In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Can we from now on refer to the "well they're not doing it!!" argument as the "spoiled child defense"? I feel that will help us reference this line of argument more easily.
In the last two years, the private sector, including Warren Buffett, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Google, have announced major investments in clean energy. Originally skeptical lenders and investors now see that renewable energy will profitable. These investors are voting where it counts the most - with their wallet. As one CEO recently commented, “Solar is now bankable. When solar was perceived as more risky it required a premium.”
Through the Recovery Act, the Department of Energy made grants and loans to more than 1,300 companies. While critics try hard to discredit the program, the truth is that only one percent of the companies of the companies we funded went bankrupt. That one percent has gotten more attention than the 99 percent that have not.
The test for America’s policy makers will be whether they are willing to accept a few failures in exchange for many successes. America’s entrepreneurs and innovators who are leaders in global clean energy race understand that not every risk can – or should – be avoided. Michelangelo said, “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.”
It also lists hundreds of achievements, nearly all of which I haven't heard of until now, and discusses the need to deal with climate change. Definitely worth a read.
We need a carbon tax, not a taxpayer financed gift to the wealthy.
Sure the outcome is the same - more clean energy. But structure of what we have now is garbage.
We really don't need a carbon tax. If we are not polluting, China, India, and Africa will. This is all aside from arguments about whether it is cheaper to adapt to climate change or hurt growth, living standards etc to halt it. Even if we need government action and that is the best response, there is no reason to even try unless the entire world comes to an agreement. George Bush walked out of Kyoto because it had no restrictions on developing countries that will soon be by far the largest polluters as their huge populations begin demanding electricity, cars, and so on (China especially). China is already quite a bit more of a polluter than the United States, 23.53% of the world total for CO2 vs 18.27% for the USA.
Isn't it more relevant to look at per capita pollution? USA has 2,5 times Chinas per capita pollution. Only Australia, Canada and Luxembourg of the developed countries are having as bad numbers as USA. Luxembourg can be excused because of low population. That argument seems dead with the rest.
When these countries say no to doing anything official (Most do a lot locally) they are setting the example that it is ok to have a high CO2-emission. That is the argument. The developing countries are increasing their CO2 emission and it is inevitable to some degree, but if the biggest polluters of the world do not care about their CO2 emission, why should they?
On February 05 2013 05:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Now that Karl Rove is back it is back to Republican infighting.
Elaborate? I don't tune into news often.
Karl Rove is leading a SuperPAC that is going to try to prevent whackjobs from primarying serious Republicans in Congressional races, since there is (warranted, in my opinion) concern that it is too easy for regular republicans to lose in the primaries to Tea Party types who will then have a lower chance at actually winning election than their Democratic opponents. Essentially it's an attempt to keep the Republican Party conservative instead of reactionary.
On February 05 2013 08:50 sam!zdat wrote: Hah! Rove is no fool. Good luck with that political party you got there
go Tea Party!
I really enjoy this whole scenario because for once I can bust out the "conservative vs. reactionary" rhetoric and it's really not being pedantic at all so much as the only way to explain what's going on.
On February 05 2013 05:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Now that Karl Rove is back it is back to Republican infighting.
Elaborate? I don't tune into news often.
Karl Rove is leading a SuperPAC that is going to try to prevent whackjobs from primarying serious Republicans in Congressional races, since there is (warranted, in my opinion) concern that it is too easy for regular republicans to lose in the primaries to Tea Party types who will then have a lower chance at actually winning election than their Democratic opponents. Essentially it's an attempt to keep the Republican Party conservative instead of reactionary.
Meh, why does he have to rob me of one of my reliable sources of entertainment
I loved the 2012 republican primaries, they need to run Rick Perry again. Bachman too. Btw, any chance you guys could have Akin give a speech on evolutionary biology at the next RNC?
In the last two years, the private sector, including Warren Buffett, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Google, have announced major investments in clean energy. Originally skeptical lenders and investors now see that renewable energy will profitable. These investors are voting where it counts the most - with their wallet. As one CEO recently commented, “Solar is now bankable. When solar was perceived as more risky it required a premium.”
Through the Recovery Act, the Department of Energy made grants and loans to more than 1,300 companies. While critics try hard to discredit the program, the truth is that only one percent of the companies of the companies we funded went bankrupt. That one percent has gotten more attention than the 99 percent that have not.
