22 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidYou are a jerk. I read the article I posted contrary to your stupid claim I did not. I'll admit to not reading the nature article deepthought posted since I don't have a subscription, but that is not my fault and I don't have any intention of reading something you claim you read and if that is true you can easily copy and paste the relevant excerpts to make your point. So far you have not done that and I think it is because you have not read the whole article and don't understand what you did read.
I'd provide references but you wouldn't read them.
I'd provide evidence but you'd dismiss it.
I'd say Al Gore wasn't a scientist but you'd keep invoking his name.
I'd argue that we don't know the 'main driver' of cancer either, but that doesn't stop the development of new targeted treatments.
I'd ask why you're watching propaganda films instead of reading your own reference material, but it'd be in vain.
Since we cannot know anything, then we shouldn't try.
I don't have a subscription to nature. If you do then read it and show me how it differs from mine if you can.
I read mine. Read your own!
22 Nov 19
@deepthought saidThere is no need for a tax. You have just been influenced into thinking that is the only solution. We could implement efficiency standards and regulations to conserve fuel and electricity use now or could have at least 4 years ago for that matter. There is no need for a tax at all.
A carbon tax can easily be constructed to take into account total emissions, including wastage during production. This, incidentally, would hit coal as well, since coal beds are one of the sources of natural gas. Before the UK used North Sea gas we used coal gas, a major problem was the CO content, which was a popular method for suicides.
The establishment would rather waste time waiting for a tax than do anything right away. They are not interested in a solution, just the tax. Why else would they be fine with prolonged unnecessary inefficiency?
@metal-brain saidI have no personal opinion on whether a tax would be part of the best strategy but, irrespective of the 'correct' opinion on that, your reasoning process doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense here; EXACTLY HOW do YOU think a tax "prolonged unnecessary inefficiency"? Can you give just any ONE specific example of this "unnecessary inefficiency" (and of what, exactly? Cars? Power stations? If not, what?) that you think would be "prolonged" by a tax and explain to us the details of causality of EXACTLY HOW it would necessarily 'prolong' that particular "unnecessary inefficiency"?...
They are not interested in a solution, just the tax. Why else would they be fine with prolonged unnecessary inefficiency?
The establishment would rather waste time waiting for a tax than do anything right away."rather"? Explain to us why we cannot have BOTH a tax and ALSO simultaneously do something else "right away" other than involving tax, such as, just as one arbitrary example, say, make the laws legally force the design of most new cars etc being manufactured to be more energy efficient, less polluting etc? The two aren't mutually exclusive as there is no logical contradiction in doing BOTH at the same time. Do you deny this? Why would the "The establishment" (which part?) be unable to do more than ONE thing at a time?
22 Nov 19
@humy said"EXACTLY HOW do YOU think a tax "prolonged unnecessary inefficiency?"
I have no personal opinion on whether a tax would be part of the best strategy but, irrespective of the 'correct' opinion on that, your reasoning process doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense here; EXACTLY HOW do YOU think a tax "prolonged unnecessary inefficiency"? Can you give just any ONE specific example of this "unnecessary inefficiency" (and of what, exactly? Cars? Po ...[text shortened]... ly who or what are your referring to by that anyway?) be unable to do more than ONE thing at a time?
Because you are still waiting for a tax instead of taking action right now. We are capable of improving efficiency almost everywhere. Electricity is wasted all of the time. Rather than regulate that waste out we have accepted it as acceptable waste. Refrigerators and freezers can be fitted with ducts to pump air outside in the summer or intake cold air from outside in the winter months. There is all sorts of waste going on that could be reduced.
Why are you waiting for a controversial tax to pass when you can do something right now? Conservatives do not have a problem with conserving energy, they just oppose a tax. Democrats should work with the republicans to improve efficiency standards. Both sides have common ground there and that is a rare thing. If so called conservatives resist then democrats should ask them what they are trying to conserve. If some refuse to work with you tell them they are not real conservatives.
@metal-brain saidI'm still looking for the Obama-era carbon tax legislation. Could you find it for me?
"EXACTLY HOW do YOU think a tax "prolonged unnecessary inefficiency?"
Because you are still waiting for a tax instead of taking action right now. We are capable of improving efficiency almost everywhere. Electricity is wasted all of the time. Rather than regulate that waste out we have accepted it as acceptable waste. Refrigerators and freezers can be fitted with ducts ...[text shortened]... y are trying to conserve. If some refuse to work with you tell them they are not real conservatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration
With conservatives in charge, it's all being rolled back. None of this mentions taxes or emissions....
The latest budget proposal from the White House, submitted for fiscal 2019, calls for deep cuts at the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, lowering funding to about $700 million. And the weatherization office, which works on the sort of programs Obama touted a decade ago in Virginia, would be zeroed out. "The budget is first and foremost where they've taken a hacksaw," said Elizabeth Noll of the Natural Resources Defense Council. The administration is also waylaying the implementation of energy efficiency standards on consumer goods, such as home appliances, HVAC (heating, ventilating and air conditioning) equipment and electronics, by fighting in the courts.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060082935
The original DOE lighting standards were part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. ... completely non-controversial bill that had bipartisan support... after Obama was elected and Republicans regained control of Congress, GOP leadership immediately went to work to undo the standards...
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-light-bulb-rollback-cost-2b10f0720303/
The Obama-era rules called for a fleetwide fuel efficiency average of 46.7 miles per gallon by 2025, with average annual increases of about 5%, compared with 37 mpg by 2026 under the Trump administration’s preferred option to freeze requirements.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-industry-pleas-the-epa-halts-progress-on-fuel-economy
22 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidYou're still asking questions about the number of buoys from Holgate, even though it's laid out explicitly. It's been well laid out how the conclusions differ from other studies.
You are a jerk. I read the article I posted contrary to your stupid claim I did not. I'll admit to not reading the nature article deepthought posted since I don't have a subscription, but that is not my fault and I don't have any intention of reading something you claim you read and if that is true you can easily copy and paste the relevant excerpts to make your point. So ...[text shortened]... f you do then read it and show me how it differs from mine if you can.
I read mine. Read your own!
@metal-brain saidTriple false;
"EXACTLY HOW do YOU think a tax "prolonged unnecessary inefficiency?"
Because you are still waiting for a tax instead of taking action right now.
1, I am NOT "waiting" for a tax, because "waiting" for a tax is just stupid. I don't even know (yet) if there WILL be such a tax and I have NEVER demanded or agreed with any such tax because, as I said many times before, I have no personal opinion on such a tax.
2, And I AM taking (personal) action right now to reduce my CO2 footprint, by such measures as improving heat insolation around the external walls of my home etc, and SOME action by governments IS being done now (generally not enough in my opinion but that's a different matter which has nothing to do with tax).
3, And even if I was "waiting" for a tax, whatever that's supposed to mean, that wouldn't stop me taking action NOW. So your above use of the word "instead" is just stupid nonsense.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.
We are capable of improving efficiency almost everywhere.And we are in many places. So in what way is that NOT action being done now and how would a tax put a stop to that?
Rather than regulate that waste out we have accepted it as acceptable waste.Who is this "we"? Not me. I have NOT "accepted it as acceptable waste" and know of nobody that has.
Why are you waiting for a controversial tax to pass when you can do something right now?Again, I am NOT "waiting" for ANY tax and I AM doing something right now. Are you?
Conservatives do not have a problem with conserving energyDemocrats also have no problem with conserving energy. What has that got to do with tax?
@humy said"Democrats also have no problem with conserving energy. What has that got to do with tax?"
Triple false;
1, I am NOT "waiting" for a tax, because "waiting" for a tax is just stupid. I don't even know (yet) if there WILL be such a tax and I have NEVER demanded or agreed with any such tax because, as I said many times before, I have no personal opinion on such a tax.
2, And I AM taking (personal) action right now to reduce my CO2 footprint, by such measures as improvi ...[text shortened]... y[/quote] Democrats also have no problem with conserving energy. What has that got to do with tax?
The myths still persist. Of course there's nothing to do with a tax. Democrats didn't even propose it for the entirety of the Obama administration, much less enact any legislation. In fact liberal groups criticized the Paris Agreement because it omitted any carbon taxation. Even with carbon credit systems, numerous economists have shown proposals that do not add any net new payments, so you can hardly call it a tax. It's a myth perpetuated by lobbyists.
What the Democrats did do is dramatically improve energy efficiency and energy independence, by converting to energy efficient lightbulbs, promoting energy efficient appliances and transportation, and expanding domestic natural gas production. The myth is that Republicans also like efficiency. They've systematically slashed the light bulb and fuel standards in the last two years.
22 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidI haven't advocated a tax yet, I pointed out that a tax could be constructed so that it allowed for net climate impact. I'd be far more Draconian than a mere tax. Luckily for you I have no intention of running for office.
There is no need for a tax. You have just been influenced into thinking that is the only solution. We could implement efficiency standards and regulations to conserve fuel and electricity use now or could have at least 4 years ago for that matter. There is no need for a tax at all.
The establishment would rather waste time waiting for a tax than do anything right away. T ...[text shortened]... ed in a solution, just the tax. Why else would they be fine with prolonged unnecessary inefficiency?
23 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidNope. I never asked about it. That was you.
You're still asking questions about the number of buoys from Holgate, even though it's laid out explicitly. It's been well laid out how the conclusions differ from other studies.
"It's been well laid out how the conclusions differ from other studies."
Then explain it. Can't you do that? If you can't it probably isn't true. Are you making it up?
23 Nov 19
@humy said"Democrats also have no problem with conserving energy. What has that got to do with tax?"
Triple false;
1, I am NOT "waiting" for a tax, because "waiting" for a tax is just stupid. I don't even know (yet) if there WILL be such a tax and I have NEVER demanded or agreed with any such tax because, as I said many times before, I have no personal opinion on such a tax.
2, And I AM taking (personal) action right now to reduce my CO2 footprint, by such measures as improvi ...[text shortened]... y[/quote] Democrats also have no problem with conserving energy. What has that got to do with tax?
Exactly. Why is the popular solution a tax. There is no need for one. Do it now. What are you waiting for? Conservatives are willing to conserve. Why won't you work with them for that common goal? Would you rather stand around with your thumb up your butt than do anything about it?
23 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidYou are a liar.
"Democrats also have no problem with conserving energy. What has that got to do with tax?"
The myths still persist. Of course there's nothing to do with a tax. Democrats didn't even propose it for the entirety of the Obama administration, much less enact any legislation. In fact liberal groups criticized the Paris Agreement because it omitted any carbon taxation. Even wi ...[text shortened]... efficiency. They've systematically slashed the light bulb and fuel standards in the last two years.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/04/obama-carbon-taxes-france/
@metal-brain saidWhat "Exactly"? You just admitted I was correct.
"Democrats also have no problem with conserving energy. What has that got to do with tax?"
Exactly.
Why is the popular solution a tax. There is no need for one.If I am reading that above right; That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. NOBODY would ever want a tax because "There is no need for one".
Why won't you work with them for that common goal?I, and all people I know of, are not opposed to working with ANYONE, INCLUDING 'conservatives', towards ANY common goal. Why should we be opposed of we both have the same goal?
With or without tax, we are already taking some action against climate change. We are not deliberately delaying or "waiting" for anything.
And I am personally neither for or against a tax because I have no personal opinion on that. I said this many times before so WHY do you still believe I would be supportive of a tax? Are you unable to read?
P.S. I am not a democrat nor a democrat supporter any more that I am a 'conservative' supporter and I am not against 'conservatives' any more than I am against democrats. Don't know where you got all that nonsense from. I even agree with some 'conservative' opinions, thus I have NO "us-and-them" attitude here, only you here have got that "us-and-them" attitude. I WANT to work with ALL sides and I DON'T CARE whether they are right-wing or left-wing.
23 Nov 19
@humy saidDo you agree with me that a tax is not necessary and both parties should work together now to improve efficiency standards?
What "Exactly"? You just admitted I was correct.Why is the popular solution a tax. There is no need for one.If I am reading that above right; That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. NOBODY would ever want a tax because "There is no need for one".Why won't you work with them for that common goal?I, and all people I know of, are not oppos ...[text shortened]... " attitude. I WANT to work with ALL sides and I DON'T CARE whether they are right-wing or left-wing.