EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1771
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28668 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
11839 Posts
On August 21 2019 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think we need to exhaust every option for reducing co2. Putting the blame on individual consumers might shift away the responsibilities from politicians and big actors, but individual consumption habits also need to change. In the west, there is a lifestyle problem, people consume too much. Too much meat, too much clothes, too much transportation. Individual carbon footprints need to drop, from ~20 tons per person in some countries, to the 7 tons per person in the EU, to like.. 3 tons per person? It's a pretty tall mountain, but getting there requires efforts from every layer of society. Totally on board with (major) tax on co2 to make it happen, it's one of the more plausible solutions that operates in the current societal framework, but the mentality shift is important, too. I heard 1 ton per person is the goal we should be striving for. Which would mean 1/7:th of the emissions per person we currently have. That means reductions everywhere, not just in one spot such as transport. On August 22 2019 00:03 JimmiC wrote: Yes it would help if things got more expensive but better quality so there was not as much replacement and more repair. Especially for things like appliances which are often built to fail right after their warranty and are sometimes more expensive to fix then replace so people do that. Rules outlawing planned obsolescence and a requirement for repair parts being available and upgrade-ability of technology such as phones would also help lots. As far as I know planned obsolescence isn't really a thing. Making low/medium quality to a low price because it sells is. So requiring a minimum life length would push the minimum price in the market up, allowing for higher quality goods. If the maximum sales point is €200, how do you fit in 20 years life length? Say that durability costs €1000, then you have sales of 1/100 compared to the other price point. Requiring higher overheads, thus €1200 or similar. Ending up with similar per year cost for both products for a consumer. One with much higher up front cost, which wins? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6209 Posts
On August 21 2019 23:30 Simberto wrote: I still think the best way to handle all of this at once is to simply put a (major) price onto CO2 (and methane and other climate gases), and then return that money to every citizen equally. Do this generally and don't exempt any sectors. This encourages acting more CO2 conscious at all points without looking like a regressive tax and leading to problems like in france. The people who live environmentally friendly have more money than they had before, paid by those who are more climate unconscious. And since this money is actually given back to the citizens, this is not a regressive tax on poor people, but an actual tax on damaging the climate. You need to figure out a way how to deal with borders doing this, but that should not be unsolvable either. Suddenly, it doesn't matter if the gases are emitted producing energy, raising cattle, driving your car, or anything else. Whoever emits, pays, and if they want to, they can add those to the prices for their end customers. Meanwhile, every citizen actually sees additional money in their pocket every month, so they don't feel screwed by these price hikes. If anyone is interested r/economics has a a really good FAQ on carbon pricing and why its superior to subsidies and command and control style regulation. www.reddit.com | ||
|
Yurie
11839 Posts
On August 22 2019 00:16 JimmiC wrote: Much higher up front costs for the consumer but far longer life of the product causes a big win for the environment because they are making one instead of a few. And the marginally more resources it would take to make the better one wouldn't come close to equally the mass waste our throw away culture. On a much smaller scale but just as impactful people should be using reusable cups for their starbucks and all take out containers should be compostable (and really compostable in the local programs) I fully agree. It will not happen on the open market without taxing it or legislating it. People will buy the most economical one in the bracket they like. If there is nothing in that bracket they are unlikely to buy luxury goods of that type. Thus the market tries to fill that niche, even if that means low quality products. Carbon taxes is a good way to address this. Minor % wise price increase on better products, close to same absolute increase. Then just market it with 5 years warranty and 15 years estimated life time. If within 10% of price on a 1 year warranty product it will sell more. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On August 21 2019 23:30 Simberto wrote: pipe dream. I still think the best way to handle all of this at once is to simply put a (major) price onto CO2 (and methane and other climate gases), and then return that money to every citizen equally. Do this generally and don't exempt any sectors. This encourages acting more CO2 conscious at all points without looking like a regressive tax and leading to problems like in france. The people who live environmentally friendly have more money than they had before, paid by those who are more climate unconscious. And since this money is actually given back to the citizens, this is not a regressive tax on poor people, but an actual tax on damaging the climate. You need to figure out a way how to deal with borders doing this, but that should not be unsolvable either. Suddenly, it doesn't matter if the gases are emitted producing energy, raising cattle, driving your car, or anything else. Whoever emits, pays, and if they want to, they can add those to the prices for their end customers. Meanwhile, every citizen actually sees additional money in their pocket every month, so they don't feel screwed by these price hikes. for you to put a major price onto CO2, and with equality in mind, you'd need to accurately measure it first; actual measurements with CO2-meters and such because you can't work with guesstimates as people do now. not only that, but (for ex.) the methane output of a cow raised in X-conditions does not equal the amount of methane output of a cow raised in Y-conditions. so what do you do?, endue every cow with a methane gas meter?. what about people?; athletes CO2 footprint is higher than that of a regular, sedentary Joe. or, who pays for the CO2 emissions of a company?: the owner, the board, the CEO, the employees('cause they are the ones that literally consume the electricity at the office or throw coal into the fire in <industries>) ... ?. just face it, you need ... + Show Spoiler + communism | ||
|
Gorgonoth
United States468 Posts
 )moment reading through all of your posts about fighting co2 emissions, and doing some research as I’m intrigued by this field: And two separate families behind me are discussing buying SUV’s. We absolutely have to have a radical mentality shift. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On August 22 2019 01:31 xM(Z wrote: pipe dream. for you to put a major price onto CO2, and with equality in mind, you'd need to accurately measure it first; actual measurements with CO2-meters and such because you can't work with guesstimates as people do now. not only that, but (for ex.) the methane output of a cow raised in X-conditions does not equal the amount of methane output of a cow raised in Y-conditions. so what do you do?, endue every cow with a methane gas meter?. what about people?; athletes CO2 footprint is higher than that of a regular, sedentary Joe. or, who pays for the CO2 emissions of a company?: the owner, the board, the CEO, the employees('cause they are the ones that literally consume the electricity at the office or throw coal into the fire in <industries>) ... ?. just face it, you need ... + Show Spoiler + communism Carbon footprinting is quite a sophisticated methodology though. That's prett far from guesstimating. I do follow your conclusion though. Person x and person y consuming different amount of foods is easly taken into account by a carbon based energy tax. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On August 22 2019 01:35 Artisreal wrote: thing is, you equal 'a food' with its carbon footprint which again, in reality, depends on how it was grown/harvested/transported, etc.Carbon footprinting is quite a sophisticated methodology though. That's prett far from guesstimating. I do follow your conclusion though. Person x and person y consuming different amount of foods is easly taken into account by a carbon based energy tax. but then, person X, having digestive issues, puts up more methane in the atmosphere that person Y who, lets say, consumes more food; so then ... it's just not doable dude. (Edit: and carbon footprinting is not sophisticated at all. there are carbon footprint calculators out there; look at them, at the base of every calculation is an assumption.) | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
What you're hinting at is how we incorporate people's different needs into the carbon alottment everyone gets. I'd be of the position that we take advice from socialized healthcare and do the exact same with that. Albeit this is a miniscule problem in comparison with conventional agriculture destroying topsoil, rainforests burning, deserts expanding, cows shitting and eating the habitable world to death, individual motorised mobility gobbling up resources, power as well as heat being generated through fossil fuels. Someone farting a bit more due to a condition is a fringe problem that isnt a problem. | ||
|
Yurie
11839 Posts