The test for America’s policy makers will be whether they are willing to accept a few failures in exchange for many successes. America’s entrepreneurs and innovators who are leaders in global clean energy race understand that not every risk can – or should – be avoided. Michelangelo said, “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.”
It also lists hundreds of achievements, nearly all of which I haven't heard of until now, and discusses the need to deal with climate change. Definitely worth a read.
We need a carbon tax, not a taxpayer financed gift to the wealthy.
Sure the outcome is the same - more clean energy. But structure of what we have now is garbage.
We really don't need a carbon tax. If we are not polluting, China, India, and Africa will. This is all aside from arguments about whether it is cheaper to adapt to climate change or hurt growth, living standards etc to halt it. Even if we need government action and that is the best response, there is no reason to even try unless the entire world comes to an agreement. George Bush walked out of Kyoto because it had no restrictions on developing countries that will soon be by far the largest polluters as their huge populations begin demanding electricity, cars, and so on (China especially). China is already quite a bit more of a polluter than the United States, 23.53% of the world total for CO2 vs 18.27% for the USA.
Isn't it more relevant to look at per capita pollution? USA has 2,5 times Chinas per capita pollution. Only Australia, Canada and Luxembourg of the developed countries are having as bad numbers as USA. Luxembourg can be excused because of low population. That argument seems dead with the rest.
When these countries say no to doing anything official (Most do a lot locally) they are setting the example that it is ok to have a high CO2-emission. That is the argument. The developing countries are increasing their CO2 emission and it is inevitable to some degree, but if the biggest polluters of the world do not care about their CO2 emission, why should they?
Like I said, you are providing the, "We must be the leaders! If we hurt our economies to stop CO2 emissions, India, China, and Africa will be so awed by our example that they will do the same".
That isn't going to happen. They're going to keep on going, America doesn't influence them in the slightest. We have such a great impact on these countries that they all have American-style government and laws right? lol. Global warming doesn't care about per capita CO2 emissions, just the total amount.
In the last two years, the private sector, including Warren Buffett, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Google, have announced major investments in clean energy. Originally skeptical lenders and investors now see that renewable energy will profitable. These investors are voting where it counts the most - with their wallet. As one CEO recently commented, “Solar is now bankable. When solar was perceived as more risky it required a premium.”
Through the Recovery Act, the Department of Energy made grants and loans to more than 1,300 companies. While critics try hard to discredit the program, the truth is that only one percent of the companies of the companies we funded went bankrupt. That one percent has gotten more attention than the 99 percent that have not.
The test for America’s policy makers will be whether they are willing to accept a few failures in exchange for many successes. America’s entrepreneurs and innovators who are leaders in global clean energy race understand that not every risk can – or should – be avoided. Michelangelo said, “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.”
It also lists hundreds of achievements, nearly all of which I haven't heard of until now, and discusses the need to deal with climate change. Definitely worth a read.
We need a carbon tax, not a taxpayer financed gift to the wealthy.
Sure the outcome is the same - more clean energy. But structure of what we have now is garbage.
We really don't need a carbon tax. If we are not polluting, China, India, and Africa will. This is all aside from arguments about whether it is cheaper to adapt to climate change or hurt growth, living standards etc to halt it. Even if we need government action and that is the best response, there is no reason to even try unless the entire world comes to an agreement. George Bush walked out of Kyoto because it had no restrictions on developing countries that will soon be by far the largest polluters as their huge populations begin demanding electricity, cars, and so on (China especially). China is already quite a bit more of a polluter than the United States, 23.53% of the world total for CO2 vs 18.27% for the USA.
Isn't it more relevant to look at per capita pollution? USA has 2,5 times Chinas per capita pollution. Only Australia, Canada and Luxembourg of the developed countries are having as bad numbers as USA. Luxembourg can be excused because of low population. That argument seems dead with the rest.
When these countries say no to doing anything official (Most do a lot locally) they are setting the example that it is ok to have a high CO2-emission. That is the argument. The developing countries are increasing their CO2 emission and it is inevitable to some degree, but if the biggest polluters of the world do not care about their CO2 emission, why should they?
