/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11368750

How about you unchange the weather, and I pay less taxes?

>>11368750
The main purpose of the CO2 tax is to create a level playing field.
Firm A, cheating with cheap tech that puts out a lot of CO2, won't get a competitive edge over Firm B that uses a clean way to make the product.
The tax collected is not the main point, it's peanuts compared to the effects it has when firms adjust their practices to maximize their profits.

>>11368762
Except that CO2 is retarded layman measure which says pure fuckall about a firm's real impact on the climate and overall entropy and/or polution balances.

Firm B produces a high entropy battery powered car by using Lithium mined by company C who fucks up all the acquifiers in South America and kills off several million square kilometers of forests while dumping effluent streams into the ocean.

But hey, if my tax money goes towards subsidising B and making Elon top Bezos in Fortune 500 then at least I can be a smug, self righteous faggot about all of it.

>>11368750
>its your job to recycle to save the environment
>if you don’t do free work for the government filtering ecologically unfriendly materials that somebody else made you should feel bad

>murder for (((human rights))) and get shiny pin

>>11368750
Flawless logic.

>>11368776
>claims to care about the environment when taxes are brought up
>doesn't care about global warming damaging the environment when there are no taxes
Gee, what a coincidence

>>11368762
How come it's the consumers, not the company, who pays the tax?

>>11368786
Ah right, because they would still be made if you didn't buy them...

>>11368936
It's whoever emits that pays the tax. You might as well ask why you pay for the product even though a company made it.

>>11368938
>It's whoever emits that pays the tax.
Lol no.
>>>/x/

>>11368937
>Ah right, because they would still be made if you didn't buy them
>durr if u love the environment so much why do u buy silicon wafer technology!!11!
You are retarded beyond repair, I am sorry. There is no hope for you.

>>11368949
Not an argument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

>>11368966
If you are not responsible for the costs of products you buy, why do you pay for their manufacture?

>>11368975
>If you are not responsible for the costs of products you buy, why do you pay for their manufacture?
Because in order to function and be competitive in contemporary society, I need to own a phone? And if I decide to take a moral stance against silicon wafer technology because they don't deal with the waste properly, that I'm just fucking myself? Because if I, as an individual, make any decision it's not going to change literally anything?

>>11368750
>you pollute or you pay because somebody has to mop up your mess

>>11368937
>>11368975
VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR! YAAAAS! CONSCIOUS CONSUMERISM! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAS!

>>11368987
>Because in order to function and be competitive in contemporary society, I need to own a phone?
Then you ate responsible for the costs of its manufacture.

>waaaaah I wanna get all the benefits but none of the costs
>don't twead on me waaaaaaaaah

>>11368997
>missing the point this badly
It doesn't matter whether you buy it. If you do you pay for its cost.

>>11368750
>weather
wew lad

>>11368998
>Then you ate responsible for the costs of its manufacture.
>It doesn't matter whether you buy it. If you do you pay for its cost.
>NPC repeats the same non sequitur over and over again
Can you understand basic English? The "cost" is "being paid for" whether I personally pay for its cost or not. Moreover, if I don't "pay for its cost" I'm consequently at a massive disadvantage based on an arbitrary moral value given to ecological spending. Do you not see the negative feedback in place, preventing any bottom-up change from happening? Do you actually want to have a discussion? Or do you only have a single NPC dialogue tree?

>>11368932
not him but if you think CO2 is a "weather knob" you can twist, you're an idiot

>>11369032
>i have no argument

>>11369030
>Can you understand basic English? The "cost" is "being paid for" whether I personally pay for its cost or not.
But you're responsible for it. This is like whining about having to pay for the cost of materials and manufacturing in the products you buy.

>Moreover, if I don't "pay for its cost" I'm consequently at a massive disadvantage based on an arbitrary moral value given to ecological spending.
What the fuck are you babbling about?

>Do you not see the negative feedback in place, preventing any bottom-up change from happening?
No.

>>11369032
CO2 effects climate, not weather. Way to out yourself as a complete moron.

>>11369070
Congrats your IQ is negative.

>>11369109
Not an argument. Try again.

>wanting to stop climate change

>pay more taxes so we can bring democracy and freedom to iran

Yes, Climate change being real and "Climate Change" being a global political and taxation racket are not mutually exclusive concepts

>>11368750
It's retarded to try to put a tax on literal CO2 emissions, and it's disingenuous.
Are we pretending that across any industrial system you can can accurately measure carbon emissions?

I guess you could add a tax energy produced like they do with coal, or a simple sales tax on a fossil fuel commodity like they do in places with a "carbon tax", but you're still not taxing the actual CO2. How the energy is extracted matters in terms of how much emissions there's gonna be, think chainsaw vs car. Why not just call it a fossil fuel tax.

They should just subsidize other energy production methods desu. Fossil fuels are still too energy dense and available compared to everything else for us to just throw them away without a drastic improvement in battery tech or a push to nuclear, and the carbon tax idea is flawed at its core.

Normies are soon going to learn that industrial society is a struggle for energy. The sad truth is we used fossil fuels because they're basically magic.

t. exon mobile shill

>>11369317
>Are we pretending that across any industrial system you can can accurately measure carbon emissions?
We already have. Your post is garbage based on a false premise.

It's more like:

>stop consooming so much oil and gas products
No
>okay, we are going to tax these products since they are clearly bad for the environment and the economy in the long-term
wow, how dare you infringe my rights, I better go post on 4channel about this

>>11368932
It's a pretty common form of hypocrisy.

>>11369324
It's worse than that. If the proposal is fee and dividend instead of just "generic carbon tax", it should be profitable for most people who argue against it.

>>11369322
I meant in terms of it being exact like energy consumption. I'm not opposed to the whole idea, we just need to be honest and say it's a tax on harmful energy sources.

>>11369324

Oil and gas aren't the only emitters. It would require people to stop consuming in general. All of those excess products people buy have to be manufactured somewhere. Hint: it's China, where the majority of smoke is getting pumped out now and the government hides the numbers.

>>11369341
Energy is the largest source but by no means the only source.

>>11369360
it's almost like this entire climatological crisis could've been staved off if our corporatocracy didn't sell their souls to China and India

>>11369118
Neither is the post he responded to

>>11369365
Again, that's why it shouldn't be called a carbon tax. I don't get the push to cover it under one thing. Maybe call it a tax on greenhouse emitting commodities and products as a catch all? That would obviously consist of many different taxes and schemes, and doesn't sound as nice as "carbon tax".

I guess I was just a little annoyed in my first comment that the solution to end man made climate change is a simple tax, without addressing our consumption habits, and broader problems like agriculture.

>>11369379

We could literally cut American emissions by 30% in a matter of weeks if half of the American people took it upon themselves to limit their carbon footprint. Keep lights and electronics turned off, don't buy all of that extra shit and clothing, limit your car travel. And it wouldn't require odious taxes and regulations through the government.

Watch how quickly corporations would REEE if anti-consumerism became a product of the climate movement

>>11369379
I doubt that would change much.

>>11369392
How so?

>>11369398
It wouldn't make a dent in pollution. China is responsible for all of it

>>11369397
The name really doesn't matter that much. If you call it "tax on greenhouse emitting commodities" instead, it'll get called a "carbon tax" by the media anyways. We do have a lot of problems to solve besides CO2 emissions, but it's at least a step forwards.

>>11369410
A strong anti-consumerism movement would mean less importing of cheap crap from China.

>>11369398
>We could literally cut American emissions by 30% in a matter of weeks if half of the American people took it upon themselves to limit their carbon footprint
Yeah we could, but it's not gonna happen.

The majority of Americans don't think of themselves ordering packages on amazon that come on huge freighters thousands of miles away, or driving as a problem. People are not going to change their commute or shopping habits to help with their footprint unless they're forced to, or it benefits them like switching to a tesla.
They would rather blame private jets and large companies. Obviously large companies have blame and are often at fault, those companies existed (at least originally) because people needed whatever they sold. Private jets are a waste tho.
I think we need a top down approach that helps make it convenient to personally reduce your footprint. And do it in a meaningful way. Everyone shutting off lights is good, but won't get near that 30% mark.
Maybe car pooling programs could be encouraged in non-city areas. IDK just spitballing.
You can't change the attitudes and habits of 300 million people as if it were a switch.

Reducing your footprint honestly should make you think more abstractly about your consumption habits. Do I live in the north? What type of heat do I have? Is electric heat efficient? No, oh so gas or oil is more efficient for heating a home? Is my insulation proper? Do I really need a v6 crossover to drive to job every day? Are chainsaws really this bad for the environment? It's hard because people don't actually want to think about these things, and living in a complicated society means everything we do has an impact.

>>11369447
Why would the consumers have to cut off an arm and a leg so that big companies could continue exploiting them? Fuck off jew.

>>11369402
The post consists of "nuh uh" and "what?"

>>11369467
Exploiting them by forcing them to buy stuff? Companies are not blameless, but they also don't exist in a vacuum.

>>11369473
It consists of an argument, a request for clarification, and a response to a question. You ignored the first and mischaracterized the others.

>>11369447
We could cut emissions even more by socializing the power grid so that you don't need permission from fossil fuel based power plants to install renewables like solar and wind, or storage facilities like battery banks or flywheels.

>>11369478
>Exploiting them by forcing them to buy stuff?
Quite literally yes, but also in forcing them to work for them. What I mean by 'force' is that there is no competition, only collusion and illegal practices like blacklisting. That, too, is why they are forcing people to buy XYZ product and forbid them from the (((privilege))) of (((having a job))) should they fail to do so.

>>11369482
It'd also be nice if it could lead to modern nuclear being built.

>>11369483
>they are forcing people to buy XYZ product and forbid them from the (((privilege))) of (((having a job))) should they fail to do so
I can't think of any example of that beyond needing to have a place to live and food.

>>11369482
Yeah power distribution not being socialized is hilariously bad, leads to shit like enron and what you mentioned. Hopefully in the future batteries and renewables are good enough and the grid becomes obsolete because you have enough energy at your house.

>>11369480
A simple contradiction and an analogy is not an argument and he's largely correct. Consumer products and fabricated in large batches well in advance of their purchase. Refusing to buy them reduces the production of future batches at best.

That's what an argument should look like. Logic and supporting facts. Both of you could stand to learn something.

>>11369488
>what is internet
>what is computer
>what is phone
>what is bank account
>what is car
>in particular, what is a high-end car and high-end phone (pic related)
Goy, I...

>>11369504
Wow that email is obviously a very real email and in no way fake.

>>11369488
>It'd also be nice if it could lead to modern nuclear being built
It might help, but the biggest issue for nuclear is the cost. The best option for nuclear in my opinion is to reallocate the fossil fuel subsidies to nuclear.

>>11369500
That would be nice, but right now net metering effectively prevents you from even trying

>>11369504
You don't need to buy all of those to have a job. You can survive without a car in a lot of places, your phone can do the only things you'd need a computer for, internet is available for free in any library, you don't need a high-end phone unless you're doing app development (and then you'd either be self-employed or the company would buy you them), and some redditor having a picture of a letter allegedly written by an HR asshole does not make a high-end car a necessity for "having a job". At most of those you'd need a bank account, which is not the kind of product we're talking about and has plenty of competition, and a phone.

You probably don't have a job because you won't shut up about teh jooz, not a conspiracy forcing you to have a bank account.

>>11369512
And that's why it being a public thing would help.

>>11369502
>A simple contradiction and an analogy is not an argument
Then neither is your response.

>Consumer products and fabricated in large batches well in advance of their purchase.
LOL. Because there is known demand. You're an utter moron.

>>11369510
If you've had a job for at least 10 years chances are you've seen very similar (perhaps not as blatant) shit of this form. Usually the "not so blatant" means underhanded backstabbing based on what kind of car/phone you have. People are petty and moreover evil and managers are doubly so.
There are other things you need, like clothes (which again need to be expensive and perfectly maintained), and you often need to bring shit to colleagues and especially bosses, especially around holidays. Beauty products (especially e.g. perfume, hair gel, cologne) are also necessary in any client-facing role and in most non-client-facing roles.
The point is, there is almost nothing that a reasonable adult is getting because they want it, as opposed to because they have to, that is in excess of normal expenses, and the overwhelming share of purchases are mandatory purchases made to maintain the privilege of being a slave.
This combined with the intensely anti-competitive way the industry behaves leads to real life, something you've yet to experience it seems.

>>11369530
>in a lot of places
And if you weren't born there it's your fault and not the company's, right. I mean how dare you not be rich enough to move to a place where that's not a problem!
>your phone can do the only things you'd need a computer for
So you're a problem consoomer and that means consooming is good - but only if it's you, other people are not allowed to not consoom but at the same time if they don't need to consoom they're still inferior to you. Totally. Stopped reading here, it's going way out of hands.

>>11369544
>And if you weren't born there
Huh, I was born over 1000 miles from my mother's vagina. Amazing.

>So you're a problem consoomer and that means consooming is good
Is there an argument here or are you just telling us reading is too hard for you?

>>11369553
Lol butthurt consoomer. You are the only one who has the problem you ascribe to everyone but you. Hilarious, drone.

>>11369518
Power companies will be able to get away with it for a while.
>no you can't unhook from the grid what if you run out?
>what do you know how much you have left?
>what do you mean you have a backup emergency generator?
>wait you don't measure energy in kwh?

I don't know why but the kwh unit is hilarous to me. It seems to be just to confuse normies to make them not realize what they're actually paying for. What do you mean I pay for energy? I thought you were the power company and I was buying power?

>>11369557
>It seems to be just to confuse normies
Sadly, I doubt anyone who didn't at least minor in physics would realize the unit discrepancy.

>>11369556
You're not making any sense. What problem are you talking about?

>>11369531
>Logic and supporting facts are an analogy
>Companies don't routinely overestimate demand
>No refutation
>Somehow I'm the moron
Argue better or find a better argument. I had no stake in this until you started insisting that your half assed shitposts were legitimate debate.

>>11368750
That's literally how the global warming scam works.

It's branding for endless taxes.

>>11369576
>popular approach repays taxes to citizens equally
>most people against it would profit while emissions decrease
It doesn't need branding, it needs marketing.

>>11369557
Sad truth

>>11369565
True, but still it's funny. I think a complete general lack of understanding about why we can turn on the lights is part of the problems we have. Shit just works, don't think too hard.

>>11369573
>>Logic and supporting facts are an analogy
>>Companies don't routinely overestimate demand
Who are you quoting?

>>No refutation
There is no refutation because nothing you said is relevant. The consumer pays for the cost of a product regardless of whether the company makes mistakes in estimating demand. If consumers don't buy the product then the company will stop making it or will fail.

>>11369583
>it needs marketing
Scale it to cover a 12,000 $/yr UBI and it might be more popular. It could prevent the cost of living from increasing, except on carbon-intense products, which is a large argument against a UBI.

>>11369604
>Who are you quoting?
Great way to out yourself as a newfag.

>If consumers don't buy the product then the company will stop making it or will fail
>He doesn't know how little of the cost comes from manufacturing
I think you need to investigate your argument a little better before committing to it.

>>11369557
Lol just looked around the internet for why the do that with kwh. Apparently it's because people understand watts from lightbulbs.
Which further would confuse a normie because that means you power a lightbulb with - bulb power = n * kwh / s. And that's even further confused because the power it draws is marketed as it's brightness rating.
Is there some terry davis glow conspiracy to keep the principles of electricity from the common man?

>>11368776
>Firm B produces a high entropy battery powered car by using Lithium mined by company C who fucks up all the acquifiers in South America and kills off several million square kilometers of forests while dumping effluent streams into the ocean.

I don’t care. Higher temperatures are more important, since they actually harm humans,

>>11369623
>doesn't know "who are you quoting"
Great way to out yourself as a newfag.

>He thinks a company will just produce a product no one is buying because the manufacturing cost is low
You're goddamn retarded.

>>11369638
>Implying
They do it all the time. When a product fails they simple create another product or fall back on their staple products. This is why I said you need to investigate your argument better.

>>11369640
>When a product fails they simple create another product or fall back on their staple products.
So they stop producing the product no one is buying. Thanks for agreeing with me. What a pointless discussion.

>>11368776

sounds like bad management.

Why do you need the car? To get to the job making cars? to the job making batteries?

That is what economics really is... bad management.

Good management is getting the benefits without creating the problems whose solution become the benefits you seek...

>>11368750
The problem is that far too many greenhouse gases are being emitted from human industry, and it is causing warming of Earth's atmosphere and surface temperatures. The solution is to stop emitting so many greenhouse gases. So, the goal of a carbon tax is to try to discourage excessive use of fossil fuels by increasing the market price.

>>11369245
>just ignore it, I'll be dead before it gets that bad
There is no reasoning with people like this. There is a problem and a range of potential solutions. Obstructionists and apathetics are not arguing the merits of not addressing the problem. They are admitting they don't care what happens.

>>11369648
And all the product they produced that didn't sell goes straight in the waste bin. Just like I said ten posts ago.

>What a pointless discussion.
I agree. The real shame is that you didn't learn anything.

>>11369410
not buying Chinese products would make a massive dent in their emissions as well

>>11369410
>China is responsible for all of it
I know that reality doesn't matter to whites anymore, but I'm posting picrelated for the other 10% of people on this board

>>11368776
fucking up South America is a local issue that local governments need to deal with. If they let it happen to make money that's their problem not mine. Now CO2 emissions are a global issue which makes them entirely different.

>>11368776
>Niggerland not doing it so why bother?

>>11369557
To me the alternative sounds like you'd need to buy 'prepaid power', enough to operate whatever machines you wanna have running at a given time, and their inefficience then burns your storage down over time until you need to start turning machines off or deal with the outtages, and battery storage kinda sucks.
How is this preferable?

>>11369711
>And all the product they produced that didn't sell goes straight in the waste bin.
Who cares? Do you even know what this argument is about? Fucking retard.

>>11369629
>>11369910
>>11369920
Climate change is a GLOBAL phenomenon. South America losing acquifiers means less plantation. Effluents in the ocean kills ocf algea populatioms

It all has an effect on the climate. Fucking water vapour has an effect on the climate, but not is taxing processes cooling towers. Why the fuck do people think CO2 is the only greenhouse gas?

All of this is just another money making scheme and it's sad that people think any of it actually works.

>>11369398
Yes, if consoomers would only acknowledge the greater good and willingly reduce their consumption the world would be a wonderful place.
Unfortunately, this will literally never happen, so we either have the choice of letting things continue on as they are, or imposing restrictions and bans to curb in consumerism.

>>11369482
where the hell do you even live?
where I am, you have complete freedom to install solar panels on your house or property, so long as you file a property development plan like you would for any other permanent structure
you can even sell your excess solar back to the grid if you generate a surplus

>VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR

>>11370010
I was responding about a theoretical future where batteries were good enough to store large amounts of energy for long times, and renewables actually worked well. And you wouldn't be hooked up to the grid.

I was making a point of how they'll fight this if it is ever viable.

>>11369677
>just ignore it, I'll be dead before it gets that bad
What is an actual counterargument against this?

>>11369677
>They are admitting they don't care what happens.

>>11370135
Are you saying that if you wanted to build a new house in your area, it would be illegal to keep it off the grid and generate your own power through a solar inverter-battery setup?

>>11370150
Nah I meant like if home owners mass started wanting to disconnect cause they had a better solution. I don't know if it's illegal or not but I know someone wouldn't be happy.

>>11370176
Oh yeah, that makes more sense for some parts of North America.
I live in northern canada and the power provider and government is actively trying to convince people to move off the grid and generate their own power, because they can hardly generate enough power for the system at peak demand.
As far as I know, they wouldn't care one way or another if you stopped buying power from them and produced it yourself, so long as you didn't burn your house down or fuck up the environment.

>>11369910
Holy mother of brainlets.

>>11370141
It's not an argument. It's not trying to argue that the problem does or doesn't exist, and it isn't arguing about the effectiveness or desirability of any solutions.
>>11370146
kill yourself faggot

>>11369379
>it's almost like

>>11369905
Yes Chang CO2 emissions from the 19th century are very relevant to current emissions you absolute brainlet.

>>11369074
>climate is not defined by average weather patterns
Ok retard.

>THE GOVERNMENT IS SO CORRUPT
>TRUMP IS SO CORRUPT
>WE SHOULD GIVE THE CORRUPT GOVERNEMNT MORE MONEY AND POWER
>AND ALL OUR GUNS

>>11369536
maybe climate armageddon isn't so bad desu.

>>11370548
>CO2 does not affect average temperature
OK retard.

>>11368761
Based fellow libertarian retard

>>11370625
SEETHING socialist thief

>>11370625
>paying less taxes is "retarded"

>>11370508
>kill yourself faggot

>>11370759
do it faggot

The Atlas Network shills really won't fucking shut up about climate change, Jesus fucking Christ. You already turned /pol/ into /jidf/, go back there and stay go.

>>11370842
OK, schizo.

>>11370017
You have completely failed to grasp the original argument and when I held your hand through it, you failed again. You shouldn't be calling anyone retarded.

>>11370091
>you can even sell your excess solar back to the grid if you generate a surplus
No, you can't. That's what I'm talking about. Any grid-tie solar installation is subject to the net metering arrangements of the local power companies. They limit the size of the installation, the energy you get "paid" for, and most of the time "pay" you in an energy credit that expires annually.

>>11370887
except that where I live you can have the power company install a two-way meter and once a year you get a cheque for whatever surplus you put back into the grid

>>11370902
Where do you live? The net metering laws for every state I've looked over so far are nearly identical.

>>11370728
The question is not if freedom is related to growth but if growth should be the main goal.

>>11370915
Canada

>>11369905
Fuck off chink, you ain't fooling anybody with historical emissions

>adding gigatons of carbon dioxide every year to the atmosphere has zero impact!
>we can't do anything to stop adding co2!

I don't have a problem with people caring about the environment but climate change is a global issue meaning it is really the responsibilty of world leaders. It is not like any of us can influence anything and it is fucking obnoxious when a dumb celebrity or e-celeb acts like layman have any kind of comparable influence as them. They can kiss my ass.

>>11372274
But, like, where in Canada? Canadians are still bound by the net metering arrangements of their power companies for example:

https://www.matrixenergy.ca/about-us/net-metering.html
Under a neter metering agreement, you can only store up to the same amount of electricity in the grid as you use from the grid in that billing period. During a billing period, if you store more electricity on the grid than you use from the grid, your utility does NOT compensate you (pay you) for it. Net metering is for reducing your electrical bill from the utility, NOT for selling a net amount of electricity to the grid.

>>11368750
Fossil fuels are so ubiquitous that a tax on water or air would probably have about as much effect on overall emissions.

Until we start talking about limiting production of fossil fuels and demand growth for them, we simply are not serious about the problem.