| EdHieron said:
|
badgenome said:
|
Couldn't come up with an appropriate response, huh?
Aielyn said:
It's slightly off-topic, but I thought I'd respond to this, before commenting on the main theme of the thread. My solution to Global Warming is funding scientific research of various sorts. The sort of research that needs to be done isn't economically more efficient, so it's not going to be done by businesses. It needs to be funded by governments. And it needs massively larger funding than what is currently available. Oh, and it needs to not be subject to patents - that is, discoveries made need to be public domain, so that the entire world can benefit. Some of the research will be into technologies (or technological improvements to reduce, for instance, power consumption), while others will be into more "natural" questions, like the effects of planting trees, etc - with the benefit in this case potentially being things like "optimal placement of trees to maximise stabilisation of the climate. The funny thing is, such funding can be highly productive towards stimulation of the economy. Scientific research requires technology - great for the companies that produce such technology. Scientific research requires engineers, technicians, educators, administrators, etc. They're going to spend their wages on buying things. Etc, etc, etc. You get my point, I think. There is value in trying to bring down industry's emissions through other methods. But it would work best if designed in such a way as to reward those who are actively reducing their emissions, rather than just punishing the heavier emitters more. A simplistic (in terms of incomplete and lacking nuance - a more detailed solution is necessary) method would be to, for instance, set a baseline for a company in terms of the industry they're in, and deviation from the baseline results in money from those emitting more going to those who emit less, relative to production. For instance, suppose we're talking about coal mining (not coal burning) - determine the amount of coal being mined per year, and the total emissions by the coal mining industry. Work out the ratio of emissions to coal. Those companies for which their ratio is below the industry-wide ratio would be given money (call this a negative tax), while those above it would be taxed. The net tax on the industry would be zero, but each and every company would be given a financial impetus to reduce their emissions relative to amount of coal mined, in order to increase their after-tax profits. As the ones at with the worst emissions bring down their emissions, the industry-wide ratio lowers naturally, maintaining the revenue-neutral nature of the approach, and continuing to drive innovation within companies to reduce their emissions even more. |
A) In regards to this part. Unfortunitly Research isn't like it is in say, Civilization, where you can put your taxes more towards beakers and science will develop things lineraly quicker.
B) Further more, it wouldn't drive the economy if the technology was free.
C) Essentially global warming would rely on completely unknown tech, because current tech and methods just couldn't work. Outside of argueably Nuclear which in of itself can be problematic. The big issue with most renewable technology is essentially how to store energy for peak times, and how to adjust quickly and how to store energy. Solutions unlikely to be solved anytime soon, and if they are, good luck getting them to a cheap enough level.
D) Assuming we did discover this, we're talking decades before we could even finish building the plants needed to harness this... by then chances are it's far to late as the carbon feedback loop will have started. (assuming it hasn't already.)
E) If the US completely stopped emitting all hydrocarbons today. It would make zero change in global warming. it'd just get burned elsewhere. Stopped mining? It'd make a difference. A very small one however.
Seems pretty appropriate, actually, when you are spewing such complete nonsense, Ed. When you can do something other than spew wild-eyed conspiracy theories and caricatures, I will consider responding seriously to you.
| badgenome said: Seems pretty appropriate, actually, when you are spewing such complete nonsense, Ed. When you can do something other than spew wild-eyed conspiracy theories and caricatures, I will consider responding seriously to you. |
The only problem was my post wasn't complete nonsense. It was a perfect mirror of The Republican social agenda which amounts to keeping the rich rich and the poor too stupid to care by the use of the greatest brainwashing gimmick mankind ever devised for doing just that the Christian religion.
As for Dodd-Frank. Stupidity or corruption, it's up to you.
It is worth noting however that Dodd and Frank both just happened to be under investigation for getting mortgagees that were way more favorable than market value... that when he ran for president Chris Dodd received more money from banks in the primaries then any democratic OR republican candidate.
I tend to not believe in corruption angles either, but it's worth noting for people who do and blame the republicans for being bribed by big business.
| EdHieron said: The only problem was my post wasn't completely nonsense. It was a perfect mirror of The Republican social agenda. |
The real problem is that you believe this shit. MIT ROMLEY GONNA TAEK MAH BIG BERDZ AND REPLAEC IT WITH MORMINZ OH NOEZ.
If you want to address the actual policy positions, we can have a conversation. Otherwise, I'm done with you.
The Occupy movement was (mostly) a bunch of upper middle class white kids who, after they spent their college years defending their degree with "I don't care if there is no jobs in my field, college isn't about getting a job", were protesting because their college degree didn't qualify them for any decent jobs.
Beyond that there was no message, there was only noise.
I do agree with many of the problems listed, but the "solutions" the supporters of the occupy movement generally call for will only make the problem worse. At the moment tax revenues just barely cover the cost of mandatory spending and interest on the debt, you could just barely balance the budget if you cut all discretionary spending today, the tax increases needed to balance the budget would be massive to all income levels, and on the current path the debt increase and interest rate increases will mean that manditory spending and interest on the debt will likely surpass tax revenues within a few years even with the (moronic) "tax the rich" scheme that is currently being proposed.
badgenome said:
The real problem is that you believe this shit. MIT ROMLEY GONNA TAEK MAH BIG BERDZ AND REPLAEC IT WITH MORMINZ OH NOEZ. |
Question: Was Mitt Romney a member of The Mormon Cult in good standing with all the Cult's higher ups? Answer: Yes, he was.
EdHieron said:
|
Lets assume you are right here.
70% of American Christians believe this.
78.4% of Americans are Christians.
ttp://religions.pewforum.org/reports
70% of 78.4% is 54.88%.
54.88% of the country believes these things.
You can't define something as an extreme viewpoint if over half of all American believe it. (So... you, by your own reasoning and logic, are completely wrong.)
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