Like I said, you are providing the, "We must be the leaders! If we hurt our economies to stop CO2 emissions, India, China, and Africa will be so awed by our example that they will do the same".
That isn't going to happen. They're going to keep on going, America doesn't influence them in the slightest. We have such a great impact on these countries that they all have American-style government and laws right? lol. Global warming doesn't care about per capita CO2 emissions, just the total amount.
I am pretty sure you do not follow international politics very much. Anyway, you seem to believe that doing nothing will be the only way to fight it or you do not believe in any effects from climate change. It is hard to discuss mitigation with someone who doesn't take the problem serious enough to use the right name...
In the last two years, the private sector, including Warren Buffett, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Google, have announced major investments in clean energy. Originally skeptical lenders and investors now see that renewable energy will profitable. These investors are voting where it counts the most - with their wallet. As one CEO recently commented, “Solar is now bankable. When solar was perceived as more risky it required a premium.”
Through the Recovery Act, the Department of Energy made grants and loans to more than 1,300 companies. While critics try hard to discredit the program, the truth is that only one percent of the companies of the companies we funded went bankrupt. That one percent has gotten more attention than the 99 percent that have not.
The test for America’s policy makers will be whether they are willing to accept a few failures in exchange for many successes. America’s entrepreneurs and innovators who are leaders in global clean energy race understand that not every risk can – or should – be avoided. Michelangelo said, “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.”
It also lists hundreds of achievements, nearly all of which I haven't heard of until now, and discusses the need to deal with climate change. Definitely worth a read.
We need a carbon tax, not a taxpayer financed gift to the wealthy.
Sure the outcome is the same - more clean energy. But structure of what we have now is garbage.
We really don't need a carbon tax. If we are not polluting, China, India, and Africa will. This is all aside from arguments about whether it is cheaper to adapt to climate change or hurt growth, living standards etc to halt it. Even if we need government action and that is the best response, there is no reason to even try unless the entire world comes to an agreement. George Bush walked out of Kyoto because it had no restrictions on developing countries that will soon be by far the largest polluters as their huge populations begin demanding electricity, cars, and so on (China especially). China is already quite a bit more of a polluter than the United States, 23.53% of the world total for CO2 vs 18.27% for the USA.
Isn't it more relevant to look at per capita pollution? USA has 2,5 times Chinas per capita pollution. Only Australia, Canada and Luxembourg of the developed countries are having as bad numbers as USA. Luxembourg can be excused because of low population. That argument seems dead with the rest.
When these countries say no to doing anything official (Most do a lot locally) they are setting the example that it is ok to have a high CO2-emission. That is the argument. The developing countries are increasing their CO2 emission and it is inevitable to some degree, but if the biggest polluters of the world do not care about their CO2 emission, why should they?
Like I said, you are providing the, "We must be the leaders! If we hurt our economies to stop CO2 emissions, India, China, and Africa will be so awed by our example that they will do the same".
That isn't going to happen. They're going to keep on going, America doesn't influence them in the slightest. We have such a great impact on these countries that they all have American-style government and laws right? lol. Global warming doesn't care about per capita CO2 emissions, just the total amount.
I think you have a fine concern, but we're already reducing CO2 emissions. I want a carbon tax (or an equivalent scheme) because its a more rational system then haphazardly throwing around money here and there. AND, if the government is going to tax something (and it is) I'd much rather it tax something bad, like pollution, than something good like income.
Does anyone know if it is legal to impose the carbon tax on imports? And adjust for the home country's carbon content? If not, is it something the US could easily get?
In the last two years, the private sector, including Warren Buffett, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Google, have announced major investments in clean energy. Originally skeptical lenders and investors now see that renewable energy will profitable. These investors are voting where it counts the most - with their wallet. As one CEO recently commented, “Solar is now bankable. When solar was perceived as more risky it required a premium.”
Through the Recovery Act, the Department of Energy made grants and loans to more than 1,300 companies. While critics try hard to discredit the program, the truth is that only one percent of the companies of the companies we funded went bankrupt. That one percent has gotten more attention than the 99 percent that have not.
The test for America’s policy makers will be whether they are willing to accept a few failures in exchange for many successes. America’s entrepreneurs and innovators who are leaders in global clean energy race understand that not every risk can – or should – be avoided. Michelangelo said, “The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.”
