OK right, you can thank tiny Luxembourg, which is to blame too. It has US-level of emissions per capita. All other European countries have emissions far lower. Global EU average is less than half of the US. They are just not on the same scale, and any carbon tax would therefore affect the US much more.
Singapore isn't far enough in the sea to provide an actual protection from malaria. The reason why there is no malaria in Singapore is that it's an urban territory. Malaria doesn't affect big cities as much as rural areas.
You must take into account other greenhouse gases too, not only CO2. These are usually counted in "equivalent CO2 tons". I suspect the US is actually at about 20 tons/person/year when you take them into account, but I didn't find any up to date information. I'm glad if it's lower than 18.
What type of pollution are you talking about? If it's local pollution then it's a local problem. But CO2 is a global problem as it doesn't stay close to the emitter. And the US emit much more CO2/capita than any European country.
I thought they claimed 80% of the MP3 player market. They probably lost a lot of market share, but they were pretty big in the online music purchasing business too.
You miss the whole point of climate change. The whole world is going to be poorer (on average, that doesn't mean Greenland won't be richer) because of it. If we want to keep our standards of living, we must reduce CO2 emissions. Not the other way around.
Again, you are using the same fallacy. Even a reduction of 10% is better than not doing anything.
I think a 10-20% cut per PERSON will happen regardless
No thanks to that Iowan boy/girl who is likely going to remain over 15 eCO2 ton/year. Thanks to Europeans who are making efforts, and thanks to Africans who are still not polluting.
I don't agree with that premise. That is probably why we're having such a hard time with this one...
I agree that's why we disagree.
I'm simply saying it won't remotely be enough to stop run away warming and that the changes that the experts say will be required... aren't going to happen.
The experts say these changes are required to keep the planet under 2C. They don't say it's not possible to keep the planet under 5C with smaller reduction of emissions. Also they say the earlier we reduce CO2, the more we can emit per year in the long run. So they pretty much contradict your whole theory.
Let me put this another way. If you're on the Titanic, 10 min after it hits the iceberg... you can talk all day long about small changes to try and keep the ship afloat. A bucket brigade, sailing it in reverse, counter flooding... None of it would have changed the outcome...
You know what WOULD have helped? All hands on deck, ripping up the decks and turning them into lifeboats. They had one mission, keep 1,500 people out of the freezing water for 100 minutes. They had, from the time it hit the iceberg, 2 hours and 40 min. In that time, they could have built makeshift lifeboats out of decking and other materials.
Would it have saved everyone? No, but it would almost certainly have saved someone...
What stopped them from doing it? They spent half the time the ship was sinking refusing to believe it could sink, then even after the crew told the passengers that the ship would sink, many refused to believe it anyway.
The point is, you think cutting 10-20% will help, but it won't. Even the experts say it won't. Cut big, or adapt to a new world...
---
Side note: Counter flooding actually might have bought the ship another 30-60 min, give or take. It wouldn't have saved the ship and it likely wouldn't have bought 1 hour, 40 min, but it would have kept it more level making it easier to build life rafts.
Unless you are suggesting we abandon the Earth and start making space "lifeboats", I don't think your example is remotely close to reality.
According to whom? Serious reply to what I consider to be a serious point you've made. You seem to think that it is a given, settled, the the Iowan owes the African something.
Well I agree some people don't realize it yet, but I think they are either wrong or misinformed. Just like if you steal my money, I consider you owe me no matter if you agree or not, I consider polluters owe the others. The more people are convinced the better, of course, but not having an universal recognition won't change the way I act.
I don't agree with you. More to the point, I doubt the Iowan agrees with you and likely doesn't care much what someone in Europe thinks about him/her.
Fortunately, even if he doesn't care, we live in a world where he can be forced to pay for it. The first of which is if his government make him pay.
No, actually it wouldn't accomplish anything. You think it would, because you're been sold the lie that there is some safe CO2 level that we can keep emitting. There might have been in the past, but now we're so far past it, we simply need to stop.
Do you know how much CO2 the world can emit and still remind under 2C temp rise? At this point it is about 500 gigatons.
Well first the Earth has a natural absorption rate for CO2. Second even if we miss the 2C rise, it's better to stay under 3C or even 5C than reach 10C. So yes, stopping at current levels, while not perfect, is better than continuing to increase emissions at the current world rate.
