Most extensive Climate report ever shows Disaster underway

I've been interested in the freegan movement and how a quarter of our food ends up in the dump without even being opened for consumption. The amount of food waste belies the lost resources and greenhouse gases needed to produce, move and store a good that never serves it's intended purpose.

The lesson here is that individual consumer actions can't make a dent on goods that are subsidized throughout it's entire product cycle.

Refuse to eat meat to reduce your footprint? Doesn't matter, it's still profitable for groceries and restaurants to over produce and throw away a quarter of their food.

Spend and invest on measures to reduce water usage in your house? Doesn't matter because agriculture takes up most of our clean water usage and a quarter of it goes to the landfills.

We are truly a land of plenty. So bountiful that we choose to have people starve out of principle.

Blessed are the aww schucks millionaire Iowa farmers deciding our political futures and their billion dollar handouts.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/

 

like Soviet planners, just make sure your predictions are at least 10+ years out, so when they don't come to pass, everyone has forgotten and you've already cashed in on the noteriety

 

the dead giveaway is the remedy for this is always forcible restrictions on human activity and/or confiscation of wealth

 

Sorry, the level of civil unrest, unemployment, and massive inflation will be far worse if we do nothing - all leading to war.

I doubt a carbon tax is going to lead to war! But I don't think a carbon tax is the right solution. The right solution is for the world to work together in a global initiative on multiple fronts to do the following:

1. Improve nuclear power's safety and efficiency
2. Make a global effort to eradicate coal as a source of power within 10 years using nuclear, solar, and wind
3. Continue to work to make all things more energy efficient from appliances to factory machines to automobiles
4. Invest heavily in finding ways to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere
5. Invest in finding ways to increase the earth's albedo
6. Invest in nuclear fusion as a global moonshot project

 

Al gore predicted we had 10 years left to save the world. That was 12 years ago.

 

Catch, dude.

 

Sorry where did it say Al Gore was a scientist?

 

You mean like Obama did when he gave tax breaks for people buying electric cars. By which your dear old leader ended.

 

Instead of haphazardly handing out petty insults, you should stick to the facts. The tax credits were set to expire.

 

Nobody has forgotten, simmer down.

 

When tax cuts are set to expire Republicans say you raised taxes. That car drives both ways.

 

You are misquoting me. OP is suggesting we should make a clean break from dirty fuel. Its impracticable.

 

Explain to me how a tax credit on a product that is barely being purchased considered a tax increase if that tax credit expires?

Or you can admit that your response was petty and with absolutely no thought outside of trying to be a contrarian that has nothing to do with this topic.

You're stooping to SweetLou's level. Congrats.

 

Which were not renewed by Trump which my point.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-and-gms-tax-incentives-are-about-to-run-out-2018-6

Also in the article. China is stepping up thier push for cleaner vehicles where trump's EPA wants to get rid of fuel efficient standards. Really embarrassing when China has better policies in place then the Trump led EPA

 

They were never expected to be renewed long before Trump came in office. There were long discussions about reserving for the Tesla 3 in hope's of getting a tax rebate. The Tesla 3 was suppose to be one of the first affordable cars for the average person. Before, the tax rebate was only helping those who could afford the expensive electric cars.

By your ridiculous logic, I can easily argue the tax breaks were for the rich.

Suggesting we should extend the tax break is a valid discussion. Claiming Trump ended them only shows you're an ingeniune partisan hack.

 

Man... There's a lot of hard headed idiots in this thread.

 

I laughed.

Welcome to 8 years ago. Why don't you list, in English, the rules for politics as you know them so we can follow your minefield to precision.

Is allowing tax cuts to expire "raising taxes"?
Republicans and Democrats war over how to represent the end of the Bush tax cuts

You as a non-Trump voter, frequent Trump apologist should bathe in the irony of talking about anyone stooping to anyone's level considering your being an apologist for the scummiest of the scum of the Earth currently leading our country. You have more harsh words for random internet posters than for the lying, ignorant, brain damaged fool and bigot in the White House.

 

There’s been studies from the last twenty years commissioned by big companies and the DoD over creating net neutral carbon emissions and reducing our dependence over importing fossil fuels. It’s possible and it definitely wouldn’t bankrupt or destroy the economy. It would essentially pay for itself by eliminating our trade deficits with OPEC while creating new economies of scale over industries like biofuel and energy efficient machines.

The main reason for economic complaints is that the technologies are disruptive and ruin or marginalize capital investments and R&D oil majors and car companies have poured over half a century into.

Not that it would ruin them, but the dent to their bottom line and starting from zero along with startups isn’t the most profitable way to run a business.

 

If you are a climate change denier - ignore below...


If carbon emission include the true price of cleaning it up, what would that be? Why is it that society have a bill me later, while some companies and individuals profit nicely today? Isn't this a future obligation placed on society for the benefit of the few now? Why couldn't we have a system that include the cost of future prediction of carbon impact in some fund for future mitigation (btw, gets better by the day and will improve dramatically with new modeling and our compute capability). We could have a 5-10 years re-balancing. If the prediction is too aggressive, return the fund back, if it spot on, continue, if it's not aggressive enough, pay up. I'm just spouting out things, but it seems we are all too comfortable and lazy to consider our current impacts... we want the benefit now and not care about future obligation. What happen to people that chooses to live that way on a daily basis? What would happen to society that chooses to live that way on a daily basis?

p.s. I'm talking about carbon above, but it could really apply to anything that has significant impact to society.

 

Grow some moral spine, I gave a serious honest response and instead of responding you attack me personally. You're the one stooping, and you are stooping to scumbag level.

You want people to take you seriously, don't being such a POS.