Carbon taxes [modified]
-
Yes, develop alternative energy sources. But for gods sake do it for the right reasons, and not because of AGW. AGW is in the process of debasing science and technology. Even after it is dead, it will take generations for these two to recover their good name.
Life is a bitch, then you die. So have fun anyway! :)
Eric__V wrote:
Yes, develop alternative energy sources.
Yes, which is why I've been advocating the increased use of oil, etc. Run out of it more quickly and there'll be a bigger incentive to find something else. (Other nice effects, too.) But as long as it is cheaper to drill and mine, the drilling and mining will continue....done by the same people, reaping the same benefits. Not saying they're evil. Not saying they're greedy. Saying that's their business and business is good. Let 'em find another business, or at least branch out more vigorously. But why should they, when government regs are pretty much guaranteeing them many many more years of it by restricting the flow, which also drives the price up without really increasing the cost of doing business much (if at all)?
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
Well, I never liked Kevin, but I like her less.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Just read that as:
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, I never killed Kevin
:-D
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Eric__V wrote:
Yes, develop alternative energy sources.
Yes, which is why I've been advocating the increased use of oil, etc. Run out of it more quickly and there'll be a bigger incentive to find something else. (Other nice effects, too.) But as long as it is cheaper to drill and mine, the drilling and mining will continue....done by the same people, reaping the same benefits. Not saying they're evil. Not saying they're greedy. Saying that's their business and business is good. Let 'em find another business, or at least branch out more vigorously. But why should they, when government regs are pretty much guaranteeing them many many more years of it by restricting the flow, which also drives the price up without really increasing the cost of doing business much (if at all)?
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
Yeah, quite agree. It's just human nature to pirsue maximum profits with minimum effort. In fact it's pretty much fundamental to the entire planet and all life in it, ie, greed is natural. :) We need to keep a fair bit of oil and coal back, its used alot ini the chemical industry, so before we burn all of it we need to develope alternative energy sources. Another good reason to do so is to stop pumping billions of dollars and euros into the middle east. If we did, then alot of todays problems would go away.
Life is a bitch, then you die. So have fun anyway! :)
-
Yeah, quite agree. It's just human nature to pirsue maximum profits with minimum effort. In fact it's pretty much fundamental to the entire planet and all life in it, ie, greed is natural. :) We need to keep a fair bit of oil and coal back, its used alot ini the chemical industry, so before we burn all of it we need to develope alternative energy sources. Another good reason to do so is to stop pumping billions of dollars and euros into the middle east. If we did, then alot of todays problems would go away.
Life is a bitch, then you die. So have fun anyway! :)
Eric__V wrote:
Another good reason to do so is to stop pumping billions of dollars and euros into the middle east. If we did, then alot of todays problems would go away.
That was one of the added benefits alluded to. Use it all up and they'll have to get real jobs. :laugh:
We were waiting, We were watching. Yes we knew it all along. You were wrong. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
Eric__V wrote:
Another good reason to do so is to stop pumping billions of dollars and euros into the middle east. If we did, then alot of todays problems would go away.
That was one of the added benefits alluded to. Use it all up and they'll have to get real jobs. :laugh:
We were waiting, We were watching. Yes we knew it all along. You were wrong. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
I'm told India has a carbon tax now, is that right ? I think it's the highest order of stupidity. Assuming that carbon is warming our atmosphere at the rate some claim, why spend a fortune so that instead of getting to xx ppm in Jan, we get there in June ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
modified on Monday, July 4, 2011 12:27 AM
To irritate them I ask what they mean by carbon, and whether they know what carbon dioxide is. Then I can go onto the ban-sodium-chloride-because-chlorine-is-bad campaign. If I meet a real fundy greenie I can try and get them excited about banning H2O. You can drown in H2O.
------------------<;,><-------------------
-
I'm told India has a carbon tax now, is that right ? I think it's the highest order of stupidity. Assuming that carbon is warming our atmosphere at the rate some claim, why spend a fortune so that instead of getting to xx ppm in Jan, we get there in June ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
modified on Monday, July 4, 2011 12:27 AM
-
To irritate them I ask what they mean by carbon, and whether they know what carbon dioxide is. Then I can go onto the ban-sodium-chloride-because-chlorine-is-bad campaign. If I meet a real fundy greenie I can try and get them excited about banning H2O. You can drown in H2O.
------------------<;,><-------------------
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO? Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are: Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities. Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage. Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects. DHMO is a major component of acid rain. Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns. Contributes to soil erosion. Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits. Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes. Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions. Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks. Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S. Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect. Excerpt from http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
-
Yes, develop alternative energy sources. But for gods sake do it for the right reasons, and not because of AGW. AGW is in the process of debasing science and technology. Even after it is dead, it will take generations for these two to recover their good name.
Life is a bitch, then you die. So have fun anyway! :)
Eric__V wrote:
Yes, develop alternative energy sources
So for example the common man starts driving around electric cars (or hydrogen, etc). And then those that are rich would no longer be able to buy fossil fuels? Could you please explain how the first leads to the second?
-
Eric__V wrote:
Yes, develop alternative energy sources
So for example the common man starts driving around electric cars (or hydrogen, etc). And then those that are rich would no longer be able to buy fossil fuels? Could you please explain how the first leads to the second?
Because currently the carbon taxes, as are all taxes, a burden to the middle classes. Scrapping carbon taxes, but at the same time developing alternative energy sources (that are not expensive) will mean that everyone can benefit.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Because currently the carbon taxes, as are all taxes, a burden to the middle classes. Scrapping carbon taxes, but at the same time developing alternative energy sources (that are not expensive) will mean that everyone can benefit.
============================== Nothing to say.
Eric__V wrote:
Because currently the carbon taxes, as are all taxes, a burden to the middle classes.
Scrapping carbon taxes, but at the same time developing alternative energy sources (that are not expensive) will mean that everyone can benefit.That has nothing to do with what you said. You said: "What they will do is ensure the continued supply of fossil fuels for the rich." Again - what strategy of any kind will not allow the "rich" to continue to procure fossil fuels if that is what the "rich" want to do?
-
Eric__V wrote:
Because currently the carbon taxes, as are all taxes, a burden to the middle classes.
Scrapping carbon taxes, but at the same time developing alternative energy sources (that are not expensive) will mean that everyone can benefit.That has nothing to do with what you said. You said: "What they will do is ensure the continued supply of fossil fuels for the rich." Again - what strategy of any kind will not allow the "rich" to continue to procure fossil fuels if that is what the "rich" want to do?
jschell wrote:
Again - what strategy of any kind will not allow the "rich" to continue to procure fossil fuels if that is what the "rich" want to do?
What strategy? Its called opening your eyes and protesting. The pro AGW crowd think Al Gore a hero, and the scientists gods. They have been duped into making millions for Gore in Carbon trading and successfull careers for the scientists. The first prerequisite to not getting screwed by the rich and powerfull is to know its happening. :) Fortunately democracy proivides us with a way of objecting to this when it becomes apparent.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
jschell wrote:
Again - what strategy of any kind will not allow the "rich" to continue to procure fossil fuels if that is what the "rich" want to do?
What strategy? Its called opening your eyes and protesting. The pro AGW crowd think Al Gore a hero, and the scientists gods. They have been duped into making millions for Gore in Carbon trading and successfull careers for the scientists. The first prerequisite to not getting screwed by the rich and powerfull is to know its happening. :) Fortunately democracy proivides us with a way of objecting to this when it becomes apparent.
============================== Nothing to say.
Which has nothing to do with what I said. One isn't "rich" unless there is in fact something that one can acquire which others cannot. And most often it means many more options and substantially much more accumulation of those optionals items as well. A billionaire might not be able to build and run a super tanker fleet and a large oil processing plant but they wouldn't need to either to support whatever fancy they had. They can buy a small well, find ways to transport the crude and process it at a small plant can thus continue use it as they want. Your original statement suggested that there was some strategy that would preclude the "rich" from acquiring fossil fuels even if they wanted it. Which simply is not true. Again because that is the basis of the very definition of what "rich" means.