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.
Again? Do you even read the links before you post them? I swear you just googled dairy subsidies Canada and grabbed the first one without even looking at it. Just googled it myself, apparently that's exactly what you did!
4.3 billion in subsidies over 15 years in a new program. Their entire agriculture subsidy program is a tiny fraction of the 20 billion the US spends in a YEAR. ONE YEAR, $20 billion.
Their entire country is a fraction of the size of the U.S. in population. You pretended that only the U.S. subsidizes things which makes them cheaper than in Canada. You were wrong.
There should be a set standard that the entire world must live by that requires the environment to come before anything else. It should not be an issue that is decided by a political leader, it should not be something that has to be proved or disproved by a scientist, it should be common sense. Everyone always preaches you should s!*t where you eat yet we do this every day as a society. Its only time before natural resources run out, the air will be to dirty to breath, the water will be to polluted to drink, etc. I think many if not most people really don't care because the effect of there pollution will not have any impact on them during this lifetime, but it will for their future generations and it is a very selfish mindset.
If you have a set standard, that is your baseline. Worrying about the price of things going up, inconveniences, and so forth for the good of mankind is like worrying about your haircut when you are dying of cancer. Focus on the big issue first and then worry about everything else.
Just for the record I am not a liberal.
Scientists are not trained to make policy though. We often err on the side of wait and see, because that is a function of our training.
We need politicians and policy makers who must balance economic and societal needs. So what we really need to do is get lobbyists, particular the corporate lobbyists out of the equation. Only in America would we hppay subsidies to one of the highest earning industries in the country, allow me to use tax credits to pay environmental disaster fines, and allow super PACs to win seats for their bought and paid for politicians.
Get rid of the lobbyists and much of the policy will naturally shake out in a more fair way.
Scientists are not trained to make policy though. We often err on the side of wait and see, because that is a function of our training.
We need politicians and policy makers who must balance economic and societal needs. So what we really need to do is get lobbyists, particular the corporate lobbyists out of the equation. Only in America would we hppay subsidies to one of the highest earning industries in the country, allow me to use tax credits to pay environmental disaster fines, and allow super PACs to win seats for their bought and paid for politicians.
Get rid of the lobbyists and much of the policy will naturally shake out in a more fair way.
I agree that we need to get lobbyists out of the equation.
The same Wall Street players that upended the economy are clamoring to open up a massive market to swap, chop, and bundle carbon derivatives. Sound familiar?
Well, apparently you have not looked at any of the places where the more effective carbon tax systems are in place but yes, they are working at lowering carbon output, particularly of corporations and companies.
As for bamboozled, one of us spent quite a bit of time actually learning about carbon tax. If it makes you feel better to think your lack of knowledge means the other side is bamboozled, than go for it.
So, does that mean the world's output of CO2 has declined at all since these taxes were put in place?
If not (which they haven't), why not?
So, since the population is continuing to grow and more people are moving towards a first world lifestyle (with billions to go), how do you see the increase stopping (not reducing but just no longer increasing)?
And on another note, since you are the scientist, can you tell us what happens to CO2 that is trapped in the oceans and ice as the temperature increases?
So, does that mean the world's output of CO2 has declined at all since these taxes were put in place?
If not (which they haven't), why not?
So, since the population is continuing to grow and more people are moving towards a first world lifestyle (with billions to go), how do you see the increase stopping (not reducing but just no longer increasing)?
New technologies. It will happen. We are inching our way and aren't there yet but it will happen.
New technologies. It will happen. We are inching our way and aren't there yet but it will happen.
Actually, no.
As a couple billion people get their car, air conditioners, refrigerators, televisions, computers, cell phones, vacations, etc, etc, the amount of CO2 will continue to increase.
By the time those two billion have theirs, there will be another billion wanting theirs.
It doesn't seem like you have thought this through.
As a couple billion people get their car, air conditioners, refrigerators, televisions, computers, cell phones, vacations, etc, etc, the amount of CO2 will continue to increase.
By the time those two billion have theirs, there will be another billion wanting theirs.
It doesn't seem like you have thought this through.
I have. You are the guy that once said we would never go to the moon. Technology will not stand still.
One of the big issues is that no matter how many "green technology" breakthroughs are invented for everyday life the old ones still exist at a much lower cost. In my opinion once there is a technology out there that improves the one currently in place the old one should be obsolete. The option to buy a lower cost item which is not green should not even be in play. Regardless though if it is green or not, even as a kid I would see for example something as simple as batteries that supposedly outperformed other ones...if they were the top performers why make any other battery that doesn't compete with it? Stop selling the subpar ones and sell these which should be the new baseline.
One of the big issues is that no matter how many "green technology" breakthroughs are invented for everyday life the old ones still exist at a much lower cost.
For now and that is not true in every instance now. I just built an electric bike. I can go 15-20 mph for 20-25 miles for pennies. (not finished in this pic)
Will this replace my regular transportation? No but for around town it's great. I can throw it in my car and when I get where I am going I can park the car and run this around.
Quote:
In my opinion once there is a technology out there that improves the one currently in place the old one should be obsolete. The option to buy a lower cost item which is not green should not even be in play. Regardless though if it is green or not, even as a kid I would see for example something as simple as batteries that supposedly outperformed other ones...if they were the top performers why make any other battery that doesn't compete with it? Stop selling the subpar ones and sell these which should be the new baseline.
Horses never became obsolete. Many are not able to afford the new technology right off the bat.
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.
