|
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 |
On August 23 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2019 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2019 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On August 23 2019 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 23:00 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 08:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 03:59 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 03:47 Yurie wrote:
[quote]
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. 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). Through legislation. It is here in one province and it is ever expanding. It is becoming more and more common in Europe. Businesses are not even disliking it compared to other measures because they have control, so they can design their product for easier/cheaper recycling and than beat there competition. It does makes products more expensive but it takes down the governmental burden of waste collection and disposal so theoretically the consumer pays the same. It really isn't that preposterous considering it is actually happening in the world. Has been in Canada for a long time for things like motor oil, tires and some e-cycling. B.C. is much further along as are European nations. It works well and allows another place for businesses to innovate and try to make themselves more efficient and more money. It is about creating a situation where the goals of the private and the goals of society align. When that happens awesome things can happen. This is why for profit prisons are so stupid because the goals of the prisons (the way they make profit) are the opposite of societies goals. Through the same legislative process that can't pass universal background checks? That's part of why I was calling it preposterous? I question the degree to which this is already happening (remember when accounting for emissions sent to poorer countries there's been virtually no reduction in emissions from any of them) elsewhere, and also would point out the places you mentioned have lots of legislation we can't hope to pass here. Profit and society's goals are mostly mutually exclusive, social progress coming from "profits" are only obtained after the profits are wrestled away by the society around those that profited. I don't disagree that it would be much harder to pass this sort of thing in the USA than in Canada. It will take time, which is scary but it will happen. The shift in the populace is already happening, eventually it will make it up to the politicians. Some major global companies are already doing it because they have to, to operate in the EU. The US will get some fringe environmental benefits from that alone. Now before you say not fast enough, I agree, but we are far closer to this than a socialist revolution. So if your bar is what is more likely and what is preposterous. I'm sorry but this is far far more likely. "It will take time", what are you estimating? 10, 20, 100 years? I don't see what makes it more likely (let alone inevitable) at all though. Separate but sorta related the DNC just voted down having a climate change focused debate. Sparking immediate protests at the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting in San Francisco Thursday, the organization's Resolutions Committee voted down a resolution that called for a climate-focused debate among 2020 presidential primary candidates.
The committee's 8-17 vote on the resolution outraged members of the youth-led Sunrise Movement in attendance, who stood on their seats and sang the union protest song "Which Side Are You On?" before walking out. www.commondreams.org Would say 10 years. Perhaps sooner you will start to see policy in new york and califorbia which given the size of those markets will change behavior across the country. I say more likely because it is well defined policy working in devloped countries including next door. Where with your revolution you are not even able to answer basic questions about how it will function. But what do you think is the time period that is realistic for tge revolution you want to start, finish and implement the currently unknown systems to run the coutlntry and controls to protect the environment? I want to believe your plan is better but it doesn't make any sense to me. It's not defined policy that's working (at least not to actually reduce emissions to any significant degree)? Superficially there's been some minor improvements but they've been almost entirely imaginary as the emissions were just sent to poorer, less regulated, countries. So California and NY (and then the country, keep in mind the DNC just rejected a debate on the topic) adopting them isn't even the bare minimum we need. I don't think there's a point in discussing revolution with you so I'm just exploring the viability of your alternative (because I'd prefer anything else that would work over revolution). I know you don't, because I ask tough questions you don't have answers for, I was trying to get at it your own idea does not meet your own bar for discussion. + Show Spoiler +which I hope would hope might spur some self awareness in you to why so many people get frustrated by your continual bringing it and your others up. Set that same bar for yourself and most of your issues will disappear. The above is just wrong and assumptions. You didn't know existed until yesterday, and I know you don't even know where it is or what it is doing other than the few posts I have made. I don't care if you do care to learn about, but it is really unwise to make blanket statements of facts about something you don't even understand the basics of.
As others have explained to you the issue isn't that I don't have answers and your insistence on that point is 1 reason why it's fruitless to discuss revolution with you.
I know your post is wrong and full of baseless assumptions and blind hope, that's why I pointed them out. It's also why it's a hopeless plan as far as I can tell.
