Actually, no.
The ideal situatioun for America is to put part of this money into paying down our debt, but another part into more subsidies on moving us off oil. For example, a LIMITED-TIME subsidy for getting new commercial and large passenger vehicles to move to nat gas and then later on, to series hybrid with nat gas.
In addition, a subsidy to move low income ppl to insulate, install better windows, and move their HVAC to geo-thermal heat pump, would drop our use of fuel oil (which mostly comes from venezuela).
Actually, taxes are NOT seen as anti free-trade. It is only opposed to it, if it is applied to imports, but not to your local goods. As such, this is by far, the fairest tax of all.
actually, no. Basically, those 'clean' companies sell their electricity regardless if you 'buy' from them or not. Think back about 10-15 years ago when every ISP was selling you DSL. They would claim that it was THEIR DSL, and not the RBOCs. Of course, it was a lie. Basically, the electrons ran through RBOC's systems.
The ppl that 'pay' for clean energy from other sources are no different than my solar system. I have 43 panels on our roof. We generate 9.8KWs. And when we buy our Tesla shortly, it will HELP charge it. BUT, the reality is, that most of the electrons charging it will be from nighttime, not daytime. As such, my solar system lowered my costs and helped with daytime electricity, but my charge will still be coming mostly from the grid, which is still around 36% coal, 27% Nat Gas, less than 1% oil, and then the rest is clean. So, only around 40% is REALLY clean.
Actually, hybrid and low MC vehicles are economic disasters. Since they hold such a small amount of electricty, many owners charge in the daytime. For now, no big deal. BUT, as their volume increases, more will increase daytime demand, which will mean more expensive plants.
Not really. Regwalled content is generally hidden from Google search results if the site's set up properly. Ergo, "hide" as in "ensure current and future search results are not valid".
Show me the dictionary definition for that since it is NOT a word.
OTOH, registration wall is a concept.
This is why the Stones sound just as good live now as they did in the Sixties.
Lazy writer and Hypocrite as well.
OTOH, I started on computers in the 70s and we had SLOW modems back then. As such, your fingers acquire their own memory. But, that is why I do not take others to task for their writings since I am not perfect nor believe that I am.
Sadly, you are not perfect, but sure as shit seem to think that you are.
Re-read what I wrote. If a product has all parts from clean nations, there is no tax. Iow, it disappears as nations/states clean up. Places like china and west Virginia will continue to have an increasing tax until they clean up, or the GDP drops which then drops electricity, vehicles , etc and cleans the air.
Both groups of ppl deserve to be blamed for this nightmare.
If the west , esp America's far left, REALLY wanted to solve this, they could within 10 years:
BTW, that is why I oppose the idea of putting taxes on JUST OUR CO2. America has one thing that we can really batter about, which is the fact that we are the largest importer in the world. As such, we should be taxing ALL CONSUMED GOODS (local and imported) based on the CO2 from the nations/states that the item and its sub-parts came from.
1) we need ACCURATE numbers of what CO2 is going into and coming from what areas. The only way to do that, is from orbit with OCO2 and shortly, with OCO3. Already, China has been shown to emit a great deal more than is widely accepted.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/defa...
2) we need a SANE normalization. Skip this garbage of per capita. Ppl do NOT create the bulk of the CO2. BUSINESSES do. In particular, utilities, iron works, even commercial vehicles, etc are the major polluters.
So, instead, do emissions / $ GDP (REAL). THis has to be real GDP, and not PPP GDP. The later is a calculated value that allows them to basically cheat on their exports. By using REAL GDP, it means that if a nation drops their monetary value, then they also need to drop their emissions, or suffer higher taxes.
3) now create a tax that starts at 5% of the product and increases by 10% a year.
If you have a product in which all sub-parts are from a clean area, then you simply register it, and list the parts and country/state of origin. Then a % of the above tax is applied.
So, assume that some is 100% from Sweden. It is one of the cleanest nations in the world. As such, it would likely get 0% of the tax. Even when the tax hits 100% of the product value, it would still get nothing.
Assume that one of the parts comes from China, which is by far the WORST nation. As such, it would get 100% of the taxation, so, it would get 5% the first year, 15% the next, 25% the next and so on.
However, assume that a good comes from a relatively clean place such as say Colorado (which is in the middle of states). We might get around 33% of the tax, but lets assume 50% of the tax. That means that the good would be taxed at 2.5% and then 7.5%, and 12.5%, and so.
This approach will make each state responsible for cleaning up their own emissions. They might choose to go after cars, or they might choose to go after coal plants, etc.
Point is, that this tax takes the feds out of the equation and allows LOCAL govs, along with other nation's gov to make choices to clean up.
Actually, I am registered Libertarian that was hard core from 1994 until 2010. However, W's/neo-con's economy was an eye opener. As such, I now lean more towards original republicans ( nothing to do with the current GOP which is really neo-cons and tea* ).
That is why I believe that we need to solve this CO2 issue with economics rather than with regulations. Economics will force the situation better. Heck, look at Coal plants. The mass shutdown has had little to do with W's mercury regulation or O's new regulations. It is all about nat gas's, as well as Wind's, prices being far too low for them to compete.
Actually, we do NOT need either Iran and esp. not Assad (which is really what you mean).
CONgress screwed up when they forced O to cut a deal with assad. It is obvious now that Russia and Syria were hiding their chemical and biological weapons.
In addition, I used to think that O was crazy to do little to stop ISIS.
However, it is now becoming clear what is happening. We are working with Iraq on ISIS eastern front, along with Syria's and Iraq's Northern Kurdish groups. Basically, we are pushing ISIS towards western and southern Syria, which is where Assad is. ISIS is destroying Assad. Once that is over, we will obviously swoop in and destroy ISIS, and then put in more of a strong gov. to hold this together.
Once Assad is gone, then Iran is limited to damage in the middle east. There is no easy way to get weapons to Libya or parts of Israel anymore.
Really? What part of the agreement can you show us that backs up what you are claiming. I mean, you HAVE read the whole agreement. Right? Or are you just BSing.
Seems weird that this is only 10 years.
It makes sense that it should be about monitoring (in spite of what neo-cons/tea* scream), but, what does not make sense is why 10 years only? Seems like 20 or more would be better.
I suspect that Saudi Arabia will now start THEIR program with Russia's help.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no.
The ideal situatioun for America is to put part of this money into paying down our debt, but another part into more subsidies on moving us off oil. For example, a LIMITED-TIME subsidy for getting new commercial and large passenger vehicles to move to nat gas and then later on, to series hybrid with nat gas.
In addition, a subsidy to move low income ppl to insulate, install better windows, and move their HVAC to geo-thermal heat pump, would drop our use of fuel oil (which mostly comes from venezuela).
actually, in this case, taxing behavior is EXACTLY the right answer.
It is the only way to have ALL nations drop their emissions at the same time.
Actually, taxes are NOT seen as anti free-trade. It is only opposed to it, if it is applied to imports, but not to your local goods. As such, this is by far, the fairest tax of all.
actually, no. Basically, those 'clean' companies sell their electricity regardless if you 'buy' from them or not. Think back about 10-15 years ago when every ISP was selling you DSL. They would claim that it was THEIR DSL, and not the RBOCs. Of course, it was a lie. Basically, the electrons ran through RBOC's systems.
The ppl that 'pay' for clean energy from other sources are no different than my solar system. I have 43 panels on our roof. We generate 9.8KWs. And when we buy our Tesla shortly, it will HELP charge it. BUT, the reality is, that most of the electrons charging it will be from nighttime, not daytime. As such, my solar system lowered my costs and helped with daytime electricity, but my charge will still be coming mostly from the grid, which is still around 36% coal, 27% Nat Gas, less than 1% oil, and then the rest is clean. So, only around 40% is REALLY clean.
Google ski Nautique and electric drive. It will be out later this year.
So, you only charge in the daytime ?
Huh. And exactly HOW did your electrons get separated from the polluted source electrons?
Actually, hybrid and low MC vehicles are economic disasters. Since they hold such a small amount of electricty, many owners charge in the daytime. For now, no big deal. BUT, as their volume increases, more will increase daytime demand, which will mean more expensive plants.
And yet, wind, natural gas, and nukes are much cheaper than coal, which is why coal is being shut down.
Actually, your current top post does exactly the same thing with regwalled.
Not really. Regwalled content is generally hidden from Google search results if the site's set up properly. Ergo, "hide" as in "ensure current and future search results are not valid".
Show me the dictionary definition for that since it is NOT a word. OTOH, registration wall is a concept.
This is why the Stones sound just as good live now as they did in the Sixties.
Lazy writer and Hypocrite as well.
OTOH, I started on computers in the 70s and we had SLOW modems back then. As such, your fingers acquire their own memory. But, that is why I do not take others to task for their writings since I am not perfect nor believe that I am. Sadly, you are not perfect, but sure as shit seem to think that you are.
Re-read what I wrote. If a product has all parts from clean nations, there is no tax. Iow, it disappears as nations/states clean up. Places like china and west Virginia will continue to have an increasing tax until they clean up, or the GDP drops which then drops electricity, vehicles , etc and cleans the air.
