I'm not saying your are wrong...I just like simplicity. I feel that creating a system of pollution credits would be overly complex. I might trust you to do it (or any number of other Slashdotters out there), But it will not be us creating this system. It will be our government. Maybe you have more confidence in your elected officials than I do. But I can see a very well designed system that works being completly twisted around to suit those in power. It would just invite fraud and mishandling. However imperfect it might be, simpler is better. It is easier for people to understand a simple system and easier to detect wrong doing in a simple system.
Every gallon of gas, every cubic meter of pollution, is wrong...A hard stop is required.
So you can see how I misunderstood you.
If we impose min MPG ratings then you will only create loop holes. Should a private church bus that carries 20 pasengers be required to meet the same MPG rating as two seater car? Vehicles are designed for different things. Some with low MPG may actully be more efficient than some with high MPG. When you start to make exceptins for this, and exceptins for that, you only end up with ways to get around the fence. The system is too complex to rely on government to make all of the descisions. My "fuzzy" logic of hitting the consumer at the source (a high flat tax on gasoline) treats everyone the same. Let the consumer make an informed descision. If you as a consumer, can't trust yourself to make a good descision, you deserve to live with your bad descisions.
regardless of what we do today, we will eventfully run out of cheap energy. If the Global Warming people are correct, we may pay dearly for it. However, regardless of what happens, our species will either live in equilibrium with our environment or become extinct. Maybe what we have coming will be what it takes to better ourselves.
I think you have missed the point. I just put out a suggestion, which I think is good. And better than any alternative I have heard so far. If you have a better idea, I will listen.
Every gallon of gas, every cubic meter of pollution, is wrong. Penalizing people for generating it isn't useful unless it stops them. It won't stop people who can afford to pay. A hard stop is required.
Good luck with that.
By the way, did you write your post in the sand? Try to calculate your energy footprint and then come back and say nothing less than a Hard Stop will do. Don't forget to include the manufacturing energy and transportation energy of your hardware. The best thing we can do is put energy into reducing consumption. Putting energy into a hard stop is just a waste of energy.
Why not? As long as there is full disclosure, I don't have a problem with lead paint or asbestos. Lead paint has better color and lasts longer. Asbestos would save (and still is saving) large sums of money every year. As long as the consumer is aware of the health risks and cleanup costs, that is fine with me.
I'm also OK with crack. I don't smoke it, but if you want to, that is fine. People are going to smoke crack regardless of what the law says. Make it legal and collect a tax on it. The money from the tax could go to education and healthcare. People who abuse it will be naturally dis-selected.
So rich people can afford to pollute, and poor people can't? Rich people can buy up more of the air, soil and water, the agricultural system, the future of our climate to merely destroy for convenience, while poor people get less of it? Maybe if those taxes could pay for the extra damage the pollution does - but we don't have ways to do it.
Penalizing people for doing wrong is all that I can come up with. What is your idea?
It's like saying there should be no jailtime for setting wildfires, just fines. Then the pyromaniac club can light up California, paying for better fire departments in Texas, right?
I am not a law grad, but when is the last time a big CEO served jail time for dumping toxic waste into a stream.
We have a system which needs absolute minimums enforced, and the hidden costs incremental use paid as well. That means minimum MPG and a tax on gasoline.
MPG is not the only way to define the fuel efficiency of a vehicle. A tax on the gasoline will give you more bang for the bureaucracy
The current state of government regulation on polluting products is entirely too low. Car companies weaseled out of their total emissions limits in the 1990s. Bush's "Clear Skies" and other environmental deregulation has increased pollution, while its accumulating closer to various breaking points. I don't want more government regulation, more constraints on production. I also don't want to die from the pollution. The survival urge is greater than the desire for more powerful and toxic toys.
You just made my point. For all of the bureaucracy, big companies still "weaseled" out of their obligations. A high tax on gasoline is the simplest and most efficient route toward more efficient vehicles.
I agree, having the cost of a good rise due to market force is a better option. But fuel, at least in the US, as far as I know, is not on the open market. The prices are highly regulated and do not reflect current market environment. Sure the price of crude does go up and down, but it is highly controlled. Someone who know more about the crude economy, feel free to correct me.
