Slashdot Mirror

My question is this: What is the EPA _really_ trying to accomplish with this? Covering CO2 under the Clean Air Act would completely hamstring American businesses, forcing them to severely cut CO2 emissions

This is completely and utterly false. In other words, it isn't true. Case in point: Germany, like many other EU states has implemented a carbon tax to limit CO2 emissions. It's working in that Germany's emissions are now below the Kyoto accord requirements. All this, yet Germany's economy is recovering from their recession, and the recovery is faster than the U.S. recovery is. Lastly, the carbon taxes have all been projected to increase the number of jobs, not "hamstring" businesses like you say:

The positive effects of the ecological tax reform were highlighted by the Federal Environmental Bureau (Umweltbundesamt) in early 200210 when it stated that by the end of that year, its projections showed that ecotaxes would have reduced CO2 emissions by more than 7 million tonnes while at the same time creating almost 60,000 new jobs. Other researchers 11 were even more positive, saying that between 176,000 and 250,000 new jobs would be created. These figures were based on the assumption that the trade unions would moderate their wage demands by linking any increases in gross pay to changes in prices and productivity.

So when you look at the actual evidence, carbon taxes do pretty much precisely exactly the opposite of what you said. Do yourself a favor and stop reading talking points written by Exxon.

As for the war, we aren't fighting any war for oil -- this is another myth. I strongly believe we fought both Iraq wars in order to protect the dollar from devaluation. For decades, the US dollar has been the currency used to purchase oil (at home and abroad). Hussein threatened to use another currency in 1990, and we attacked him. After he lost, he tried it again a decade later, and we attacked him again. I believe this unconstitutional war, as every war after World War II, was performed for two reasons: to prop the dollar as the international trading mechanism and to force countries to use our companies for products (mercantilism).

Dude, we need to meet in person some time. You are one of the most honest and insightful people I have "known" from reading your stuff. I have tons of respect for you, and wish I knew somebody at least similar in real life.

Yes, this is the only plausible explanation for the "war" in Iraq. It took me 2 or so years to figure out why, but that seems to make most sense.

Americans have been lied to by the government for a long time about our new enemy of the decade and why we need to spend tons of government money and pay higher taxes to "defend" ourselves from these declared enemies. I will say, that the nebulous, borderless, and nameless "terrorism" enemy is the absolute best one ever invented. Very creative. I got sick of killing commies that kept coming over to my house and wanting to be "free". The first couple was fun, but then it became a chore.

In the area that I live in if defense spending would be reduced by I guess 10% it would destroy the economy in the whole area. Direct loss of jobs and whatnot would surely happen, but the indirect ones from fast food places, small businesses, and the hot dog dude would all dissapear. Hell, I'm even employed indirectly by the NAVY. I really need to get a more respectable job in the next 6 months or year.

I estimate that the US way of doing things will not work in another 100 years. We depend so much on a growing population, deficit spending, wars, and our money being the international economic standard for our standard of living (driving to work and watching TV at home). These things simply cannot continue forever, unless we come up with a new and more aggressive means of at least perceived world domination.

Hopefully, we will become more like a modest European country and not just fall apart. I can't predict what things will be like.

"Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East."

Depends on how you define threat. http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

Its pretty clear that the whole WMD thing and the mass confusion and patriotism after 9/11/01 were just convenient for an invasion. After all, a benevolent country like the US could never overtly attack another country for purely economic reasons, right?

http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

Personally I think the money they spent on the iraq war would have been better used at NASA. But your right, the US may find itself in deep financial trouble in the future....

Personally, I'm against war. Personally, I know Bush W is an idiot and a liar.

However, after 3 years of looking, I found out why we went to war in Iraq, and as much as I am against war and Bush, I believe that killing about 16,000 to 20,000 people in preservation of the US economic status is completely worthwhile.

Sources:

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.htm l

http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

Your .sig, Iraq: war to save the USA, points at an intriguing argument, but contains fallacies. For example,

"But the more dollars there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free."

Of course the "dollars" cost nothing to produce (or we'd use something that did), but they are exchangable for American goods/services that do cost to produce, including the labor and profit. That argument ignores the fundamental principle of finance, that the symbol has negligible cost, but merely refers to the value of the product, which has real cost.

The US economy benefits from vast efficiencies with dollar-valued global oil (and other) markets. The Federal Reserve derives its global power from its control of that currency supply. The anti-inflation rhetoric, if not practice, of Greenspan's Fed is specifically driven by the simple truth that belies the Feasta fallacy. I agree that Iraq's move to trade in Euros was a threat to BushCo, which survives Saddam in the sleazy Europe/OPEC waltz that clouded the moral clarity of European opposition to the Iraq Jr War. But the other, more solid economics of Feasta's argument are diluted by their misinterpretation of the capital cost of currency.

That's a point, but that's not the real reason.

Iraq decided back in November 2000 to start selling oil in Euros instead of Dollars, and the bad side for America is that it did succeed.

This war was fought to prevent other countries from doing the same. Like Venezuela who felt under a coup (a US funded coup) just after trying to exchange oil with services instead of dollars.

The thing is that if OPEC starts to accept Euros for oil purchases the US will economically collapse because of its huge debt (way worse than Argentina when it did collapse).

Full explanation and documents to prove this point of view.

This has never been discussed in any major US media. Weird.

There is a whiff of immorality in all of this. America's balance of trade deficit with the rest of the world is interesting, especially when you read this or this

The numbers here indicate a country with a bankrupt morality.

The fact that America is a net importer of oil speaks volumes.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.