Don't you belong on some PC site? Here, you are just another troll.
Actually, it does NOT balance out. That is the problem.
Yeah, that is what I call the far right and far left.
Sadly, Morlocks and Eloi might be better descriptions of them.
hard to do when you have less snow and rain.
Look at Mexico and the middle east to get an idea of what 30-50 N and S will look like.
Both groups of ppl deserve to be blamed for this nightmare.
If the west , esp America's far left, REALLY wanted to solve this, they could within 10 years:
BTW, that is why I oppose the idea of putting taxes on JUST OUR CO2. America has one thing that we can really batter about, which is the fact that we are the largest importer in the world. As such, we should be taxing ALL CONSUMED GOODS (local and imported) based on the CO2 from the nations/states that the item and its sub-parts came from.
1) we need ACCURATE numbers of what CO2 is going into and coming from what areas. The only way to do that, is from orbit with OCO2 and shortly, with OCO3. Already, China has been shown to emit a great deal more than is widely accepted.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/defa...
2) we need a SANE normalization. Skip this garbage of per capita. Ppl do NOT create the bulk of the CO2. BUSINESSES do. In particular, utilities, iron works, even commercial vehicles, etc are the major polluters.
So, instead, do emissions / $ GDP (REAL). THis has to be real GDP, and not PPP GDP. The later is a calculated value that allows them to basically cheat on their exports. By using REAL GDP, it means that if a nation drops their monetary value, then they also need to drop their emissions, or suffer higher taxes.
3) now create a tax that starts at 5% of the product and increases by 10% a year.
If you have a product in which all sub-parts are from a clean area, then you simply register it, and list the parts and country/state of origin. Then a % of the above tax is applied.
So, assume that some is 100% from Sweden. It is one of the cleanest nations in the world. As such, it would likely get 0% of the tax. Even when the tax hits 100% of the product value, it would still get nothing.
Assume that one of the parts comes from China, which is by far the WORST nation. As such, it would get 100% of the taxation, so, it would get 5% the first year, 15% the next, 25% the next and so on.
However, assume that a good comes from a relatively clean place such as say Colorado (which is in the middle of states). We might get around 33% of the tax, but lets assume 50% of the tax. That means that the good would be taxed at 2.5% and then 7.5%, and 12.5%, and so.
This approach will make each state responsible for cleaning up their own emissions. They might choose to go after cars, or they might choose to go after coal plants, etc.
Point is, that this tax takes the feds out of the equation and allows LOCAL govs, along with other nation's gov to make choices to clean up.
in fact, it is at the core of the VA system, as well as EPIC which is the largest medical system going behind the VAs.
Actually, I am registered Libertarian that was hard core from 1994 until 2010. However, W's/neo-con's economy was an eye opener. As such, I now lean more towards original republicans ( nothing to do with the current GOP which is really neo-cons and tea* ).
That is why I believe that we need to solve this CO2 issue with economics rather than with regulations. Economics will force the situation better. Heck, look at Coal plants. The mass shutdown has had little to do with W's mercury regulation or O's new regulations. It is all about nat gas's, as well as Wind's, prices being far too low for them to compete.
Actually, we do NOT need either Iran and esp. not Assad (which is really what you mean).
CONgress screwed up when they forced O to cut a deal with assad. It is obvious now that Russia and Syria were hiding their chemical and biological weapons.
In addition, I used to think that O was crazy to do little to stop ISIS.
However, it is now becoming clear what is happening. We are working with Iraq on ISIS eastern front, along with Syria's and Iraq's Northern Kurdish groups. Basically, we are pushing ISIS towards western and southern Syria, which is where Assad is. ISIS is destroying Assad. Once that is over, we will obviously swoop in and destroy ISIS, and then put in more of a strong gov. to hold this together.
Once Assad is gone, then Iran is limited to damage in the middle east. There is no easy way to get weapons to Libya or parts of Israel anymore.
Yes, but the problem is, that it is the ppl, not the gov. Their gov is far less friendly than Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
Really? What part of the agreement can you show us that backs up what you are claiming. I mean, you HAVE read the whole agreement. Right? Or are you just BSing.
burn it up with a gen IV molten salt reactor.
Why? Did either Cuba OR Iran get 'resolved'?
Seems weird that this is only 10 years.
It makes sense that it should be about monitoring (in spite of what neo-cons/tea* scream), but, what does not make sense is why 10 years only? Seems like 20 or more would be better.
I suspect that Saudi Arabia will now start THEIR program with Russia's help.