The info is out there that US Falling Emissions are a Mirage same goes for the EU and Canada, that the Paris Accord wasn't enough and countries aren't even meeting their obligations under it.
The World still isn't meeting it's climate goals
EDIT: For some clarity, since you always seem to argue from the perspective that I believe revolution will magically fix everything.
It's possible (and feels increasingly probable the more I talk to liberals) that we're both right and both wrong and Kwark's the sane one. In short, we're boned, so get rich or die trying.
|
|
|
On August 23 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
I thought you said EPR was not helping. EPR is not in the US, I thought even you knew this. Also the world is not fulling using it either. You seem to be arguing that is hasn't solved all the problems yet. No kidding, and even with full implementation it won't instantly do it. That is just not how the world works.
I'm with kwarks actual point behind his remark not the literal interpretation.
And you know nothing about my post because you actually know very little about the climate crisis and what is possible and what is not involved in stopping it. All you know is it another excuse to have your revolution. Basically more confirmation bias making up your decisions.
And since you have no interest in learning and only an interest in disproving anything I write, I'm not more interested in discussing it with you than I would be with a climate change denier.
I didn't say "EPR isn't helping" otherwise you'd quote it. Nor did I say the world was using it.
You said that corporations should be forced to adopt it through legislation and I pointed out how that's hopeless with consideration for the fact that we've been actively trying to get universal background checks through that same legislative process with overwhelming public support for decades without success.
You've said a lot but none of it really addressed that at all other than "California and NY will do it in the next 10 years and the country will follow" based on your hopes and the size of their markets (this would have to happen exponentially faster than it has for their gun laws [to the degree it has] to be of any value for example).
The other nonsense aside, what do you think Kwark's "actual point" was?
|
|
|
On August 23 2019 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2019 08:04 JimmiC wrote:On August 23 2019 07:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2019 07:32 JimmiC wrote:On August 23 2019 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 23:00 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 08:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 03:59 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
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). Through legislation. It is here in one province and it is ever expanding. It is becoming more and more common in Europe. Businesses are not even disliking it compared to other measures because they have control, so they can design their product for easier/cheaper recycling and than beat there competition. It does makes products more expensive but it takes down the governmental burden of waste collection and disposal so theoretically the consumer pays the same. It really isn't that preposterous considering it is actually happening in the world. Has been in Canada for a long time for things like motor oil, tires and some e-cycling. B.C. is much further along as are European nations. It works well and allows another place for businesses to innovate and try to make themselves more efficient and more money. It is about creating a situation where the goals of the private and the goals of society align. When that happens awesome things can happen. This is why for profit prisons are so stupid because the goals of the prisons (the way they make profit) are the opposite of societies goals. Through the same legislative process that can't pass universal background checks? That's part of why I was calling it preposterous? I question the degree to which this is already happening (remember when accounting for emissions sent to poorer countries there's been virtually no reduction in emissions from any of them) elsewhere, and also would point out the places you mentioned have lots of legislation we can't hope to pass here. Profit and society's goals are mostly mutually exclusive, social progress coming from "profits" are only obtained after the profits are wrestled away by the society around those that profited. I don't disagree that it would be much harder to pass this sort of thing in the USA than in Canada. It will take time, which is scary but it will happen. The shift in the populace is already happening, eventually it will make it up to the politicians. Some major global companies are already doing it because they have to, to operate in the EU. The US will get some fringe environmental benefits from that alone. Now before you say not fast enough, I agree, but we are far closer to this than a socialist revolution. So if your bar is what is more likely and what is preposterous. I'm sorry but this is far far more likely. "It will take time", what are you estimating? 10, 20, 100 years? I don't see what makes it more likely (let alone inevitable) at all though. Separate but sorta related the DNC just voted down having a climate change focused debate. Sparking immediate protests at the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting in San Francisco Thursday, the organization's Resolutions Committee voted down a resolution that called for a climate-focused debate among 2020 presidential primary candidates.
