Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have been criticized for pulling out of the COP23 (Paris Accord) treaty on co2 restrictions. But everyone seems to ignore the fact that we have already significantly reduced our co2 production, while those socially conscious nations who like to pat themselves on the back for their good deeds have done precious little to do the same.
Furthermore, the financial beneficiaries of the Accord are the very countries who have actually increased their co2 emissions.
Why should we join the party merely for the right to pay for what we're already doing for free? (And doing it better than anyone else?)
Out of simple self-interest and common sense, the US will rejoin the Paris Accords as soon as the current wave of misconstrued nationalism and irrational populism recedes in this country. The same of course goes for TPP.
In my opinion, signing the Paris Accord agreement merely appeases those that think the Government is doing all they can to protect the environment and keeps them happy in their own little bubble. In reality, if protecting the environment is such a concern, there are countless ways that the they could act to change how we do things, but they don't. Putting us on a list does absolutely nothing. This is also coming from someone (me) that believes that the environment should be our #1 concern above everything else, but signing an agreement is just pulling wool over the sheep's eyes.
Climate change is a global problem. It needs a coordinated global response. As one of the important nations on the globe, the US is responsible both to itself and to other nations alike to play its role in these proceedings. A half-peacock/half-ostrich sort of self-obsessed isolationism will do us no good at all.
The economics of energy will be the ultimate driver of sustainable change. With cities like London preparing to ban all fossil fuel vehicles, with the increasing advances in battery technology (especially the prevention of dendrites), there are going to be major shifts that come about very quickly. Once inductive charging of batteries along major roadways is worked out (to overcome distance limitations of smaller battery packs) then expect to see gasoline start to be abandoned and ultimately either banned or controlled. Billing vehicles for induction energy while traveling is a great source of private and tax revenue, as well as tightening down on knowing exactly where everyone is in their vehicles.
Some of the possible scenarios are funny. Imagine a robber limited to the use of a self-driving vehicle as a getaway car, and that car has to interface with the road to allow billing for energy use. The police locate where the car by the tracking technology and instruct override for it to lock all doors and drive directly to the police station.
Some of the possible scenarios are funny. Imagine a robber limited to the use of a self-driving vehicle as a getaway car, and that car has to interface with the road to allow billing for energy use. The police locate where the car by the tracking technology and instruct override for it to lock all doors and drive directly to the police station.
Funny? Suppose the govt becomes so oppressive & tyrannical that we're forced to rebel as Jefferson thought we were obligated to do and so stated in our Declaration of Independence-- and in the technological world you've painted, the govt would have the upper hand in suppressing the rebellion and keeping us enslaved. What then?
This is why we have a Bill of Rights that is supposed to prevent govt spying on us, preventing us from congregating, to suppress our expression of opinions and to defend ourselves from them. It's not funny at all. I can't believe we're letting them get away with cameras at intersections.
I can't believe we're letting them get away with cameras at intersections.
LOL. Eliminate 75% of all the vehicles on the roads today and probably nobody would need cameras at intersections.
As long as there's increasing population and increasing numbers of cars on the roads there's going to be an increasing need and implementation of things like intersection cameras and other surveillance gadgets everywhere else to monitor all traffic.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