It also lists hundreds of achievements, nearly all of which I haven't heard of until now, and discusses the need to deal with climate change. Definitely worth a read.
We need a carbon tax, not a taxpayer financed gift to the wealthy.
Sure the outcome is the same - more clean energy. But structure of what we have now is garbage.
We really don't need a carbon tax. If we are not polluting, China, India, and Africa will. This is all aside from arguments about whether it is cheaper to adapt to climate change or hurt growth, living standards etc to halt it. Even if we need government action and that is the best response, there is no reason to even try unless the entire world comes to an agreement. George Bush walked out of Kyoto because it had no restrictions on developing countries that will soon be by far the largest polluters as their huge populations begin demanding electricity, cars, and so on (China especially). China is already quite a bit more of a polluter than the United States, 23.53% of the world total for CO2 vs 18.27% for the USA.
Isn't it more relevant to look at per capita pollution? USA has 2,5 times Chinas per capita pollution. Only Australia, Canada and Luxembourg of the developed countries are having as bad numbers as USA. Luxembourg can be excused because of low population. That argument seems dead with the rest.
When these countries say no to doing anything official (Most do a lot locally) they are setting the example that it is ok to have a high CO2-emission. That is the argument. The developing countries are increasing their CO2 emission and it is inevitable to some degree, but if the biggest polluters of the world do not care about their CO2 emission, why should they?
Like I said, you are providing the, "We must be the leaders! If we hurt our economies to stop CO2 emissions, India, China, and Africa will be so awed by our example that they will do the same".
That isn't going to happen. They're going to keep on going, America doesn't influence them in the slightest. We have such a great impact on these countries that they all have American-style government and laws right? lol. Global warming doesn't care about per capita CO2 emissions, just the total amount.
I think you have a fine concern, but we're already reducing CO2 emissions. I want a carbon tax (or an equivalent scheme) because its a more rational system then haphazardly throwing around money here and there. AND, if the government is going to tax something (and it is) I'd much rather it tax something bad, like pollution, than something good like income.
Does anyone know if it is legal to impose the carbon tax on imports? And adjust for the home country's carbon content? If not, is it something the US could easily get?
I did some research on this back in uni, as far as I'm aware their legality is dependant on interpretation of WTO GATT laws. Border tax adjustments are in principle legal, but there's a whole discussion about wether it unfairly targets certain countries, and if a production process can be the basis for one.
The WTO usually follows the lead of the western members tho, so if they try it will probably be legal.
When you talk about "legality" this is just about WTO "laws", yeah? What is the principle of the legitimacy of these laws? Why wouldn't a sovereign nation be able to break with them? I don't know anything about it.
On February 05 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote: When you talk about "legality" this is just about WTO "laws", yeah? What is the principle of the legitimacy of these laws? Why wouldn't a sovereign nation be able to break with them? I don't know anything about it.
If I'm not mistaken it's like a club - if you want in you need to follow the rules and the rules exist because the members have agreed on them. I don't the the WTO itself has any real teeth.
Ah ok, good, it's bad enough the thing exists, glad to know it's not going around ascribing to itself any sort of political-philosophical legitimacy to boot
On February 05 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote: When you talk about "legality" this is just about WTO "laws", yeah? What is the principle of the legitimacy of these laws? Why wouldn't a sovereign nation be able to break with them? I don't know anything about it.
Obviously there's no theoretical limit on what a sovereign nation can do, but there's a practical limitations, such as the general idea in US foreign policy circles that keeping the WTO as a relevant institution is in the greater interest of the US than creating carbon tariffs in order to sell the 'climate change is a hoax'-groups on carbon taxes.
On February 05 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote: When you talk about "legality" this is just about WTO "laws", yeah? What is the principle of the legitimacy of these laws? Why wouldn't a sovereign nation be able to break with them? I don't know anything about it.
If I'm not mistaken it's like a club - if you want in you need to follow the rules and the rules exist because the members have agreed on them. I don't the the WTO itself has any real teeth.
The WTO has some teeth, more than the average international institution. Violation of the rules (in this case the possible instution of unfair tariffs) against a load of nations, those nations would be allowed to retaliate by changing tariffs on products imported from the US (for example). International property rights are also largely enforced through the WTO, which is of major concern to the west.
EPT
