON-TOP of all that, making your claim false, flat out.

[JohnRawls]

It's not something similar. It is ON TOP of all these stuff you claim, so it's totally irrelevant, not somewhat irrelant, BUT totally.

It's a silly strawman your claim.

Nobody criticised either military spending or R&D spending.

The Green religion is ON TOP of all that and at an extreme voiume when you combine all the green religious penalties, fines, subsidies, bans, ULEZ's, carbon taxes, levies, balancing costs, recycling, mining, etcetera.

Your claim is government needs to money for R&D, they already do. They need to spend some R&D for military, they already do and that's fine.

The Green religion is ON-TOP of all that, making your claim false, flat out.

I don't get it though. Is your main point that taxes are used for subsidizing R and D/Production/Companies that otherwise wouldn't exist or what exactly? You do not agree with the general concept?Or is it specific extremes that you don't like within Green crowd like veganism or anti-cow etc?

May be I have misunderstood. I thought this topic is about the general production/investment in r and d of green energy/greening.

[noemon]

I don't get it though. Is your main point that taxes are used for subsidizing R and D/Production/Companies that otherwise wouldn't exist or what exactly? You do not agree with the general concept?Or is it specific extremes that you don't like within Green crowd like veganism or anti-cow etc?

May be I have misunderstood. I thought this topic is about the general production/investment in r and d of green energy/greening.

John, who are you kidding?

I have written to you explicitly already more than once that I have no issue with R&D funding, or with military expenditure.

I have also pointed out to you the mega excesses of the green religion. At this point there is no excuse for a misunderstanding.

This religion is literally banning commodities like cars, gas boilers, gas cookers, and gas is supposed to be a green fuel as per the EU until 2050, it is shutting down nuclear plants(wtf?), it is enforcing mirror energy supplies as every wind-farm and solar far requires gas backup that cost billions in balancing costs per year. We are paying 9? or more carbon taxes driving inflation up and now removing our cows and sheep because they fart too much CO2...at which point does this totally extreme lunacy stop?

If you got a superior product, you don't need to beat people with metal rods to buy it.

And the best argument you can come up is "the internet was discovered via the R&D budget of the US military"? Well dude, that R&D expenditure still exists and there is no issue with that. Hence your entire line of reasoning has been a strawman.

[JohnRawls]

John, who are you kidding?

I have written to you explicitly already more than once that I have no issue with R&D funding, or with military expenditure.

I have also pointed out to you the mega excesses of the green religion. At this point there is no excuse for a misunderstanding.

This religion is literally banning commodities like cars, gas boilers, gas cookers, and gas is supposed to be a green fuel as per the EU until 2050, it is shutting down nuclear plants(wtf?), it is enforcing mirror energy supplies as every wind-farm and solar far requires gas backup that cost billions in balancing costs per year. We are paying 9? or more carbon taxes driving inflation up and now removing our cows and sheep because they fart too much CO2...at which point does this totally extreme lunacy stop?

If you got a superior product, you don't need to beat people with metal rods to buy it.

And the best argument you can come up is "the internet was discovered via the R&D budget of the US military"? Well dude, that R&D expenditure still exists and there is no issue with that. Hence your entire line of reasoning has been a strawman.

Listened we talked in this topic like a year ago or half a year ago yes, but I just don't remember. Then yeah, I misunderstood. I forgot about the banning part. The reason why I defend Green policy from time to time is because it does make sense though. Not all of it of course. In general, the idea is not bad because at the end of the day greening adresses the simple problem that our environment needs to be protected for people not to die. As with any policy, it does go overboard from time to time.