The proven reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas are about 3,000 gigatons (and we're hunting for MORE!). You think slowing the burn will matter, but it actually won't. It has to stop, completely. Or to put it more simply, it has to become carbon neutral.
It doesn't matter if we take 35 years to burn 3,000 gigatons or 70 years or 150 years... the effect from the planet's point of view is largely the same. You're thinking human lifetime, not planet scale. Yes, CO2 does slowly get burned away and absorbed, but not in our human lifetime scale, it takes thousands of years in the volumes we're talking about.
While it is true that slowing the CO2 output buys time for our OWN lifetimes, it doesn't do squat for our kids. The climate change will accelerate and while humanity won't become extinct, we may have an unpleasant ride and many people may not survive it.
I think you are wrong and you underestimate the Earth absorption capacity. A quick Google search brings me this article: http://phys.org/news/2012-08-e... It's from 2012 but still, 50% absorption is a lot better than 0.001% you are suggesting (as in thousands of years).
The interesting thing is that I believe it is common for Americans to look at the taxes of Europe and shake their heads. When people hear what it costs to buy gas over there, they just mutter something and carry on.
I get the sense that you feel that your ideas are better than ours. Maybe, maybe not, but you won't convince anyone with such an attitude.
That's exactly the point, in order to fight climate change their ideas are definitely better than yours. Sorry if hearing the truth makes you sad, but these are facts.
Sure, but those drops won't have a major impact on the outcome.
You are wrong. It would have a big impact. You seem to think the status quo means no increase in emissions. The status quo means huge increase.
Frankly, I suspect a 20% drop will happen almost by default, just due to people buying more efficient stuff over time.
Great, that means with little effort we could do 30%, isn't it?
The problem of course is that over the next 35 years, how much will the US population grow? 10%? That wipes out half of the 20% drop.
Imagine how bad it would have been if there was no 20% drop.
That is an opinion, a point of view...
Consider for a minute that if push came to shove, many Americans would say, "ok, if the world can't support everyone, perhaps it is time for some of them to go".
Rather than cut our own way of life, if we removed 2/3 of the people in the world, that helps solve the problem too.
Note: I'm not endorsing such a plan, nor saying it is a good one. I'm simply saying there is more than one way to solve a problem.
Yep. There are various ways to solve the problem. One of them is massive war crimes and genocide, the other is to reduce emissions. Which one do you prefer? By the way, this plan again sounds like "Fuck the rest of the world".
My mind was only changed in the past year, and I'm at least somewhat smarter than the average person, or at least better off. The climate scientists did a REALLY crappy job of shouting about the problem 30 years ago.
How so? What new data did we get in the past year? I don't recall any. Global warming is known and accepted since 30 years.
I think we're WAY past the point where it can be stopped.
I understand your binary logic. Either we stop it or we don't. And if we don't, then any reduction in CO2 emissions is worthless. This logic is just wrong.
Have you considered that it might cost less to adapt to the changing world than to try and prevent it from happening?
Yes. From the information I have, it isn't the case. That's the whole point. Otherwise we wouldn't try to avoid a too big increase in temperature.
"why not do both". Well, sometimes you can't, if you split your efforts, sometimes both sides fail.
Only in your binary world where climate change either happens or not. In the real world, the best solution may be to keep global warming to 2C while at the same time adapt to this 2C increase.
But it really isn't the middle ground... That implies that the person from Iowa owes an "equal life" to the person in India or Africa,
You're thinking that somehow resources should be divided equally, that the person in Iowa who lives in a 2,000 sqft house, has 2 cars, 3 kids, a job, etc. should somehow worry about the person far, far away.
I don't think you're being realistic with that thinking.
It's not about equal life or equal resources. However, the person in Iowa is polluting the air of the African. That means the Iowan owes the African. Wether you like it or not.
Fair enough, but why exactly is that the person in Iowa's problem? To be honest, the people in Africa aren't really living in the 21st century anyway, not most of them (some are of course). Look at the tribal warfare, the endless slaughter... When they decide to drop all of that, they might find they can build themselves a civilization and won't need our help. We did it hundreds of years ago, what's holding them back?
Let's just hope they don't, isn't it? Otherwise, they'd send us their pollution too and it would be even worse. Your thinking in the end is nothing more than racism. The African don't deserve to pollute and live just like we do. If we lower our emissions, they should lower theirs too.
