"Whether we like it or not" - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15187813
Steve_American wrote:
I proposed 'rationing'.
I would not be opposed in the US for the rich to get double the ration of everthing.
The upper middle class get 1.5 of what everyone else gets.
And 80% getting all the same.

These numbers would IMO still work to reduce equivelent CO2 emmissions enough, fast enough.

Will it happen? IMO, there is a 99% probability of no, and 1% of yes.



Think about it, in one breath you're saying most comes from business, and then talk about rationing...

Rationing is politically unsustainable. It won't touch jet travel, cruises,or shipping, and cheating increases constantly. What you have, all you have, is an excuse to avoid the obvious.

The beauty of a Carbon Tax, is that it lets the market solve the problem. The Economist, in every annual Energy Issue, politely suggests we get a Carbon Tax.


You need to push carbon fuels out of the marketplace, not play dumb games.
#15187830
Steve_American wrote:
No! No! No!

Will any carbon tax the poor can pay be enough to change the behavior of the rich to keep them from living as they choose? No!

IIRC, a recent report says that 90% of CO2 emmisions world wide are released by less than 100 corps.

Will any carbon tax the poor can pay be enough to change their pursuit of profit? No!

So, a carbon tax is not going to alter behavior enough.

Not enough, if the very recent IPCC report is correct.

Well maybe the tax could be enough if the American (here all adults, it's a UBI) were given a tax free $10K / month UBI. But, that amounts to $25 trillion a year in UBI. This size UBI is a silly thoought. What about the rest of the world?! Can they be given a UBI also? Of course not.!
.



The *implications* of this statement are that the market *cannot* be used to fix itself -- which I agree with.

A *global* problem like this needs a *global* approach, not a 'piecemeal', market-type opting-in or opting-out. This isn't a *consumer*-type issue of who-wants-to-buy-what, it's about the freaking *planet*, and whether we can alter civilization sufficiently to keep the planet habitable, or not.
#15187832
ckaihatsu wrote:
The *implications* of this statement are that the market *cannot* be used to fix itself -- which I agree with.

A *global* problem like this needs a *global* approach, not a 'piecemeal', market-type opting-in or opting-out. This isn't a *consumer*-type issue of who-wants-to-buy-what, it's about the freaking *planet*, and whether we can alter civilization sufficiently to keep the planet habitable, or not.



Global problems demand global solutions.

However, you need a way to get there from here. No one is going to pay attention to an American proposal for a global UN carbon agency while we are still one of the worst offenders (and not doing much about it)..
#15187834
late wrote:
Global problems demand global solutions.

However, you need a way to get there from here. No one is going to pay attention to an American proposal for a global UN carbon agency while we are still one of the worst offenders (and not doing much about it)..



Thank you.

I'll note that this topic has already been addressed, regarding the typical corporate bait-and-switch over legitimate environmental concerns:



The film examines the decision of mainstream environmental groups and leaders to partner with billionaires, corporations, and wealthy family foundations in the fight to save a planet said to be in crisis. The film questions whether green energy can solve the problem of society's expanding resource depletion without reducing consumption and population growth, as all existing forms of energy generation require consumption of finite resources. Centrally, the film questions whether renewable energy sources such as biomass energy, wind power, and solar energy, are as clean and renewable as they are portrayed to be.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Humans



To be clear, I'm all for solar and wind, and hydro -- the film notes that *biomass*, in particular, is bullshit, since burning wood is worse pollution-wise, even, than burning *coal*.
#15187837
ckaihatsu wrote:
I'll note that this topic has already been addressed, regarding the typical corporate bait-and-switch over legitimate environmental concerns:

The film questions whether green energy can solve the problem




To be clear, I'm all for solar and wind, and hydro -- the film notes that *biomass*, in particular, is bullshit, since burning wood is worse pollution-wise, even, than burning *coal*.



This is a lot like education here, 99% BS and the rest is just lies.

But... if we're talking global, we still need a plan that will work.
#15187839
late wrote:
This is a lot like education here, 99% BS and the rest is just lies.

But... if we're talking global, we still need a plan that will work.



Well, I'm a revolutionary, so my politics / position / line is that the current political system (of corporatism, and markets) is *insufficient* for even *addressing* a pressing planet-scale problem as this one (etc.).

There first needs to be control of all industrial mass production by the world's working class, so that the *working class* can decide, collectively globally, on how to address global warming, etc.
#15187855
ckaihatsu wrote:
Well, I'm a revolutionary, so my politics / position / line is that the current political system (of corporatism, and markets) is *insufficient* for even *addressing* a pressing planet-scale problem as this one (etc.).

There first needs to be control of all industrial mass production by the world's working class, so that the *working class* can decide, collectively globally, on how to address global warming, etc.



