|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Ring of Honor  |
And if you read Gore's letter he says we have ten years before it's too late.
So: Even if we elect Obama king and he appoints Gore "emissions csar" can world CO2 emissions possibly be less than they are today by then? Yes? No? That's why I sneer at this hysteria. Election year bullshit no more valid than the gas tax holiday. I only ask the lefties to be a little realistic. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Why don't we do this, instead of piecing through all that crap you just wrote:
Why don't you tell us what you'd do? Since you're so realistic, and since the carbon tax, or a cap and trade system, favored by just about everyone who's studied this issue isn't, according to you. What would you do to address the problem of global warming? |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Ring of Honor |
Tell ya what, why don't I just ask the question to somebody with an open mind? You're too married to winning a bicker point. If I admit I don't have a plan will you admit that what I said about Gores ten year prediction being a crock of shite is unfortunately the case? The fact that I have no solution does not mean a stupid solution is better. Here's one I think will be equally effective. Prayer. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Steve, you see, you know so little about this issue that you think Al Gore is the one saying that we're reaching a tipping point in the next decade or so. And since -- grrr! -- you hate pompous ol' Al Gore that means it's nonsense!
No, the scientific community is saying that, or some version of it. Thousands and thousands of climate scientists are saying that, or some version of it. They're saying if we keep getting warmer you'll have a snowball effect that we won't be able to reverse, so we'd better start reducing emissions right away. So no, I think your point about Al Gore is silly, because as much as you'd like it to, this has nothing to do with Al Gore. We can't help it if you're obsessed with Al Gore. But I'm glad to have finally nailed you down. You have no ideas, except that Al Gore is full of it, or something. And you think a carbon tax, or a cap and trade system -- even though you don't really know how either of them work -- is as equally effective as prayer. I'd say this is true: "The fact that I have no solution does not mean a stupid solution is better." But that would have to mean that either of the solutions we mentioned above are stupid. Do you think a carbon tax or a cap and trade system are stupid solutions? |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Ring of Honor |
Whew don't get all specific on me. Golly a "trade system!!" Hell who the f*ck knows what this "trade system" entails?? So I can't answer that. If it means drastic increases in the price of goods we buy? Piss on it. As for the carbon tax I think it is a bad idea. OK? And before you go into a frenzy I think it's just as stupid if John McCain proposes it. I'm not carrying a banner so far. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
God, Republicans talking about Gore is always just pathetic. The guy is neither a computer expert nor an environmental scientist... but he clearly had vision. He saw the power of the Internet (by many accounts) before almost anybody else. And he saw the dangers of the climate crisis before anybody else and made it his calling in life to spread the word.
He didn't create the information. He did something really crazy (something Down Home Hillary suddenly doesn't do)... and talked to the elite minds within each category. It wouldn't matter what Gore (or any Democrat) did. The snarky, smug, right-wing, fat-ass media stars would spend each and every day flinging shit at them to make their listeners feel better about what they believe. It's actually sad. It truly is. A huge percentage of our country doesn't like smart people or creative people or forward thinkers and it isn't enough to just not appreciate them... they have to denigrate them. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Ring of Honor |
Hell we love smart creative people. Just not phony wannabe oafish hangers on like Gore. The Kato Kaelin of the environmental movement. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Steve, I'm just shaking my head. I've really got to stop wasting my time with you.
I've spent weeks in here talking about global warming and a carbon tax, discussing the merits of it with Tupa and Sev and others. It's all very adult-like. Or as you say, "You prefer 'hope.'" ...Huh? Then there's some nonsense about living in "a tiny box with no car in Tokyo." WTF? Where do you get this stuff? Then you ask "who the f*ck knows what this "trade system" entails??" Well, I do. Tupa does. Sev does. How cap and trade works isn't a big mystery. We've done them before, as we've discussed. We could do them again, as all three candidates propose. But thanks for establishing one thing: you know nothing about this issue, or anything about the proposed solutions, so you can't really comment on it intelligently. At all. It doesn't stop you from commenting on it, of course. So feel free to continue to derail our adult conversations with nonsense about "living in a tiny box with no car in Tokyo" and Al Gore. Just when are you going to gain the tiniest bit of self-awareness that you really don't know much about this stuff? You've got three points: 1) Al Gore is a blowhard. 2) The world's population is increasing, so how are you going to lower emissions? 3) Al Gore is a blowhard. Okay, we get it... |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Ring of Honor |
We all get it. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
My point exactly.
Thanks. Now we can move on to something else. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Ring of Honor |
Harrunph.  WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Oh, Steve. Believe me. I read your "takedowns" and laugh hysterically.
The Tokyo thing is my favorite. Add in the fact that you really think you've got a real point there and it's even better. Your stuff about "trade policy" - also very funny. Quite clearly, you don't even know what we're talking about. And then when you stomp and insist that you're right, that takes the cake. "Now get off my lawn! Your policies will never come to fruition, you meddling kids! Even though they've already been used in recent history!" |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Ring of Honor |
Well then we're safe. Whew. Tra la la. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
So just to be clear, your proposed policy changes to address global warming is ...nothing.
Correct? |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Ring of Honor |
Basically. And yours is [basically] carbon taxes severe enough to force the auto industry to create new green technolgy. Correct? WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
First of all, it's not just about cars. They're hardly the only source of carbon emissions.
