The Environmental Catastrophe of Green Technology - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15263100
late wrote:The Carbon Tax.

Yes.

No, if you have a tax on a single fuel, it's not a Carbon Tax.

This is devolving into one of those discussions where you want me to do your homework for you. Psst, it's called Passive/Aggressive, and it tells us you've got bupkus, nada, nothing.


Please stop projecting your own issues unto other people. It's quite ridiculous.

I gave you an entire list of carbon taxes:

Fuel Duty(50%-65%), VAT(20% in the UK up to 27% in EU) on the Fuel Duty, ULEZ(Ultra-Low-Emission-Zones to enter cities), Road Tax based on Emissions and the Green Levy charged on all electricity and fuel bills(household & commercial).

Which one of these is your coveted carbon tax? You said none but some in Europe? All these apply in Europe, so make yourself and your position clear.
#15263101
late wrote:That is called projection... not too smart, giving up, and then accusing the other guy of having run out of steam..

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Carbon-Tax-Hang-ups-Effective/dp/1597265330

I am sure there is money to be made on these dubious systems. The question is not whether they would have an impact but whether it is the best we can do. Purposeful positive actions and direct research and investment in renewables/Greentech is superior to complex taxation systems that companies can cheat (see VW emission scandal), that they can outsource (aka export their emission to other countries such as China).
The main issue with CO2 emissions is that we don't currently have a viable replacement for fossils. Other than suppressing any sort of wasted fuel in the world, the next thing a more expensive fuel does is to drive down economic activity. If you are OK with just driving down economic activity why stop at taxing fuels, why not ban all hydrocarbons at all? That will save the planet, it will fuck humanity in the ass, but it will definitely save the planet from global warming :lol: .
We need alternatives so that people can move OUT of fossils. Panels, winds, electric cars can do a bit of the work, but there is not enough material in the world, readily available that would allow us to do the switch in the required time to make the impact.

We need policies that allows for more mindful use of the resources we have and promotes investment on better sources of energy. We need politicians to ban stupid use of energy waste such as bitcoin. Promotion of telepresence and work-from home when it makes sense to decrease commutes and traffic (iddling cars). We need goverments to phase out the use of coal in favor of nuclear but if not possible for logistic issues, at least use natural gas. We need positive re-forestation projects and carbon capture projects. We didn't tax landlines, steam engines and horses out of existence, we found better ways to do the required job and the obsolete technologies slowly diminished into obsolescence. I don't understand why you think this should be any different. And if those were not good enough reasons, just knowing that Elon Musk likes carbon tax, to me, is enough to be sending alarm bells all over the place that something is funky with that idea.
#15263102
noemon wrote:
Which one of these is your coveted carbon tax? You said none but some in Europe? All these apply in Europe, so make yourself and your position clear.



A Carbon Tax covers all carbon fuels. There are different ways to implement that, basically at the wellhead, refinery or point of sale. But any single tax isn't a Carbon Tax.

Europe has a Cap and Trade system, I hate Cap and Trade, it's not really a Carbon Tax. Which brings up a problem, there is a ton of variety among the various taxing schemes, and none of them were intended to actually get the job done.

What would work is an incremental tax. Perhaps the equivalent of 10 cents/yr on gas. It would be derived by the amount of emissions, per btu, of the fuel. There are other ways to do it, the nice thing about sales tax is that it's easy to implement.

The question I ask myself is how much disaster will it take for people to be willing to actually do something.
#15263125
noemon wrote:Please stop projecting your own issues unto other people. It's quite ridiculous.

I gave you an entire list of carbon taxes:

Fuel Duty(50%-65%), VAT(20% in the UK up to 27% in EU) on the Fuel Duty, ULEZ(Ultra-Low-Emission-Zones to enter cities), Road Tax based on Emissions and the Green Levy charged on all electricity and fuel bills(household & commercial).

Which one of these is your coveted carbon tax? You said none but some in Europe? All these apply in Europe, so make yourself and your position clear.

Some European countries consider wood pellets carbon neutral, so burning wood, which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than even coal, is considered carbon neutral. California imports energy from other states (and some of that energy comes from fossil fuels including coal), and because there is no release of CO2 inside California, they label it as carbon neutral. In the US we grow large amount of corn, and instead of feeding hungry people with it, we make alcohol to burn it all inside our F150s. Germany decommissions truly carbon-neutral nuclear plants in favor of solar/wind and find themselves in the position of needing to make fossil fuel plants to buffer the grid when the sun doesn't shine or wind doesnt blow... These are the duffus that presumably are going to come up with a foolproof plan of carbon taxing to save our planet? :lol: I find this notion laughable. The plan may make perfect sense in a book, and if we hired an dozen economists and scientists to make up the system, maybe it could work. But legislators? Fuck that. You going to put Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ilhan Omar together in a room and come up with a tax system to curtail CO2 to save our planet? RIP Earth.
You cannot trust these foking idiots to come with these convoluted plans. The fool-proof method is to have energy generation system that does not generate CO2 as a byproduct. That leaves nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal. Geothermal, hydroelectric, solar and wind are all very geographic specific and neither solar nor wind has on-demand (surge) capabilities and have problems with reliability. That essentially leaves nuclear as the backbone.

But in this case, Blacks are clearly not barred[…]

XogGyux, human exploitation is a choice. It is no[…]

We hit the debt ceiling thursday

No, you can't. Borrowing is just paying higher de[…]

I think our conceptions of 'living', and 'politic[…]