I really don't see that happening.
#15187874
late wrote:How much will the average poor person spend in a month on gas? It's not much.

You're running away from the obvious... If Progressives have enough power to do a Carbon Tax, they will be expanding health care, and doing other things to help the poor. The lives of most of them will get better.

Business is *very* price sensitive. They'll see the handwriting on the wall, and come up with a plan that will save them money.

You're rehashing BS from a generation ago.


#1] Late, are you intending to provide any sort of UBI in US & EU, etc., so that the mass of the people cn pay the higher prices to drive and heat and/or cool their homes? If not there will be riots, like the yellow vests, when you try to raise the price of everything.

#2] Those 100 corps, have market power and can just pass the increased cost of your carbon tax on to their customers. This will reduce sales because most will not be able to pay the increase. Your carbon tax is a regressive tax on the poor. They will resist.

#3] I wonder if you have seen the idea that the French Rev. was caused by the general discontent that had been building for many decades, but it was triggered by a crop failure that seny food prices shooting up.
And the crop failure was caused by a huge volcanic eruption on Iceland that caused bad weather. Your carbon tax *would* be the trigger, that changes the current discontent in the US, EU, etc. to massive violence.
.
#15187878
Steve_American wrote:
#1] Late, are you intending to provide any sort of UBI

#2] Those 100 corps, have market power and can just pass the increased cost of your carbon tax on to their customers. This will reduce sales because most will not be able to pay the increase. Your carbon tax is a regressive tax on the poor. They will resist.

#3] I wonder if you have seen the idea that the French Rev. was caused by the general discontent that had been building for many decades, but it was triggered by a crop failure that seny food prices shooting up.
And the crop failure was caused by a huge volcanic eruption on Iceland that caused bad weather. Your carbon tax *would* be the trigger, that changes the current discontent in the US, EU, etc. to massive violence.



As a preface, I'd like to point out that an incremental Carbon Tax will take 10 to 20 YEARS to get to the level of taxation Europe has today.

1) I'm not talking about Europe. On the rare occasions a Carbon Tax gets talked about, you almost always see a rebate for the poor, and often the lower middle class.

2) Not if the poor see a tangible improvement in their lives... Big business will see the handwriting on the wall. Of course there will be costs, you're not going to save the species without costs. However, that should get Big Business supporting energy improvements that won't keep going up in price.

3) Thanks for the laugh. I can go over why the French Rev happened, and how very different it was from the modern era. But it should suffice to point out that that was an act of desperation.

You need excuses that don't make me laugh..
#15188057
late wrote:As a preface, I'd like to point out that an incremental Carbon Tax will take 10 to 20 YEARS to get to the level of taxation Europe has today.

1) I'm not talking about Europe. On the rare occasions a Carbon Tax gets talked about, you almost always see a rebate for the poor, and often the lower middle class.

2) Not if the poor see a tangible improvement in their lives... Big business will see the handwriting on the wall. Of course there will be costs, you're not going to save the species without costs. However, that should get Big Business supporting energy improvements that won't keep going up in price.

3) Thanks for the laugh. I can go over why the French Rev happened, and how very different it was from the modern era. But it should suffice to point out that that was an act of desperation.

You need excuses that don't make me laugh..


Late,
First, your carbon tax that takes 10 years to begin to seriously bite and so change people's behavior is not going to be fast enough to save anything.
I totally agree with you that to save civilization and maybe the human species, we will have to make changes in the lives of everyone.
Where we disagree is that you want to concentrate the desperation causing changes on the poor and working poor.
While I want to concentrate the changes in decending order of life impact on the super rich, the rich, and the well off. And, none of these people will become desperate as a result of the changes in their lives. Yes, their standard of living will drop a long way, but they wil not be hungry, freezing, or too hot.

These are my predicted results of either a carbon tax or rationing. The carbon tax will impact the poor and working poor the most, but they are not the people causing the problems. It is the well off and rich who are using the energy that is causing the problems. OTOH, my rationing idea, if it is structured righ, will not impact them as much, but will impact the super rich, the rich, and the well off a hell of a lot more.

People, there are 2 ways to look at the solution.
1] What is absolutely necessary?
. . . Here we must not assume the minimum will be enough, or even the middle amount of change. We must assume a fairly high or very high amount of change. We must let the seience decide, and error on the side of too much, IMO.
2] What is currently politically possible?
. . . Here, all I can say is this without a shadow of any doubt *will* not be anywhere near enough to save humanity, let alone civilization.

What this means, IMO, is that unless what is 'politically possible' changes a lot very fast, we are screwed.
So, everyone who is awake to the magnitude of the ACC problem needs to concentrate on how to move the 'Overton Window' a long way toward doing more, more from where it is currently located.

This is why I'm proposing rationing. I'm trying to move the Overton Window. Someone has to propose rationing first before the idea can spread.
,
#15188075
Steve_American wrote:
Late,
First, your carbon tax that takes 10 years to begin to seriously bite and so change people's behavior is not going to be fast enough to save anything.
I totally agree with you that to save civilization and maybe the human species, we will have to make changes in the lives of everyone.
Where we disagree is that you want to concentrate the desperation causing changes on the poor and working poor.
While I want to concentrate the changes in decending order of life impact on the super rich, the rich, and the well off. And, none of these people will become desperate as a result of the changes in their lives. Yes, their standard of living will drop a long way, but they wil not be hungry, freezing, or too hot.

These are my predicted results of either a carbon tax or rationing. The carbon tax will impact the poor and working poor the most, but they are not the people causing the problems. It is the well off and rich who are using the energy that is causing the problems. OTOH, my rationing idea, if it is structured righ, will not impact them as much, but will impact the super rich, the rich, and the well off a hell of a lot more.

People, there are 2 ways to look at the solution.
1] What is absolutely necessary?
. . . Here we must not assume the minimum will be enough, or even the middle amount of change. We must assume a fairly high or very high amount of change. We must let the seience decide, and error on the side of too much, IMO.
2] What is currently politically possible?
. . . Here, all I can say is this without a shadow of any doubt *will* not be anywhere near enough to save humanity, let alone civilization.

What this means, IMO, is that unless what is 'politically possible' changes a lot very fast, we are screwed.
So, everyone who is awake to the magnitude of the ACC problem needs to concentrate on how to move the 'Overton Window' a long way toward doing more, more from where it is currently located.

This is why I'm proposing rationing. I'm trying to move the Overton Window. Someone has to propose rationing first before the idea can spread.



People hate inflation. When they know the cost of gas will keep going up, they will spend a lot to avoid that. When we had a gas crisis, and gas up close to 5$ a lot of big cars vanished, replaced by much smaller vehicles.

On top of that, you're still ignoring the genius of markets. Markets are excellent at solving problems. One study showed that markets were better at this sort of thing than government regs.

Lastly, you've never seen rationing, I have. It sucks, while you keep droning on about public resistance, you ain't seen nuttin' until you see the fury rationing inspires.

An incremental Carbon Tax would work, it would be good for the economy, and it's the only realistic way to get there from here.

#15188190
late wrote:People hate inflation. When they know the cost of gas will keep going up, they will spend a lot to avoid that. When we had a gas crisis, and gas up close to 5$ a lot of big cars vanished, replaced by much smaller vehicles.

On top of that, you're still ignoring the genius of markets. Markets are excellent at solving problems. One study showed that markets were better at this sort of thing than government regs.

Lastly, you've never seen rationing, I have. It sucks, while you keep droning on about public resistance, you ain't seen nuttin' until you see the fury rationing inspires.

An incremental Carbon Tax would work, it would be good for the economy, and it's the only realistic way to get there from here.



And who did that strudy? Who wrote that study? Who funded that study?

I'd bet my life that it was done and written by mainstream economists, and you know I think their theory is 90% bullsh*t.
Whoever paid for it likely had some input into the conclusion.


MS economists just love the market. They love it so much they created an imaginary market that made the market even more powerful. Only problem is that in this "Perfect Market" it is assumed that all the players know everything about everything.
. . . If that is the market the study said is better than Gov. regs. then the study is BS. It is BS because they assumed that one case had everyone knowing everything, but the other case had the Gov. not knowing much of anything. So, of course the case where more is known will do better.

IMHO, it was relying on the market without Gov. interferance that got the world to the point that record setting hurricanes hit the US once every 5 years. A new record of area burned by forest fires in the west is set every year. The west is suffering the worst dought in the last 1000 years, and that is assuming it stops now; if it goes on for another 10 years, it may be the worst drought in 10,000 years. And, it is very likely that the rain and snow will not return to even 3/4 of the old normal for 1000+ years.

So, I don't think the market will deliver us from this mess.
.
#15188266
Steve_American wrote:And who did that strudy? Who wrote that study? Who funded that study?

I'd bet my life that it was done and written by mainstream economists, and you know I think their theory is 90% bullsh*t.
Whoever paid for it likely had some input into the conclusion.


MS economists just love the market. They love it so much they created an imaginary market that made the market even more powerful. Only problem is that in this "Perfect Market" it is assumed that all the players know everything about everything.
. . . If that is the market the study said is better than Gov. regs. then the study is BS. It is BS because they assumed that one case had everyone knowing everything, but the other case had the Gov. not knowing much of anything. So, of course the case where more is known will do better.

IMHO, it was relying on the market without Gov. interferance that got the world to the point that record setting hurricanes hit the US once every 5 years. A new record of area burned by forest fires in the west is set every year. The west is suffering the worst dought in the last 1000 years, and that is assuming it stops now; if it goes on for another 10 years, it may be the worst drought in 10,000 years. And, it is very likely that the rain and snow will not return to even 3/4 of the old normal for 1000+ years.

So, I don't think the market will deliver us from this mess.



I don't blame you for being angry, but avoiding the best tool we have would be quite irrational.
#15188277
late wrote:
I really don't see that happening.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, then, what's *your* proposal, if not proletarian revolution, and not capitalist-market carbon credits -- ?



---


Steve_American wrote:
So, I don't think the market will deliver us from this mess.
.



So if not the market mechanism, then what's the *alternative*, SA -- ?
#15188300
ckaihatsu wrote:
So if not the market mechanism, then what's the *alternative*, SA -- ?



An incremental Carbon Tax, incentives for alternatives, money to develop and deploy a Smart Grid, R&D money to develop tech to buy us time ( I don't include proposals to extract carbon from the atmosphere). Things like throwing water into the upper atmosphere. There are several proposals, some should be tried.
#15188382
ckaihatsu wrote:---

So if not the market mechanism, then what's the *alternative*, SA -- ?


I gave you my suggestion. Consider 'rationing'.

[C]-chaihatsu seems to be stuck with refusing to consider any other alternative.
.
#15188384
ckaihatsu wrote:
So if not the market mechanism, then what's the *alternative*, SA -- ?



Steve_American wrote:
I gave you my suggestion. Consider 'rationing'.

[C]-chaihatsu seems to be stuck with refusing to consider any other alternative.
.



And *your* own problem is typographical errors.

Here's the thing -- you're not clear on whether rationing is *across-the-board*, for 'everyone', or if it's meant to address the *worst corporate polluters* and those individuals who *benefit* from such:


---


Steve_American wrote:
I totally agree with you that to save civilization and maybe the human species, we will have to make changes in the lives of everyone.


Steve_American wrote:
The carbon tax will impact the poor and working poor the most, but they are not the people causing the problems. It is the well off and rich who are using the energy that is causing the problems. OTOH, my rationing idea, if it is structured righ, will not impact them as much, but will impact the super rich, the rich, and the well off a hell of a lot more.



viewtopic.php?p=15188057#p15188057



---


Also, you left-off on the other thread whether you're more concerned with pollution *itself*, or if people could not-be-punished and still retain their standards of living, if the pollution thing could be solved:


Steve_American wrote:
I favor much less world trade, people should buy local and only import what they can't made or extract form their own resources, and not consume energy moving stuff half-way around the worlld.]
.



ckaihatsu wrote:
So you're concerned about *pollution*, then? Is that it?

Electric vehicles are beginning to transform the *entire* transportation landscape, including even potentially for trans-oceanic shipping lines -- I'm sure there will be 'green', 'non-polluting' trade routes soon enough.



viewtopic.php?p=15186878#p15186878
#15188638
@ckaihatsu, @ckaihatsu,
Rationing is whatever rationing that is necessary.
On corps. on people, on who ever.
It needs to start in the West (US, EU, Canada, aust. NZ, Japan, etc.)
It may not be possible to expend it to the 3rd world, but thay are not really the problem now.
They may become the problem someday soon though.

I posted a thread about how new tech may solve a lot of problems. One way was with Electic cars that are driven by AI, and they come to you on demand in a shot time (because there is no labor cost they will be cheap). So, nobody will own a car. So, the ration system doesn't need to worry about rationing cars. It will have to ration miles each of us travel in these new AI cars.

Yes, I have a problem removing all the typos. My laptop has strange keys that don't always work, and I hit the wrong key too much, then I get rushed when proof reading them.
#15188680
Steve_American wrote:
@ckaihatsu, @ckaihatsu,
Rationing is whatever rationing that is necessary.
On corps. on people, on who ever.
It needs to start in the West (US, EU, Canada, aust. NZ, Japan, etc.)
It may not be possible to expend it to the 3rd world, but thay are not really the problem now.
They may become the problem someday soon though.

I posted a thread about how new tech may solve a lot of problems. One way was with Electic cars that are driven by AI, and they come to you on demand in a shot time (because there is no labor cost they will be cheap). So, nobody will own a car. So, the ration system doesn't need to worry about rationing cars. It will have to ration miles each of us travel in these new AI cars.

Yes, I have a problem removing all the typos. My laptop has strange keys that don't always work, and I hit the wrong key too much, then I get rushed when proof reading them.



And what's the *social basis* for this fleet of autonomous cars (presumably Nuro or similar) -- ?

Right now it's sounding more like a politician's *campaign promise* -- so, who would *own* these AI cars, how would costs be covered, etc. -- ?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 43
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going on[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]