Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday November 18 2018, @12:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the everybody-should-pay-their-fair-share dept.

On Saturday, November 16th, around 282,000 people blocked roads and highways all over France. The protesters, nicknamed the gillets jaunes after the yellow warning vests they wore, had organized through Facebook. Their beef: the increase in environmental taxes on gasoline, on top of a number of other tax increases.

We don't disagree with having to pay more to help act for the environment and fight climate change, was the general opinion, but why should it be only the little folks who have to pay while the elite can easily grin and bear it -- why not tax also all that heavy fuel burned by aeroplanes and tanker ships?

The action, which persisted throughout the day, resulted in over 100 wounded and one tragic death when a mother driving her child to hospital panicked.

The protesters do have a point. While media and politics rightly, if very, very much belatedly, are warning about climate change, the alternatives proposed clearly are not to be taken seriously.

The hard choices we need to face apparently come down to cities investing in smart cameras to fine visitors based on production year and type of their automobile. Public transport investing will come, but not to the countryside where car/ride sharing, Uber and similar services simply are not viable; Tesla and relatives are on another price planet for ordinary people.

As to the EU's emission trading system (ETS) that should drive industry to climate change action: news broke on the same day as the gillets jaunes actions that Britain -- on the verge of leaving the EU -- is one of the biggest net exporters of such credits: Britain had 900 million of these credits too much, for the years 2013-2015 alone.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 18 2018, @12:23PM (38 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday November 18 2018, @12:23PM (#763453) Homepage Journal

    Screw the climate change aspect as it's preempted by other aspects and screw the protestors for interfering with traffic.

    That said, they absolutely do have a point that you shouldn't be taxing only automobile fuel and letting all other forms of petroleum-based fuels skate. If you're going to do something, do it evenhandedly.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:53PM (31 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:53PM (#763478)

      Tax automobiles and you target the middle class and above with most of the burden falling on the middle class.
      Tax planes and ships and you target everyone as they shift costs down to their customers with most of the burden falling on the middle class.
      Tax luxury cars and you target the rich with most of the burden falling on the rich.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:30PM (26 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:30PM (#763483) Homepage Journal

        Don't care. If you're going to tax fuel usage, tax fuel usage. If you're going to tax people, tax people. Try mixing them together and you're going to have an unfair by definition shit show.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:41PM (25 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:41PM (#763486)

          http://www.lessgovletsgo.org/index.html [lessgovletsgo.org]
          One engineers proposal -- originally from the USA 1970s "oil crisis", still makes sense to me today. It neatly kills several birds with one stone. Introduction below, more detail at the link above:

          First, here is the essence of the proposal as it would be applied in the U.S.A.. Some background and rationale are given subsequently.

                    Congress should pass into law a bill that would add gradually increasing fees to the cost of fossil fuels and to the emissions of easily measurable emissions (for example, gasoline could be increased by 25 cents per gallon per quarter).

                    All the fees would be deposited in an impregnable trust fund. (These fees are not taxes, because none goes to the government.)

                    All legal adult citizens (perhaps seventeen and older) resident in the country would be required to have bank accounts.

                    Every month, the funds in the trust fund would be divided by the number of legal adult citizens and the resulting exactly equal amounts would be transferred to the bank accounts of all citizens, thus reducing the trust fund to zero every month. (Citizens too poor or disadvantaged to have bank accounts would receive debit cards of the same value.)

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:05PM (4 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:05PM (#763503) Homepage Journal

            There's a problem there. Congress doesn't have the explicit constitutional authority to gather money in that manner and cannot legally gather money in any manner not explicitly granted. It would require an amendment to be done legally without it being a tax or tariff.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:13PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:13PM (#763517)

              > Congress doesn't have the explicit constitutional authority to gather money in that manner and cannot legally gather money in any manner not explicitly granted.

              Congress collects money in all sorts of ways, doesn't seem all that different from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund [wikipedia.org] to me.

              A further quote from http://www.lessgovletsgo.org/proposal.html [lessgovletsgo.org] :
              > That is the policy, somewhat simplified. Elsewhere in this website is a "white paper" in which we have tried to foresee many of the details for which action would need to be taken.

