[Eauz]

Good, they got rid of the carbon tax. Next, get rid of the globalists.

[Ter]

Good, they got rid of the carbon tax. Next, get rid of the globalists.

I second the motion.
It should include the Euro Federalists although I suppose those are all globalists anyway.

[Sivad]

The left refuses to oppose the gloabalists in any meaningful way on this issue. The progressive left even thinks the term globalist is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Bernie sheepdog Sanders wants to impose globalist carbon taxes on the working class. He also wants to build wind and solar farms to drive up the cost of energy for the working class. It's gonna have to be the wingnut populists that do the heavy lifting on this one because the left is completely up its own ass with the climate change nonsense.

[Eauz]

Climate change is linked to the U.N. Agenda 21. Enough said.

[Rugoz]

The left refuses to oppose the gloabalists in any meaningful way on this issue. The progressive left even thinks the term globalist is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Bernie sheepdog Sanders wants to impose globalist carbon taxes on the working class. He also wants to build wind and solar farms to drive up the cost of energy for the working class. It's gonna have to be the wingnut populists that do the heavy lifting on this one because the left is completely up its own ass with the climate change nonsense.

Climate change is linked to the U.N. Agenda 21. Enough said.

Judging every policy by its distributive consequences is fucking retarded. You will get nothing done. If a carbon tax is regressive, it can be compensated with progressive taxes or subsidies, but it is per se not a reason to reject it. A carbon tax is a Pigovian tax.

[Sivad]

Judging every policy by its distributive consequences is fucking retarded.

No, designing every policy to redistribute wealth upwards is what's fucking retarded. Ignoring the distributive consequences is also fucking retarded.

You will get nothing done.

You will definitely get nothing done if your policies are less popular than genital warts. And carbon taxes, aside from being wildly unpopular, are ineffective half measures at best. If they were serious about solving the problem they would be imposing steep progressive taxes on the one percent's profits from the carbon economy and heavily investing the revenue in energy R&D and infrastructure.

If a carbon tax is regressive, it can be compensated with progressive taxes or subsidies, but it is per se not a reason to reject it. A carbon tax is a Pigovian tax.

I'm not arguing that it can't be offset with progressive policies, just that it almost certainly won't be and there's no reason to even consider it in the first place when there's a massive wealth gap and the 1% are enjoying the lowest tax rates in modern history.

[Eauz]

Rugoz, the carbon tax has been in existence in various jurisdictions for almost 30 years. More and more countries are adopting it yet the Washington Post reported recently that carbon emissions are at an all time high. You'd think with more places with carbon taxes it would drop.

The biggest problem is population, not carbon. The human population needs to drop a few billion. We never had this problem before the spike in population growth.

[B0ycey]

Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with carbon taxes. Like taxing alcohol and smoking, it is a way of changing habits so we all live a healthier lifestyle. So the issue is not that but our dependence on oil. There is no real alternative yet to get rid of our cars and as such any taxes will effect pockets which have already been stretched far enough by increased living costs. This is where Macron was wrong - although as pointed out it was a promise of his during his election so he did nothing wrong. Nonetheless if Macron is serious about reducing carbon admissions, first he needs to change French habits from diesel to low emission petrol vehicles or electric. This can be achieved by increasing and subsidising taxes on the vehicles depending on their admissions and perhaps increase the price of fuel when the conditions are right to do so.

[blackjack21]

The biggest problem is population, not carbon. The human population needs to drop a few billion. We never had this problem before the spike in population growth.

Well, there's the little problem with trying to raise everyone out of poverty. If we want to get rid of excess atmospheric CO2, helping other countries develop is certainly not the answer. Maybe quitting trade with China and refusing to send medicines to the undeveloped world would reduce population a bit. Ultimately, the narratives of the ruling class simply do not make sense anymore.

Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with carbon taxes.

Modern civilization has the healthiest people in human history. Convincing working class people to tax themselves back into poverty is kind of twisted.

Like taxing alcohol and smoking, it is a way of changing habits so we all live a healthier lifestyle.

