Slashdot Mirror
Trump Is Pulling US Out of Paris Climate Deal: Sources (axios.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They're deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal -- which could take 3 years -- or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme. Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama's climate legacy. It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn't prioritize climate change and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal. News agency Reuters has corroborated the report with its own source. Further reading on Politico (which has also corroborated the news) and BBC. Update: Trump Announces US Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord.
I always recommend pulling out of Paris.
Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama's climate legacy
If Obama's "legacy" is dependent on promises John Kerry made with the expectation that nothing would need to be done for 6 years, it's a pretty lame legacy.
I may be a grognard, but I'm of the opinion that a legacy is built out of accomplishments, not promises made with the intent of someone else having to do the work.
Trump might get that trade war after all as Europe and other like-minded trading blocs impose import tariffs.
But wherever the Republicans go, Australia's Liberals follow so it's no comfort living here.
I'm ready to place a bet that he's out before Thanksgiving. Not over this in particular but rather over the constant dumpster fire that is the Trump administration and the boggling fact that they keep going from one constitutional crisis to another. Few people still think he'll finish four years; I don't expect him to finish one.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Because plutonium is safer than carbon?
Obomba only did nuclear energy like Bush II did a moon mission. Empty, empty, empty promises that were never intended to be kept. It's more than wealth redistribution. Energy is a big chokepoint. If you want to conquer nations to become ingredients in the globalist soup, destroy their resources.
For being a climate change denier, Trump interrupted her by saying WRONG. And he claimed his infamous tweet claiming climate change was a hoax invented by the Chinese, was just a joke.
Once again, Trump took the independent voters in the middle for chumps.
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You mean solutions like Solar or Wind which are increasingly coming more viable? Not saying I am against Nuclear power as I support that too with the proper generation and storage systems. But Wind and Solar are still superior to them when they can be used.
Now, finally and at last - we can begin to set our standards as high as Syria and Nicaragua!
I can't wait for the good 'ol USA to start living the good life like those guys. Makes you proud.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Have you seen some of the research on this? The long-term impacts may be catastrophic, and it's already fairly clear to anyone who cares to pay attention that climate change is already started! I find it really hard to believe anyone thought a treaty to cause climate change was a good idea in the first place.
While I dislike Trump's anti-climate change stance, our solution of carbon credits is a global scam used to prevent small companies from developing both here and abroad. Local startups find that they can't afford to pay the carbon tax while foreign land owners just sell their carbon credits (to multinational corporations) and make money without actually doing anything with the land they have.
Imagine all countries imposing pollution tariffs on everything made in the USA.
#DeleteFacebook
While the rest of the developed world and most of the developing world moves on, America will be willingly leaving itself in the dust. We are actively ceding our leadership in the world in many aspects. In a generation we will be playing second or third fiddle to the next super powers. China is high on the list as the next super power. They are where America was 60-70 years ago. Before we became complacent, greedy, unable to solve problems, partisan, and risk adverse to an absurd degree. It's not just about Climate Change. It's about global leadership.
Trump has really highlighted how much power/influence we choose to give to a single person. It amazes me that a president can unilaterally enter into or exit from agreements of this magnitude. If he has any positive legacy, I hope it's a legacy where we decided to further limit the power of the presidency.
If we were to write a book for children of good vs. evil, it would be hard to cast Trump as the "good guy". Even if he were cast as the "bad guy", he makes decisions that seem so clearly wrong that it would be rejected as too cliche.
Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than coal. 60 deaths per TWh for coal power worldwide avg, vs 0.04 deaths per TWh for nuclear, so a factor of 1500 better.
I'm sure the Chinese are thrilled to be leading the rest of the world as the US withdraws into isolation.
Under Obama, gas dropped to $2/gallon (thus kicking off another SUV cycle) and he sat on a pipeline that would have taken hundreds of thousands of oil cars off the rails (thus putting more biomes at risk).
So...what "Obama Climate Legacy" are we proud of again?
Yes.
Most of the Paris accord was voluntary and the monetary reparations for damages related to climate change sought by the LDNs seem to not have been implemented so it leaves one puzzled why President Trump would even bother giving an answer on this and just toe the line. Anyway, I'll believe that the world cares about climate change when nations that have nuclear and space programs put catalytic convertors on their cars.
Slashdot is becoming more like reddit every day.
I'm not a fan of cap-and-trade for carbon (or anything else)-- see, for example, https://www.technologyreview.c...
But when you say "our solution of carbon credits is a global scam used to..."
--wait, WHAT "solution of carbon credits"? This system doesn't exist.
Can we sue the President for gross negligence or something?
-SaNo
Crush the hippie, tree huggers like Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson! If there's one industry dragging the country down with their green crap, it's Big Oil.
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
Everyone complains about climate change but never makes any actual positive acts to actually fix it. If governments actually cared, they would invest in Solar panels for residents to get off the grid.
I am hoping Trump kills the funding to stupid programs like this and invests in solar and recycling. I think they really need to bring back the 5 cents per glass/aluminum/plastic bottle for all 50 States and offer a 50-75% solar reimbursement/coupon/tax program.
From the blurb:
> "It sends a combative signal [...] that America doesn't prioritize climate change [...]"
Shouldn't that mean "...that America prioritizes climate change, at full tilt"?
On a more serious note: how can you have elected such a bunch of morons (not that *our* morons were much better, but Trump sure hits a new low).
Just to show how serious this is, they should kick him/us out of the G7.
Yes, because for too long America has been behaving a little bit like a 1st world country when really it needs to get back to its roots. America doesn't need laws when you have guns, it doesn't need good quality universal healthcare when you car burn oil in your backyard and it doesn't need intelligent leadership when a burger loving chip with a twitter account is happy to repeatedly shit itself on live TV to keep people entertained.
Tell me that during the next meltdown.
I believe the science behind AGW, but I do not think these global attempts to restrict carbon emissions are realistic.
With that said, giving up participation in these treaties is a poor choice. I don't mind the US giving up some of our leadership role in the world, but this was low-hanging fruit. It also had the secondary effect of lowering our dependence on foreign oil, which has broader strategic benefits.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
your ignorance is frightening
China has double the US Emissions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
India's emissions are gaining.
The Paris deal lets countries set their own goals ('Nationally Determined Contributions') and isn't legally binding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So really the Paris Agreement is a plan made up by idealogues who want to 'save the planet'. Those ideologues want to set strict goals in the US (and the EU), affecting Western economies, while countries like India, China, and Russia set goals that do little to curb their emissions (and, of course, don't hurt their own economy)
In short, it's political theater that hurts the west.
Have you not heard?! There's no such a thing as dangerous nuclear material. That was a conspiracy made up by the Commies to stop America being great again. In fact, plants grow faster and children become super intelligent if you expose them to massive amounts of nuclear radiation.
Some vatnik AC has opinions about things, guys. Sounds like very legitimate real America great-making!
This is what I voted for, glad he's keeping his promises. Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution. If it was a real issue nuclear power would be the solution, but nobody seems interested in a solution.
This.
After having lived in Mexico I discovered that carbon credits are a scam used to keep rich land owners in third world countries rich by paying them for simply owning land, while startups in places like the US and western Europe have a hard time paying all the extra "taxes" that established multinationals can pay without any problem.
Trump's denial of climate change worries me, but our supposed "solutions" are global economic suicide for the middle and lower classes.
Pulling out of the climate agreement unfortunately makes me think of this cartoon: https://climatesanity.files.wo...
You live next to a coal plant for 20 years and I'll live next to a nuclear plant for 20 years.
We'll see who's in better shape at the end.
Racist! Apollogise
Since he's advocating not worrying about carbon, in what way is he implying that carbon is less safe than anything?
You really need to think through your sarcastic remarks more carefully before you make them.
They have Nuclear reactors that can be designed where it is impossible for them to meltdown.
Nuclear power is orders of magnitude safer than coal....
Tell me that during the next meltdown.
Similar to "traveling by aircraft is safer than traveling by car". Airplane crash immediately affects more people and is more newsworthy and thus gains the spotlight. Sure, coal and cars have been around much longer to cause more deaths, but they've also been around longer to generate more safe energy/miles so that should balance out.
Disclaimer: I don't recall my source when I read of the statistics several years ago, so if there's new data that disproves this, let me know!
if all investors choose a company that manufactures in a country with flawed environment standards then the product arrives to market on time. In the case of USA it will never arrive except by mass export of currency to buy it from another country!
The same is the cause of 9 of 10 US domestic dollars are in the hands of foreigners predominantly druglords: the War on Drugs prevented Americans from competing in same manufactue and caused Americans to buy these illicit products elsewhere.
Concern for safety reduced USA to incompetent overpriced benchwarmers, just like Ben Franklin warned, but I look at it as neo-government invedting in which administrative bodies gain more revenue on penaties and rehabilitation and asset forfeiture than what they derive otherwise.
So that one is random chance. Fukishima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island. Sure, they get better over time. The coal ones discharge less over time too. My money right now is that living next to a nuclear plant is likely better than living next to a coal plant - but your mileage may very depending on your luck. I'd just prefer to have neither one in my backyard...
So you voted against your own interests. Again.
In your echo chamber he is doing a great job, but when conservative sites start calling for people to pull out of the US, and the people who predicted his win also predict his impeachment you know you may be on the wrong side.
Polling disagrees with that position.
About 96% of voters said they would still vote for Trump, compared to 94% of Clinton voters.
Turning that around, about 50% more Clinton voters than Trump voters would vote for the other side now.
There's a *ton* of people cheering the president, it just doesn't get noted in the MSM. Look to places like Breitbart and Gab and Reddit threads for comments from people who are four-square behind his policies.