              Note that this scheme doesn't have to be implemented quickly, it could start out with a small tax/rebate to get the system primed and then ratchet up over time. Similar to social security taxes...(ducking!)

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:38PM (2 children)

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:38PM (#763532) Homepage Journal

                I did qualify that with the word "legally". Congress has done quite a number of things over the years it isn't legally entitled to do.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:50PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:50PM (#763539)

                  Different AC -- but realize that "legally" ultimately is determined by SCOTUS. And they have ruled that anytime the government is collecting money for a sufficiently good reason, we can all PRETEND that it is "legally" a "tax."

                  See Chief Justice Roberts and his ruling on Obamacare. Also, if the Constitution could pretend that black "people" weren't people when the US was founded, surely we can all pretend that any money collected by the government is legally a "tax" when it suits our purposes.

          • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:13PM (19 children)

            by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:13PM (#763504) Journal

            The paper makes the assumption that the economy would continue on as before. We don't live in a static non-reactive economy. Yes, fuel consumption would partially shift to non-fossil fuels, but these are not at a stage where they can fully supplant the fossil infrastructure even now, and certainly weren't in the 70s.
             
            There are offsetting inflationary and deflationary pressures, at first blush I would go with early inflation followed by a deflationary spiral and economic collapse making the 20's seem like paradise. (More realistically I see the law getting backed out so fast it would make your head swim...)
             
            Labor would become progressively more expensive to obtain. The economy and many aspects of business would simply shut down. Those in the labor pool that exited the economy first would be at an advantage over those that attempted to continue.
             
            The military eventually becomes non viable and Russia and China roll in in their diesel powered tanks and pick over the spoils. Cyrillic or Hanzi....decisions decisions....

            --
            В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
            • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:16PM

              by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:16PM (#763506) Journal

              yeah, ok, the 30s. TGD just started in '29 :-p

              --
              В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:17PM (17 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:17PM (#763519)

              Or, you know, this could be a functional equivalent to the universal basic income that is currently under discussion. Getting some (not much) money into the hands of the poorest people is one way to prime the economy--they spend it right away, unlike the rich that squirrel it away.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 18 2018, @05:10PM (14 children)

                by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @05:10PM (#763546) Journal

                So long as they work 40 hours a week, i have no problem with them getting a basic income level.
                .
                I don't care much what they do, or how little utility it provides, but this concept being floated of we'll pay you to live while you do whatever you want and others work their lives away supporting it is inequitable.

                --
                В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
                • (Score: 4, Touché) by isostatic on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:18PM (1 child)

                  by isostatic (365) on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:18PM (#763585) Journal

                  Why 40? Why not 50? Or 30?

                  • (Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 18 2018, @09:37PM

                    by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @09:37PM (#763614) Journal

                    30?
                    .
                    .
                    Hmmm, well TFA is about France I guess.

                    --
                    В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday November 18 2018, @08:26PM (11 children)

                  by sjames (2882) on Sunday November 18 2018, @08:26PM (#763603) Journal

                  So implement the basic income and abolish minimum wage at the same time. Let employers entice people to be employees in the time honored manner of offering pay enough to make the time and effort worthwhile to the employee.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 19 2018, @05:16AM (1 child)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 19 2018, @05:16AM (#763796) Journal

                unlike the rich that squirrel it away

                Money hoarding isn't a real thing. A bigger problem with the scheme is that the tax would be heavily regressive.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:38PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:38PM (#763485)

        The rich don't make 99% of the CO2 emissions on the planet. Most of it is middle class. This is why *usage* costs are the only way to curb global warming. Nature doesn't give a fuck about political correctness - it just is. If you want to be fair, then introduce revenue neutral CO2 consumption taxes... but then of course this is twisted in the same way as "it's against the poor" and other similar non-sense.

        If the middle class don't like CO2 emission taxes, maybe buy electric car instead next time? Oh wait, that's the entire purpose of this exercise!