Why not? I am about to purchase a vehicle within the next 3 to 6 months. I have a new kid. I am *looking* for a car now that has a enough cargo area, gets good milage, I can afford, I can afford insurance on, and is safe. I am a consumer. I can make these descisions on my own. Can you? I'm not saying to get rid of all government. I just think that we need just a few laws and an informed public.
That is not a bad idea. As it currently is, it is illegal to dump more than X amount of Y in the water. If you dump (X + 3) then you have to pay $Z fine. we could change it to this:
for every X of Y you dump, you will pay $10Z tax.
I am insightful b/c when consumers stop purchasing a GasGuzzler(R) b/c they can't afford the tax, then GasGuzzler Inc. will either go out of business or make a more efficient vehicle. Government is better at collecting taxes than trying to determine the most fuel efficient vehicle. Let government put a tax in place and keep them out of decision making. The market will choose an efficient vehicle.
If the rich guy with a big car earned his mony, let him flaunt it. He will pay out the ass in taxes and he may look like a dick, but it is his right. Also, most poor families that I am aware of, don't drive reasonably efficient vehicles. They drive older models that are in need of a tune up which produce more C and S compounds. There is no simple solution, but taxing people on the energy they consume seems to be a step in the right direction.
I don't know of a change one can make that does not cause at least some ripple in the economy. As far as busses and public transportation goes, they don't buy gas at your local Quickie Mart, thus not paying the extra tax. Sure you can build some fantastic elaborate tax model to hurt the fewest people and save the most fuel, but you will only end up creating loop holes. As I see it, the fairest method is the simplest method. Tax the energy consumption not the potential consumption.
How long do you think it will be before it reaches $5? I paid well over $2 this morning. Add an additional tax on top of that. Soccer Mom will start to feel it soon.
What do you think the GM and FORD will do when their consumers stop buying 20 MPGers b/c they can't afforde the tax? The market will demand more efficient vehicles. This does not require big government!
I do not want our government mandating what types of products I can sell or buy any more than they do now. If you want to cut the amount of fuel that Americans consume, raise the tax on fuel. As much as I would hate to pay more at the pump, this is the fairest way to do it. Don't tax people on what they drive, but how much energy they consume.
I disagree. As and applications developer, If this is a good as I think it will be, there could be huge value in a system like this. I wish the article had some screen shots. I can see it as if all of the useful information from a discussion board is digested and cleanly written up in one document. This one document could then be updated, extended by the comunity.
FTFA: Many of the subpoenas asked for information related to products that can be used to filter out adult content...
Why did they need to subpoena in the first place. If this is the type of information they want, why not just do a little research or send the ISPs RFIs (Request For Information)?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying your are wrong...I just like simplicity. I feel that creating a system of pollution credits would be overly complex. I might trust you to do it (or any number of other Slashdotters out there), But it will not be us creating this system. It will be our government. Maybe you have more confidence in your elected officials than I do. But I can see a very well designed system that works being completly twisted around to suit those in power. It would just invite fraud and mishandling. However imperfect it might be, simpler is better. It is easier for people to understand a simple system and easier to detect wrong doing in a simple system.
If we impose min MPG ratings then you will only create loop holes. Should a private church bus that carries 20 pasengers be required to meet the same MPG rating as two seater car? Vehicles are designed for different things. Some with low MPG may actully be more efficient than some with high MPG. When you start to make exceptins for this, and exceptins for that, you only end up with ways to get around the fence. The system is too complex to rely on government to make all of the descisions. My "fuzzy" logic of hitting the consumer at the source (a high flat tax on gasoline) treats everyone the same. Let the consumer make an informed descision. If you as a consumer, can't trust yourself to make a good descision, you deserve to live with your bad descisions.
regardless of what we do today, we will eventfully run out of cheap energy. If the Global Warming people are correct, we may pay dearly for it. However, regardless of what happens, our species will either live in equilibrium with our environment or become extinct. Maybe what we have coming will be what it takes to better ourselves.
I think you have missed the point. I just put out a suggestion, which I think is good. And better than any alternative I have heard so far. If you have a better idea, I will listen.
By the way, did you write your post in the sand? Try to calculate your energy footprint and then come back and say nothing less than a Hard Stop will do. Don't forget to include the manufacturing energy and transportation energy of your hardware. The best thing we can do is put energy into reducing consumption. Putting energy into a hard stop is just a waste of energy.