And let us not forget that Kucinich put forth 35 articles of impeachment for George Bush, including war crimes, including taking the country to war under false premises, but the then-leader of the Democratic party (senator Obama) chose not to prosecute because "it would divide the nation".
its not happening fast enough. we're still 6.7 billion too many.
Yeah, "neither" would probably be ideal.
But as a fan of electricity and modern civilization, a few of them have to be in "someone's" backyard. May as well be nuclear.
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
I have lived next to a nuke plant for 30 years (indian point) and yeah. ill take this over coal any day
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Because Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi never happened, right? Marcoule in France, or the recent blast in Flamaville station?
And that's just a few of the accidents out of a long list of accidents on nuclear facilities, don't get me started on leaks incidents in waste storage facilities...
Because coal/oil/gas plants never explode and any associated spillage is fine right? How many millions of barrels of oil are dumped in the sea through carelessness or accident again? How much extra co2 is in the air trapping extra heat in the atmosphere? Nope, totally no polluting at all and let's all run away from big bad nuclear, ohhh its so scary I'll run and hide in my filth where it's safer.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I'd just prefer to have neither one in my backyard...
Perfectly happy sucking up the power from either though, right?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Obama's "climate legacy" being: "I'll do what my big donors and lobbyists want me to do, and I don't care about the economic consequences because I'll be long out of office and have a cool few hundred million in the bank." That "climate legacy"?
I think that was rather a big factor in the last election.
Good!
and his entire staff are mentally ill. Great again indeed.
Your fright is ignorance.
The economy is nothing but a gigantic mechanism of distributing wealth. How is changing the distribution "sucking" anything out? Whether it's fat pigs buying jewelry, military buying bombs, or poor people buying food, it's all supporting production and employing workers.
The question is; What are you going to do about it? Sitting online and complaining is going to do exactly squat.
The way I see it, there are two different groups in this nation. The first group sees that there is a major problem, although most don't realize the full extent of the problem. They want to see significant changes, but lack the tools to properly address the situation. Many members of this group lack the willingness to use the needed tools, even if they were provided. The second group has the needed tools and has demonstrated the willingness to use them. However, they don't think that there is a problem, or that change is needed right now.
I don't know what's going to happen over the next year or so, but somehow I think we'll look back on this as "before everything went completely to hell."
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Speaking of wealth redistribution : your cheque is in the mail.
By first pointing out the US never actually ratified the agreement so it was stupid of any country to think we were in it. Then he could explain how congress ratifies treaties and then say he'll sign it if it gets passed. (Which it probably won't since the pubs control congress but hey the dems can vote for it knowing full well they won't have to worry about the results if it were to pass. Why yes I am a huge cynic)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Nuclear plants are massively expensive and take many years to build; during that time lots of things can halt the effort. This makes it a significantly risky investment. This means it is difficult to secure the money to build them. There are theoretical smaller-scale solutions in development, but they are not ready for fielding (and some may turn out to be impractical). Wind & Solar are safe investments. They can be built quickly, and they come with no public pushback, and very little Not-In-My-Backyard effect. so that's what's being pursued for now. As those realms become more saturated, the push for nuclear can become stronger.
In any multiple choice situation, Trump always picks the one that crosses the stupid line, doesn't pass the sniff test - whatever you want to call it. At some point, even his ever diminishing list of supporters are going to be calling for his ouster. So they can replace him with the even worse Pence.
This is hardly a surprise. Everyone in the business sector was banking on this. Trump basically is doing anything pro-buisness and pro-Russia at the expense of literally everything/everyone else. Any claims he has that security is a primary concern of his is complete whitewash. Germany called him out on lack of environmental concerns and he basically Twittered "the Germans should mind their own business..or else". Thing of it is, it's EVERYBODY'S business. The German Chancellor has said EU has said they cannot rely on the USA to play a leadership role and the EU will have to step up. Trump is alienating all our allies, and getting cozy with historically hostile foreign powers. This should be concerning to all of us.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Everything you mention is driven by Anonymous Sources. Like ACs on Slashdot, you can't trust them, you don't know if they are real or not, and they are usually wrong.
The White House is leaking like a sieve, yet no evidence of any criminal activities or even generic "wrong doing" has emerged. I would think that if people wanted him out so desperately and they had the goods they would have provided the evidence by now.
Hell, they can't even articulate what crimes may have been committed. All they can do is throw out vague, over the top accusations.
Evidence...where is it?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
u mad bro?
http://imgur.com/a/CpUQr
Apples and Oranges...
Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi released tonnes of irradiated particles into the atmosphere and surrounding area while Marcoule and Flamaville did not.
. . .and long, slow deaths via lung cancer and black lung are hard to see on the macro level. Not to mention deaths in traditional coal mines (as opposed to strip-mined coal, which is ugly, but at least can be remediated afterwards. . .
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
Tillerson and his cronies are already sucking trillions out of the economy. Who exactly is getting the benefits from the economic gains since Furor Reagan? It certainly isn't the working stiffs like us; it's the billionaires and millionaires.
And almost 40 years later people are still believing the fairy tail of "Trickle Down Economics", most amazing bit of propaganda ever.
Trump hasn't earned the right to breath the same air as us. Maybe he can try breathing CO2 if he thinks carbon is so great.
Did anyone pull out of a treaty banning Death Star-class weapons?
If anything, they INCREASE the amount of CO2 and water vapor (greenhouse gases) released by cars. This is considered an acceptable tradeoff in preference to unburned hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, which cause smog....
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Better still, grind up the nuclear plant entirely, into aerosol-sized particles. Then measure the mass and total emitted energy of the results. Compare that to the operation of a coal plant for a year. Depending on the grade of coal, the coal plant releases at least an order of magnitude more radioisotopes by both mass and energy. Not just alphas and betas, but gammas. . .
Chernobyl and Fukushima were old reactor designs. Chernobyl lacked the protective housing US designs required and Fukushima didn't follow US generator policy changes that were made in the 1970s for that type of reactor that said they needed to be protected from flooding if in a flood plain. Because the power grid was down and they had flooded generators, they weren't able to shut down the power plant. That was a known design problem with this very old reactor.
Marcoule and Flamaville were accidents that happened at nuclear reactors but neither were nuclear accidents. One was a furnace used to melt metals that contained an extremely low amount of hazardous radiation that exploded and the other was a turbine explosion. Ever seen a wind or gas turbine explode? It isn't all that uncommon.
Waste for the most part is unnecessary. Most if not all Gen IV reactors can breed what we call waste into fuel and passive safety is a requirement. What remains after these new reactors burn the fuel and waste will have radiation levels lower than background radiation in about 200-300 years, not thousands. Just and FYI if you haven't kept up.
By supporting the coal industry instead of phasing out coal and reversing emission reduction legislation, it was already impossible for the USA to reach the goals of the Paris climate deal. Puling out just makes it official.
What's to tear up?
Obama had no authority to commit the US to anything. All he did by signing that was to indicate that HE would use his executive power to guide policies and regulations i support of the agreement. Once Obama Left, the agreement was dead. Trump can simply reverse the policies and procedures put into place and ignore the rest of the agreement.
Nothing in that "agreement" has the force of law. Only treaties that have been ratified by the Senate can have any legal effect.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This is what I voted for, glad he's keeping his promises. Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution. If it was a real issue nuclear power would be the solution, but nobody seems interested in a solution.
I know you're modded down, but the most ridiculous aspect of this treaty is that countries like China & India, which are far worse polluters of the environment, don't have to do a thing about it until 2030. If anything, those countries should bear the initial brunt of cleaning up, and when the rest of the world is where we are, then talk about everybody - including the US - cleaning up!
It is possible to have strong concerns about carbon markets while still supporting the Paris Agreement.
and the idiotic polarization of politics in the States basically causing it to drop out of leadership on the most important issue of our time. Sad!
100% Nuclear
There is so fucking much info that shoots holes in global warming but fuck that why bother reading once you join the death cult all these people hear is global warming denier and there is nothing to be learned after that.
Chernobyl happened because of communism they put a moron in charge of a badly designed reactor,keep politics out out it would never have happened.
Fukishima happened because it was not kept up to code.
The argument seems to be we cannot learn from mistakes.
So after conceding that neither a nuclear nor a coal plant is likely to far worsen your standard of living, you turn out to be a NIMBY guy after all. I'd happily live next to either - would simply like to live rent free there for the rest of my life. As long as I've good internet, I'm happy.
Yes because ensuring that the planet is habitable past our lifetime is pure insanity....
When you cant win, ad hominem.
A tax of about 40% or 50% on imports of US goods to other countries which are still in the Paris agreement, reflecting the apparent IQ difference of the countries' leadership, as evidenced by this dumbass decision.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The deaths figure above are per unit of energy (terawatts). This means that the deaths are already scaled to the energy production.
10-15 years to build a nuclear plant. Costs more than solar and soon more than wind. It is heavily subsidized by tax money so it's not even competitive without free money.
Next Gen future BS that is always 5 years away is risky if new and likely expensive and didn't I mention that it's 5 years away? We've heard about better kinds for decades and still the older designs continue and nobody is making these magical new reactors.
The incompetence of managing nuclear is a real issue and the damage done is measured in centuries. They dilute and make it more difficult to measure than it already is. Coal also helps to make all this difficult to discover and when it is they do FUD against it.
The economy is nothing but a gigantic mechanism of distributing wealth. How is changing the distribution "sucking" anything out? Whether it's fat pigs buying jewelry, military buying bombs, or poor people buying food, it's all supporting production and employing workers.