Nah. It's just a way of convincing the self-righteous to sign off on a tax increase.

This is where Macron was wrong - although as pointed out it was a promise of his during his election so he did nothing wrong.

That's actually an insightful point. Sooner or later, the people voting for this stuff will have to take responsibility for their own votes and stop blaming it on the politicians. It's time to learn to love Marine Le Pen.

[Rugoz]

You will definitely get nothing done if your policies are less popular than genital warts. And carbon taxes, aside from being wildly unpopular, are ineffective half measures at best. If they were serious about solving the problem they would be imposing steep progressive taxes on the one percent's profits from the carbon economy and heavily investing the revenue in energy R&D and infrastructure.

If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you tax CO2. It's the most efficient way to do it*. Whether is hurts producers or consumers more is not the relevant question here. Hint: How much it hurts each depends on the substitution possibilities.

*Subsidizing certain technologies might be more effective in the beginning. For example, firms might react to carbon taxes by investing in more fuel efficient engines, instead of moving to electric cars, if the latter aren't sufficiently advanced. That R&D in legacy technology is arguably wasted.

Rugoz, the carbon tax has been in existence in various jurisdictions for almost 30 years. More and more countries are adopting it yet the Washington Post reported recently that carbon emissions are at an all time high. You'd think with more places with carbon taxes it would drop.

Per capita emissions in developed countries have been dropping, despite economic growth.

The biggest problem is population, not carbon. The human population needs to drop a few billion. We never had this problem before the spike in population growth.

Well, Macaroni once said African women have too many babies, looks like you're in agreement.

[Sivad]

If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you tax CO2. It's the most efficient way to do it*.

That's sort of beside the point, it's not just about reducing emissions, it's about the most effective humane way of addressing climate change. The recommended $200 per ton carbon price would reduce emissions but not nearly enough to prevent or even significantly reduce the projected impacts of climate change. In order to do that carbon prices would have to be so high that they would effectively be genocidal caps on emissions. The carbon tax would be all cost and very little benefit in terms of real world outcomes.

The only way to sufficiently reduce emissions without killing billions of people is by developing a superior alternative energy source and investing in infrastructure to break path dependency. A global Manhattan Project type alternative energy initiative would almost certainly produce major breakthroughs within a decade or two, just taxing emissions would spur some private investment in research but private capital doesn't have the patience or the resources to maintain an intensive decade-plus r&d initiative so progress would be considerably slower.

[B0ycey]

The only way to sufficiently reduce emissions without killing billions of people is by developing a superior alternative energy source and investing in infrastructure to break path dependency. A global Manhattan Project type alternative energy initiative would almost certainly produce major breakthroughs within a decade or two...

They are already doing this. It is called fusion. Once the breakthrough of making it an efficent energy substitute is achieved, we will have a clean abundant energy source for life.

just taxing emissions would spur some private investment in research but private capital doesn't have the patience or the resources to maintain an intensive decade-plus r&d initiative so progress would be considerably slower.

The problem is not that the technology isn't achieved or that R&D is not being funded but the influence of the oil shills and who is funding the R&D. I have published an article about oil being produced through carbon in the air/water and that this fuel source is already competitive with oil today if subsidies are given to it (ie the fuel isn't taxed) - not to mention that the more it is used the cheaper it becomes as well. But while the US is dependent on the petrodollar, R&D funded by the oil companies will ultimately always be decades away. But that doesn't change the reality. And the reality is if oil was to run out next year, tomorrow we would have an alternative to oil as the technology is there now! And that is the problem with capitalism. While there is profit and power in oil, climate change initiatives will have to wait until the last oil field runs dry before any of us actually see any of it.

[Eauz]

blackjack21, see there were benefits to the population control of the fascists and communists.

[Sivad]

They are doing this. It is called fusion. Once the breakthrough of making it energy efficent occurs, we have clean abundant energy for life.