The committee's 8-17 vote on the resolution outraged members of the youth-led Sunrise Movement in attendance, who stood on their seats and sang the union protest song "Which Side Are You On?" before walking out. www.commondreams.org Would say 10 years. Perhaps sooner you will start to see policy in new york and califorbia which given the size of those markets will change behavior across the country. I say more likely because it is well defined policy working in devloped countries including next door. Where with your revolution you are not even able to answer basic questions about how it will function. But what do you think is the time period that is realistic for tge revolution you want to start, finish and implement the currently unknown systems to run the coutlntry and controls to protect the environment? I want to believe your plan is better but it doesn't make any sense to me. It's not defined policy that's working (at least not to actually reduce emissions to any significant degree)? Superficially there's been some minor improvements but they've been almost entirely imaginary as the emissions were just sent to poorer, less regulated, countries. So California and NY (and then the country, keep in mind the DNC just rejected a debate on the topic) adopting them isn't even the bare minimum we need. I don't think there's a point in discussing revolution with you so I'm just exploring the viability of your alternative (because I'd prefer anything else that would work over revolution). I know you don't, because I ask tough questions you don't have answers for, I was trying to get at it your own idea does not meet your own bar for discussion. + Show Spoiler +which I hope would hope might spur some self awareness in you to why so many people get frustrated by your continual bringing it and your others up. Set that same bar for yourself and most of your issues will disappear. The above is just wrong and assumptions. You didn't know existed until yesterday, and I know you don't even know where it is or what it is doing other than the few posts I have made. I don't care if you do care to learn about, but it is really unwise to make blanket statements of facts about something you don't even understand the basics of. As others have explained to you the issue isn't that I don't have answers and your insistence on that point is 1 reason why it's fruitless to discuss revolution with you. I know your post is wrong and full of baseless assumptions and blind hope, that's why I pointed them out. It's also why it's a hopeless plan as far as I can tell. The info is out there that US Falling Emissions are a Mirage same goes for the EU and Canada, that the Paris Accord wasn't enough and countries aren't even meeting their obligations under it. The World still isn't meeting it's climate goalsEDIT: For some clarity, since you always seem to argue from the perspective that I believe revolution will magically fix everything. It's possible (and feels increasingly probable the more I talk to liberals) that we're both right and both wrong and Kwark's the sane one. In short, we're boned, so get rich or die trying.
Just more China apologism.
1.EU manufactures far more than it did in 1990 when EU emissions peaked.
2.China produced more cement in two years than the US did in the entire 20th century.Trying to tie so much of China’s emissions to export industries is flat out wrong. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/how-did-china-use-more-cement-between-2011-and-2013-than-the-us-used-in-the-entire-20th-century-10134079.html
3.China has not agreed to actually cut its emissions before 2030, just to try cut intensity and improve efficiency of manufacturing.
While it’s true that some manufacturing has been offshored to China where they have lower standards and produce more pollution for the same good what exactly is your answer? Put tariffs on Chinese imports? Literally happening now dude.... Anything else?
|
On August 23 2019 09:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2019 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
I thought you said EPR was not helping. EPR is not in the US, I thought even you knew this. Also the world is not fulling using it either. You seem to be arguing that is hasn't solved all the problems yet. No kidding, and even with full implementation it won't instantly do it. That is just not how the world works.
I'm with kwarks actual point behind his remark not the literal interpretation.
And you know nothing about my post because you actually know very little about the climate crisis and what is possible and what is not involved in stopping it. All you know is it another excuse to have your revolution. Basically more confirmation bias making up your decisions.
And since you have no interest in learning and only an interest in disproving anything I write, I'm not more interested in discussing it with you than I would be with a climate change denier.
I didn't say "EPR isn't helping" otherwise you'd quote it. Nor did I say the world was using it. You said that corporations should be forced to adopt it through legislation and I pointed out how that's hopeless with consideration for the fact that we've been actively trying to get universal background checks through that same legislative process with overwhelming public support for decades without success. You've said a lot but none of it really addressed that at all other than "California and NY will do it in the next 10 years and the country will follow" based on your hopes and the size of their markets (this would have to happen exponentially faster than it has for their gun laws [to the degree it has] to be of any value for example). The other nonsense aside, what do you think Kwark's "actual point" was? As usual this conversation went as most. I brought something up, you ask questions disingenuously with no interest in anything other than attacking it, you attacked it based on assumptions without ever understanding it, this goes on for a bit then I ask you a question and you won't answer it even after I answered a bunch of yours. So instead I have question for you. Please rank from best to worst on which place you would most like to be born in 2019. 1)In the USA as a African American 2)In China as a Uighur 3) In North Korea as anyone not in the ruling party 4) As a Kurd in Syria 5)As an indigenous person in Venezuela 6)As a Gay in Russia 7)As a Sunni in Iran 8)As a woman in Afghanistan
The questions weren't disingenuous and I'd hoped it was more than empty hopes if you were to propose it seriously.