On August 22 2019 01:31 xM(Z wrote: pipe dream. for you to put a major price onto CO2, and with equality in mind, you'd need to accurately measure it first; actual measurements with CO2-meters and such because you can't work with guesstimates as people do now. not only that, but (for ex.) the methane output of a cow raised in X-conditions does not equal the amount of methane output of a cow raised in Y-conditions. so what do you do?, endue every cow with a methane gas meter?. what about people?; athletes CO2 footprint is higher than that of a regular, sedentary Joe. or, who pays for the CO2 emissions of a company?: the owner, the board, the CEO, the employees('cause they are the ones that literally consume the electricity at the office or throw coal into the fire in <industries>) ... ?. just face it, you need ... + Show Spoiler + communism You put an average tax on it. If there are 2 methods to produce something you fit into bracket A or B and are taxed differently. Would be a lot of work to get it running at the start. After that it will be like most other tax brackets. Likely requiring a new department responsible for running LCAs to get decent taxes set for everything. Being right down to the last digit isn't what it is about, it is about being within 50% right. If something releases 500 or 250 if of course important. But it is more important to not tax it as if it was 2000 or 50. As an example. For a plastic extruder you could have an online form. Fill in type of plastic, how it was sourced and it just pumps out a number. Basically just a big database (something like the current GaBI) that would improve over time. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
@rest: that's why i said communism. you say it's socialism but i don't know, you initially do infringe on people freedoms, taking away/restricting the convenience/comfort they were used with. and no one would accept a 'being 50% right'. that's utter discrimination. imagine being 50% right in favor of a white male ... gl. plus, the work required to set up such a (tax)system would be carbon positive for decades; the irony. Edit: something even funnier - there are various way to sink carbon into the soil; in this context, that would mean tax deductions, which would mean an entire new department that would also do field work and be able to measure the C soil variance. come on ... then, people with no land will get fucked by not even having the possibility to sink C; again, discrimination, riots. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11508 Posts
You don't need to calculate how much CO2 went into that phone you bought, the market will do that. Just always start at the starting point of the emission. You bought some fuel and burned it. This price of CO2 will then trickle down through the market. The only point where you need to do that calculation is at borders for tariffs. But it doesn't actually need to be that exact here. Set a CO2 tariff that fits roughly, and allow the deduction of any CO2 taxes you paid in the land of origin. This is maybe not be very easy, but on the other hand, we have a lot of professional people whose job it is to deal with this kind of stuff in our governments. | ||
|
Yurie
11839 Posts
On August 22 2019 03:38 Simberto wrote: CO2 should usually be kind of easy. When you burn fossile fuel, you produce CO2. I don't actually think that there is another way to produce CO2. The amount of CO2 produced is very directly linked to the amount of fuel you burn. And if you do something that captures some of the CO2 permanently, and find a way to deal with that CO2, that is totally fine. Prove that you did, and you get the tax money for that amount of CO2. You don't need to calculate how much CO2 went into that phone you bought, the market will do that. Just always start at the starting point of the emission. You bought some fuel and burned it. This price of CO2 will then trickle down through the market. The only point where you need to do that calculation is at borders for tariffs. But it doesn't actually need to be that exact here. Set a CO2 tariff that fits roughly, and allow the deduction of any CO2 taxes you paid in the land of origin. This is maybe not be very easy, but on the other hand, we have a lot of professional people whose job it is to deal with this kind of stuff in our governments. The problem is that burning happens at recycling plants for consumer goods. So it goes through a consumer between the final location and production. Thus taxing the production to run the recycling seems logical. Else the recycling centre needs to find the producer of all goods, bill them back so that it affects the consumer price. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
On August 22 2019 03:59 JimmiC wrote: That is where "EPR" (enhanced producer responsibility) comes into play. It forces whoever creates the good to pay for teh disposal/recycling. So they would be on the hook for the tax. I don't understand how we're to "force" creators to do anything other than what they want so long as they own the politicians and run the system? We can't even make background checks universal and somehow we're going to increase the costs of production for every product and producers are going to let us? Frankly, that sounds preposterous. EDIT: There's also the whole accepted wisdom that profit is sacrosanct and taxes are always to be pushed onto the consumer, never taken from profit margins (and very rarely from top executive compensation). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