True, but it wouldn't accomplish anything either...
Nothing? You must be kidding. Capping the CO2 at current levels would accomplish a lot. It would be far better than the current trend, which is a big raise worldwide, which could be even bigger (thanks to countries in Europe making some effort).
The problem is, your "solution" solves nothing, but costs us money.
Are you denying the consequences of global warming?
Because it is our money, not theirs. They didn't earn it, we did. If they want money, they can go earn it themselves.
And why wouldn't that logic apply to pollution? It's your CO2, keep it in your country. Sending your CO2 abroad is just as bad as stealing their money.
We can't even get a small gas tax increase passed, and most people agree it needs to be done.
By "we" I assume you mean the US. Other developed countries already tax gas far more.
You clearly don't seem to get what it means. Invading the UK is not a perfect solution, not even an imperfect one.
You'd start a trade war, and if you're not careful, a real one.
From my point of view, polluters already started the war by exporting their greenhouse gases to other countries.
The changes that have to be made to REALLY make a difference would be unacceptable, even in Europe.
Again, you are using the same fallacy. Even a reduction of 10% is better than not doing anything.
I'm not quite sure you understand what a 80% cut in energy consumption would really mean, but you are more or less asking everyone to go back 200 years in time.
Look, let me tell you this straight. You are an idiot if you think the only two possible outcomes are either a 80% cut or the status quo (a big increase over the next decades). Also, even if I were asking for a 80% cut, I am not asking it to everyone, only to the big polluters.
Theory is nice, but in reality that isn't going to happen. If by chance it did, you'd just start WWIII. It isn't a realistic solution.
And the fourth Reich would have Washington DC as its capital. The US would be on the wrong side unlike in the first two WW.
There is almost zero chance the US will cut CO2 by 50% within our lifetimes. Maybe within our children's lifetime. I think we'll be lucky to get a 20% cut in the next 35 years.
So let's start with 20% or even 10% if you prefer. That mean the US will reduce emissions from about 20/tons/person/year to 18. Just don't ever blame the Chinese until they reach that point too.
Cutting by that much would simply require changes and sacrifices that Americans don't want to make and see no reason to make.
Remember that most Americans do not have a passport and have never left the country. A whole lot of Americans see foreigners as people who take their jobs.
And they are either wrong or selfish. I hope you'll help me so that they change their minds.
Probably so... the question becomes... How much can we cut, how quickly, without causing undue stress to the economy and people's lives?
We must also asks ourselves how much can we afford NOT to cut, without causing undue stress to the economy and people's lives? Global warming isn't a threat to the human specie. It is an economic problem. Not doing anything means a future production loss, forever.
"allowed"... the average American would say, "by whom?" Or, "you and what Army?"
Look, I used the word "allowed" while it may not be the best choice. Think of it as "deserve" if you prefer. The US should by itself limit its own emissions. I still think American voters have a brain and can elect a government that will do so. But on failure, the rest of the world could (and should) shame and yes, penalize, the US.
It isn't anyone else's right to tell us how much we can, or cannot emit
It isn't anyone else's duty to suffer from your pollution either, but they do. That's the problem of global warming. Polluting the others is a form of aggression.
No, I want them to have the same emissions rights as we do. We will reduce ours while they raise theirs, meeting them somewhere in the middle. And that middle should mean a reduction compared to the current level.
Are you actually serious? You expect the average American to say that?
You asked for a middle ground. Not my fault if you don't like it.
Half of America is living pay-check to pay-check, asking them to pay anything more for energy would just push them into the poor house.
Tell that to those living with nothing in Africa.
Cap-and-trade is a stupid idea anyway. It says that you can pollute so long as you pay someone else. Except the stuff still gets emitted, solving nothing.
If you actually set the cap to a number that would be useful, there would be nothing to trade since we wouldn't have an economy.
Wrong again. You always bring the perfect solution fallacy. Setting a cap at current world levels would still be better than no cap. And there would still be an economy.
Finally, cap-and-trade is just wealth transfer again...
A carbon tax at least leaves the money right here, and that might get done at some point. But sending the money overseas? America will tell you to shove that idea where the sun doesn't shine.
Your premise that the money should stay in the US is flawed. Why shouldn't it go overseas if those living with the impacts of US pollution live there? Anyways I'm open to both solutions. With a carbon tax, you need to dynamically adjust the tax to meet targets, however.
First, a lot of the rest of the world is polluting as well, so everyone taxes everyone else and we're back to square one.
Well not really, European countries and Japan would get an advantage compared to US/Canada/Autralia because they pollute a lot less.
Second, from a practical point of view, you generally shouldn't pull the tiger's tail. The United States of America has the most powerful military on Earth and we control the world's reserve currency. We are more likely than not to come out on top of such a dispute.
You are going to invade, say, the UK because they tax your pollution?
Now you might think the above is rather... well, not what you would choose... and that's fine... but remember that most Americans don't even have a passport and even fewer have ever left the country. Most don't really think much about other nations, except when it comes to economics and their jobs.
You don't have to like the above, but disliking it doesn't make it go away or make it untrue.
I get that. I think it was best summarized by my the first post. F*ck the rest of the world. Those who modded me down should read your comments, they'd see I were right.
Well a Yukon XL also starts at $51k, so you could have had a Highlander Hybrid ($48k). Toyota also launched a much more affordable Rav4 Hybrid. And the Prius V also have enough cargo for most people.
That's why the solution is to tax gas even more. She uses more gas with her Prius because she drives more? Then she pays more. You keep your SUV in your garage? You don't pay. Simple and fair.
I am from Iowa, I do care about the rest of the world, but not enough to destroy my own life over it. I'm not going to stop driving a pickup truck or turn off the air condition because an island in the Pacific might flood
How is that a middle ground? That's pure selfishness. A middle ground could have been "I'm willing to put in place a cap and trade system that could mean it will be more expensive to drive my truck if it can help reduce the emissions of my polluting country".
Slashdot Mirror
One major advantage is that Firefox for Android allows ad-blockers. Chrome doesn't.
And yes, I know desktop Chrome allows ad-blockers. But there is a value in having both desktop and mobile in sync therefore I use Firefox on both.
Their point on CAGW is still valid.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...
OK right, you can thank tiny Luxembourg, which is to blame too. It has US-level of emissions per capita. All other European countries have emissions far lower.
Global EU average is less than half of the US. They are just not on the same scale, and any carbon tax would therefore affect the US much more.
Singapore isn't far enough in the sea to provide an actual protection from malaria. The reason why there is no malaria in Singapore is that it's an urban territory. Malaria doesn't affect big cities as much as rural areas.
I found 2014 data:
https://www3.epa.gov/climatech...
US population was about 319 000 000.
6870/319 = 21.5 eCO2 tons/person/year
You must take into account other greenhouse gases too, not only CO2. These are usually counted in "equivalent CO2 tons". I suspect the US is actually at about 20 tons/person/year when you take them into account, but I didn't find any up to date information. I'm glad if it's lower than 18.
On the contrary, they do it a lot.
The problem in the US is that oil companies can buy political parties and the media, all this legally.
What type of pollution are you talking about? If it's local pollution then it's a local problem. But CO2 is a global problem as it doesn't stay close to the emitter.
And the US emit much more CO2/capita than any European country.
I thought they claimed 80% of the MP3 player market. They probably lost a lot of market share, but they were pretty big in the online music purchasing business too.
You miss the whole point of climate change. The whole world is going to be poorer (on average, that doesn't mean Greenland won't be richer) because of it. If we want to keep our standards of living, we must reduce CO2 emissions. Not the other way around.
Again, you are using the same fallacy. Even a reduction of 10% is better than not doing anything.
I think a 10-20% cut per PERSON will happen regardless
No thanks to that Iowan boy/girl who is likely going to remain over 15 eCO2 ton/year. Thanks to Europeans who are making efforts, and thanks to Africans who are still not polluting.
I don't agree with that premise. That is probably why we're having such a hard time with this one...
I agree that's why we disagree.
I'm simply saying it won't remotely be enough to stop run away warming and that the changes that the experts say will be required... aren't going to happen.
The experts say these changes are required to keep the planet under 2C. They don't say it's not possible to keep the planet under 5C with smaller reduction of emissions.
Also they say the earlier we reduce CO2, the more we can emit per year in the long run. So they pretty much contradict your whole theory.
Let me put this another way. If you're on the Titanic, 10 min after it hits the iceberg... you can talk all day long about small changes to try and keep the ship afloat. A bucket brigade, sailing it in reverse, counter flooding... None of it would have changed the outcome...
You know what WOULD have helped? All hands on deck, ripping up the decks and turning them into lifeboats. They had one mission, keep 1,500 people out of the freezing water for 100 minutes. They had, from the time it hit the iceberg, 2 hours and 40 min. In that time, they could have built makeshift lifeboats out of decking and other materials.
Would it have saved everyone? No, but it would almost certainly have saved someone...
What stopped them from doing it? They spent half the time the ship was sinking refusing to believe it could sink, then even after the crew told the passengers that the ship would sink, many refused to believe it anyway.
The point is, you think cutting 10-20% will help, but it won't. Even the experts say it won't. Cut big, or adapt to a new world...
---
Side note: Counter flooding actually might have bought the ship another 30-60 min, give or take. It wouldn't have saved the ship and it likely wouldn't have bought 1 hour, 40 min, but it would have kept it more level making it easier to build life rafts.
Unless you are suggesting we abandon the Earth and start making space "lifeboats", I don't think your example is remotely close to reality.
According to whom? Serious reply to what I consider to be a serious point you've made. You seem to think that it is a given, settled, the the Iowan owes the African something.
Well I agree some people don't realize it yet, but I think they are either wrong or misinformed. Just like if you steal my money, I consider you owe me no matter if you agree or not, I consider polluters owe the others. The more people are convinced the better, of course, but not having an universal recognition won't change the way I act.
I don't agree with you. More to the point, I doubt the Iowan agrees with you and likely doesn't care much what someone in Europe thinks about him/her.
Fortunately, even if he doesn't care, we live in a world where he can be forced to pay for it. The first of which is if his government make him pay.
No, actually it wouldn't accomplish anything. You think it would, because you're been sold the lie that there is some safe CO2 level that we can keep emitting. There might have been in the past, but now we're so far past it, we simply need to stop.
Do you know how much CO2 the world can emit and still remind under 2C temp rise? At this point it is about 500 gigatons.
Well first the Earth has a natural absorption rate for CO2. Second even if we miss the 2C rise, it's better to stay under 3C or even 5C than reach 10C.
So yes, stopping at current levels, while not perfect, is better than continuing to increase emissions at the current world rate.
The proven reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas are about 3,000 gigatons (and we're hunting for MORE!). You think slowing the burn will matter, but it actually won't. It has to stop, completely. Or to put it more simply, it has to become carbon neutral.
It doesn't matter if we take 35 years to burn 3,000 gigatons or 70 years or 150 years... the effect from the planet's point of view is largely the same. You're thinking human lifetime, not planet scale. Yes, CO2 does slowly get burned away and absorbed, but not in our human lifetime scale, it takes thousands of years in the volumes we're talking about.
While it is true that slowing the CO2 output buys time for our OWN lifetimes, it doesn't do squat for our kids. The climate change will accelerate and while humanity won't become extinct, we may have an unpleasant ride and many people may not survive it.
I think you are wrong and you underestimate the Earth absorption capacity. A quick Google search brings me this article:
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-e...
It's from 2012 but still, 50% absorption is a lot better than 0.001% you are suggesting (as in thousands of years).
The interesting thing is that I believe it is common for Americans to look at the taxes of Europe and shake their heads. When people hear what it costs to buy gas over there, they just mutter something and carry on.
I get the sense that you feel that your ideas are better than ours. Maybe, maybe not, but you won't convince anyone with such an attitude.
That's exactly the point, in order to fight climate change their ideas are definitely better than yours. Sorry if hearing the truth makes you sad, but these are facts.
Well then, they should have developed an industrial revolution and built up cities and industry then, shouldn't they? :)
They'd still suffer from your pollution, so I don't see your point.
Sure, but those drops won't have a major impact on the outcome.
You are wrong. It would have a big impact. You seem to think the status quo means no increase in emissions. The status quo means huge increase.
Frankly, I suspect a 20% drop will happen almost by default, just due to people buying more efficient stuff over time.
Great, that means with little effort we could do 30%, isn't it?
The problem of course is that over the next 35 years, how much will the US population grow? 10%? That wipes out half of the 20% drop.
Imagine how bad it would have been if there was no 20% drop.
That is an opinion, a point of view...
Consider for a minute that if push came to shove, many Americans would say, "ok, if the world can't support everyone, perhaps it is time for some of them to go".
Rather than cut our own way of life, if we removed 2/3 of the people in the world, that helps solve the problem too.
Note: I'm not endorsing such a plan, nor saying it is a good one. I'm simply saying there is more than one way to solve a problem.
Yep. There are various ways to solve the problem. One of them is massive war crimes and genocide, the other is to reduce emissions. Which one do you prefer?
By the way, this plan again sounds like "Fuck the rest of the world".
My mind was only changed in the past year, and I'm at least somewhat smarter than the average person, or at least better off. The climate scientists did a REALLY crappy job of shouting about the problem 30 years ago.
How so? What new data did we get in the past year? I don't recall any. Global warming is known and accepted since 30 years.
I think we're WAY past the point where it can be stopped.
I understand your binary logic. Either we stop it or we don't. And if we don't, then any reduction in CO2 emissions is worthless. This logic is just wrong.
Have you considered that it might cost less to adapt to the changing world than to try and prevent it from happening?
Yes. From the information I have, it isn't the case. That's the whole point. Otherwise we wouldn't try to avoid a too big increase in temperature.
"why not do both". Well, sometimes you can't, if you split your efforts, sometimes both sides fail.
Only in your binary world where climate change either happens or not. In the real world, the best solution may be to keep global warming to 2C while at the same time adapt to this 2C increase.
But it really isn't the middle ground... That implies that the person from Iowa owes an "equal life" to the person in India or Africa,
You're thinking that somehow resources should be divided equally, that the person in Iowa who lives in a 2,000 sqft house, has 2 cars, 3 kids, a job, etc. should somehow worry about the person far, far away.
I don't think you're being realistic with that thinking.
It's not about equal life or equal resources. However, the person in Iowa is polluting the air of the African. That means the Iowan owes the African. Wether you like it or not.
Fair enough, but why exactly is that the person in Iowa's problem? To be honest, the people in Africa aren't really living in the 21st century anyway, not most of them (some are of course). Look at the tribal warfare, the endless slaughter... When they decide to drop all of that, they might find they can build themselves a civilization and won't need our help. We did it hundreds of years ago, what's holding them back?
Let's just hope they don't, isn't it? Otherwise, they'd send us their pollution too and it would be even worse.
Your thinking in the end is nothing more than racism. The African don't deserve to pollute and live just like we do. If we lower our emissions, they should lower theirs too.
True, but it wouldn't accomplish anything either...
Nothing? You must be kidding. Capping the CO2 at current levels would accomplish a lot. It would be far better than the current trend, which is a big raise worldwide, which could be even bigger (thanks to countries in Europe making some effort).
The problem is, your "solution" solves nothing, but costs us money.
Are you denying the consequences of global warming?
Because it is our money, not theirs. They didn't earn it, we did. If they want money, they can go earn it themselves.
And why wouldn't that logic apply to pollution? It's your CO2, keep it in your country. Sending your CO2 abroad is just as bad as stealing their money.
We can't even get a small gas tax increase passed, and most people agree it needs to be done.
By "we" I assume you mean the US. Other developed countries already tax gas far more.
Now who has the "perfect solution fallacy" :)
You clearly don't seem to get what it means. Invading the UK is not a perfect solution, not even an imperfect one.
You'd start a trade war, and if you're not careful, a real one.
From my point of view, polluters already started the war by exporting their greenhouse gases to other countries.
The changes that have to be made to REALLY make a difference would be unacceptable, even in Europe.
Again, you are using the same fallacy. Even a reduction of 10% is better than not doing anything.
I'm not quite sure you understand what a 80% cut in energy consumption would really mean, but you are more or less asking everyone to go back 200 years in time.
Look, let me tell you this straight. You are an idiot if you think the only two possible outcomes are either a 80% cut or the status quo (a big increase over the next decades).
Also, even if I were asking for a 80% cut, I am not asking it to everyone, only to the big polluters.
Theory is nice, but in reality that isn't going to happen. If by chance it did, you'd just start WWIII. It isn't a realistic solution.
And the fourth Reich would have Washington DC as its capital. The US would be on the wrong side unlike in the first two WW.
There is almost zero chance the US will cut CO2 by 50% within our lifetimes. Maybe within our children's lifetime. I think we'll be lucky to get a 20% cut in the next 35 years.
So let's start with 20% or even 10% if you prefer. That mean the US will reduce emissions from about 20/tons/person/year to 18. Just don't ever blame the Chinese until they reach that point too.
Cutting by that much would simply require changes and sacrifices that Americans don't want to make and see no reason to make.
Remember that most Americans do not have a passport and have never left the country. A whole lot of Americans see foreigners as people who take their jobs.
And they are either wrong or selfish. I hope you'll help me so that they change their minds.
Probably so... the question becomes... How much can we cut, how quickly, without causing undue stress to the economy and people's lives?
We must also asks ourselves how much can we afford NOT to cut, without causing undue stress to the economy and people's lives? Global warming isn't a threat to the human specie. It is an economic problem. Not doing anything means a future production loss, forever.
"allowed"... the average American would say, "by whom?" Or, "you and what Army?"
Look, I used the word "allowed" while it may not be the best choice. Think of it as "deserve" if you prefer. The US should by itself limit its own emissions. I still think American voters have a brain and can elect a government that will do so.
But on failure, the rest of the world could (and should) shame and yes, penalize, the US.
It isn't anyone else's right to tell us how much we can, or cannot emit
It isn't anyone else's duty to suffer from your pollution either, but they do. That's the problem of global warming. Polluting the others is a form of aggression.
No, I want them to have the same emissions rights as we do. We will reduce ours while they raise theirs, meeting them somewhere in the middle. And that middle should mean a reduction compared to the current level.
Are you actually serious? You expect the average American to say that?
You asked for a middle ground. Not my fault if you don't like it.
Half of America is living pay-check to pay-check, asking them to pay anything more for energy would just push them into the poor house.
Tell that to those living with nothing in Africa.
Cap-and-trade is a stupid idea anyway. It says that you can pollute so long as you pay someone else. Except the stuff still gets emitted, solving nothing.
If you actually set the cap to a number that would be useful, there would be nothing to trade since we wouldn't have an economy.
Wrong again. You always bring the perfect solution fallacy. Setting a cap at current world levels would still be better than no cap. And there would still be an economy.
Finally, cap-and-trade is just wealth transfer again...
A carbon tax at least leaves the money right here, and that might get done at some point. But sending the money overseas? America will tell you to shove that idea where the sun doesn't shine.
Your premise that the money should stay in the US is flawed. Why shouldn't it go overseas if those living with the impacts of US pollution live there?
Anyways I'm open to both solutions. With a carbon tax, you need to dynamically adjust the tax to meet targets, however.
No decision happens in a vacuum...
First, a lot of the rest of the world is polluting as well, so everyone taxes everyone else and we're back to square one.
Well not really, European countries and Japan would get an advantage compared to US/Canada/Autralia because they pollute a lot less.
Second, from a practical point of view, you generally shouldn't pull the tiger's tail. The United States of America has the most powerful military on Earth and we control the world's reserve currency. We are more likely than not to come out on top of such a dispute.
You are going to invade, say, the UK because they tax your pollution?
Now you might think the above is rather... well, not what you would choose... and that's fine... but remember that most Americans don't even have a passport and even fewer have ever left the country. Most don't really think much about other nations, except when it comes to economics and their jobs.
You don't have to like the above, but disliking it doesn't make it go away or make it untrue.
I get that. I think it was best summarized by my the first post. F*ck the rest of the world. Those who modded me down should read your comments, they'd see I were right.
Well a Yukon XL also starts at $51k, so you could have had a Highlander Hybrid ($48k).
Toyota also launched a much more affordable Rav4 Hybrid. And the Prius V also have enough cargo for most people.
That's why the solution is to tax gas even more. She uses more gas with her Prius because she drives more? Then she pays more.
You keep your SUV in your garage? You don't pay. Simple and fair.
I am from Iowa, I do care about the rest of the world, but not enough to destroy my own life over it. I'm not going to stop driving a pickup truck or turn off the air condition because an island in the Pacific might flood
How is that a middle ground? That's pure selfishness. A middle ground could have been "I'm willing to put in place a cap and trade system that could mean it will be more expensive to drive my truck if it can help reduce the emissions of my polluting country".