As to the ranking, I recognize my privilege and am accustomed to it but I also recognize it's connection to the oppression all of those groups experience. I share a struggle with all oppressed peoples striving to be free. Grass is always greener but realistically I'd probably pick living with the guilt
|
|
|
On August 23 2019 11:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2019 11:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2019 09:46 JimmiC wrote:On August 23 2019 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
I thought you said EPR was not helping. EPR is not in the US, I thought even you knew this. Also the world is not fulling using it either. You seem to be arguing that is hasn't solved all the problems yet. No kidding, and even with full implementation it won't instantly do it. That is just not how the world works.
I'm with kwarks actual point behind his remark not the literal interpretation.
And you know nothing about my post because you actually know very little about the climate crisis and what is possible and what is not involved in stopping it. All you know is it another excuse to have your revolution. Basically more confirmation bias making up your decisions.
And since you have no interest in learning and only an interest in disproving anything I write, I'm not more interested in discussing it with you than I would be with a climate change denier.
I didn't say "EPR isn't helping" otherwise you'd quote it. Nor did I say the world was using it. You said that corporations should be forced to adopt it through legislation and I pointed out how that's hopeless with consideration for the fact that we've been actively trying to get universal background checks through that same legislative process with overwhelming public support for decades without success. You've said a lot but none of it really addressed that at all other than "California and NY will do it in the next 10 years and the country will follow" based on your hopes and the size of their markets (this would have to happen exponentially faster than it has for their gun laws [to the degree it has] to be of any value for example). The other nonsense aside, what do you think Kwark's "actual point" was? As usual this conversation went as most. I brought something up, you ask questions disingenuously with no interest in anything other than attacking it, you attacked it based on assumptions without ever understanding it, this goes on for a bit then I ask you a question and you won't answer it even after I answered a bunch of yours. So instead I have question for you. Please rank from best to worst on which place you would most like to be born in 2019. 1)In the USA as a African American 2)In China as a Uighur 3) In North Korea as anyone not in the ruling party 4) As a Kurd in Syria 5)As an indigenous person in Venezuela 6)As a Gay in Russia 7)As a Sunni in Iran 8)As a woman in Afghanistan The questions weren't disingenuous and I'd hoped it was more than empty hopes if you were to propose it seriously. As to the ranking, I recognize my privilege and am accustomed to it but I also recognize it's connection to the oppression all of those groups experience. I share a struggle with all oppressed peoples striving to be free. Grass is always greener but realistically I'd probably pick living with the guilt Then you should do some research on what it really is, what is has accomplished and what is possible for it to accomplish. You do not believe anything I write anyways so better for you to do your own research. If you were to be providing a critique on what was wrong with it and what could be done better it would be worthwhile, but you just say it does not work with out even understanding. I'm going to side with the massive amount of environmental engineers, environmental scientists and so on that think it along with circular economies, lowering over all consumption by upping quality, repairability, upgradeability and of course some socialist policies that bring down the top and raise the bottom to further educate the entire population will help and eventually solve (with a shit ton of hard work and change) the climate crisis.
You seem to not recognize my problem wasn't with EPR (which seems like a minimum for people that believe in capitalism to me), it was with forcing corporations in the US to do it through the legislative process that can't pass universal background checks with ~90% support by the public.
|
|
|
On August 23 2019 12:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2019 11:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2019 11:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 23 2019 11:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2019 09:46 JimmiC wrote:On August 23 2019 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2019 08:58 JimmiC wrote:
I thought you said EPR was not helping. EPR is not in the US, I thought even you knew this. Also the world is not fulling using it either. You seem to be arguing that is hasn't solved all the problems yet. No kidding, and even with full implementation it won't instantly do it. That is just not how the world works.