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:09PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:09PM (#763562) Journal

          Yes, because, the middle class all own their own jet aircraft, and helicopters, and yachts, and five of six homes scattered among as many continents.

          And your electric cars aren't in reach of the "middle class". Upper middle class, yes. And, every class above that upper middle class. Give it another five years, and those cars may reach the middle class. Or, they may not. We still don't see huge production numbers for those cars, and we may never see them. We may even see private flying cars before we see electric surface cars everywhere.

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 19 2018, @04:55PM

          by Freeman (732) on Monday November 19 2018, @04:55PM (#763916) Journal

          Yes, driving my car produces a certain amount of air pollution. I'm yet to be convinced that it's "the big concern" in the USA right now. Sure, certain concentrated areas, I could see it being a real problem. Silicon Valley, New York, DFW, pretty much all of the major metropolitan areas will have a much bigger problem with air pollution from car exhaust. Whereas, a big diesel truck will be producing a whole lot more carbon emissions per year. Then, there's the factories that supply those diesel trucks with things to ship as well.

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180910111237.htm [sciencedaily.com]
          "Large trucks are biggest culprits of near-road air pollution
          Date:
                  September 10, 2018
          Source:
                  University of Toronto Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering
          Summary:
                  A new study reveals large diesel trucks to be the greatest contributors to harmful black carbon emissions close to major roadways, indicating that vehicle types matter more than traffic volume for near-road air pollution. "

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:54PM

        by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:54PM (#763493) Journal

        This was (essentially) my thought as well.
         
        What idiot says to tax shipping because the burden is currently on the little people? Where do they think that tax is going to go?
         
        The fundamental disconnect between taxing something, and what actually then happens with those costs, is staggering all across the world I guess. I don't know when the shift to complete functional economic illiteracy started, but it was going on at least 30 years ago (and I suspect significantly further) and has only gotten much worse over time.
         
        Ever look at something government does, and the blindingly glaringly obvious consequence, and then listen to the protestations of surprise from politicians who seem to think that the world is some sort of completely static painting they can just dab some pigment on here or there that won't adjust to what they do?
         
        Critical thinking and logic are dead at all levels. The ability to follow a logical chain of events to its conclusion is a complete non starter.
         
        I would love to see any politician that votes for something which displays 'unintended consequences' promptly removed from office. There is no real accountability. A politician can destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions, and the absolute worst that happens is there is a slightly increased chance they get a cushy retirement early in a few years.
         
        Until we put some form of real accountability into schools for the zombies they churn out, and politics for the idiocy they implement, little will change. The question is what and how to implement that accountability.

        --
        В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:03PM (5 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:03PM (#763561) Journal

      I wouldn't worry much about it. The French are always on the lookout for a good revolution. This is hardly worthy of notice, unless and until they get the old guillotines polished up.

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:39PM (4 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:39PM (#763573) Homepage Journal

        Well of course they are. The only ones the French can beat in a war are the French, so they're not exactly swimming in options.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @10:21PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @10:21PM (#763638)

          Ah yes, hating on the oldest ally of the US in order to feel a semblance of superiority. Hmm, that tactic seems oddly familiar.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday November 18 2018, @10:33PM (2 children)

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Sunday November 18 2018, @10:33PM (#763647) Homepage Journal

            Mocking a has-been world power that hasn't even been able to whip a third world country in a hundred years or contributed anything significant scientifically or artistically in recent memory but still acts as if they were the pinnacle of human evolution and everyone else is uncultured scum? Yup. All week long and twice on Sunday.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @04:26AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @04:26AM (#763791)

              Really surprised to see you having a go at France, I'll bet you have a lot in common with the French,
                  http://fishinglicence.eu/france [fishinglicence.eu]

              France offers a wide range of fishing opportunities. You can fish for 83 different fish species in more than 500,000 km of brooks, 15,000 km rivers and hundreds of ponds and lakes in 94 French departments of the 96 departments in metropolitan France. Furthermore sea fishing at the Atlantic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea adds to the diverse fishing facilities. Kayak sea fishing in the Bretagne has become popular in recent years, but also sea bass fishing along the entire Atlantic coast can be great fun.

