You're not a dumbass. You're important to us. Your annoying habit is turning our writings onto what you want to understand. That makes it difficult to argue with you, because we always have to go back to a "but that's not what I said" position.
TL;DR - Annoying, not dumb.
acket.
Anyway, Trying not to be annoying, also let’s just try to stay on topic.
Regardless of consumption, production or distribution, I think governments can discourage with additional taxes or encourage with tax credits. They can certainly specify more strict greener conditions if governments themselves are the buyers... whether it’s for building infrastructure or defense purchases or humanitarian aid.
When it comes to burning fossil fuel or eating non-meat meat, I just think governments or whatever agencies actually dictating how people should consume, how companies should produce and distribute products is over reaching.
Governments certainly need to regulate dishonest companies, but relatively honest companies making honest bucks by burning fossil fuels shouldn’t be penalized too harshly. Likewise non-meat meat producers shouldn’t all of a sudden dominate the market due to government manipulation... perhaps governments can help by buying such ‘green’ meats for their soldiers to eat 1st to help such company to be able to stand on its own at 1st. If such renewable meat is really tasty and healthy and cheap, it should catch on eventually.
Point is government bureaucracies shouldn’t be the ones telling businesses how to conduct their business. Governments also shouldn’t deny consumer choices. Help people make the right choices thru education or taxes(credits), otherwise don’t call yourself a democracy.
Here’s a good video.
Billi, governments do need to tell businesses how to operate.
Otherwise, without controls, businesses would cause real harm to people and the environment in order to keep making a profit.
Perhaps you’re wondering where you draw the line?
1. Science says that the world is heating up and recommends stopping at 2 (or something) degrees, and they give us 10 years before that threshold is reached.
2. And economists say many things about the state of the economy if we keep going as we are.
Government needs to make its decisions based on these.
But will the government do it?
No, not right now, because the elected people who run the government have got too many fingers in too many pockets. Tell me how that works as a functioning democracy.
Will people make the government change?
No, because they remain uneducated to the many issues that face them, and probably will remain so. You can’t have expertise on every subject.
Can people trust experts to tell them how to act?
Of course not. You’ve seen people rail against scientists on so many issues that it’s hard to keep track of them all.
So what’s the solution?
Well, one of them is to drive oil and coal companies, and the Murdoch media out of town with baseball bats and pitchforks.
Hmm - so opium is ok??Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
Govt do restrict things for "the greater good". I dont always agree with the decisions, but I think the concept is ok.
And sometimes they dont restrict, but tax the buggery out of it (tobacco, alcohol, fuel) and again I think thats not a bad way to balance equations.
If they are going to outright ban something, I think as long as there is a window to "wind down" its probably ok. Businesses can adapt.
Take the very simple FAA vs 737Max case.
FAA was caught with pants down. You’ll continue to trust regulatory agencies to be able to always do the moral thing let alone drawing lines...?
As for Boeing, I don’t think it was being completely greedy and evil and completely ignored safety for the sake of profits..., but clearly some shortcuts were made in the name of meeting ‘regulations’, trying to do whatever it can to make the Max like other 737s...
Anyway, my point is that if regulators cannot do its job in that case, what hope will there be for government to tell Boeing to stop making planes that burn fossil fuel?
I honestly think we’ll have a better chance at waiting for the Tesla’s of airplanes to come to the scene and disrupt the aviation industry. Yeah, without Tesla, how effective will government regulation be to help me get an EV? Sure we could also have a nazi govt banning ICE cars and jet planes too prematurely, but that kind of disruption might end up being greater than global warming itself.
You guys are definitely more morally right, but I just don’t think governments are that trustworthy or effective enough. Waiting for all the governments of the world to reach an agreement on climate change will probably happen after the return of Jesus.
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; May 28th, 2019 at 09:23 AM.
Just finished watching this video. I always thought batteries will eventually come in and save the day, but guess not? Perhaps as EVs becoming more popular, they could be utilized to power up the grid when needed?
Anyway, I think it's kinda obvious now that renewable energy alone won't solve CA's energy problems in the next few decades. We have rich tech companies, we have Tesla... we don't have that many climate change deniers nor Trump supporters blocking our efforts, but the reality is that there are still economic challenges to overcome using renewable tech.
As a state, it'll be better for us to come up with a viable solution that works for us first, rather than spending political resources fighting the Trump federal government over climate change.
If we can get it to work affordably, then naturally others will follow our lead much more willingly. What would be the point of fighting climate change politically? Even if we do get all the governments of the world to agree, then what? What will be the viable solution that we all can afford to implement?
That's my main point of argument. GM was inspired to build the Volt and the Bolt not because of government regulations, but because of Tesla. We need to fight climate change directly by coming up with practical solutions rather than just making it a political fight. Having more of these heated political debates will only result in more carbon emissions making our climate warmer!
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; May 28th, 2019 at 09:25 AM.
That wasn't my take on that at all. Everything I've heard was shortcuts were made in an effort to get it out the door and into the hands of customers, just like the the 787 Dreamliner. There have been a few ex engineers talking about the shortcuts they were asked to me and the problems they were ordered to ignore as the launch dates were slipping and more and more airlines were turning to Airbus.
I think we meant the same just that my wording is confusing...
Boeing introduced a software fix to make the Max behave more like regular 737s... that way airlines don’t have to retrain pilots, otherwise per regulation, airlines need additional training. Anyway, I don’t know the details but suffice to say that Boeing want to minimize advertising any new features on Max planes in order to avoid possible additional scrutiny that might cause further delays. If we make the Max just like any other 737, then FAA can rest assured that everything will be just fine. But of course Max isn’t quite exactly the same.
I think I probably should've wrote the following:
"but clearly some shortcuts were made in the name of avoiding recertification, trying to do whatever it can to make the Max like other 737s"
BTW, just because bad things happen, by no means do I want us to abolish regulatory agencies. It'd be crazy for us to abolish the FAA because of Max or SEC because of financial crisis. When failures occurred, it'll be easier for these regulatory agencies to figure out how to prevent these failures in the future. They are just not very good a predicting future never before seen failures and preventing them from happening. (I suppose if that were to really happen, then I'll never know so I could be wrong.)
Climate change is clearly some sort of failure that's going to happen in the future. Will bureaucrats be our best choice at predicting future new airplane accidents and new financial tsunamis or climate issues and be able to pre-emptively prevent them? Maybe, but I personally highly doubt that.
If we were to try that by playing super safe and make it hard for companies to try new things, Boeing most likely won't be able to afford to design brand new airplanes. Economy will probably grind to a halt, but at least earth probably will become few degrees cooler.
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; May 29th, 2019 at 09:25 AM.
Randomly saw this TED video on youtube:
It's old and was posted back in 2014!
Anyway, I kinda like his idea. Collect carbon tax, but then redistribute all that's collected and give it to everyone evenly. If gas prices are going to increase, at least give the mass some money to offset this increase. Should minimize riots.
IMHO, cap and trade is kinda bogus. Why should Tesla benefit off of GM like that? Rather than making it some sort of artificial money game amongst the rich or the big corporations, that additional tax should just be given to everyone to help offset the additional cost of going green. As things become greener, these additional costs will become no more and we end up receiving no more additional money and things go back to normal.
It'll be harder harder for GM to sell gas guzzling trucks and easier for Tesla to sell EVs and all this will be decided thru 'free market' rather than just big companies playing the cap and trade game just between themselves.
Seriously, if Tesla goes belly up, who will GM trade with? Other less greener companies?
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; June 4th, 2019 at 02:31 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote