And as I said before: officially? No. Proof: the ratification was just announced. And through this (again: as I said before) the treaty is now in effect.
Through the addition of the 28 EU countries the 55% limit has been surpassed.
FTA: "The United States officially ratified the Paris climate agreement in September. Of the top 10 global emitters of greenhouse gases according to the 2015 Paris conference, only the U.S., China and India have submitted their ratification documents. Among the top global emitters of greenhouse gases, the 28 countries of the European Union — which is counted as one entity for the purposes of the treaty — and Russia have yet to officially agree to the plan."
So they have not officially ratified the treaty yet but have pledged to do so from the start..
The difference is important because that means that the 28 countries of the EU are currently not counted in the 55% rule. So as soon as the EU paperwork is in (and I can't imagine the EU leaders going to the conference on oktober 7th without having officially ratified) the 55% rule will have been reached and the treaty will come into effect.
You absolutely nailed it. Spot on! What about just having MORE countries ratifying?? BTW the EU hasn't ratified yet but is almost certain to do so. So, don't worry. The treaty will become effective soon. And yes, it will reduce the greenhousegas emissions.
As for your apparent displeasure regarding the concentration of global profits, that can't be helped. It's not illegal, it's not improper, and there's nobody who can do a damn thing about it. Seriously
Well, that's where you and Apple got it wrong. It is illegal in the EU according the highest EU court. And yes, they can do something about it. And they will.
It's a bit more complicated than that (IRL helped Apple evade taxes WORLDWIDE) but in essense that is what the EU action is about: that they (Apple) were never elligible for a tax break to start with. You should be applauding them.
Umm, no. You negotiate with different countries, pressurizing them to give you a 'special tax deal' in exchange for some promises on increased turn over and under the threat of relocation. When you found the most gullible government, you concentrate all the profit of sales WORLDWIDE in that country. That's not 'paying your calculated tax burden'.
If this would be stictly about IRL taxes, you would be right.
But the turnover, profits etc of the Apple sales in the whole of EU were subject to this ruling.
So in effect IRL is denying all of the EU their legitimate tax incomes just so that Apple would concentrate all its workforce in IRL An that is unfair, the EU states (and who can blame them??).
Do you really believe that Apple is going to employ extra personel (no matter how few) just by being offered a tax break? Look what they have been doing all the time: mimimizing costs everywhere (China?) to maximize profit. Give them a tax break? More profit!
You call looking for the lowest tax regime across the world fair and in the same post you moan about Apple evading US taxes. I though you were happy with that kind of behaviour.
What I meant with the job thing is this: the personel that is currently being employed in IRL is needed (or they wouldn't be there). The IRL tax deal has not created a single extra job. What apple does is saying: well, we could employ these people here in IRL or somewhere else in the EU. If you don't lower your taxes we will move elsewhere. In this way it will negotiate with different countries in the EU. In this way the different coutries are forced into a race to the bottom for taxes of big multinationals. This was possible because every EU country is on his own.
In the US this is much harder for Apple since there is one global taxation and this fiscal power play isn't that easy. So, who can blame the EU for doing the same?
BTW it could very well be that Apple is going to 'repatriate' some of the profits in IRL to the US as result of the EU actions. So your US tax evading problem (or do you applaud it??) is also getting resolved!
As for the Brexiteers: they are no longer our concern.
Nope. It just shows that the EU Commission is well aware that these kind of tax deals with certain multinationals are made under the threat of moving their jobs elsewhere. Nowhere does it say that these strategies are efficient or even an succesful at creating jobs.
Anyways: this is not about IRL taxes vs. IRL jobs. This is allowing Apple to avoid taxes in the whole of the EU in exchange for some kind of deal on jobs in IRL. And that is, of course, unfair...
Yes. That was my point. Photosynthesis was what locked the CO2 we are currently releasing into the ground in the first place. But we all know that took hunderd of milions of years. Not a few millenia like the poster suggested.
So the question put forth by the original poster is: what is best release the remaining CO2 in the next 100 years or the next 1000? The answer is that it won't make a difference at all for the end state of the climate. And if we don't switch away from fossil fuels soon we won't need anything close to 1000 years to burn what remains...
Well, let's hope that enough people with the cash realize soon enough that there IS money in it (altnerative energy sources need to be build too and are profitable too). Only then are we going to see some real progress. On the positive side: there are signs that already some are getting it.
[...]it wouldn't surprise me if we could find enough fossil fuels to last a millennium.
Me neither. I think we are getting nearer to the turning point where fossil fuels are not seen as viable anymore. Demand will start to drop rapidly such that, in the end, most of the remaining reserves will simply stay where they are...
Your statement, as reassuring as it sounds, isn't going to help us at all. At the current rate there is no way we would last a single millenium on the current reserves.
And I don't know where you get the notion that a slower release would make things better. Just hoping??
If you want to run in stealth mode, you can only use the internal weapons bays ==> F-35 can only carry two 1,000 lb bombs but without any missiles to defend itself. Or it can carry a single 1,000 lb bomb and two (2) missiles. Is that significant?
If you use the full weapons load like you propose: there goes your stealth. There goes your 'clean airframe' that makes the F-35 perform at least somewhat like the current generation.and make it even slower than it already is and will increase drag, reducing speed and range (just like the current generation of planes) So in that case (with the full weaponsload) one might be better of with any other aircraft that is faster and more manouverable (since stealth is out of the equasion). Preferably one that does super cruising to get the weapons in range and get out as quickly as possible without being intercepted.
Never blame on ignorance what can be explained by pure white glowing hate. Hate against all those idiots who have anything to do with environmentalism. Doing something about the climate is bad! We should keep doing things exactly like we are doing them today! Don't. Change. A. Thing!
Yep. Nobody expected the building to collapse. So it must be some kind of conspiracy.
And no matter how much reasoning you put against it there will allways be that nutcase that thinks 'everybody' accepts this conspiracy theory.
Tip: look at the construction of the building. A central core with a kind of stabelizing 'tension net' on the outside. If you have a gigantic hole in the 'net' and a huge fire weakening the core... it will collapse under its own weight...
Slashdot Mirror
Ah you are right.
Indeed ;-) :-))
Allways. Please remember that
And as I said before: officially? No.
Proof: the ratification was just announced. And through this (again: as I said before) the treaty is now in effect.
Through the addition of the 28 EU countries the 55% limit has been surpassed.
FTA: "The United States officially ratified the Paris climate agreement in September. Of the top 10 global emitters of greenhouse gases according to the 2015 Paris conference, only the U.S., China and India have submitted their ratification documents. Among the top global emitters of greenhouse gases, the 28 countries of the European Union — which is counted as one entity for the purposes of the treaty — and Russia have yet to officially agree to the plan."
So they have not officially ratified the treaty yet but have pledged to do so from the start..
The difference is important because that means that the 28 countries of the EU are currently not counted in the 55% rule. So as soon as the EU paperwork is in (and I can't imagine the EU leaders going to the conference on oktober 7th without having officially ratified) the 55% rule will have been reached and the treaty will come into effect.
You absolutely nailed it. Spot on!
What about just having MORE countries ratifying?? BTW the EU hasn't ratified yet but is almost certain to do so.
So, don't worry. The treaty will become effective soon. And yes, it will reduce the greenhousegas emissions.
As for your apparent displeasure regarding the concentration of global profits, that can't be helped. It's not illegal, it's not improper, and there's nobody who can do a damn thing about it.
Seriously
Well, that's where you and Apple got it wrong. It is illegal in the EU according the highest EU court. And yes, they can do something about it. And they will.
It's a bit more complicated than that (IRL helped Apple evade taxes WORLDWIDE) but in essense that is what the EU action is about: that they (Apple) were never elligible for a tax break to start with. You should be applauding them.
Umm, no. You negotiate with different countries, pressurizing them to give you a 'special tax deal' in exchange for some promises on increased turn over and under the threat of relocation. When you found the most gullible government, you concentrate all the profit of sales WORLDWIDE in that country. That's not 'paying your calculated tax burden'.
Only, he is't dumb. It's *NOT* about the taxes in *IRELAND*, but taxes *WORLDWIDE*. And incidently, yes also about taxes in *THE US*
If this would be stictly about IRL taxes, you would be right.
But the turnover, profits etc of the Apple sales in the whole of EU were subject to this ruling.
So in effect IRL is denying all of the EU their legitimate tax incomes just so that Apple would concentrate all its workforce in IRL An that is unfair, the EU states (and who can blame them??).
Yep. You're a real one.What a character.
Do you really believe that Apple is going to employ extra personel (no matter how few) just by being offered a tax break?
Look what they have been doing all the time: mimimizing costs everywhere (China?) to maximize profit. Give them a tax break? More profit!
You call looking for the lowest tax regime across the world fair and in the same post you moan about Apple evading US taxes. I though you were happy with that kind of behaviour.
What I meant with the job thing is this: the personel that is currently being employed in IRL is needed (or they wouldn't be there). The IRL tax deal has not created a single extra job. What apple does is saying: well, we could employ these people here in IRL or somewhere else in the EU. If you don't lower your taxes we will move elsewhere. In this way it will negotiate with different countries in the EU. In this way the different coutries are forced into a race to the bottom for taxes of big multinationals. This was possible because every EU country is on his own.
In the US this is much harder for Apple since there is one global taxation and this fiscal power play isn't that easy. So, who can blame the EU for doing the same?
BTW it could very well be that Apple is going to 'repatriate' some of the profits in IRL to the US as result of the EU actions. So your US tax evading problem (or do you applaud it??) is also getting resolved!
As for the Brexiteers: they are no longer our concern.
Nope. It just shows that the EU Commission is well aware that these kind of tax deals with certain multinationals are made under the threat of moving their jobs elsewhere. Nowhere does it say that these strategies are efficient or even an succesful at creating jobs.
Anyways: this is not about IRL taxes vs. IRL jobs. This is allowing Apple to avoid taxes in the whole of the EU in exchange for some kind of deal on jobs in IRL. And that is, of course, unfair...
The EU Commission accuses the Irish tax deals to be motivated by 'employment considerations'.
And IRL will of course deny it..
Oh.. it's about the PLANET (scowl)
Well Mr. D.
In this link you can find that the UK already produces 25% of it's energy with renewable sources.
And this and this article remark (unsurprisingly) that the UK has an enormous potential for wind enegy, especially off-shore.
So, limited options my ass.
Did you spot the flaw?
Yes. That was my point. Photosynthesis was what locked the CO2 we are currently releasing into the ground in the first place. But we all know that took hunderd of milions of years. Not a few millenia like the poster suggested.
So the question put forth by the original poster is: what is best release the remaining CO2 in the next 100 years or the next 1000?
The answer is that it won't make a difference at all for the end state of the climate. And if we don't switch away from fossil fuels soon we won't need anything close to 1000 years to burn what remains...
Yup. Slashdot.
Well, let's hope that enough people with the cash realize soon enough that there IS money in it (altnerative energy sources need to be build too and are profitable too).
Only then are we going to see some real progress.
On the positive side: there are signs that already some are getting it.
[...]it wouldn't surprise me if we could find enough fossil fuels to last a millennium.
Me neither. I think we are getting nearer to the turning point where fossil fuels are not seen as viable anymore. Demand will start to drop rapidly such that, in the end, most of the remaining reserves will simply stay where they are...
Your statement, as reassuring as it sounds, isn't going to help us at all. At the current rate there is no way we would last a single millenium on the current reserves.
And I don't know where you get the notion that a slower release would make things better.
Just hoping??
...didn't help matters ...
If you want to run in stealth mode, you can only use the internal weapons bays ==> F-35 can only carry two 1,000 lb bombs but without any missiles to defend itself. Or it can carry a single 1,000 lb bomb and two (2) missiles. Is that significant?
If you use the full weapons load like you propose: there goes your stealth. There goes your 'clean airframe' that makes the F-35 perform at least somewhat like the current generation.and make it even slower than it already is and will increase drag, reducing speed and range (just like the current generation of planes)
So in that case (with the full weaponsload) one might be better of with any other aircraft that is faster and more manouverable (since stealth is out of the equasion). Preferably one that does super cruising to get the weapons in range and get out as quickly as possible without being intercepted.
Never blame on ignorance what can be explained by pure white glowing hate. Hate against all those idiots who have anything to do with environmentalism.
Doing something about the climate is bad!
We should keep doing things exactly like we are doing them today!
Don't. Change. A. Thing!
So... Apple Watch is in the same league as game pads for smartphones?
Sounds about right.
Yep. Nobody expected the building to collapse. So it must be some kind of conspiracy.
And no matter how much reasoning you put against it there will allways be that nutcase that thinks 'everybody' accepts this conspiracy theory.
Tip: look at the construction of the building. A central core with a kind of stabelizing 'tension net' on the outside. If you have a gigantic hole in the 'net' and a huge fire weakening the core... it will collapse under its own weight...