Economies generally work by the exchange of goods and services for money.
So, in each of your examples you are describing a functioning economy.
An economic leakage occurs when money that could be used to purchase good and services is instead send elsewhere. The result of the leakage reduces the money supply, which reduces the ability to purchase goods and services.
This proposed tax (like all other taxes) is an economic leakage. Money is being taken out of the normal economic system. Now governments may use this money to buy goods and services, or they may choose to distribute it in some other way. But it remains an economic distortion. Taxation != buying bombs, jewelry or food.
You going and earning a dollar actually means that you had something of value the other party wanted to exchange money for. It's a win-win scenario. Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return. Likewise, the government giving you a dollar represents an economic transaction that couldn't happen elsewhere as the government had to appropriate the money from somewhere else.
Don't fall for the fallacy that governments print money. They don't. Governments issue and guarantee currency that has an agreed exchange value. The amount of currency in circulation (generally) represents the economic value of the economy. That's why governments issuing more currency inevitably leads to inflation, as there are more units of exchange (let's call them dollars) that represent the value of the economy, so the buying power of that unit of exchange falls.
So: this proposed tax extracts money from the economy and reduces economic activity because there less to spend. Assuming that the money is 100% redistributed to people, they can do less with the money because economic activity has fallen. Nothing good comes out of this.
What ever else you want to say about the Paris Agreement, it's temperature goals are laughable. Look at NOAA's temperature trends since 1880. Temperatures have increased by 1.0 C since 1880, already. The Paris agreement suggests setting goals to keep temperatures below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. From the climate modelling the IPCC has collected, even a complete and absolute global ban on all CO2 emissions tomorrow would NOT reach the 1.5C goal. The existing emissions already out there will ride us over 1.5C before 2100.
Call me crazy, but I really want my law enforcement to put the good of the country above the will of a retarded pumpkin. Ensuring that the president isn't a traitor should be the desire of anyone sane.
Because Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi never happened, right? Marcoule in France, or the recent blast in Flamaville station?
And that's just a few of the accidents out of a long list of accidents on nuclear facilities, don't get me started on leaks incidents in waste storage facilities...
Of course they did. That's why the number is 0.04 instead of zero. That number also includes deaths due to mining uranium by the way.
Well he fired the guy investigating him...that's usually a bad sign, but most damningly he pulled out of the Paris climate deal to help some corporations profit at the expense of destroying the world
Because plutonium is safer than carbon?
If Trump wanted to replace coal with nuclear, he could've stuck with the agreement. The nuclear industry was massively in favor of it.
Obstruction of justice is a crime that has been committed.
Trump publically admitted to that one when he said he fired Comey over the russian investigation. Regardless of if there was any collusion or not Trump knew his administration was under investigation by Comey and fired him. That is obstruction of justice. He even double down on it when he revealed to the russians that he had made his life easier by firing Comey to end the investigation.
Trump has also definitely violated the Emoluments clause and could be impeached for that.
I don't know if his campaign colluded with Russia during the election and that is still being investigated.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
America will be GREAT AGAIN!!
Other nations will almost certainly have to impose environmental tariffs on US produced goods as a result. The US is largely a corrupt and regressive backwater these days. Let's hope that the backwardness of US policies, both domestic and foreign, will face some credible opposition from more progressive countries. America is increasingly becoming a particularly ugly example of a corrupt and totalitarian nightmare. One only has to look at who the 'choices' for president were, to realise that the system of government there has long since ceased to function in any moderately representative way, let alone democratic.
This proposed tax (like all other taxes) is an economic leakage.
Only if the government takes it tax revenue and buries it in the ground. In real governments, tax revenues are rapidly returned to the economy through the purchase of goods and services, such as roads and park cleaning.
In the case of carbon tax revenues, one can imagine spending them on housing subsidies for people who live in factory/plant exhaust plumes, essentially causing the polluter to compensate the people being most directly affected. Or to subsidize particular kinds of medical care. Even the costs of administering such a program turn out to be jobs and salaries.
Comey wasn't investigating him. That's like saying the President of GM is building cars.
Career investigators were investigating and continue to do so.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Americans need to learn basic economics and basic math too... They are embarrassingly stupid and dogmatic. "wealth redistribution" is a trigger phrase for many of them just like abortion is to another fanatically ignorant group.
% being the way to do relative measures to ensure fairness, they lack a basic understanding of math so they get upset if Bill Gates pays millions in taxes as if that is unfair without any concept of how % wise he pays half what they do.
What kind of IDIOT thinks that government sucks money out of the economy with taxes? Government pumps so much money into the economy we have this thing called inflation. if they did suck it out we'd have something called deflation. Government spending of money they collect pretty much ALWAYS has more economic gains than letting rich people get it. That isn't including how todays investment casino promotes short term shallow growth that outsources your jobs and cuts your benefits/raises... not that you noticed because bad food and clothing are cheap-- so you don't even notice how your income should be double what it is.
Economics is all about redistributing wealth; it's what the economy does and it never does it equitably no matter how much you try to regulate it. It also does not work if you give up regulating it--- in fact it trends into disaster as human history shows over and over - EVERY time far more than attempts to regulate it.
Not sure why you were downvoted. At least one person gets it.
Everything you mention is driven by Anonymous Sources. Like ACs on Slashdot, you can't trust them, you don't know if they are real or not, and they are usually wrong.
You mean exactly like named sources? Who would have thunk.
Even someone who has never been wrong before can be wrong the first time. That is why every statement has to be evaluated on its own.
Sure, it is a bit more efficient to completely disregard sources with a notorious record of being unreliable and that can be done without being fooled.
Blindly trusting sources with a good track record falls under the appeal to authority fallacy.
Wrong.
Comey wasn't investigating him. That's like saying the President of GM is building cars.
Career investigators were investigating and continue to do so.
The Emoluments clause stuff is just plain stupid.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's also not moral to persecute people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc, destroy the planet because it might cut into your profits, put business ahead of people, or dumb down your childrens' educations because they might learn something that disagrees with a pure literal translation of an ancient book? There is no such thing as a compassionate {insert political affiliation here}
Yeah, those types of stereotypes apply to both sides. I wish we would leave political parties behind and think for our selves. Guess I should get my head out of the clouds.
I am an ashamed American! Why should I feel proud for what was done many generations ago? Everybody alive since WW2 has nothing to feel proud of except for some scientists and nerds. The US has been one big constant failure who's inherited great success and wealth from our forefathers. Just like Trump who's daddy made him and provided the connections (corruption) to make it in formerly ultra safe real-estate industry.
We have generations now who are contributing more than preventing the implosion of the American empire. Bush wasn't a fluke, he was representative and Trump proves it. The world will eventually learn to see past the heavy self promotion .... America's only unique export is it's culture.
When I travel, I often pass off as Canadian. If I say I'm American, I scold anybody who doesn't give me an earful because they need to make every American realize they take some responsibility.
Two concepts: externalized costs, and liquidity of assets. If your assets are sufficiently liquid, you can externalize your costs and then move your assets out of the way of the consequences. This represents a wealth distribution to people who not only avoid paying for the things they use (e.g. using the atmosphere as a dump), but can actually move their investments into things people have to buy because of pollution. In other words, if you're one of the billionaire investors bankrolling the climate denialist PR campaign, you're going to make money coming and going.
The other people who go along with it are just suckers. I've had some of them tell me scientists are getting rich off some kind of climate conspiracy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yes, you voted for King Canute to hold back the tides. Congratulations, you're just so darned brilliant.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Apparently you're either an ignoramus or a liar. Scientists aren't saying it's going to kill us... well, it's probably going to kill a lot of people, but not likely many in the West. But it is going to make our lives a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive, and actually, if you pay any attention to insurance actuaries, it already is.
But I get it, you're a baby, a little infantile child who hasn't the maturity or the wits to assess a situation based on what's actually happening, preferring the nice cooing sounds of a profoundly stupid and disturbed man. You are truly among the most contemptible people of our age, and I hope you suffer for it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Government taking my money and me "not getting anything in return" is where your post sank. I get an enormous amount In return, and I get a fantastic deal on the price.
People with double my income get a moderately not great deal. The super rich get a terrible deal. But I bet they'll find a way to make ends meet, somehow.
You are so virtuous, and the way you dole out curses is just awesome.
And guess what, we're all going to die. 'Science' hasn't fixed that yet and probably never will.
Well he said he fired him because of the Russia thing. Sort of like saying the President of volkswagon is responsible for the emission scandal.
This proposed tax (like all other taxes) is an economic leakage.
Only if the government takes it tax revenue and buries it in the ground. In real governments, tax revenues are rapidly returned to the economy through the purchase of goods and services, such as roads and park cleaning.
In the case of carbon tax revenues, one can imagine spending them on housing subsidies for people who live in factory/plant exhaust plumes, essentially causing the polluter to compensate the people being most directly affected. Or to subsidize particular kinds of medical care. Even the costs of administering such a program turn out to be jobs and salaries.
And as citizens and taxpayers, we agree to the economic leakage going into things such as parks and roads. But ultimately it is an economic distortion.
Take your example: one can imagine spending them on housing subsidies for people who live in factory/plant exhaust plumes, essentially causing the polluter to compensate the people being most directly affected
What has actually changed here? Nothing. The pollution emitter is still emitting; the people living in this pollution as still living in this pollution, only now they have money to go seek medical treatment for the inevitable health issues.
Wages were paid, but nothing of economic value was created in the exchange.
Surely it is far better to mandate that polluter to reduce their pollution levels? Like what the CARB did to cars years ago to clean up LA?