I'm with kwarks actual point behind his remark not the literal interpretation.
And you know nothing about my post because you actually know very little about the climate crisis and what is possible and what is not involved in stopping it. All you know is it another excuse to have your revolution. Basically more confirmation bias making up your decisions.
And since you have no interest in learning and only an interest in disproving anything I write, I'm not more interested in discussing it with you than I would be with a climate change denier.
I didn't say "EPR isn't helping" otherwise you'd quote it. Nor did I say the world was using it. You said that corporations should be forced to adopt it through legislation and I pointed out how that's hopeless with consideration for the fact that we've been actively trying to get universal background checks through that same legislative process with overwhelming public support for decades without success. You've said a lot but none of it really addressed that at all other than "California and NY will do it in the next 10 years and the country will follow" based on your hopes and the size of their markets (this would have to happen exponentially faster than it has for their gun laws [to the degree it has] to be of any value for example). The other nonsense aside, what do you think Kwark's "actual point" was? As usual this conversation went as most. I brought something up, you ask questions disingenuously with no interest in anything other than attacking it, you attacked it based on assumptions without ever understanding it, this goes on for a bit then I ask you a question and you won't answer it even after I answered a bunch of yours. So instead I have question for you. Please rank from best to worst on which place you would most like to be born in 2019. 1)In the USA as a African American 2)In China as a Uighur 3) In North Korea as anyone not in the ruling party 4) As a Kurd in Syria 5)As an indigenous person in Venezuela 6)As a Gay in Russia 7)As a Sunni in Iran 8)As a woman in Afghanistan The questions weren't disingenuous and I'd hoped it was more than empty hopes if you were to propose it seriously. As to the ranking, I recognize my privilege and am accustomed to it but I also recognize it's connection to the oppression all of those groups experience. I share a struggle with all oppressed peoples striving to be free. Grass is always greener but realistically I'd probably pick living with the guilt Then you should do some research on what it really is, what is has accomplished and what is possible for it to accomplish. You do not believe anything I write anyways so better for you to do your own research. If you were to be providing a critique on what was wrong with it and what could be done better it would be worthwhile, but you just say it does not work with out even understanding. I'm going to side with the massive amount of environmental engineers, environmental scientists and so on that think it along with circular economies, lowering over all consumption by upping quality, repairability, upgradeability and of course some socialist policies that bring down the top and raise the bottom to further educate the entire population will help and eventually solve (with a shit ton of hard work and change) the climate crisis. You seem to not recognize my problem wasn't with EPR (which seems like a minimum for people that believe in capitalism to me), it was with forcing corporations in the US to do it through the legislative process that can't pass universal background checks with ~90% support by the public. Yes your congress sucks. Lucky for you, as I mentioned the rest of the large markets are demanding it so the US will get some of the benefits. But sadly as long people who care throw there hands in the air and say nothing can be done instead of taking political action. Not much will change quickly. Just be glad unlike places like China you have the freedom to voice your displeasure, organize and apply pressure. This is just another example of why you need to also rally to change campaign finance laws and so on. Without them evil lobby groups who only care about profit for themselves like the NRA wont have as much say.
That's why I said "some of the benefits" are practically meaningless.
I'm certainly not throwing up my arms saying nothing can be done, but I'll let anyone else (it's basically a universally held opinion here) dispel you of the notion that fixing campaign finance laws is something we can address with our fptp and 2 party system. Then let them explain why we can't change those.
Even the most optimistic of them don't put it happening in the next decade, so your timeline is also totally unrealistic.
We agree EPR is a common sense requirement (to the degree it fits our preferred economic systems) our disagreement is how it could happen in the US and whether the path you offer has any viability. The argument you've made demonstrates it doesn't.
That's not me and my revolution talk, I don't think a single person here thinks that your plan to force corporations to reduce profits for social benefit by absorbing more of the externalities of production through legislation is remotely likely to even gain traction (as a conversation) for a decade and meaningful legislation for several more under the most optimistic scenarios of traditional electoralism.