But my (and a lot of other people's) idea is to make carbon emissions more expensive by taxing them and letting industry come up with better, cleaner, more efficient ways to create energy. It lower emissions, and creates a larger and growing and more economically viable market for renewable energy. This is the basic idea whether the idea is a carbon tax or a cap and trade system. Then you offset the costs of this with lower taxes in other areas. I can give you links that explain how a cap and trade system works, if you like. But it's not that complicated. Say you own a factory that pumps out 200 tons of emissions a year, and I own one that pumps out 400 tons a year. And the level the government decides is an acceptable level of emissions is 300 tons a year. Guess what? You're below it. I'm not. So I have two options: find ways to get me under the 300 ton a year limit, like installing cleaner technologies or using more green power, or I have to buy the right to emit those extra 100 tons of pollution from someone like you. Meanwhile, your company already made those changes, so it's going to be rewarded. Not only will you pay no penalty, my company is probably going to have to pay your company for the right to emit those extra 100 tons. The cleaner company wins. And those companies that don't innovate, or don't respond, will bear additional costs. Meanwhile, you've created a huge new market for companies that can create these newer sources of energy. Market incentives. These markets are already growing, but they're not growing fast enough because it's cheaper to burn fossil fuels. (At least for now.) That's where the tax comes in. It changes and accelerates this process. Of course, this is to say nothing of the national security implications of moving away from oil, which is reason enough to do this. This is how McCain sells it -- "I believe global warming is a real problem, but if you're not on that page, just do it for national security." And before you go off on how crazy these ideas are, we've already used cap and trade to much success to address the rising amounts of SO2 in the atmosphere, and could easily implement this. It's not hard. And a tax is even easier. So you've got your choice: it's one of those programs, or nothing. Or you can go with the regulatory approach, which no one favors and is DOA. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Ring of Honor |
You're right the tax theory isn't complicated at all. I'm not confused by your objective. My point is that I think supply and demand will make everything cost more on its own. The extra tax IMO is counter productive in at least two ways. First to add the weight to a slowing economy is a bad idea. Second the US industries already losing ground to foreign interests will be hammered. The Japanese make more fuel efficient cars. Correct. And even given equal mileage they're selling better. But mostly only the Prius and it's kind do much better than small US hybrids. The rest are about on par with most US gas powered autos. Few over 25 or so MPG in any regular size. Consumer Reports just did a story about the disappointing true mileage results. Now in Japan where only about half the people even own a car, a Prius might be OK. Japan has been paying through the nose for gas for many years and still, even given Japanese ingenuity have no full or mid sized cars that get spectacular mileage. So I think this extra tax should just about kill the already struggling US automakers. Fine. It's for our own good. Plus as I said I have no doubt that tax money will be squandered. Now I gave you a plan a long time ago that you blew off. If you insist on destroying the US auto makers then at least give that tax money to say Ford and Exxon to convert gas stations to hydrogen stations and make fuel cell cars. But I don't see that happening given the lynch mob mentality over big oil. Even if you did that we'll need to find another base for the US currency. Good luck. Has that occurred to you? WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Yeah, that's a dumb idea. Why have the government decide what technologies are going to be the ones we'll shift to? Governments don't do that very well. We'll let the market do that.
And I think you've got it exactly backwards. With oil becoming more scarce and more expensive every day, everyone is going to looking for the next best way to power industry, or cars, or homes, etc. They already are. It's going to come from all sorts of different sources, not one, like hydrogen, that the government selects and funds with tax dollars. The government can help by funding research, much like they do to fight diseases at the NIH. But we'll let the market decide who comes up with the best ways to achieve these goals. If you're interested in maintaining America's competitive edge, and not just in auto technology, you'd want them on the forefront of this research and development. And these are going to be huge industries in their own right, creating jobs and employing thousands and thousands of people. And if it's squandered tax money you're worried about, what's the difference if they squander it with money raised from carbon taxes versus money raised from income taxes or FICA taxes or sales taxes? Why should that matter? Imagine a world where you pay an extra 30 cents a gallon for gas, but only pay 15% on your income tax instead of 18%. Say that ends up being about equal for you. Well, what can you do then? You can drive a more fuel efficient car, or use less gas in the one you have now. You've just lowered your emissions, used less foreign oil, and increased your take home pay. Now imagine millions of Americans doing the same thing. See how these market incentives work? But at least you're thinking forward now, not jumping up and down and complaining that there's nothing to be done but to let it happen, and to call Al Gore a blowhard. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Ring of Honor |
Hey if I was king I'd implement my plans. I'm not. And I don't trust the governmetn to implement any of them. Even if they had the will there will be enough pressure from this group or that group and opposition from the party who didn't write up the plan to make it useless. I think all this is good fine and wonderful. But to the last jab, I do believe the dangers are hysterics fueled by silly predictions of ten years to doomsday. Now I'll bet if Pat Robertson predicted it you'd have a field day. But I truly think Gores falling sky talk has a negative effect on real progress. WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
No, urgency is needed in politics. And by the way, Pat Robertson is urging action in the new batch of global warming commercials produced by Al Gore's company.
Again, it's not Al Gore or Pat Robertson anyway. It's the science. As for the taxes, if you're going to make the price of carbon-based energy that much more expensive they've have to -- have to -- lower taxes in other areas. It'd have to be offset. You'd crush the economy. And most of that carbon tax revenue is going to go into the general fund, with only a portion meted out for R&D. But man, you're a cynical bastard. I thought I was about as cynical as they come. You don't even think the government can implement a tax? That's one thing I'm pretty sure they can do. PS - OPEC may not be pumping at capacity -- why would they? -- but it's rising demand pushing the price up lately, not stagnant supply. PPS - You're right about corn ethanol, of course. A politically-supported boondoggle of epic proportions that needs to be ended yesterday. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | CLEVELAND SPORTS FORUM | ||
| Servlet | eve2da013 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Groupee" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|