We, the citizens, are effectively saying to polluters: clean up or get out. The Invisible Hand will guide the economy to a better place.
You really expect to impeach a president in his first 130 days? Took Nixon like 2-3 years. Even with the massive cloud hanging over Trump, making an airtight case takes time. What a ridiculous assertion that he committed no crime simply because they're making sure they have a case good enough to bring against him.
And because these http://www.mining-technology.c... never happened, which is just IN ADDITION to the tons of deaths caused by coal burning pollution, black lung, etc
He stated publically that he fired Comey to end the russia investigation. He specifically fired him with INTENT to disrupt/end the investigation. He then expressed relief at having disrupted the investigation.
There is also nothing stupid about the emoluments clause. It is intended to make sure that the president can not be paid off by foreign powers. Do you think it is a little strange that Saudi Arabia was not included in the countries in the travel ban? The country where we actually have had a number of terrorists come from? Actually quite a number of countries where left off the travel ban list and even a judge noted that the countries left out all have trump properties in them. We don't know for sure if that was part of the reason for leaving them out but that is also why that clause exists. Right now Trump and his family are personally and directly benefiting financially from the office of the president with respect to foreign powers.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Some of the worst arguments I see on here are that China causes more carbon emissions. Sure imagine you're stranded on a boat with 10 other people and wearing a red shirt while everyone has a blue shirt. You're eating 5 times the amount of rations but arguing that you shouldn't cut back because "blue" is already eating more. This is why emissions per capita matters. Carbon emissions are directly related to food production and general economic wealth of a nation. As a resident of a well off nation, it stands to hurt us the least to cut back a little. The only way China can cut back is to effectively downgrade their economics so badly that it will probably start killing people.
So yeah, wealth redistribution it is, but folks forget that we're already doing that. There are far far more poorer folks out there worldwide and when nature inevitably bites back due to climate change it will hit the poor much harder but we share the same planet. Expect more environmental refugees and don't be surprised if folks start fighting more. After all if you're staving to death because you don't have water or food or a way of living, blowing up your neighbour who seems to have everything, deserved or not seems like a good option.
It's why we should pro-actively try to fix this even if it seems hopeless, letting it go to the latter doesn't sound like fun at all.
" yet no evidence of any criminal activities or even generic "wrong doing" has emerged " Wrong. Kushner, Manifort and Flynn all will face charges for their ILLEGAL ACTIONS that we already know of and are documented. They just haven't stopped and charged them yet because Trump himself may be where this all ends. That investigation will end, and these dumbasses will plead or go to prison.
Psst...guess who made up the list of countries for the Travel ban?
Ya...Obama... So was S.A. paying off Obama?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So...is the FBI still investigating him, or not?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
What news sources are you reading? There's an on-going investigation, which means they don't come out and tell joe-blow commentor on Slashdot, let alone a reporter the hard evidence, but there are plenty of leaks and reports of the exact wrong-doing. Which should we start with? Kushner and the Logan act? Flynn and the Logan act? His lawyers? The President's direct lies on the campaign trail about his association with a foreign power? The firing of an FBI director to squash an investigation?
Do you think there's a GOP led congressional inquiry and a special prosecutor from the DoJ just for fun?
Everything you mention is driven by Anonymous Sources. Like ACs on Slashdot, you can't trust them, you don't know if they are real or not, and they are usually wrong.
You have a low enough UID to realize how dumb that sentence is, right? Or do you just repeat talking points that support your side?
They can't even articulate a crime they suspect him of.
Can you? Cite the federal code.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Like all investigations, it's coming. Watergate took 2 years. They're only going to get one shot at this, so I'd rather they take their time to cross their ts and dot their is.
In other words:
Shut the fuck up, faggot.
Ya, anonymous unvetted sources, like wikileaks.
" that we already know of and are documented."
But that you evidently can't innumerate here.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
seriously, fuck this guy.
You had me until "more safe energy/miles".
The longer we burn coal, it gets worse, not better.
If you meant by balancing out that it explains more deaths, refer to my previous statement.
Sorry, AC, we can't trust you, you are probably not even real, and you are wrong.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
While there's no evidence, it's quite clear that this is definitely an likely option and that one should be prepared for this eventuality.
Remember, he doesn't believe Climate Change is caused by humans. As such, any climate change agreement is pointless in his eyes because nothing humanity does will change Earth's climate.
Also, have you even been paying attention to even half the news? There's a ton of wrong-doing that's been going on: communication over insecure lines (see personal cell phone request), undocumented / lied about communication with Russians, not properly separating himself from his businessess (bringing foriegn diplomats and discussing sensitive information in his own highly insecure golf club)? I'm actually somewhat surprised that ISIS doesn't have an operative that assassinates them with an 18 wheeler...
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars (as a tax on fossil fuel use) out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Let me read between the lines for you, using this neat trick some of us have called inference.
Taxing fossil fuel use increases price and reduces demand for fossil fuel. Because people still require the services (transport, heating, powering industry etc) that fossil fuel currently is employed for, demand is increased for alternative GHG-emissions-free means of performing those services in the economy. So the economy is on a path to de-carbonization: de-coupling of GHG emissions from the functioning of the economy. This allows CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere to stabilize and be gradually reduced. This stabilization and reduction, through physics involving the absorption spectra of various atmospheric molecules times the concentration of these molecules at different heights in the atmosphere with atmospheric temperature gradient factors thrown in, causes the net heat energy gain of the planet to slow, preventing or delaying global warming of the atmosphere and oceans, and preventing extreme changes in clmate.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
>fucking much info
the mechanics behind AGW are actually quiet well understood. CO2 converts solar energy into heat and traps it into the atmosphere, AND humans release a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. If you want to disprove AGW, you need to disprove either of these claims.
The FBI doesn't hand out evidence to idiots on the internet.
How stupid or disingenuous can you get? Amazed people upvote stuff basically asking for classified evidence before any charges are brought. Stunning, no wonder Trump got elected when dumb Americans listen to extremely unreliable narrators.
I have lived next to a nuke plant for 30 years (indian point) and yeah. ill take this over coal any day
Yeah, but what does your *other* head think? :D
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Well he's in blatant violation of 77 KEK 7777 which says:
(a) Statement of right to non-butt-hurt
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be protected from impairment due to butt-hurt as a result of the deeds, words, tweets, and thoughts of the democratically-elected President of the United States.
(b) Provision of remedies
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under State law prohibiting the sale of prescription or non-prescription butt-hurt remedies.
They are, despite Trump's efforts
If we are all going to die because of CC in the near future, why did Clinton run her campaign on refugee and transgender toilet issues? Even with her close ties to Al Gore.
The answer is that CC is just a wealth redistribution scheme, and that nobody on the left considers it a real threat either.
If they legit believed in imminent doom this would not be so.
Yes, despite Trump's illegal efforts to stop them from doing so.
I keep seeing people say that but all the evidence I can find does not really support that statement.
http://www.politifact.com/wisc...
From what I can find the statement is only partially true. The Obama administration put in more restrictions on travel from those countries and didn't allow the visa waiver program to apply to those countries but did not actually try to ban them. It also looks like the list changed over time based on recommendations from the intelligence agencies.
You also ignored the emoluments issue entirely. It is like you latched on to one small thing you could attack while ignoring the overall issue. That is nitpicking and not useful.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Let me get this straight...you're in a debate over the ramifications of pulling out of a treaty which ostensibly is designed to slow or stop supposed 'catastrophic world wide calamity' due to CO2 & you're worried about a handful of POTENTIAL increased deaths?
This is EXACTLY why pulling out of a feckless, useless treaty designed by people who have NO clue is a good thing. People who supposedly make their decisions on 'settled science' but in fact they don't.
Face it, the use of large scale amounts of energy is risky. We had the opportunity to mitigate worse risk by using something that is less risky. People like you have argued against the less risky option for far too many years. You are too blame for any 'climate change' issues we may be experiencing now & in the future. I hope you're happy.
Back in July 1776 the American-born British Subjects renounced their "British-Subject Hood" for freedom. Although branded as Criminals and Traitors by the British of the day, and in 1814 saw the White House and other federal buildings in D.C. raised by fire by invading British Troops, as then President Madison and employees fled to Pennsylvania, his wife Dolly took command of the White House to save artifacts such as the portrait of President George Washington and evaded capture and certain imprisonment and most certain execution by the British.
The "Paris Accord" is nothing more than "Modeled" hot air looking for a country to bank-roll the Lifestyles of the European and Famous.
Freedom is Choice.
That's quite offensive towards retarded pumpkins.
Dah comrade. Workers paradise, only better implemented by communist Europe, will bring us a glorious utopia.
Ensuring the planet is habitable? WTF does that even mean? You can NEVER ensure that! And, for the record, even the REAL science worst case projections (and not Bill Nye's chicken little bleating that you're actually sucking down) says that climate change will not make the planet "uninhabitable" - nomoreso than Mount St. Helens exploding or Katrina. Land masses MAY change and ecosystems will be altered (and newsflash, they already are on a daily basis) but the earth will still be able to sustain most, if not the same amount or more, of life as we know it.
CO2 is deadly. Just try breading it for a while. But the problem with CO2 can be divided into 2 problems. CO2 will go into the sea and lower its PH abd thus killing the fish. This and lack of rain will make billions lof people run out of food . This will cause two things. Price of food will increase and massive amount of refugees will travel to areas that still have food . Crime rates will increase as will terrorism. Nationalists will answer to that with more violence. It is pretty much worse than zombies . The other problem is that it will be warmer. This is what scientists keep telling us because they assume everyone will figure out what it means.
[...] yet no evidence of any criminal activities or even generic "wrong doing" has emerged. [...] they would have provided the evidence by now. [...] Evidence...where is it?
Trump himself provided the evidence. He affirmed he fired Comey so the "russier" investigation would end quickly. That's obstruction of justice.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
I would think that if people wanted him out so desperately and they had the goods they would have provided the evidence by now.
To a republican senate who won't even commit to pretending to investigate him?
Hell, they can't even articulate what crimes may have been committed. All they can do is throw out vague, over the top accusations.
Awful hard to do when no one with any power will actually investigate him.
And when has that stopped a congressional investigation before? We spent seven million dollars investigating whether Hillary Clinton personally led a band of islamic terrorists to murder soldiers and government employees and that was well worth it, she'll spend her prison time she earned from that thinking about what she's done. And of course all those climate change scientists, without congress we'd never have punished them for using a hockey stick to heat up the earth. And obviously, Congress very effectively ended the criminal organization that was ACORN many times, which as you know committed the double sin of trying to get poor people houses and also something clearly involving legalizing child prostitution.
But for every slam dunk case congress successfully prosecutes like that, there are silly nonsense things like investigating the financial crisis.
For those with republican brains, the above things were sarcasm. None of those things I mentioned as good congressional investigations were based on anything. Republicans endlessly pursue investigations based on absolutely nothing while ignoring serious crimes. "You can't even say what crimes Trump should be investigated on" is a massive double standard, and this should be obvious to anyone capable of voluntarily chewing. If voters held Trump to the same standard as we allow liberals to be held to, he would be in Guantanamo bay by now.
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
Actually, tax money gets spent and goes back into the economy to pay somebody else's salary, who then spends money.--quite the opposite of sucking money out of the economy.
No obstruction then.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The emoluments issue is stupid. The most you can gin up is that somehow foreign leaders will feel obligated to stay at his hotels.
And you apparently can't Google for shit.
"The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump's executive order on immigration were initially identified as "countries of concern" under the Obama administration."
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"The White House is leaking like a sieve, yet no evidence of any criminal activities or even generic "wrong doing" has emerged."
Mainly because not disclosing contacts with foreign governments on security clearance forms is not necessarily illegal if done in error rather than intentionally, and proving the latter is difficult. Otherwise there would probably be a bunch of people by now.
Then there's Mike Flynn who isn't in the White House any more, but failed to indicate he was receiving money from a foreign government (Turkey) during the campaign and he failed to disclose the same when being hired as the National Security Advisor. That's pretty illegal if true. There's the whole bit where he supposedly told the WH he was under Justice Dept. investigation but was hired anyway, which isn't criminal but is highly questionable. And the quite-possible obstruction-of-justice and/or abuse of power activities of Trump himself (firing the head of the investigation into possible campaign collusion with Russia), which he himself has admitted doing in a stupid attempt to get rid of the investigation even though he had people provide alternative, trumped-up excuses to make it look otherwise.
I accept your point that anonymous sources are automatically suspect (me included). There may be nothing here, but if your standard is "not criminal", that's a pretty low bar to set for politicians, and there's a as-yet-incomplete case to be made that line was crossed by some WH staff such as Flynn anyway. Worse, I'm not inclined to cut some slack for someone who won't even fully disclose his finances because he decided to defy 40 years of political convention by not releasing his tax forms. Again, not illegal, but it makes it more difficult to demonstrate that there is nothing to it.
what with Paris getting her modeling career started at his company (Trump Model Management), and her still being of gropeable age, he must be torn between having more dealings with her and knowing any such "deal" probably somehow benefits the Hilton hotel chain. Classic case of conflict of interest.
Nope, totally no polluting at all and let's all run away from big bad nuclear, ohhh its so scary I'll run and hide in my filth where it's safer.
There's a company in Japan that would like you to walk into the Fukushima reactors and troubleshoot the robots that have been dying inside.
When you're done, please post some updates here.
then what is the point of remaining part of the treaty?
How many nations who're supposedly part of this treaty have failed to comply at all, and how many others by simply shifting their tailpipe to others?
Remaining a hypocritical member is more damaging to the goals of the treaty. Better those planning to fail gtfo. the ones that remain, that are actually meeting the goals, strengthen the accord, and demonstrate it can be done.
Do you know what the h stands for, in TWh?
Coal is crap but if your intent is to be a helpful part of the dialogue and living near something is the sum total of your qualifications, please keep quiet and allow more knowledgeable people to move the discussion forward.
"...converts solar energy into heat..."
Um... ?
While trying to pretend that it's so simple even a monkey could understand it, you accidentally pointed out that you, yourself, aren't even that smart.
Chernobyl wasn't really even an "accident". They did a late-night safety test without telling the engineers to arrange the fuel in the correct way for said test. Another station went offline, and the plant was told to postpone the test. When it finally resumed, the original day-time team had long went home; the over-night team wasn't trained properly and the delay had allowed dangerous gas buildup to occur. The whole incident was more a series of incompetence, improper training, and piss-poor communication. An accident is "an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause." What happened there was not without cause, and was no chance happening. The whole test should have been aborted until it was back on the original, daytime schedule with the proper crew in attendance.
We have several reactor designs that are quite safe. The pebble bed is one of the Gen IV you mentioned. The LFTR is another very safe reactor, unfortunately the current development won't have a commercial reactor until at least 2032.
Seriously, the paris deal is worse than the kyoto deal. the fact that China CONTINUES TO GROW THEIR EMISSIONS, says that it is wrong.
Instead, we should require 3rd world nations like CHina which emit far more than they admit AND emit more than what even the west can drop, is a joke.
Hopefully, instead, the GOP will push for a tax on ALL CONSUMED GOODS/Services based on what state/nations the worst CO2 comes from.
All that needs to happen is that we need OCO3 to have precise measurements between states/nations, along with normalizing based on emissions / $ GDP.
With this, America raises the tax on the emissions/$GDP. This will force all nations to drop their emission over time, or lose their export market. In addition, it will benefit those nations that have low emission / $ GDP.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
your ignorance is frightening
And yours is now irrelevant.
Obstruction of justice is a crime that has been committed.
I don't know if his campaign colluded with Russia during the election and that is still being investigated.
Not according to Alan Dershowitz. You know, the highly regarded Harvard Law professor who says that Trump was completely within his rights to as President to tell Comey what to do in regards giving direction on investigations and firing him for any reason whatsoever.
On top of that, according to Dershowitz, even if the Trump campaign directly colluded with Russia to release the emails, there's no Federal statute that makes it illegal to do so and it rises to the level of shady "political wrongdoing" at worst.
Nothing will come of this colossal waste of time and vitriol.
I have a hunch given the sample size, the accounting changes dramatically every Fukushima, or Chernobyl. I'm certain it could be made safer given that most reactors out there are some permutation on 50 year old and very risky BWRs. However, it's an increasingly mute point given cost of nuclear power is rather high up on the list relative to other sources such as coal, solar, wind, and natural gas.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
We've had designs for colonies on the Moon and Mars for decades. How's that working out? There's better technology available certainly, however, what we actually have are 50 year old BWRs and little motivation to throw down the billions of dollars on one of the most expensive forms of power available.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Who cares? Solar is cheaper.
It's a treaty. If it has the support that people seem to think then ratification would have been doable.
I agree with you partly. Yes, the government just can't print money. I don't agree with you when you say taxation is stopping the economic flow. It's actually mostly the rich people and companies that are the problem.
The government provides services to the people it serves. The roads you drive on, fire and police service. Even the services some people seem to hate -- much hated DMV, social security, the army. All of this is going towards local citizens, which in turn, spend on on the econmy. It basically just takes money someone MIGHT have spent, and actually spent it - largely on the local economy. It might reduce what one single person could do, but it's still spending the vast majority of it somewhere local (even if it's on expensive food or private flights that constituents yell at them about).
Now you take a look a APL who holds on to tons of money and does not reinvest or spend it. They have billions of dollars just sitting there because people are stupidly throwing thier hard earned money. This money is literally distorting the economy because they're just stockpiling it -- there's no movement.
Worse, the rich often go globetrotting / rich companies send money overseas to tax havens by abusing loopholes. This takes money out of the economy. Sure, you could say "so let's drop our taxes to fight these other people". The question then becomes: do you want to be like them? Reduce police coverage, reduce fire protection, reduced miliatary, reduce ______ service since they can't pay as much for it? If you're American, do you support reducing the Military so that you're 5th or 6th from the top?
Probably something about sex.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
no evidence of any criminal activities or even generic "wrong doing" has emerged.
This is patently false. Who the fuck modded this up?
Besides, the extra fingers growing out of my kneecaps come in handy some days...
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Pretty sure "liberal" in the US means the same thing as "conservative," specifically it translates to "anybody I disagree with."
One thing I was surprised to see in the comments section on a very balanced local paper (which in my part of the world means fairly right of center, but not run by conspiracy theorists), somebody said he agreed with somebody else, not because she had a good point, but because "nobody can question your conservative credentials." I guess the poster in question was known to the other person to be a "conservative," so that was all the validation he needed of her post. What she said made good sense, and was quite beneficial to the conversation. Why somebody would think it needed vouching based on being by a "conservative" is beyond me.
I'm pretty left of center socially and fiscally, but if somebody I disagree with has a good point, I say that it's a good point. I might even change my mind. Hell, just look at my post history here. What I find with my right-wing whackadoodle buddies (of which I have many), the better the evidence against their position, the more they dig in their heels.
yes, GW is preferable to lung cancer... is that hard to understand?