Doesn't mean any of them agree revolution is more viable, but we can all see the futility of what you're prescribing.
|
|
|
On August 23 2019 15:27 JimmiC wrote:
Epr does not require them to reduce profits, it might happen it might not, in fact it will likely create increased profits for those who innovate their product, packaging, logistics and so on, when compared to their competition. And as I first mentioned businesses have not been that opposed to EPR as long as it is applied to everyone equally. It is many businesses belief that waste management, and so on, that would know be controlled by them, will be done better and more efficiently then was done by government.
Again many of your base assumptions are false because of your lack of depth of understanding about what some of these programs entail and the global reach of many of the major players. Once EPR hits a critical mass outdide the US corps will be wanting your government to pass similar rules as the expense of doing things different will be more then EPR.
The issue isn't my presumptions, it's your disregard for the political and economic situation in the US (and our foreign policy). I should ask what you mean by "in fact...more profitable" when profit explicitly is money taken from workers and social improvement for the personal interests of the ownership class but I think we've exhausted this for a while.
|
|
|
One of the two Kochs has died, which will leave a lobbying vacuum that will grow even larger once the other passes away.
|
|
|
Norway28597 Posts
On August 23 2019 21:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2019 15:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 23 2019 15:27 JimmiC wrote:
Epr does not require them to reduce profits, it might happen it might not, in fact it will likely create increased profits for those who innovate their product, packaging, logistics and so on, when compared to their competition. And as I first mentioned businesses have not been that opposed to EPR as long as it is applied to everyone equally. It is many businesses belief that waste management, and so on, that would know be controlled by them, will be done better and more efficiently then was done by government.
Again many of your base assumptions are false because of your lack of depth of understanding about what some of these programs entail and the global reach of many of the major players. Once EPR hits a critical mass outdide the US corps will be wanting your government to pass similar rules as the expense of doing things different will be more then EPR. The issue isn't my presumptions, it's your disregard for the political and economic situation in the US (and our foreign policy). I should ask what you mean by "in fact...more profitable" when profit explicitly is money taken from workers and social improvement for the personal interests of the ownership class but I think we've exhausted this for a while. Profit is when revenue exceeds expenses. So with EPR this could expand or contract depending on many factors. EPR won't even solve all the environmental problems let alone social ones. Sadly complex problems take many complex solutions. Anyone who tells you there is a simple fix is either a populist or does not even begin to understand the actual problem. What you are talking about wont get solved by EPR or any environmental policy. Sadly it is also not solved by any socialist government we have seen yet either. And has been best handled in what we describe as socialist democracies in the western world. I was wondering when you would move the goal posts. Not bad, took more posts then normal.
You know.. If you're gonna pretend to be a good faith actor, then the that latter sentence is the type of thing you first type out of frustration, but then edit out of your post later. Not something you edit to add on later to make your post more barbed.
Also Norway is not the solution to the climate problem. Average Norwegian still consumes 2-3-7x what the sustainable consumption level is (depending on your definition of sustainable), and we do that because we're so rich, and part of why we are so rich is because we're a major contributor to the pollution that plagues our planet.
I mean part of what has kept 'our' emissions numbers low is that we've been sending loads of money to Brazil to protect the rainforest. And then now with Bolsonaro seemingly being in the process of ruining that effort in half a year of being in power, I'm left thinking that this shit isn't gonna work out. This is god damn depressing tbh.
|
The awful shit in Brazil is just one more reason we need a global approach to the issue. Our understanding of climate and weather require that we regard public lands as not only nationally public, but also internationally public.
|
On August 23 2019 22:04 farvacola wrote:
One of the two Kochs has died, which will leave a lobbying vacuum that will grow even larger once the other passes away.
Thatcher mood
|
Glad to hear that one of the two Koch brothers has passed away; it's been a while since American politics had some good news. 1 down, 1 to go. Their advocacy, financing, and promotion of specific policies denied healthcare for people who need it, ignored the coming environmental catastrophe, persecuted marginalized groups, and exploited millions of vulnerable people, so our country will be in a better place when both of them are gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