Fusion is definitely something to aggressively pursue, I would like to see investment in fusion increased twentyfold, but there are dozens of technologies that we could be developing, any one of which would be a game changer, and we're just not doing it. Walkaway safe thorium reactors would be a game changer, we could easily have those in less than a decade. We need to be massively investing in fusion, fission, solar, battery tech, everything, all of it, but instead we're talking about carbon taxes and market incentives.

Fuck the market and market solutions, solving a problem like climate change requires coordinated strategic mass investment and planning. Government funding for r&d gave us the space age and the information age, if we left all that to the market we'd currently be way less technologically advanced than we are. The market didn't create shit, the market basically just expropriated the technology that we as a society developed and sold it back to us.

And yhe reality is if oils was to run out next year, tomorrow we would have an alternative to oil out there today as the technology is out there now!

We have existing alternatives, the point of a carbon price is to incentivize the transition to those alternatives. The problem is those alternatives are nowhere near as cheap, efficient, or reliable as carbon energy so if we transition before those alternatives are competitive with fossil fuels that's gonna trap a lot of people in poverty who would otherwise be rising out of it. Transitioning prematurely would create a lot more human misery than necessary.

[B0ycey]

We have existing alternatives, the point of a carbon price is to incentivize the transition to those alternatives. The problem is those alternatives are nowhere near as cheap, efficient, or reliable as carbon energy so if we transition before those alternatives are competitive with fossil fuels that's gonna trap a lot of people in poverty who would otherwise be rising out of it. Transitioning prematurely would create a lot more human misery than necessary.

But this isn't actually true. Recycling carbon is competitive now if it wasn't taxed. Oil is taxed. So to the average user it is not going to make any difference to them financially if the government pushed forward in this technology - not to mention it will get cheaper the more it is used and invested in as well.

Nonetheless it is true that to compensate the loss of tax revenues you would have to increase taxes somewhere else but that doesn't mean it couldn't be in corporation tax or something else that effects the biggest oil polluters. And in terms of America, they could just reduce their military spending to subsides this technology and that will be good for the Earth as well.

[Sivad]

But this isn't actually true. Recycling carbon is competitive now if it wasn't taxed. Oil is taxed. So to the average user it is not going to make any difference to them financially if the government pushed forward in this technology - not to mention it will get cheaper the more it is used and invested in as well.

Nonetheless it is true that to compensate the loss of tax revenues you would have to increase taxes somewhere else but that doesn't mean it couldn't be in corporation tax or something else that effects the biggest oil polluters. And in terms of America, they could just reduce their military spending to subsides this technology and that will be good for the Earth as well.

Well then problem solved. If you're right then the whole controversy over climate change and carbon prices is now merely academic.

[B0ycey]

Well then problem solved. If you're right then the whole controversy over climate change and carbon prices is now merely academic.

It should be but it isn't - and that is due to Capitalism. The oil shills control America and Europe are more interested in subsiding carbon reduction technology rather than investing in carbon recycling as that is where they profit from. But ultimately when the oil runs out, this technology will raise up like a phoenix from the ashes - along with everything else (like hydrogen fuel) that is funded by the oil shills and will replace oil almost instantaneously.

[Albert]

These protests are serious. I hope all the Macarons and Muttis of new age progressive globalist order are freaking out at this sight.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ce=twitter
Protests spread to Belgium and Netherlands this time around. People are gathering around government buildings.


You know the French government is freaked out when they are bringing out such tools (as armored vehicles) for their defense.

This could lead to many things.

One these protest will dies out. But still create a significant impact.

Second Macron will resign sparking another election. Yet this might encourage others to come out in protest in other countries like Germany and so on. In hope this might potentially lead to protests in Germany and Merkel herself will step down finally. These protests actually have a chance to undo the EU and the whole cabal that runs and supports it.

The downside of these protests is that they are protests. There is no conceptual vision or organization for future to capitalize.

Instead all the gains will go to the far-right if another election is going to be held. I do not really all that big of a fan of Le Pen as I used to be. It is still better then having globalist in power.

Also Macron is keeping a low profile. Must be hard for an egotist.

[Eauz]

Wow, bringing out all the carbon spewing stops to defend the carbon tax. He should be ousted.

[Albert]