Obama's piece in Science magazine
Here it is, Obama's contribution to "legacy" -- he's got a paper now in Science magazine, the quintessential source for new scientific output:
The irreversible momentum of clean energy
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/01/06/science.aam6284
Check out the abstract:
Private-sector incentives help drive decoupling of emissions and economic growth.
The editors at Science know what an abstract is, and obviously they're letting this fly. Does Obama know what an abstract is?
Anywho, time to take a look at the piece itself. Here's the snake oil:
the mounting economic and scientific evidence leave me confident that trends toward a clean-energy economy that have emerged during my presidency will continue and that the economic opportunity for our country to harness that trend will only grow
Yay trends! Here's a trend:
US oil output increased to a 44-year high in April
So okay now let's review. The problem with climate change mitigation, with how to make it happen, is essentially a problem of keeping the grease in the ground. If you want to stop carbon burning, you have to stop carbon production.
But oil production is up 75% since 2009. OK, so when was it Obama took office?
But let's take a look at the statistical support Obama offers to support his claim that we're headed toward a "clean energy economy":
Specifically, CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5% from 2008 to 2015, while the economy grew by more than 10%. In this same period, the amount of energy consumed per dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP) fell by almost 11%, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy consumed declined by 8%, and CO2 emitted per dollar of GDP declined by 18%.
The thing is that none of this statistical stuff means anything in terms of changes in the physical world. First off, all of the statistics in this quote are tied to GDP. GDP in today's casino economy is more a measure of asset inflation and deflation than of anything else. This, by the way, is written into the definition of GDP. GDP "measures" asset inflation as well as economic growth, and mixes them together under one statistic. Here's what Investopedia says:
Rising asset prices are potentially misleading signs of a growing economy. Even if the stock market grows or houses are more valuable, no real economic goods are directly produced. Those values are very sensitive and volatile, possibly creating the illusion of growth through asset bubbles.
The other likelihood is that Obama is cherry-picking his statistics for energy "emission." As global oil production is up, so also emissions must be up.
What is Obama's biggest policy claim? Increased energy efficiency:
My Administration has put in place (i) fuel economy standards that are net beneficial and are projected to cut more than 8 billion tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of new vehicles sold between 2012 and 2029 (10) and (ii) 44 appliance standards and new building codes that are projected to cut 2.4 billion tons of carbon pollution and save $550 billion for consumers by 2030 (11).
But merely because energy is consumed more efficiently doesn't mean that less overall energy is being consumed! See especially the scenario put forth by John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York, in which increased energy efficiency also leads to increased consumption because the scale of production increases. Meanwhile Obama likes to fling about phrases in support of corporate energy efficiency initiatives such as:
This kind of corporate decision-making can save money, but it also has the potential to create jobs that pay well.
Ah yes. Jobs that pay well. What was the summary statistic gracing my 55th birthday? Oh yeah.
94% of new jobs during Obama era were part-time
And what on Earth is "clean energy"? Does that include natural gas obtained through fracking?
*****
Well there it is. Obama's attempt to construct his "legacy" by promoting the "free market" (i.e. he didn't do anything) as the climate change mitigation savior.
Make of it what you will.
Comments
I hope
the door will hit him where the DNA slit him.
Good riddance to false hope and no change.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Seems like this is an essay establishing capitalist street creds
Sorta like an essay some of my potential employers have me write to evaluate me as a candidate.
Well now you have an essay
You can use to model yours. And don't feel guilty abt plagiarism - The Liar in Chief showed little guilt about any of the crimes accomplished during his Administration. (From largest modern heist of middle class income over to One Percent, to BP's destruction of the Gulf, to taking down the First Amendment, for good, over Christmas.)
Believing in the improbable can make your life a miracle.
ue, 01/10/2017 - 11:06pm —
ue, 01/10/2017 - 11:06pm — MrWebster New
Gotta agree there! And perhaps to establish the new field of virtual science (beloved by his White House best bud, Google Corp? And polluting industry, of course, but if plans have remained the same, Obama enters virtual reality now, as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley) replacing actual science; it was published in a scientific journal, so (image being everything) it's virtually science?
Hardly matters to those within the group who believe that they can create their own reality and somehow make it really real, science so often being reality-based and all and both therefore disposable by any other name whenever expedient.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Mr president, you're no Scientist.
Mr. president, I
served(work) with Scientists.I
knew(know) Scientists.Scientists
was a(are) friend(s) of mine.Mr. president, you're no Scientist
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-7gpgXNWYI]
This is the title of the article ?????
The irreversible momentum of clean energy
Indeed that is its title!
Make of it what you will.
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
The title of an article in SCIENCE
a publication were words actually are supposed to mean something. This is embarrassing "word salad":
Maybe I should contact ASU and beg them to retract / rescind my PhD. If this belongs in Science I do not belong in science.
I read the title three times before realizing it was political.
I guess I expected science stuff in a journal like Science. Silly me.
The 'abstract' should have been sufficient warning, but I tried to read the actual article. I kind of doubt that they would have published it if you or I had sent it in. Of course Obama hasn't had to get any technical articles past a PhD committee.
It may be petty for me to be so ticked off about this considering all the other things BHO has done and all the promises he failed to keep. I guess I just feel that he demeaned those of us who have honestly done some research.
Interesting to know that Science is now a political rag.
"articles past a PhD committee."
And The Moment: I'll now ask the candidate to step out into the hall as we · · · Yes ?, please close the door.
No, see it must be a science joke...
"clean energy" refers to solar and thus (massless) photons and so... E= momentum * c...
Yeah, well. OK that doesn't work...
Irreversible momentum. Alrighty then.
Hold on, maybe they think of "irreversible momentum" as similar to "inevitable".
Uh oh, like in Hillary's inevitable. Shit, that doesn't work either.
I've got nothing.
I found this site a few weeks ago:
Now I can speak in my native lanquage:
<center><img src="http://latex.codecogs.com/svg.latex? \left( mc^{2} \right)^{2} = E^{2} - \left( \mathbf{p} c \right)^{2} = 0 \implies E = \mathbf{p} c " border="0"/></center>
Another science joke · · · No? · · · Ta-Boom-Tisss, Exit Stage Right.
I'll join you even though my speciality is fluid dynamics and
not climate change. It's an opinion piece at best, not a scientific paper.
I learned a couple of relevant truths in fluid dynamics...
Shit rolls downhill, and scum rises to the top.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
Not "Go with the Flow!", hum, another one of those !
It sounds like a grade school
It sounds like a grade school essay or short story title, which is appropriate enough for a brag sheet designed for suckers.
I used to think that Obama was at least smart in some respects, even if he'd proven himself unworthy of respect in so many appalling ways... guessing that following the brainwashing process necessary on many cases to make people suicidally murderous of all life on the planet, TPTB really do toss out the brain cells with the bathwater, to obviate all chance of recovery... and perhaps that's the real reason for corporate gifting of insanely high-paid positions to politicians after their leaving office, programmed out of all employability? Just tossing a theory out there to be tested scientifically.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Obama the BSer in Chief
is putting his resume out there to let the corps know how he will continue to polish their shit for them. He is available starting what, in about 10 days or so?
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better.
both - Albert Einstein
Science magazine allowing Obama to post an article
is as appropriate as was bestowing the the Nobel
pisspeace medal on this warmongering, self-justifying fraud. (now that is a scientific statement, as the soon-to-be-expresident has satisfied all statistical requirements and my assertion is replicable by others). Furthermore, empirical evidence has revealed significant faults in his methodology. For one, as you said Cass, 94% of new jobs were part-time = no benefits other than pay. Many of those new jobs went to burger flippers (a class of people that Killary did not think was worth a living wage--but I digress.Since we are discussing energy, how about "clean coal"?
Source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Barack_Obama_statements_on_coal
So why not clean coal? We have the planet's greatest supply right under our feet. Yay for clean coal! Wait a minute, what exactly is clean coal?
Clean coal technology:
Types of processes include "coal washing", Nitogen oxide burners, electrostatic precipitators, gasification, etc.
Two of these processes have interesting components.
Gypsum
Hence gypsum particulates are unhealthy. How is the environment protected from gypsum particulate when produced from flue gas on a massive scale? If the the conversion process is not 100% efficient, then byproducts such as H2SO4 (sulfuric acid) are produced, i.e., the stuff causing acid rain.
Question: how does one clean a mixture of CO and H2? Where is the contaminant other than CO which is inimicable to life and H2 which is explosive? And this mixture containing one toxic gas and one explosive gas is to be contained how? And again how efficient is the process? The less efficient, the greater the CO (carbon monoxide) release.
So what is the hype about clean coal, the magic solution to our energy woes? The myth of clean coal.
The news is not all bad, but coal should only be regarded as a stepping stone to truly green energy.
Clean Coal - Radioactivity Free Energy Source
The EPA does not monitor the radioactive dust that wafts away from fly ash, the waste from coal fired power plants.
Even though it is very easy to track the radioactivity in the dust you breath daily, the EPA does not opt to do so because the half-life of this ubiquitous radiation is too small. The EPA is more interested in the long lived activity and therefore reports radiation levels in the air 30,000 time smaller than the true values.
No scientist there, not much of a lawyer or community
organizer, no wonder we got Trump.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
"Make of it what you will"
What else is there to make of the graph, then disaster. Awful.
Wow! Clean Energy has irreversible momentum?
-Like in a perpetual motion machine? -Or is irreversible momentum how a tardis works? How nice that the President Just Leaving could be so science-ey! Too bad that he was prevented (probably by ROOSHINS!) from doing this kind of Big Science back when offshore drilling in the Gulf gave us the world's first FUVFO. (Fuck-Up Visible From Orbit)
REALLY? Gosh, Sir, all I remember from your Presidency was that giant, misshapen question mark in the Gulf of Mexico, pro-fracking rules to keep people from suing the frackers for damages, mountain-top removal mining, a giant oil spill on the river that runs through my hometown, and let's not forget the inspiring vision of you sitting on your hands pretending that the POTUS couldn't put a stop to mercenary thugs using rubber bullets, bear-strength pepper-spray, and water cannons in sub-zero weather, while trying to make the Standing Rock Sioux Water Protectors give in to Corporate Manifest Destiny.
Is that the clean-energy economy that emerged during your Presidency that you meant? The one where various states have been allowed to put laws in place to make it miserably hard, or even impossible, for people to achieve actual energy independence using alternative energy, and even get off the grid? Would that be the flaccid commitment to solar power that leaves places like sunny Germany way ahead of us on that score? -That has India, not the USA, currently operating the largest solar power facility in the world? -THAT clean-energy economy that emerged during your Presidency, Sir?
I'd just like to know, Mr. Not-Quite-Finished-Being-President, because science is supposed to be reproducible, and I'm not getting those same observations about the clean-energy economy that emerged during your Presidency, that YOU obviously have had. Over here, we are having trouble trying to replicate your results. On careful study of your 8-year experiment, we find that your conclusions are, in the greatest portion of cases, unsupported by available data. We HOPE you will contact us if your conclusions CHANGE.
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes
Your satirical comment deserves attention!
It's artfully entertaining and biting.
AnotherPeasant!
AnotherPeasant!
*applauds loudly while standing in awe*
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I had a whole tirade all planned out but then I thought
why bother. I already know whatever comes out if his mouth is a lie. But I did get a kick out of his writing for a scientific publication and trying to pull off a tall tale about what a great leader he's been in the energy/climate area.
That was funny. Or it would be if our planet weren't in great distress thanks to that frauds support for dirty oil and for fracking. His 'legacy' will be what he allowed the thug cops to do to Native Americans trying to protect their land.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Obama's "legacy": he didn't do anything
Unless you want to count his strenuous efforts to mislead, misrepresent, deceive, dupe, beguile, fake, prevaricate, invent, concoct, equivocate, fib, fudge, falsify, palter, plant, misstate, distort, dissemble, delude, misinform, exaggerate, fabricate, malign, forswear, perjure, dissimulate, con, string along, soft-soap, misspeak, put up a front, be untruthful, bear false witness, break many promises, go back on, misinstruct, make believe, misguide, BS, ...
Good riddance, Barry! Get Lost and Stay Lost.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Obama wrote this? That's a good joke. I just can't laugh./nt
The joke --
is that Science published it.
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
yeo, sure, though it's not a joke, but a yuuuuge shame/nt
Wed, 01/11/2017 - 10:45am —
Wed, 01/11/2017 - 10:45am — mimi
And a damn scary one.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
redacted - double post /nt
Obama may not have written it all by himself.
.
It is not clear how much these other folks contributed to the drafting and editing--not to mention the research.
perhaps he did as much on the
perhaps he did as much on the article as Sessions did on all those court cases that, at most, he may have lent his signature to.
And the one-sentence abstract --
is there to lend authenticity to the document?
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
Wed, 01/11/2017 - 12:05pm —
Wed, 01/11/2017 - 12:05pm — asterisk
Lol, I'll bet he didn't read it either, once it was outsourced to a group of bright but starving 11-year-olds literally dying for a job paying them each a whole slice of bread.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
"Where is Sasha"? ....
Where was Sasha during Obama's farewell speech?
My dog Sasha sniffed around and transferred to me her research results on that from an undisclosed location. (I knew I named my rescued dog "Sasha" after the "Obama daughter Sasha" for a good reason. They both are good girls.)
My Sasha tells me:
1. Sasha-O hides under the Sidwell Friend's school's tables expecting father Obama and Putin to just bomb the heck out of the world. (you got it girl)
2. Sasha sits at the Sidwell's Friends school table to edit father Obama's unscientific Babylonian babble for the Science magazine to "set the record straight". She needs to teach the "Science" magazine AND and her father a lesson or two. (brava Sasha)
3. Sasha kicks the Sidwell Friend's school table down the street and decides to become a revolutionary, no matter what her father says. (that will secure her the next peace nobel price, and she deserves it, you are my hero, girl.)
ok. done.
Obama has been ineffective in climate change mitigation
While we have made gains in deploying renewables, it has been a pittance and ineffective in light of the scope of the environmental damage. The US actually consumes less oil and coal. Of course that has been made up by natural gas consumption.
In a capitalist system, the only way to reduce climate change is to charge for the damage green house gases cause (ie carbon tax). While Obama has been no saviour, Trump is promising our our fast track to ecological hell.
Oil production is up 75% under Obama.
Who is consuming that oil?
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
exporting oil
The toads in Washington lifted the ban on exporting American oil.
Hey, toads would never do
Hey, toads would never do that - they know how deadly oil is to living things like themselves! Their warts might, though...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I was talking about domestic policy
sorry I wasn't more clear.
And may I suggest an alternative to this:
You and everyone else are still under the spell cast by the society of money, in which everyone assumes that, if money changes hands in a different way, climate change will somehow magically be mitigated.
The problem with a carbon tax, as I've repeated a number of times in this forum, is that it doesn't really do anything in itself, and because the doing that needs to be done is far more extensive than that tiny amount of doing that will be coerced by the "economic incentive" of a carbon tax. John Bellamy Foster's critique of the James Hansen carbon tax makes this clear:
This is the thing, then. Whole infrastructures need to be replaced, and vast transformations of society need to be made (reducing total global energy consumption, for instance, to that which can be satisfied by alternative energy sources). A carbon tax isn't going to accomplish any of that.
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
↑↑↑↑↑ This needs to be Emphasized ! ↑↑↑↑↑
I am not very sympathetic to the "Reality Based" crowd that requires (when it suits their agenda) "Legitimate" sourcing for every niggling factoid, that's part of the reason I no longer visit sites that will not be named.
Working from foundational (read emergent) principles is the only life I have lived. So, I can (as many of you also can) list step-by-step instructions for extricating us from this quagmire into which we have sunk. The first instruction is don't panic.
Unfortunately, out in the real world, only meta-arguments seem to be allowed, because only fuzzy political speech is allowed. That's why I often allude to the "Manhattan Project" as a guide, and a cautionary tale. We can institute solutions but we must be ever vigilant as the politicians will most assuredly do their damnedest to screw it up.
And OilCos still get $10s Billions in tax breaks
OilCos some of the most profitable companies on the planet. Welfare for polluters.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Exactly! A carbon tax passed
Exactly! A carbon tax passed along to the consumer might price fossil fuels (and transported food, etc.) out of the range of many Americans but they'll starve, freezing in the dark, as the expendables they are, before they'll be offered any choice of green energy sources in many areas.
There's no money for infrastructure of any kind, never mind a green energy shift, but there are billions of US public dollars to spend annually on propagandizing the American public, trillions to spend on attacking other people's countries to kill them and take their stuff for further corporate/billionaire enrichment, however many trillions for OTHER corporate welfare 'needs' in multiple areas, ranging from tax breaks and 'incentives' to food stamps for starving employees so that they can live to work another day at starvation wages for multi-billionaire owners...
Too bad national and international security issues regarding intertwined human/environmental survival are considered so ignorable by TPTB and their lackeys in government, or life on the planet might have a better chance...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Context: Congress now exists merely to preserve profit rates.
"I'm a climate scientist and I think about political economy now and then. The status quo is totally kewl but omigod we GOTTA DO SOMETHING about climate change!" they say.
Hopefully everyone in this diary has read Steven D's piece earlier on Joseph Romm:
http://www.caucus99percent.com/content/my-response-joe-romms-medium-essa...
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
I limited my statement to the constructs of a capitalist society
You are arguing for something altogether different.
You are right, a carbon tax in and of itself won't do anything. But as we have learned, government can reduce consumption by increasing the cost or increase consumption with subsidies - again in a capitalist system.
One example of reducing consumption that has worked is cigarette taxation. Smoking cessation has saved thousands of lives. I understand we still grow tobacco and export it to other, primarily poor countries. However, that does not negate the fact that punitive taxes move people away from cigarettes.
We heavily subsidize fossil fuels and have a corresponding dependency on them. I am not sure why you would oppose removing these subsidies and implementing taxes instead. It can be done immediately.
I agree with our need to transform our society,.I totally disagree with your position on carbon taxes.
If you don't understand where I'm coming from --
addressing my argument might help.
All they are doing with a carbon tax is making the consumers jump through more hoops while leaving the producers unrestrained. If they actually wanted to do something about climate change, say physical climate change mitigation, they'd advocate open restraint of the producers. Let's start with the nationalization of the fossil fuel industries and proceed from there.
The analogy with cigarettes is invalid. People don't need to smoke cigarettes in order to get to work or to heat their homes. And please tell us how the grid is going to be run entirely off of solar power tomorrow. There is no global infrastructure dedicated to the consumption of tobacco like there is for fossil fuels. This is why fossil fuel consumption is locked in. The problem is only solved by unlocking the locked-in consumption, not by taxing it.
Carbon taxes are like much of the small-time Obama measures that appear on the websites praising his greater glory -- Lilly Ledbetter or something like that. They[re political cosmetics. Nobody is going to pass a carbon tax high enough to keep the working class from getting to work, and there's only so much nice pseudo-environmentalist publicity that can be milked out of "discretionary" carbon consumption (you know, the type of carbon consumption ordinary people pursue so they can enjoy life when they're not pursuing mandatory carbon consumption). But I suppose a little minor pain in well-off places like California or British Columbia is necessary so that privileged folks can feel like they're doing something.
Carbon taxes are bourgeois. They reinforce the notion popular among the neoliberal elites that people are "utility maximizers," and that all that's necessary to save us from climate change disaster is a few minor adjustments to our glorious present-day utopia of money.
Carbon taxes are a dead end. Get on with the real business of transforming society.
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
May I second that !
Or maybe better yet: "I'll see your 'consumption' / 'taxing' and raise you an 'assumption' / 'reinforcing'.
Action is needed (like yesterday) and politicians (and unfortunately some in the STEM community) owned by corporations will never simply do what is needed no matter how much evidence piles up. There are no physical barriers to generating significant changes in a short time. I see a lack of political will and as I have lamented here before: Is there not at least one thing we can all agree must be done to (in this case) force immediate action?
All this talk of leading a horse to water, and using a carrot rather than a stick, just serves to obscure your extremely important point:
That's actually how it worked with cigarettes
It became socially unacceptable to be seen smoking them in public. That, and not taxes, drove demand down to the point that the tobacco companies found it necessary to exploit populations that have not yet reached that level of sophistication.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
There is nothing mutually exclusive...
...about enacting a carbon tax and building out the infrastructure.
Whole infrastructures need to be replaced, and vast transformations of society need to be made (reducing total global energy consumption, for instance, to that which can be satisfied by alternative energy sources).
And then what...you are going to shut them down because we shouldn't be producing any because we have to leave it in the ground ? And what will this do exactly for the USA Almost every other oil producing country has nationalized their oil companies and they aren't reducing their production and consumption on behalf of climate change.
It's perfectly valid. Healthcare as an industry and a service is critically important to life. What happens in the US when we raise the cost of it to the population ? There is less consumed...Econ 101.
So your requirement is we need to drastically change our consumption tomorrow...and then you say this -
What's the timeline on this solution ?
But back to your question about the grid, the last step in resolving grid supply with 100% renewables is power storage. We already have the technology and resources to supply all our power needs. The problem is we cannot retain the power to be deployed on demand. This is the holy grail in the renewable energy field.
In countries where there is no reliable grid, it would be better to have distributed generation. Each population center would have it's own micro grid rather than create large infrastructures to transport power from a massive power plant to remote locations.
Again, there are no valid reasons not to adopt a carbon tax. You can use other strategies to reduce green house gases simultaneously.
What's the timeline on this solution ?
How is that even a meaningful / helpful question. I do not inhabit a world where that question can be answered any more precisely than "As soon as possible which we hope is soon enough!"
I keep going back to the Manhattan Project. It took three years to develop the technology that was describable on the back of an envelope in a matter of minutes (literally). Prior to the start of the project no one could have predicted the course of the project. And, no one was able to predict the stupidity of the politicians. Well, okay, Leo Szilard knew, and we know how well that went.
Good point
I wasn't the one that introduced the timing issue. But that is all the more reason to pursue a carbon tax and other potential solutions.
You seem to have lost the thread of your own argument here.
"There are no valid reasons not to adopt a carbon tax" why? I pointed out several valid reasons already, and you have not addressed a single one of them. The most important one is that ineffective measures, measures which distract from the real solutions by playing economic footsie with the working class, turn people against those who would otherwise spend their time advocating effective measures.
By any measure accessible to a debate coach (and I was a debate coach), I win. Resolved: carbon taxes are a waste of time and of the public's money.
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
Congratulations - you win
But forgive me for not thinking the entire world will go thru "vast transformations" and begin comprehensive "infrastructure replacement". I wonder is there a plan for making this happen or will the people of the world have some sort of epiphany ?
It's easy to come up with a plan --
here's one I've reiterated several times on this blog:
1) The government creates a car company, issuing all electric vehicles.
2) For a period of time everyone is granted a free electric vehicle in exchange for their fossil-burning one.
3) At some point the gas pumps are shut off.
This sort of exchange can be repeated for whatever fossil fuel use exists in society.
As for vast transformations, climate change itself will produce one. Watch what happens when the icecaps melt and much of Florida goes underwater.
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
1a: Government builds electric charging points everywhere
Without that step, 2 is pointless and 3 isn't going to happen.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Well, the Fracking Queen
Well, the Fracking Queen would certainly have been no better.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Fracking Not Mentioned Once In The Abstract
Selective amnesia ??
I didn't bother read it. Because Fuck Obama.
GasCos still will not tell us what they are pumping in the ground to frack oil and gas. At current rate, all the major US aquifers will be poisoned with no way to clean them. Better learn how to collect rain water off your roof because that will be the only clean water left.
Oh and Oklahoma earth quakes in fracking land have increased as fracking increased.
"We know that Oklahoma experienced 623 magnitude 3+ earthquakes in 2016, 903 in 2015, 579 in 2014 and 109 in 2013."
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Carbon Tax is counter productive
and may be regressive.
Companies that pay the Carbon Tax directly will pass the "overhead" on down the economic ladder to the consumers. So, the Carbon Tax will just be part of the cost of doing business. In an economy obsessed with the "bottom line", as long as you can charge more for the output, who the hell cares. This extra charge gets passed to the poor schmucks that have to live with one more "plop" in the bucket.