Why not? As long as there is full disclosure, I don't have a problem with lead paint or asbestos. Lead paint has better color and lasts longer. Asbestos would save (and still is saving) large sums of money every year. As long as the consumer is aware of the health risks and cleanup costs, that is fine with me.
I'm also OK with crack. I don't smoke it, but if you want to, that is fine. People are going to smoke crack regardless of what the law says. Make it legal and collect a tax on it. The money from the tax could go to education and healthcare. People who abuse it will be naturally dis-selected.
I agree, having the cost of a good rise due to market force is a better option. But fuel, at least in the US, as far as I know, is not on the open market. The prices are highly regulated and do not reflect current market environment. Sure the price of crude does go up and down, but it is highly controlled. Someone who know more about the crude economy, feel free to correct me.
Mod parent up. This is an excelent idea. Just give the public a little nudge and let the market do the rest.
What is your rate? Email me and I will see about you doing my taxes for this year.
Why not? I am about to purchase a vehicle within the next 3 to 6 months. I have a new kid. I am *looking* for a car now that has a enough cargo area, gets good milage, I can afford, I can afford insurance on, and is safe. I am a consumer. I can make these descisions on my own. Can you? I'm not saying to get rid of all government. I just think that we need just a few laws and an informed public.
That is not a bad idea. As it currently is, it is illegal to dump more than X amount of Y in the water. If you dump (X + 3) then you have to pay $Z fine. we could change it to this:
for every X of Y you dump, you will pay $10Z tax.
I don't have problem with this.
Here is Gerogia we don't get to claim a vehicle as comercial unless we use it for comercial. Other wise we would be breaking the law.
I am insightful b/c when consumers stop purchasing a GasGuzzler(R) b/c they can't afford the tax, then GasGuzzler Inc. will either go out of business or make a more efficient vehicle. Government is better at collecting taxes than trying to determine the most fuel efficient vehicle. Let government put a tax in place and keep them out of decision making. The market will choose an efficient vehicle.
If the rich guy with a big car earned his mony, let him flaunt it. He will pay out the ass in taxes and he may look like a dick, but it is his right. Also, most poor families that I am aware of, don't drive reasonably efficient vehicles. They drive older models that are in need of a tune up which produce more C and S compounds. There is no simple solution, but taxing people on the energy they consume seems to be a step in the right direction.
I don't know of a change one can make that does not cause at least some ripple in the economy. As far as busses and public transportation goes, they don't buy gas at your local Quickie Mart, thus not paying the extra tax. Sure you can build some fantastic elaborate tax model to hurt the fewest people and save the most fuel, but you will only end up creating loop holes. As I see it, the fairest method is the simplest method. Tax the energy consumption not the potential consumption.
How long do you think it will be before it reaches $5? I paid well over $2 this morning. Add an additional tax on top of that. Soccer Mom will start to feel it soon.
What do you think the GM and FORD will do when their consumers stop buying 20 MPGers b/c they can't afforde the tax? The market will demand more efficient vehicles. This does not require big government!
Two words:Kyoto Protocol
mandating higher MPGs in automobiles
I do not want our government mandating what types of products I can sell or buy any more than they do now. If you want to cut the amount of fuel that Americans consume, raise the tax on fuel. As much as I would hate to pay more at the pump, this is the fairest way to do it. Don't tax people on what they drive, but how much energy they consume.
Move along. There's nothing to see.
I disagree. As and applications developer, If this is a good as I think it will be, there could be huge value in a system like this. I wish the article had some screen shots. I can see it as if all of the useful information from a discussion board is digested and cleanly written up in one document. This one document could then be updated, extended by the comunity.
Who wants to download something you can't burn and then watch on your home theater? I will just buy the DVD thanks.
...Or just continue to download from TPB and the like.
Until consumers can purchase their "license" in the media format AND and encoding format of their choosing, piracy will be rampant.
It looks like NASA plans for Voyager's powerplant effectivly die around 2020.
Spacecraft Lifetiem
After reading the article, I have just changed my sig.
FTFA:
Many of the subpoenas asked for information related to products that can be used to filter out adult content...
Why did they need to subpoena in the first place. If this is the type of information they want, why not just do a little research or send the ISPs RFIs (Request For Information)?