Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 522084 times)

MaximumSam · « **Reply #3304 on:** August 17, 2020, 11:53:29 AM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on August 17, 2020, 11:49:19 AM

I don't know why gender is such a fight for so many people.

I view someone's gender the same way I view someone's religion. I generally find it impolite to ask about it, but if offer the information, I accept their answer as their truth because it doesn't really affect me in any way.

+1

I get that there are some sticky situations on gender, like who can play what sports and whatnot. But for the most part who gives a f***

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #3305 on:** August 17, 2020, 12:01:06 PM »

The problem is that the Paris accords outline a goal, but they do not outline a plan.

I'm with Cincy on this...

What concrete changes do we need to make to meet our Paris accord targets? This is a question about available technologies and deployment. Wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc?
How much will it cost to do so?
Is anyone in power (Congress, etc) actually enacting legislation in order to make those plans a reality?

Talking about how much "measurable" change to climate the Paris targets will effect is pointless unless we actually identify HOW we can achieve those targets and then actually do it.

I don't trust that nearly any country is making the changes now to hit those targets.

Signing a treaty isn't a plan. Defining a goal isn't a plan.

In this case I've described at least one part of a plan in this thread: a carbon tax. I want it revenue-neutral and offsetting some other tax we have. Preferably offsetting an existing regressive tax because a carbon tax will have certain level of regressivity to it. I threw out the idea of eliminating the payroll tax, but realized that we can't eliminate the entire payroll tax unless we price the carbon tax at exorbitant rates. So maybe if we reduce other tax rates rather than eliminate to make it fully offsetting, that will work better.

But at least if we increase the price of carbon, it makes every alternative technology by default more cost-competitive. In addition, it gives individual Americans more of an incentive to reduce their carbon footprint, whether that's in what type of vehicle they drive (and how often/far), to what they set their thermostat, and how they choose to use energy or adopt alternative technologies like home solar.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3306 on:** August 17, 2020, 12:18:39 PM »

Do you have any predictions as to how much a carbon tax would reduce CO2 emissions over time?

It's a plausible general concept, one I looked into a while back, particularly if it is offset as you suggest with at least a partial FICA reduction.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #3307 on:** August 17, 2020, 12:19:11 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on August 17, 2020, 11:49:19 AM

I don't know why gender is such a fight for so many people.

I view someone's gender the same way I view someone's religion. I generally find it impolite to ask about it, but if offer the information, I accept their answer as their truth because it doesn't really affect me in any way.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson:

It is an easy way to gauge how driven an individual actually is by "science" vs politics.

Man made climate change + 2 (maybe 3 if you include hermaphrodites) = might be driven by facts and logic; or maybe even "science."
Man made climate change + more than 3 genders = science denier; probable political puppet on the left.
No man made climate change + 2 genders = science denier; probable political puppet on the right.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3308 on:** August 17, 2020, 12:23:58 PM »

https://www.thebalance.com/carbon-tax-definition-how-it-works-4158043

One group, the U.S. Interagency Working Group on Social Costs of Carbon, developed an estimate of $40 per metric ton.6 A tax reflecting this social cost would increase gas prices by 36 cents a gallon. It would add $0.02 to the price of a kilowatt-hour of electricity.7

The price should be much higher to keep temperatures from rising above 1.5 C by 2030, according to a New York Times analysis of a 2018 United Nations report.8

The U.N. recommended a carbon tax of between $135 and $5,500 per ton
A recent report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that the average carbon price across 42 major economies was around $35 per ton in 2018. The price differential means governments find it politically difficult to charge enough to reduce emissions significantly.9

Pros

FearlessF · « **Reply #3309 on:** August 17, 2020, 12:27:50 PM »

I could easily pay 36 cents more per gallon, wouldn't change anything for most.

Gas here is $1.99

that's much less than a couple years ago

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3310 on:** August 17, 2020, 12:35:22 PM »

Yeah, most of us could, but the effect on demand would similarly be marginal.

What we should do IMHO is get rid of coal to the extent possible, focus on that as an interim goal. That is a shorter term lower cost high impact tactic.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #3311 on:** August 17, 2020, 12:43:03 PM »

Quote from: MaximumSam on August 17, 2020, 11:53:29 AM

+1

I get that there are some sticky situations on gender, like who can play what sports and whatnot. But for the most part who gives a f***

And I don't see why that's so sticky. "Parity" in sports is something that we strive for. We don't let one NCAA team have 150 scholarship players while restricting others to 85. In pro sports, we have salary caps which are designed to enforce parity--you can't simply "buy" the best players to your team. We have drafts for rookies instead of free agency because stars would not choose to go to crappy teams otherwise, and we want to give bad teams the opportunity to improve.

No matter what your beliefs on gender, there are only two* biological sexes. You're either XX or XY. And no matter what your beliefs on gender, there are physiological differences between the sexes.

We segregate certain sporting competitions based on biological sex for competitive reasons. Your average male NBA G-league player would be a superstar in the WNBA, not because he's more skilled than the females in the WNBA, but because of physiological differences.

I don't see any possible way to allow people biologically male but who identify as female gender-wise to be allowed to compete in women's sports without completely ruining the competitive balance. And if you ruin competitive balance in a sport, why watch? If a WNBA team has a 7'0" biologically male center who can't get a cup of coffee in the NBA but suddenly identifies as female, you've destroyed competitive balance.

* Not sure what to do with those born XXY, but it's such a tiny percentage that we can treat that as an outlier problem.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #3312 on:** August 17, 2020, 12:54:56 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on August 17, 2020, 12:18:39 PM

Do you have any predictions as to how much a carbon tax would reduce CO2 emissions over time?

It's a plausible general concept, one I looked into a while back, particularly if it is offset as you suggest with at least a partial FICA reduction.

That much I don't know. What I do know is:

It's easy.
It's more than nothing.

I don't know if it's just political or whether it's due to high gas prices/taxes, but I see a heck of a lot of Teslas on the road here in CA. Also a lot of Prius, hybrids, etc. I'll bet you see a lot fewer in states with significantly lower gasoline excise taxes than CA has.

One of the reasons smoking has become increasingly rare is that the cost of smoking (primarily taxes) has risen and risen. Obviously it's also been due to intense social stigma; it's not just taxes. But I'm sure that taxation is at least a factor.

Quote from: Cincydawg on August 17, 2020, 12:35:22 PM

Yeah, most of us could, but the effect on demand would similarly be marginal.

What we should do IMHO is get rid of coal to the extent possible, focus on that as an interim goal. That is a shorter term lower cost high impact tactic.

A carbon tax would also increase the price of burning coal significantly compared to alternatives. While the tax is paid by the end user, that "end user" is not just individuals; it's also businesses. And those people vote. I'd bet you'd see a lot more politicians [state level, not necessarily federal] actually campaigning that they'd ban coal power plants to reduce energy bills if you had a carbon tax.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3313 on:** August 17, 2020, 01:02:16 PM »

The issue with a carbon tax is that to have "meat" is has to be exorbitant, a la the UN recommendations. And the economy can't shift fast enough if you apply it all at once.

So, you stage it, and folks adjust over time and it has less impact, for better and for worse. I'm not against the concept at all, but as a "solution" or "plan" or something that would really reduce CO2 emissions enough to matter, it isn't.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #3314 on:** August 17, 2020, 01:23:28 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on August 17, 2020, 01:02:16 PM

The issue with a carbon tax is that to have "meat" is has to be exorbitant, a la the UN recommendations. And the economy can't shift fast enough if you apply it all at once.

So, you stage it, and folks adjust over time and it has less impact, for better and for worse. I'm not against the concept at all, but as a "solution" or "plan" or something that would really reduce CO2 emissions enough to matter, it isn't.

I don't think it's a "solution", but I think it could be part of the solution.

The goal of offsetting a different regressive tax is one of the ways to avoid phasing it in, though.

Of course the problem of offsetting something like the payroll tax is that for retired people, for example, they don't pay that tax so there is no offset. So some people will get the cost without the offsetting reduction in cost.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #3315 on:** August 17, 2020, 01:25:47 PM »

Incidentally, at one time recently, Atlanta had the second highest number of EVs of any city in the country. Tax breaks.

The wealthy were all over that.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #3316 on:** August 17, 2020, 04:40:02 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on August 17, 2020, 12:43:03 PM

And I don't see why that's so sticky. "Parity" in sports is something that we strive for. We don't let one NCAA team have 150 scholarship players while restricting others to 85. In pro sports, we have salary caps which are designed to enforce parity--you can't simply "buy" the best players to your team. We have drafts for rookies instead of free agency because stars would not choose to go to crappy teams otherwise, and we want to give bad teams the opportunity to improve.

No matter what your beliefs on gender, there are only two* biological sexes. You're either XX or XY. And no matter what your beliefs on gender, there are physiological differences between the sexes.

We segregate certain sporting competitions based on biological sex for competitive reasons. Your average male NBA G-league player would be a superstar in the WNBA, not because he's more skilled than the females in the WNBA, but because of physiological differences.

I don't see any possible way to allow people biologically male but who identify as female gender-wise to be allowed to compete in women's sports without completely ruining the competitive balance. And if you ruin competitive balance in a sport, why watch? If a WNBA team has a 7'0" biologically male center who can't get a cup of coffee in the NBA but suddenly identifies as female, you've destroyed competitive balance.

* Not sure what to do with those born XXY, but it's such a tiny percentage that we can treat that as an outlier problem.

I mean, but it can be sticky. XXY is rare, but it isn't *that* rare, occurring in about 1 in a thousand or so. It also isn't the only chromosome condition that impacts gender - XXXY, XXXXY. There are also a host of other issues - for example someone can have XX chromosomes yet have a penis and scrotum. Notably, Caster Semenya, an Olympic sprinter, was labeled a female at birth due to distinct lack of male genitals but is in all sorts of hell because she has XY chromosomes. Further, that's just the things we can measure somewhat easily - development and hormone issues are not well understood. There was the case of Mack Beggs, female at birth, but who has lived as male for some time. He wanted to wrestle men but was prevented due to state law, so he wrestled other girls. Anyone with two eyes would see a boy wrestling a girl, and he went 89-0, but he probably has XX chromosomes.

In any event, it gets very thorny to say there are only two biological sexes. For most people, for most purposes, this is true, but our genetics and development are constantly changing and while the results may be outliers, they still exist as people.

CWSooner · « **Reply #3317 on:** August 17, 2020, 10:07:56 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on August 17, 2020, 11:34:27 AM

Wow, more than four dozen. Over half a hundo.

How much science exactly would a fella have to deny in order to reach such a conclusion?

Many people who accuse others of being science-deniers are deniers themselves. They deny the science they don't like and solidly believe the science that they do like.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

MaximumSam

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

FearlessF

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MaximumSam

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

CWSooner

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment