UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[_sabotage_]

Thank you for making your moral standpoint clear. I have nothing more to say.

[Metsfanmax]

Thank you for making your moral standpoint clear. I have nothing more to say.

It seems to me that morally, we should be rewarding people economically for making choices that are friendly to the environment.

[_sabotage_]

Yes I can see you see it that way. You are happy to have the government force me to buy products that are polluting in their production in China, transportation, lifetime and waste period at 9 times the cost, so that that there is a green economy.

You have made your position on climate change perfectly clear, as I think I have to you.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes I can see you see it that way. You are happy to have the government force me to buy products that are polluting in their production in China, transportation, lifetime and waste period at 9 times the cost, so that that there is a green economy.

I don't want the government to force anyone to buy anything except automobile insurance. I prefer if there are incentives for making good choices and disincentives for making bad ones.

[_sabotage_]

Like not exhaling if you happen to be among the billion living off a dollar a day. Dude, you are crazier than Nero.

[Metsfanmax]

Like not exhaling if you happen to be among the billion living off a dollar a day. Dude, you are crazier than Nero.

No, of course not. Their per-capita greenhouse gas emissions are tiny, and so a carbon tax-and-dividend established in their respective countries would be a great boon to them.

[_sabotage_]

You are such a dumbass. 60 years ago Schauberger said water would cost more than gas if things went on. Everybody laughed. If you put a price on air, what will happen? You can ask Player how our water situation is going. Has raising the cost of water improved it?

Their stated goal is to stabilize world population at about a billion people. How do you hope to achieve that?

You hope to control all resources and destroy the middle class with your incentives, but denying access to solutions, I can't wait to hear you describe population stabilization.

[Metsfanmax]

You are such a dumbass. 60 years ago Schauberger said water would cost more than gas if things went on. Everybody laughed. If you put a price on air, what will happen? You can ask Player how our water situation is going. Has raising the cost of water improved it?

I'm not putting a price on air in general, just on a very small, dangerous component of it.

Their stated goal is to stabilize world population at about a billion people. How do you hope to achieve that?

I don't know who "they" are, but I don't want to decrease world population. I think the world will be better off with a larger population than it has now, not a smaller one.

You hope to control all resources and destroy the middle class with your incentives, but denying access to solutions

No I don't. Why are you straw-manning my position instead of actually responding to it?

[_sabotage_]

Responding to what?

For 99.9999999% of human history, I could build whatever I wanted however I wanted. Now, we have people there to protect me and tell me exactly what products I can use to build. My adoptive mother brought me back a silver Mexican coin with a pyramid on it when she returned from representing Canada in NAFTA. That thing that signed away Canadian manufacturing. The products come fro China whether I like it or not. As such, the only thing that you are doing is increasing the price of conventional goods and changing half my heating bill over to carbon tax while costing me 900% more than it should.

Because even if I use those shitty polluting products to reduce my heating in half, I'm going to have to still pay carbon tax on the heating of my home. And it will reach the same price if not higher than my initial costs, but I'm out money on reno.

The carbon scheme was also set up to recognize only certain types of carbon eliminating programs. If I have 11 acres of mixed forest which I leave as is, I don't get shit. If I cut it all down and plant a monoculture in its place, then I could.

You are selling the continued destruction of the world at a more expensive price. If competition is not allowed in the market, and there is a massive incentive not to let them become available such as the fact that there are now as more green jobs than oil jobs according to some pundits, then it is just forcing us onto an existing system at a higher consumer cost. Sounds familiar.

Who are they? The signers of agenda 21 which more than 150 nations are. The US was one of the first and Bush Sr considered it a priority. All administrations since have followed suit. The countries agreed in signing to stabilize their populations. But it isn't adequately funded. When housing tax pays for schools and gasoline tax pays for roads, which tax is going to pay for agenda 21?

When exhaling (a small dangerous component? That we all create in breathing?) comes under UN control and nations are confined by agenda 21 to stabilize population, what do you see happening?

Dude. Dude. Either just admit that you have an incentive to see this through or admit you fell for their plan.

[Metsfanmax]

For 99.9999999% of human history, I could build whatever I wanted however I wanted. Now, we have people there to protect me and tell me exactly what products I can use to build. My adoptive mother brought me back a silver Mexican coin with a pyramid on it when she returned from representing Canada in NAFTA. That thing that signed away Canadian manufacturing. The products come fro China whether I like it or not. As such, the only thing that you are doing is increasing the price of conventional goods and changing half my heating bill over to carbon tax while costing me 900% more than it should.

Nonsense. $15/ton of CO2 corresponds to about 13 cents per gallon of gasoline, as an example. Less than 5% of your heating bill would go to a carbon tax, to start.

Because even if I use those shitty polluting products to reduce my heating in half, I'm going to have to still pay carbon tax on the heating of my home. And it will reach the same price if not higher than my initial costs, but I'm out money on reno.

You could install a geothermal heat pump. Then you wouldn't have to pay any carbon taxes for heating your home

The carbon scheme was also set up to recognize only certain types of carbon eliminating programs. If I have 11 acres of mixed forest which I leave as is, I don't get shit. If I cut it all down and plant a monoculture in its place, then I could.

What carbon scheme? A tax on carbon has nothing to do with giving subsidies to carbon eliminating programs; it has to do with penalizing carbon emitting programs.

You are selling the continued destruction of the world at a more expensive price. If competition is not allowed in the market, and there is a massive incentive not to let them become available such as the fact that there are now as more green jobs than oil jobs according to some pundits, then it is just forcing us onto an existing system at a higher consumer cost. Sounds familiar.

Competition should occur in the market. Artificial market distortions need to be corrected for that to occur. Fossil fuels receive an unfair competitive advantage over green technologies because the price you pay doesn't factor in the global warming and air pollution externalities.

Who are they? The signers of agenda 21 which more than 150 nations are. The US was one of the first and Bush Sr considered it a priority. All administrations since have followed suit. The countries agreed in signing to stabilize their populations. But it isn't adequately funded. When housing tax pays for schools and gasoline tax pays for roads, which tax is going to pay for agenda 21?

Agenda 21 has no legal force in the United States.

Dude. Dude. Either just admit that you have an incentive to see this through or admit you fell for their plan.

I do have an incentive to see this through: a better world for myself and the people around me.

[Neoteny]

Mets, why do you want to tax breathing Africans?

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, why do you want to tax breathing Africans?

Well, I can't very well tax the non-breathing ones.

[thegreekdog]

You are such a dumbass.

Mets - Have you ever been called a dumbass? Seems like you're too nerdy for that particular word.

[Metsfanmax]

You are such a dumbass.

Mets - Have you ever been called a dumbass? Seems like you're too nerdy for that particular word.

It may not be the first time, but it's a foreign concept to me.

[_sabotage_]

A person exhales as much carbon dioxide per day as a car going 3 miles. If an average car gets 30 mpg, and the tax "starts" at .13 per gallon, what's to stop them from charging people to breath?

Yeah yeah, same shit they said about Obamacare. If you like your left lung, you can* keep it.

And just as Player screams, yes I love it but I wanted a one payer system but the Tea Party. You to will have your Tea Party, and no doubt continue to support it long after it has become clear what agenda 21 meant by

achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.

The reason it is not binding is because it would have had to be opened to debate if it were. But instead they left it non_binding so that we could sign on without debate. Our commitment has been given by every resident since still without debate. Why no debate, perhaps because only 9% of the population support it.

You think you are making a better world, just as Player insists to those who are telling her that the ACA is going to drive their quality of living down without necessarily providing better healthcare.

You make it clear that you don't care about the sustainability of the products we use, merely that money is being directed towards green development.

Again which makes it clear that you would prefer that truly green products don't become available. You would prefer I buy products from China to using the waste stalk of e 66,000 acres of hemp grown for seed which then, since it isn't used in construction, breaks down releasing its CO2 into the air because 8 more people get a cut from the polluting products, and the green industry has more problems to solve.

Perhaps you should stop trying to f*ck everyone so that some may profit. Maybe the world is fucked for that exact reason.

Do you think that if people were allowed to build houses superior in all ways to conventional housing at a cheaper price, they wouldnt ? You know they would and you know what it would do to many markets. So stop trying to hide behind science and come clean.

Climate change as a product of CO2 is a scam to make you pay to breath and to increase the price of consumption with the money and power going to those who think that we shouldn't be here and if we are then its with their OK and under their rule.

[Neoteny]

Mets, why do you want to tax breathing Africans?

Well, I can't very well tax the non-breathing ones.

Would farts be included in your taxing scheme, and might you be able to find a workaround on taxing dead Africans? Perhaps by taxing surviving relatives for gases associated with decomposition?

If I define entropy like English is not my first language, and then simplify the concept to the point to where it barely even applies, would it be acceptable for me to call you a dumbass for not having a hemp house in Canada?

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, why do you want to tax breathing Africans?

Well, I can't very well tax the non-breathing ones.

Would farts be included in your taxing scheme,

Obviously. Farts emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, two potent greenhouse gases.

and might you be able to find a workaround on taxing dead Africans? Perhaps by taxing surviving relatives for gases associated with decomposition?

Yes, that's a good idea. The size of the tax would depend on how quickly the body was buried. But how would we levy this tax on those with no surviving relatives?

If I define entropy like English is not my first language, and then simplify the concept to the point to where it barely even applies, would it be acceptable for me to call you a dumbass for not having a hemp house in Canada?

You may only call me a dumbass for not having a hemp house in the Netherlands.

[_sabotage_]

If I create theories that don't follow physical laws and sell them to people looking for an excuse to control the world, you may call me a dumbass.

[Metsfanmax]

A person exhales as much carbon dioxide per day as a car going 3 miles. If an average car gets 30 mpg, and the tax "starts" at .13 per gallon, what's to stop them from charging people to breath?

Common sense.

If that fails, Republicans.

Yeah yeah, same shit they said about Obamacare. If you like your left lung, you can* keep it.

I always preferred my right lung, but unfortunately I still have both.

And just as Player screams, yes I love it but I wanted a one payer system but the Tea Party. You to will have your Tea Party, and no doubt continue to support it long after it has become clear what agenda 21 meant by

achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.

What's that got to do with a carbon tax?

The reason it is not binding is because it would have had to be opened to debate if it were. But instead they left it non_binding so that we could sign on without debate. Our commitment has been given by every resident since still without debate. Why no debate, perhaps because only 9% of the population support it.

The reason it is non-binding is because Agenda 21 is not a treaty.

You think you are making a better world, just as Player insists to those who are telling her that the ACA is going to drive their quality of living down without necessarily providing better healthcare.

It's fine to make comparisons to the ACA, but if there isn't any actual substance to the comparison then all you're doing is poking holes at the ACA in the wrong thread.

You make it clear that you don't care about the sustainability of the products we use, merely that money is being directed towards green development.

I advocate merely that we direct money away from unsustainable products.

Do you think that if people were allowed to build houses superior in all ways to conventional housing at a cheaper price, they wouldnt ? You know they would and you know what it would do to many markets. So stop trying to hide behind science and come clean.

I don't oppose people being able to build houses superior in all ways and at a cheaper price. Sounds logical to me. Again, what's that got to do with a carbon tax?

Climate change as a product of CO2 is a scam to make you pay to breath and to increase the price of consumption with the money and power going to those who think that we shouldn't be here and if we are then its with their OK and under their rule.

Hempcrete as a product of the cannabis plant is a scam to make you pay for people to get high and to increase the price of pot with the money and power going to drug dealers who want to sell their stash to you with their OK and under their rule.

See, I too can make unfounded allegations! Isn't it fun?

[_sabotage_]

Yes you could make unfounded allegations and I could respond that government mandates industrial hemps THC level to a non phsycoactive level. That is I can provide government regulation to back up my position.

I can also provide 100% conclusive data on hempcrete,

You can do neither. When you voice your support for government levying a tax, you can not turn to existing regulation, because its something you have said you are against, so you support the tax, but not how it will be used. Nor can you prove that CO2 possesses the properties you are so adamant about.

In this I compare you to Player. You support something which you don't support because you support your perception of it and not the real intended outcome.

And I again could say that in supporting the use of hempcrete, I do support the growth of cannabis bearing all of its fruits freely for anyone without any regulation. Which is again something you do not support in green products. You only support green ideas under the existing regulation and to economic growth.

As a Mets fan, you should be quite clear on the fact that just because you support a thing, that thing doesn't always deliver. And you should also be clear that likely as not more people support your rivals.

My support of hempcrete does nothing to your freedom or cost of living (except show you you could be living better cheaper) and yet your support of carbon tax itself does this to me, and the things that will be brought about through your support will as well.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes you could make unfounded allegations and I could respond that government mandates industrial hemps THC level to a non phsycoactive level. That is I can provide government regulation to back up my position.

It doesn't matter whether the hemp used in industrial applications has non psycho-active effects. If we increase the demand for hemp for industrial purposes, that will increase the price of hemp in general, which will therefore make marijuana more expensive -- just what the dealers want. You fell for it, admit it.

I can also provide 100% conclusive data on hempcrete,

Perhaps you should do so, since it's been many pages without a single source.

You can do neither. When you voice your support for government levying a tax, you can not turn to existing regulation, because its something you have said you are against, so you support the tax, but not how it will be used.

A carbon tax has been implemented in Australia, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and British Columbia (also Boulder, Colorado -- but whatever, they're hippies). In BC, for example, a carbon tax was established in 2008, and since then per-capita consumption of petroleum based fuels has decreased by 15% while the rest of Canada increased usage by 1%. The tax collected is completely revenue-neutral, with the proceeds going to lowering taxes for BC residents, and as a result BC residents have the lowest personal tax rates in Canada.