If a myopic perspective is taken sure. However, a carbon tax is capturing the more complete cost of such pollution. Fossil fuels and their cousins throw the full cost far enough into the future that people don't have to pay attention to it. My children shouldn't be stuck with paying for what my parents used. Carbon tax brings it back to the generation responsible for it. That's not leakage, that's time-shifting. Then since it's more expensive to do the detrimental thing, the beneficial thing is economically incentivized and the detrimental thing is done less. That's value. It's not money being sent on a one-way into the sun.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Bah, it removed my /joking tag.. I didn't think it'd parse!
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Yeah fuck better living for others and future generations! I'm going to die, so why benefit others?
*is a crab*
Have you averaged that out over 100,000 years?
Didn't think so. The waste will be around that long. How many deaths do you think will occur during that time from contaminated ground, air and water?
Offloading the waste onto future generations only makes it cleaner in the present without considering the hundreds of future generations it will affect. All the carbon that coal burning produces will be gone in 10,000 years. Nuclear waste will be around a lot longer than that.
The problem with nuclear power advocates is the problem with most people. They can't picture even 100 years into the future, let alone 10,000 or 100,000 years. Peoples minds are just not designed to think that far ahead. This is the most important thing that nuclear advocates always miss. And they explain it away like "oh well we will figure out what to do with the waste eventually!".
Its the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
Step one is conservation of energy (using less), step two is truly renewable energy development. These are the only ways forward.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
Wages were paid, but nothing of economic value was created in the exchange.
Surely it is far better to mandate that polluter to reduce their pollution levels? Like what the CARB did to cars years ago to clean up LA?
We, the citizens, are effectively saying to polluters: clean up or get out. The Invisible Hand will guide the economy to a better place.
Sounds more like we're saying: Pollute all you want because pollution isn't real.
If I make a list of countries that I dont much like and then the next guy comes along and bans people from those countries, you dont get to blame me for banning people.
The fact that you DO NOT GET THAT, is what makes you a trumpanze.
A baby boomer is ruining life for every generations following his, again. News at eleven.
You guys elected that orange mistake, now you're stuck with it. Some people just like watching the world burn I guess.
You could also describe a tax as a fix for an externality. There are costs associated with dumping a bunch of CO2 that aren't reflected in the cost of the goods and services being produced. The tax can help add those costs back in.
on a per capita basis they're already ahead of us on carbon emissions. Go talk to the OPEC countries instead.
Only attempted obstruction
And as citizens and taxpayers, we agree to the economic leakage going into things such as parks and roads. But ultimately it is an economic distortion.
That isn't leakage at all. Humans are paid to work on those roads are parks, those humans then use that money to purchase other goods and services.
Leakage occurs when the boss-man hoards away a sizable share of his cut of the contract money because he doesn't have to spend it like the poor bastards working for him.
> Actually, tax money gets spent and goes back into the economy
> to pay somebody else's salary, who then spends money. -- quite
> the opposite of sucking money out of the economy.
It would get put into either the pockets of bigwigs at outfits like Solyndra http://fortune.com/2015/08/27/... or into the pockets of rich people who can afford to buy an $85,000 Tesla https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/su...
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Actually, tax money gets spent and goes back into the economy to pay somebody else's salary, who then spends money.--quite the opposite of sucking money out of the economy.
So what you're saying is that we can TAX our way to prosperity. Genius!
When you buy a good that incurs pollution, you pass on the cost of that pollution to everyone else. If I choose to buy nuclear power and you choose coal power, I get the CO2 pollution regardless of my choice.
This is called an externality and classically "economists often urge governments to adopt policies that 'internalize' an externality, so that costs and benefits will affect mainly parties who choose to incur them. For example, manufacturing activities that cause air pollution impose health and clean-up costs on the whole society".
The whole point of the tax is to make it more expensive to buy something that costs society money. Is it somehow unjust to have a cigarette tax that pays for lung cancer treatments in public hospitals?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Yea, you're right. I should have put quotes around "safe"...I was trying to offset naysayers who would scream "Of course there's more deaths in coal, it's just been around longer!". "Clean" coal is just burning more coal to deal with the burned coal, with a necessary net increase in pollutants output, or catching the soot, which then gets buried/whatever, but while the filter's filling up, efficiency goes down because flow is blocked...treating emissions should begin with the fuel and at the beginning of the process, not at the end.
You can ensure that you are not the ones making it uninhabitable... In addition ecosystems will not be altered but wiped out. You seem to be under the impression that we cannot be the source of our own doom, but we can.
I do love the false dilemma you present though of "REAL science" as though only the science you believe is real. That my friend is not science.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
They have Nuclear reactors that can be designed where it is impossible for them to meltdown.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
https://www.brainyquote.com/qu...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You're absolutely right, all we'll have to contend with is massive displacement across the world, global famine, and the plethora of wars that will come from scarcity of living space and resources. It's fine, really. No biggie.
One thing I was surprised to see in the comments section on a very balanced local paper (which in my part of the world means fairly right of center, but not run by conspiracy theorists), somebody said he agreed with somebody else, not because she had a good point, but because "nobody can question your conservative credentials." I guess the poster in question was known to the other person to be a "conservative," so that was all the validation he needed of her post. What she said made good sense, and was quite beneficial to the conversation. Why somebody would think it needed vouching based on being by a "conservative" is beyond me.
All media exists to manipulate people, they just cater to their demographic. Consensus, or the perception thereof, is part of that. If you come away from reading a newspaper thinking "why was that necessary, fucking senseless bias on the part of x" it's because that was the desired intent for your portion of the demographic.
This is a bullshit lie.
The planet can sustain the population just fine! The problem is greed and hoarding.
There are MORE than enough resources for everyone to live comfortable and happy healthy lives.
Take your bullshit nihilism and choke on a dick! The world needs progress not retarded death wish idiotic suicidal moronic thinking!
Have you averaged that out over 100,000 years?
Why should we when technology exists to make the waste vastly safer, smaller in volume, and extract power from it all at the same time?
How many deaths do you think will occur during that time from contaminated ground, air and water?
Suspiciously few given that said waste can be made far less dangerous than it currently is all while generating power and a profit. The hurdle is emotional, not technical or economical.
The problem with nuclear power advocates is the problem with most people. They can't picture even 100 years into the future, let alone 10,000 or 100,000 years. Peoples minds are just not designed to think that far ahead. This is the most important thing that nuclear advocates always miss. And they explain it away like "oh well we will figure out what to do with the waste eventually!".
Its the same kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.
You seem to be one of the less-informed types of opposition so allow me to again state we have the means to use that waste to generate power over and over again until the amount of waste is vastly smaller and much less radioactive. Think for a moment about radioactivity. Why is the waste dangerous? Because it's radioactive, right? But radioactivity is, in essence, energy. Harness that energy and you both reduce the total radioactivity of the waste -- conservation of energy basics -- and convert that radioactivity into useful power. When you've extracted all the power (aka "radioactivity") from the waste you can feasibly extract, you're left with a much smaller volume of waste which also happens to be much less dangerous to dispose of.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
They will slash and burn the planet. Then when they lose power they will blame the guy who is fixing it and cleaning up the problem because the masses have no attention span and won't remember that it's the stupid policies of the GOP that causes this mess.
Their whole playbook is to destroy and steal and then when out of power and the results of their actions come home to roost they turn around and complain that it was the guy who just got elected! Then they repeat the cycle.
They are systematically and pre-meditativly destroying the country and the plant.
Criminals
Punch nazis!
Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return.
Sure, if the money just stopped in the government's hands, but what about this trillion dollar deficit government leads you to believe they won't spend it? And what you get back is roads, schools, a military, all the things that make commerce efficient and safe! I can't tell if this is supposed to be an argument towards anarchy or total ignorance of the fact that the american government is a GIANT part of the economy. About the only thing they could do to "take the money out of the economy" would be to pay off our debt. But unless you are suggesting that we should never do that, I don't see an eventual way around that one.
Assuming that the money is 100% redistributed to people, they can do less with the money because economic activity has fallen. Nothing good comes out of this.
What? Are you experiencing some kind of fever dream where you type? Assuming that 4 trillion dollars were handed out to to populace at large, there would be the same effect as we see from income tax rebate time. Want to know how much that stimulates the economy, stop by a gamestop and ask any manager what kind of massive sales increase they see. Now multiply that by 10,000. Short term, if such a reckless plan were enacted, you would see massive inflation, but only due to supply, and that is precisely why the government would likely find a more responsible way of using the money. Like our crumbling roads that business drive their goods on, or huge investment in good paying green energy which will require massive hiring.
Honestly, you talk like nobody in the world even remotely asked anyone who knows anything about economics before proposing a carbon tax. We have these nifty guys called economists, and they have these fancy things called PHDs. In fact, other countries have them too! I am sure at least a few were consulted and didn't come up with the "this does nothing" claim that you seem to have arrived at.
But hey, Trump University might teach a different take on it.
Thank you Mr. Trump!!!
Actually, tax money gets spent and goes back into the economy to pay somebody else's salary, who then spends money.--quite the opposite of sucking money out of the economy.
So what you're saying is that we can TAX our way to prosperity. Genius!
That's exactly what I'm saying, we have to coerce the hoarders at the top of the food chain to spend the money and get it back into circulation. or be taxed on it. And if that coercion involves increasing their taxes--so be it.
The mantra since Greenspan, (who was correct about keeping interest rates low), was to minimize the taxes on the wealthy while keeping the job market unstable so the proletariat would just be happy they had jobs and not demand more money. But it was blatant propaganda to say that the money would trickle down, it doesn't. It just accumulates at the top and the people at the top use that as a cudgel against the rest of us to make them more moeny.
