[Rancid]

@Sivad, so your opposition to any action is basically that your cost of living might go up even though it already is going up regardless via market forces?

[SolarCross]

Every part of that is wrong.

There are already massive taxes on petrol and diesel for car fuel. In Europe they are far more greedy than in the US. The fuel taxes are more than half the cost at the pump in most European countries including the UK.

France had a civil melt down over a slight increase in the fuel taxes (ongoing?). There is no more room for greedy taxmen, the taxes are maxed out already. Any more and the economy collapses and people start dragging taxmen and politicians out of their holes and hanging them in the street. Just saying.

[late]

There are already massive taxes on petrol and diesel for car fuel. In Europe they are far more greedy than in the US. The fuel taxes are more than half the cost at the pump in most European countries including the UK.

France had a civil melt down over a slight increase in the fuel taxes (ongoing?). There is no more room for greedy taxmen, the taxes are maxed out already. Any more and the economy collapses and people start dragging taxmen and politicians out of their holes and hanging them in the street. Just saying.

Using my incremental Carbon Tax idea, it would take 15-20 years to get to the level of tax Europe has had on gas for just as long.

And aside from the babbling, we need to shift the economy away from carbon. There is no changing that, and the more you whine the worse it will go for you when it happens.

Speaking of babbling, most Carbon Tax proposals include a generous rebate for most people.

[SolarCross]

We need to shift the economy away from carbon.

Take a break from dreaming up ways to steal from people and go invent something then.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no need to invent anything.

Most of the technology we need to stop using fossil fuels has been around for decades.

[Rancid]

Take a break from dreaming up ways to steal from people and go invent something then.

In many cases, Solar is already cheaper than fossil fuels. This is the silent indicator no one seems to know about or talk about.

The dream isn't a dream, it's real. Get on board.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/06/04/climate-change-coal-now-more-expensive-than-wind-solar-energy/1277637001/

Solar is getting so cheap that after I redo my roof in the next 2-3 years, i intend to install panels. It's getting very close to the point where it's economically stupid not to install panels on your house.

This was made possible by early government investment in solar tech. During the Bush (yes, believe it or not) and Obama admins. The same government that invested in GPS, Fracking, Nuclear power, Space technology, and all sorts of other shit to get those industries off the ground. Mainly because the private sector is too short sighted on these long pole technologies to do anything innovated since they are profit driven. For those of you that think the government just gets in the way and does nothing helpful, think again... . .


Once again, the mixed economy prevails...

[Godstud]

Carbon Tax.

I lived in BC, Canada, where they've had a Carbon Tax since 2008. I ended up saving more money every year because of the rebate and because I had a fuel efficient car. Pretending it costs everyone more money is completely misrepresenting the argument, and a bold-faced lie.

[Pants-of-dog]

Reducing carbon use also helps reduce the eventual cost of cleaning up all this pollution.

The idea that using fossil fuels does not come with these costs is because they have been treated as externalities.

[Godstud]

Incidentally, the Carbon Tax was (2.41 cents per litre on gasoline). That's about a 2% hike on the price of gas. The rebate you got, more than paid for it, if you had even close to a fuel efficient vehicle($200 rebate... per person).


Take a read. The ridiculous assumption that Carbon Taxes will hurt the economy are actually unfounded.

How B.C. brought in Canada's 1st carbon tax and avoided economic disaster
Research suggests B.C.'s 2008 tax has helped reduce emissions without hurting the economy
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british- ... -1.5083734

[Sivad]

@Sivad, so your opposition to any action is basically that your cost of living might go up even though it already is going up regardless via market forces?

and rancid taps out with a braindead bullshit

[Pants-of-dog]

@Sivad

I asked you a question.

Can you answer it?

[Rancid]

and rancid taps out with a braindead bullshit

I have not insulted you in this thread. Why are you doing this?

Can you answer my previous question? You can answer with "no", and that is an acceptable answer to me.
I'm asking you these questions so that I can understand what is your underpinning principal.

You don't have to be a dick about it. I'm actually trying to understand you better, and you're being an asshole. If you want me to take you seriously, as I have been, you need to chill the fuck out with this bullshit.

Otherwise, I'll jsut group you in my skinter/bigsteve/balckjack/finfinder bucket, and just ignore you as another pofo crackpot.

[SolarCross]

Mainly because the private sector is too short sighted on these long pole technologies to do anything innovated since they are profit driven.

This is not true at all. The private sector innovates all the time exactly because they are "profit driven". The public sector robs the private sector to the tune of half of GDP in some countries, they do not do that because they are saintly charitable people. They do that because they are even more greedy and "profit driven". The only difference is that the private sector has to earn its money by returning value to the customer. The public sector does not have to earn their money because they just take it and that allows them more scope for wasting money on stupid shit that no one wants.

[Rancid]

This is not true at all

I never said the private sector doesn't innovate (I work in tech, and the private sector, Of course I see innovation all the time). I said the private sector doesn't innovate on long pole technologies. That is, things that need a heavy amount of upfront investment that will not see profit in very long time horizon (10 years +). Like, GPS, fracking, solar, the internet, rocketry/space, etc.

The private sectors time horizon is usually more on the 2-5 year window. For example, investors never invest in startups unless they can be profitable within 2-3 years. Large private companies will often have larger windows too, but it's rarely 10+ year windows on tech development. Private companies will only go on a long pole tech, if there are incremental steps in which they can make profit. This isn't always possible with many innovations (like the one's I mentioned). They often rely in the government to do the initial path clearing on tech. This has historically held true for many technologies. Earth changing technologies.

The US government in particular (but also European, Japanese, Korean, and now Chinese governments too) have been critical to seeding all sorts of industries, this is an indisputable fact people like to ignore, intentionally.

[Rich]

And if we cause a mass extinction, then we ourselves will likely be one of the first victims of the disruption of the environment, which will remove the cause of the mass extinction.

You are correct that the Earth aside from its most superficial surface is unaffected by humans. However I suspect we have the ability to survive over pretty much all large and medium sized land mammals in any extinction event.

[SolarCross]

I wonder if there could have been anything more "long pole" than human flight?

[late]

Take a break from dreaming up ways to steal from people and go invent something then.

Right after you take a break from shoveling moronic crap.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xg4Uq1W4L8

I wonder if there could have been anything more "long pole" than human flight?

Were the Wright brothers trying to make money off their work?

[Rancid]

I wonder if there could have been anything more "long pole" than human flight?

I'm not going to bother to look at the link, but assuming it's accurate and truthful, this would not disprove the fact that all the previous technologies I mentioned were accelerated due to government investment. They can't all be hits, as the say.

Also, government investment includes the government subsidization/investment in private sector companies that would otherwise not be viable in the market. This happens too. Also recall, Tesla stayed afloat because of government investment. They invested in Tesla just long enough to prove the financial viability of electric cars. This eventually got the attention of all the large automakers. It's because the government invested in Tesla, that now Ford/GM/etc are getting into the EV game hard and fast. Semi-conductors is another are the government invested heavily in.

Oh another technology that has/is accelerated by the government. Driverless cars. Back in the early 2000s I was working on a driver less car project sponsored by the Government (DARPA). Lots of the university grad students that works on that shit are working for all the companies that are doing driver less cars today. In other words, the government trained autonomous driving experts before they ever got into the private sector. Hell, before the private industry started to take driver less cars as a serious business opportunity.

Here it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge


Why does the economy have to be an either (private versus public) or proposition? Why can't it be mixed? The only reason I can think of, is that people tie themselves too strongly to an ideological tribe. Fuck that shit man, break the boundaries. Be like Otto Von Bismarck. Look at the practical reality of everything, fuck ideology.

[Rancid]

Were the Wright brothers trying to make money off their work?

Good question. What was their motive anyway?