Nor can you prove that CO2 possesses the properties you are so adamant about.

As a Mets fan, you should be quite clear on the fact that just because you support a thing, that thing doesn't always deliver. And you should also be clear that likely as not more people support your rivals.

What gave you the idea that I'm a Mets fan? Don't be silly.

My support of hempcrete does nothing to your freedom or cost of living (except show you you could be living better cheaper) and yet your support of carbon tax itself does this to me, and the things that will be brought about through your support will as well.

Your continued burning of coal is responsible for giving me asthma. I'm just returning the favor.

[_sabotage_]

I don't know if you know how nonsensical your comment was. I will assume you don't. Hemp shiv in the stock would still be a by-product of weed as it is a by-product of seed plants.

I don't know how demand could get much higher anyways.

Appeal to the mob since that is all you have.

As you say, they are front runners, the ones the UN is creating examples to craft its policies with.e. Unfortunately for you, I was in BC last summer, tree planting, you know putting some fresh air in your lungs with 90,000 herbicide covered trees planted in monoculture that have already been sold to the Chinese, and gas was cheaper there than the rest of the country. Especially diesel. As for Australia, I have mentioned them about ten pages back. As such, you owe me 90,000 carbon credits or 1 saxidollar.

You may Google hemp building university study and read to your hearts content.

[BigBallinStalin]

Those are two mutually exclusive options. By asking government to not get involved, you're no longer avoiding government, but becoming involved in the political process. If you have enough influence to get them to stop listening to lobbyists, you also have enough influence to get them to make better energy policy.

Well, one can never muster enough influence to block politicians and bureaucrats from incentives which are conducive to their self-interests. It's not a matter of influencing politicians, but rather it's about influencing people's opinions about government and curtailing the scope of the national government so that (a) the worst people in government can do the least harm and (b) people's expectations of government are updated with proper parameters.

Of course not. Instead, one should focus on convincing politicians that their self-interests include listening to their constituents, or else they won't be around next term. So I agree that it's about influencing people's opinions, but mostly because that's the way to convince a politician that they should act a certain way.

Yeah, that won't work. If you don't change the incentive structure, then you won't resolve the problem. Appealing to a politician's moral goals fails in the face of tangible and more profitable opportunities. And even if you get them to do what their constituents want, that doesn't mean the outcomes will be favorable as well because you're still working within a process which essentially takes other people's wealth and autonomy and then distributes it. And since that'll happen, then groups will want to lobby politicians so that they can concentrate benefits and disperse the costs onto all other taxpayers. It's a game where everyone's hands are in their neighbor's pockets; nothing changes that when it comes to government.

[thegreekdog]

Come on BBS. I have it on good authority (Mets) that writing letters to one's politicians is the best thing a constituent can do to effect change.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's also not always the case that allowing the market to go unregulated is good in the long-term (with global warming being a paramount example). Even in the absolute best case scenario based on the arguments you have previously made, where we remove all government regulation and increases in efficiency cause us to stabilize or decrease carbon dioxide emissions, that's not going to change China's ever-increasing demand for coal. So any policy has to consider the global influences as well. A carbon tax with an associated tariff on imports from non-carbon-pricing countries has the possibility of inducing serious global changes.

That's a possibility, but it's far from a certainty. Part of the motivation here is that advocating for something simple and transparent like a flat tax on all sources into the market is that it's much harder for special interests to corrupt than a system like cap-and-trade. If you design your policy with that in mind, you minimize the risks of your policy getting spiked. And the stakes are high enough to make that bet anyway.

The general theme I get from your position is that you have this idea of the political process which does not hold up to reality. Public policy ideally follows your second post, but when it's cranked through the system, it's far from ideal. That's the pattern.

I accept bureaucrats and politicians and lobbying groups as they are. The next step is to insist on a system which creates the least harm (which in turn produces the greatest benefits since markets and civil societies have more room to flourish).

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it's going too far afield from the topic at hand. I need to work within the system we have now, because we can't wait another two decades to start seriously addressing this problem.

That's a fair stance, but there are more serious problems than global warming. If the current political process is continually fed with opinions and ideas similar to yours, then you can't even begin with your step 1 for addressing GW in an effective manner. In other words, I'm not at all saying that you are wrong/I'm right, but rather today and unfortunately for future decades the good intentions of many on insisting on government will inadvertently build this snowball effect of deteriorating governance.

We need to fix the political process--or rather at least agree on the actual framework that describes the political system, before we hammer on public policies; otherwise, as I said, we won't get a more efficient means of governance and planning.