When the US was getting screwed up the butt, I am not sure the one bent over the rail is really "pulling out".
When China and India plead "emerging economy" status, so they can keep on polluting, it is a farce.
CO2 is deadly. Just try breading it for a while. But the problem with CO2 can be divided into 2 problems. CO2 will go into the sea and lower its PH abd thus killing the fish. This and lack of rain will make billions lof people run out of food .
You left out 'feeding' that take in CO2 emit Oxygen, but sustaining nearly all life on earth isn't nearly as important as being on the right side of 'concensus science'...
Ken
Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return.
I largely agree with you (say, 80%). But considering that the government does provide some services (i.e. roads, sewage, water, etc.) wouldn't it be more precise to say:
Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you getting some things you want but mostly things you don't want in return.
> That is obstruction of justice.
No, it isn't.
> by firing Comey to end the investigation.
Oh look, the investigation is still underway.
> Trump has also definitely violated the Emoluments clause and could be impeached for that.
Hilarious bullshit. Selling services is not the same as taking a gift. Are you going to go dig up and impeach the first 10 presidents for selling exports?
Stop just making shit up.
Or give advantages to those properties through various methods like tax breaks and free permits. There is all kinds of creative ways to give someone a gift and owning commercial properties in their area of control makes it that much easier. There is also of course the opposite possibility where it opens you up to having that property leveraged against you, threats to seize property and such.
>Obstruction of justice is a crime that has been committed.
I think the word you're looking for is "alleged".
FTFY
Ferret
Apparently you're either an ignoramus or a liar. Scientists aren't saying it's going to kill us... well, it's probably going to kill a lot of people, but not likely many in the West. But it is going to make our lives a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive, and actually, if you pay any attention to insurance actuaries, it already is.
But I get it, you're a baby, a little infantile child who hasn't the maturity or the wits to assess a situation based on what's actually happening, preferring the nice cooing sounds of a profoundly stupid and disturbed man. You are truly among the most contemptible people of our age, and I hope you suffer for it.
Your flamebait aside, this is the one rational statement of the problem.
Allow be to present the rational opposition position: we need to quantify:
a) The cost of not forcing change here (Solar and fusion will obviously dominate if we look far enough ahead, but this is about facing us off fossil fuels before it happens naturally).
b) The reduction in cost by forcing a certain amount of change.
c) The harm directly caused by forcing that change. Higher energy prices directly couple to lower standard of living.
It should be obvious to anyone considering the question rationally that we need to compare b and c. To act out of panic "we must do something; this is something, so lets do it" is a common source of real harm. To act out of a clear cost-benefit analysis is good policy.
But no one seems interested in that part of the debate. All I ever see is "virtue signalling" by both sides. (Much like the immigration debate, where no one ever is willing to state a quantity of immigration that is ideal, but each side talks endlessly about how the other side's vague hand-waving is evil and wrong.)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You going and earning a dollar actually means that you had something of value the other party wanted to exchange money for. It's a win-win scenario. Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return.
Taxes are spent on many different things. They are used for public spending, which means spending on public property - on institutions and services that are not privately owned.
So the taxes you pay are used to pay for:
transport
education
health
law and order
housing
culture, media and sport
trade and industry
environment, food and rural affairs
overseas development and defense.
The "taxes don't do anything for me" argument reminds me of the Monthy Python
"Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return."
Your entire post seems to revolve around this single statement that the governed people don't get anything in return. That seems like quite a stretch. Taxation of the governed provides for a huge amount of benefits that can't be provided for by the markets. Things like transportation infrastructure, an educated and healthy populous, and security services, just to name a few.
Regardless of if there was any collusion or not Trump knew his administration was under investigation by Comey and fired him.
Correction: Trump was being investigated by the FBI. It's a pretty far stretch to think that firing the head of the FBI would have any effect on an investigation by the FBI. It assumes that Comey was doing all that work himself, personally. That would be utterly amazing! No, it's more plausible that he was fired for the reasons stated - Comey liked to violate the FBI's rules about evidence and public disclosure and try cases in the court of public opinion (like he did for Hillary). In fact, Hillary's camp was calling for Comey's head after those announcements for those same reasons - why the sudden change of heart?
Nitpicking the use of 'accident' doesn't change the fact that it exploded.
Your post lacks details.
C'mon, be charitable and give the left their Benghazi. It's the least we can do.
Besides, it's great fun watching all these "highly educated intellectual elites" spiral into paranoid delusion and conspiracy theory.
I guess all those expensive degrees weren't much inoculation against paranoia and magical thinking after all, eh?
Last time I saw coal or oil aren't "green" alternatives, and the argument was if nuclear was a safer green alternative to other renewables or not.. it isn't. At least make an effort and see what was the context before commenting, hey?
And you'd still have the problem of contamination in case of leakage (and it does occur), or leakage from storage facilities (who would know that "greed" plays a factor when downgrading materials they f-ing shouldn't just because of "cost").
Fukushima wasn't suppose to happen either, but it did and even if none of the three reactors had meltdown you still would have radiation problems anyway (to a lesser extent, but would have a problem anyway).
There's no foolproof anything: there's acceptable risk, there's unforeseeable risk, and there's also plain old irresponsibility. Given the risks nuclear entails, there's absolutely no acceptable risk given the other green alternatives... sure, they're more expensive but we already had enough proof to change the mind of a fool on how there's no such thing as foolproof.
Me thinking the argument was regarding green, renewable alternatives and how they faired on safety. But guess since you had no hint of argument you had to resort to coil/oil/gas, a very "green" alternative, right? (You and) However moded you up and the op down are morons who can't follow a thread to check what the context was...
For people who are convinced anthropogenic climate change is both 'settled' and 'catastrophic' in consequences, watch this 10 minute video on the subject to get educated on the modern state of 'climate change science'. Ignorance of the masses is bliss for politicians manipulating people's emotions for increased cash flow 'because they care'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_RuverrEZ4
He needs to be deposed, for the good of the USA and the world!
This proposed tax (like all other taxes) is an economic leakage. Money is being taken out of the normal economic system. Now governments may use this money to buy goods and services, or they may choose to distribute it in some other way. But it remains an economic distortion. Taxation != buying bombs, jewelry or food.
On the other hand, it's a tax that I can quite easily reduce, through my own actions, legally, thus reducing my tax burden. I can choose to live close to my job and walk to work (reducing the taxes that would be on the fuel my car uses), I can choose to better insulate my living accomodations, thus spurring additional economic activity, and reducing my tax burden. I can choose to turn my thermostat down a couple of degrees and reduce my tax burden.
Done properly, if anything, a carbon tax adds money to an economy. The way that you achieve this is that as you add the carbon tax, you reduce your income tax by a corresponding amount, starting with the lowest tax bracket. One of the realities of our economic system is that the people at the bottom spend proportionately the most, and they're the ones that keep the economy moving by pumping money around. They're not hoarding it in banks, or in luxury vehicles, or million dollar homes. They're spending every dollar they get to live their life. If you cut their income taxes by the same amount that you add a carbon tax, initially they're no better or worse off than they were before. As they are able to build in additional efficiencies into their lives, this gives them more money that will be spent, and directly contributes to the economy, which helps everyone.
For the truly impoverished, who don't earn enough to pay any taxes, then yes, done blindly, a carbon tax hurts them the most. The only real solution here is to have some form of compensation to make up the difference. That said, it's not outrageously hard to calculate, and it's really an edge case.
The same thing goes for corporations. You're a general contractor who needs to get from point A to Point B, with your tools and supplies. It might be pretty nice to drive around in that big Ford F-250 crew-cab, but the reality is you could probably achieve the same thing in a much smaller pickup truck, saving money and reducing the tax burden.
Anyhow, the long and short of it is that done correctly, the only people that suffer long term are those who are in the fossil fuel industry. For everyone else, it incentivizes increased efficiency, and generates a whole new whack of business to help improve that efficiency.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Y'know burning coal can also release radiation. And acid rain does wonders for the lawns downwind.
The title says it all.
He shouldn't have a problem with the rest of us nations shipping our unwanted garbage over to just outside US national waters then.
The communist U.S. has only the fiat money it prints to stave off bankruptcy. This money is backed only by the forced sale of all the world's oil in U.S. currency.
>> that America doesn't prioritize climate change
I would prioritize adoption of environmentally responsible behavior if I were president.
I tried breading my CO2 and I just got sourdough.. Tasty, but it didn't kill me.
lack of rain
What lack of rain? The hotter the planet is, the more water will evaporate making more clouds which in turn means more rain. Though it will get a bit more acidic for the same reason as the oceans. In fact this is the biggest lead-up to the "runaway" version of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and as temperatures continue to rise, at some point we'll cross a threshold where enough water is evaporating that it generates a positive feedback loop and global warming becomes essentially unstoppable. Warming -> more evaporation -> more warming -> even more evaporation -> etc.
There will eventually be a new (much higher) equilibrium point of course where the air is so saturated with moisture that rainfall matches evaporation and the cycle will plateau, but by the time the world hits that point, life will basically be reset to plants and insects and maybe a few lucky animals, similar to the Great Dying.
The money ($4 trillion) is used to fund the infastructure that gets more funding. If there is one thing much worse than ignoring climate change it is turning it into a political career for the purpose of getting their hands on the money. To my way of thinking part of the whole thing here is "Please USA give us money because of xxxxx" in this case insert climate change there. The fallacy is to consider this to be a solution to climate change.
> Actually, tax money gets spent and goes back into the economy
> to pay somebody else's salary, who then spends money. -- quite
> the opposite of sucking money out of the economy.
It would get put into either the pockets of bigwigs at outfits like Solyndra http://fortune.com/2015/08/27/... or into the pockets of rich people who can afford to buy an $85,000 Tesla https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/su...
I have bad news for ya, while an 85K Tesla is a fairly expensive car, you don't have to be rich to afford one. And if you think the people who are buying Teslas are rich, (And undoubtedly some of them are), you have no clue as to what rich/upper class really means. They're generally at the upper end of what used to be known as the middle-class. Welcome to working class, it may not be blue collar, but the shoe still fits.
And when it median wealth, guess where the US is, # 26.
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
The first line of the news article:
A global carbon tax that would raise trillions of dollars if applied across the world should be introduced if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change
further in the article, quoting from the report.
“The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change,” they said.
From the preamble of the executive summary in the report, just to emphasize the absurdity of you citing a report that explicitly says it ignores climate impacts!!
This report does not focus on the estimation and evaluation of the climate change impacts that would be avoided by reducing carbon emissions.
And the second point of the executive summary where the report still talks briefly about the impacts you claim it didn't:
Carbon prices are intended to incentivize the changes needed in investment, production, and consumption patterns, and to induce the kind of technological progress that can bring down future abatement costs.
They sure don't make denialists like they used to, you can't even cherry pick evidence right!!
I stole this Sig
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
Unless you're making almost $500K/year, your own wealth is getting redistributed, to the top 1% and even more to .1%.
So while you may feel like you're doing well, making money, you're really just getting just enough scraps to convince you that you too can make it and anybody not doing as well as you are is lazy and/or stupid. You're not part of a trickle down economy, you're part of a downwards force multiplier orchestrated from the top down to make themselves even richer and more powerful.
Are you actually defending the cunt running the nation into the ground, just to inflict a burn on liberals? Reconsider your position.
We had two pebble bed reactor here in Germany. Both didn't work - the pebbles cracked and broke - and one of them is now the most contaminated site in Germany. The operator failed to clean up and now the government has to do that. The second one was probably the most expensive German reactor ever built and it operated only for four years with the best availability of 40% - a total failure. The reactor wasn't closed by the government, it was closed by the operator because operating cost was so high that it almost killed the operator. The original manufacturer of the reactor was more intelligent and left the project even before the reactor was completely built.
Basically there are either old and unsafe designs that can be operated at high, but bearable cost, newer and not that much better designs that are prohibitively expensive to manufacture and operate and new awesome reactors that only exist on paper, without knowing that the design would actually work in real life, or, at best, they are research reactors that probably won't scale and would have to be operated by actual scientists to be safe.
Might just as well wait for fusion.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Taxation, on the other hand, is the government coming and taking money from you, and you not getting anything in return.
Makes me think of this:
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
GW? I suppose breathing a catalytic converter could give you lung cancer but orange air is probably the culprit.
Those like you and the pop media with their own agenda should realize that even if Trump nukes the Paris accord that it does not make a difference.
The agreement has no teeth, it was all voluntary.
The puzzling thing is why Trump even bothers to create drama like this except maybe to slip his big tow up the ass of the Democrats.
One of the very do nothing things beside replicating Medicare, the very do nothing Obama achieved was siging this meaningless accord.
So there you go.
About the best thing you could say about it was that it got leaders talking but that's all they did.
Which is why they renamed it "climate change".
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
So you believe that 'Russia' somehow 'fixed' the election? And that most people didn't support Trump?
Funny how the controlled media never explains what they mean by 'Russia influencing the election', isn't it.
Oh, you mean somebody FROM Russia exposed Hilary Clinton's e-mail server crimes? And you didn't bother watching the Trump speeches to see how much larger his crowds were than Clinton's, and how many MORE speeches he gave than Clinton? So in other words, you're an idiot who believes whatever lies the Jew media tells you, despite the ease with which you could find out the TRUTH just by looking at videos of the size of Trump's crowds vs. Clinton's crowds...
But no one seems interested in that part of the debate.
You can't have a rational debate about the relative cost of action and inaction when half the audience is loudly claiming that action is entirely useless because the problem doesn't exist and any evidence that it does is part of a conspiracy to raise taxes.
On the other hand, there has been plenty of analysis on the estimated cost of action and inaction, and in general inaction has always been found to be a much more expensive course than action*, which shouldn't be particularly surprising. After all, there are many reasons the aphorism "A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" exists...
* The only analysis where adaptation is less expensive than prevention, is the the analysis that assumes no climate change will actually happen, which to the best of our knowledge, has approximately a 0% chance of actually occurring.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm not a big fan of nuclear or coal, but I'm always amused by a story I heard from an acquaintance who worked at an English nuclear plant:
Fanatically anti-fanatical
What I've heard is night time cooling will be reduced by 0.06K, pushing the average up 0.03K i. e. no measurable difference. Those estimates are per the climate models which have yet to demonstrate predictive ability.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It would get put into either the pockets of bigwigs at outfits like Solyndra http://fortune.com/2015/08/27/... [fortune.com]
Interestingly enough, while Solyndra did fail, the government department that made the loan to Solyndra is actually expected to generate about $5 billion in revenue (even when including the costs of Solyndra and their other failed loans). As I understand it, the entire program has not only encouraged the develop of new high technology companies, they directly earned a profit while doing so (which is doubly good for Americans, because the government also collects taxes from the companies they sponsored and the people who work for those companies, but that isn't counted as revenue for this department).
Don't be fooled by the gibbering monkeys, Solyndra represents part of a lower than expected failure rate by a very successful policy initiative.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Wind is getting a lot of push-back in Ontario, some large scale farms have been canceled. Michigan had an amendment to it's constitution requiring the mandatory 10% renewable energy be increased to 25% fail.
The electric companies love wind power because their profits are regulated to 10%, which means the more money they spend, the more money they make! People are waking up to the fact that it's a boondoggle at their expense.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The FBI, under Comey, was investigating Trump and his political campaign and the ties to Russia
Just because Trump says that Comey wasn't investigating him doesn't make it true.
Why that long? Seriously radioactive isotopes have half-lives considerably shorter than 100K years, meaning they'll be mostly gone before then. Isotopes with half-lives long enough to be mostly there after 100K years aren't that dangerous.
The big radioactive dangers after Fukushima were an isotope of iodine with a half-life less than nine days, and a cesium isotope with about a forty-year half-life. That iodine is, to an extremely high confidence level, completely gone by now. The cesium will go through 2500 half-lives in 100K years, which means it will be completely gone also. Radium is quite dangerous with a half-life of over 1600 years, and that's about 60 half-lives to get to 100K years. The only reason we have radium around in nature is that it's a decay product of long-lived uranium isotopes.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So you think the Constitution is stupid? Trump is barred from receiving emoluments from foreign and domestic governments, and the reasons behind those bans are a lot sounder than the reasons for the Electoral College.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
For starters, I suspect him of accepting money unconstitutionally. I don't have hard evidence, but I'd say it's well worth investigating.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Trump has also definitely violated the Emoluments clause and could be impeached for that.
If owning stock in a company, that receives revenue from a foreign entity is a violation of the Emoluments clause, we will never ever have a President that isn't under the cloud of impeachment!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You are mad if you think that won't be the case as it was before us and will be after us. The sheer stupidity of your statement is unfathomable in its displaced lunacy in breadth and scope. The idea that this planet will be rendered uninhabitable past our lifetimes is such sheer hyperbole and fear mongering on a scale that leaves me to think that you really never have given this premise much thought and are simply peddling the gobbly-gook of what you've heard somewhere and nodded in acquiescence in the affirmative. Tell me, are you willing to spend untold trillions of dollars to lower the global mean surface temperature of the earth by less than a half of a degree centigrade, while the immediate issues that can be worked on go unfunded and ignored? How much value are you willing to drain from the world economy, if not the US economy to see your goal of sustained habitability past your lifetime are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of AGW/Climate Change? Until you can tell me what you want the mean global surface temperature of the earth to be, then everything you are gnashing your teeth on is meaningless garbage. There are so many more things we can tackle with that kind of money, but no, you want to ausage your hand-wringing scaredy cat feebleness to ensuring the planet will be habitable past your lifetime. If I ever heard someone say that to my face i'd laugh right back in theirs for the utter humorous stupidity that they presented.
The whole point of the tax is to make it more expensive to buy something that costs society money. Is it somehow unjust to have a cigarette tax that pays for lung cancer treatments in public hospitals?
This is LITERALLY hilarious. There is a minimum of $4 of tax for each pack of cigarettes sold. There are millions of packs of cigarettes sold each day. How much of that money was used to pay for someone's medical bills due to complications from smoking?
If you answered $0, then you are correct.
But keep on believing that those taxes are covering externalities. Have a nice life. :)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
China is trying them too, perhaps their pebbles will be more resistant to those issues. Maybe we will need to use some type of chemical vapor deposition diamond coatings on them to keep them from cracking if their triple Pyrocarbon coating doesn't cut it.
If we actually would pour some real money into fusion, it might actually happen some time. It's always "10 years away", and we have yet to be able to keep the reaction going for more than a few seconds. China claims 102 seconds, but this isn't verified. ITER has been "officially" worked on since 2006 and isn't slated to even start up until at least 2021. Personally I think some smaller company like General Fusion or Tri Alpha Energy will make a breakthrough long before ITER even really gets seriously running.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bravely leading from behind like all leaders should! :)
Tell me that during the next hydroelectric dam failure.
I very much appreciate your ability to acknowledge a small misstep an just go on.
Very refreshing. I wish more people would understand that instead of entrenching themselves.