              You do need either a fishing rod licence or a permit for legal freshwater fishing in France.

                      For public waters a fishing rod licence (“carte de pêche”) and
                      for private fisheries a fishing permit from the landowner is required.

              However, a fishing licence or permit for sea fishing is not required in France!

              • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 21 2018, @11:00AM

                by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday November 21 2018, @11:00AM (#764651) Homepage Journal

                Nobody's all good or all bad. Texas has some amazing fishing even if they do get their asses whooped most every year by OU. Just make sure you remember "striper" has only one 'p' in it for record keeping. Stripper fishing, while it sounds potentially interesting, would be something entirely other.

                --
                My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @12:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @12:50PM (#763458)

    Not taxes or fuel. I agree with them and wish them success.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:00PM (9 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:00PM (#763463) Journal

    What's the worst problem our civilization faces? Global Warming/Climate Change? Or is it within us, specifically, unrestrained greed? The behavior of the super rich is horrible. They absolutely will fiddle while the planet burns. And too many of the rest of us worship them for being "successful", without considering the ugly details-- the cons, robberies, corruption, waste, harsh treatment of the less fortunate, and all that. It;s like many of the super rich have mental disorders and brain damage, and we're not only letting them have the helm, standing by while they seize it, we're begging them to take the helm because so many of us think they must be such great drivers.

    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:09PM (6 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:09PM (#763479) Journal

      What's the worst problem our civilization faces?

      Poverty and overpopulation.

      Global Warming/Climate Change? Or is it within us, specifically, unrestrained greed?

      Cool story bro. If there are any examples of "unrestrained greed" out there, please let us know. Last I checked, all that greed was heavily regulated. Even in sexy stories like road murders in China [soylentnews.org], the greedsters had to bribe someone.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:25PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:25PM (#763525)

        Last I checked, all that greed was heavily regulated

        Citation needed. What regulation governs the salary and bonuses of top-level management? In finance? In telecom? In insurance? In tech?

        • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:53PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:53PM (#763540) Journal

          What regulation governs the salary and bonuses of top-level management?

          In the US, labor law and SEC regulations do, for example. Similar regulations exist for most of the world. Then there are the de facto regulations of shareholders and other parties with interest in the matter.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @10:24PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @10:24PM (#763640)

            Wow, so those golden parachutes are against the law? The insanely high salaries are actually regulated?

            I must have missed that development.

            Or you're just doing the corporate shill thing. Occam's Razor in 3...2...1...

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 19 2018, @04:17AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 19 2018, @04:17AM (#763786) Journal

              Wow, so those golden parachutes are against the law?

              Why would they be against the law?

              The insanely high salaries are actually regulated?

              Yes.

              I must have missed that development.

              Indeed.

      • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Sunday November 18 2018, @05:13PM (1 child)

        by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @05:13PM (#763548)

        > Poverty and overpopulation.

        Absolute poverty is linked to overpopulation given finite resources.

        Relative poverty is measured in various ways, most of which make it impossible to eliminate.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 19 2018, @04:46AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 19 2018, @04:46AM (#763794) Journal
          Fair enough - by "poverty" I mean absolute poverty.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:26PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:26PM (#763526)

      It's not that simple. My vote is not for any one "worst problem", since it's very hard to compare social problems with technical problems with economic problems.

      One that hasn't been mentioned yet is a major energy crisis that we are only beginning to see, as the poor people of the world continue to increase energy use. The high-energy consumption life style of the "developed world" is the goal. Everyone wants Bucky Fuller's "energy slaves", which as much as anything have raised the standard of living everywhere these "energy slaves" are in use. Part of the solution to this is efficiency, LED lights instead of filaments, but there is a huge gap and no plans (that I've heard of) to bridge it.

      • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:18PM

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:18PM (#763584) Journal

        Perhaps the problem is a "necessity is the mother of invention" cycle, in which difficulties leads to more intelligence and innovation to overcome the hardships, which makes life easier, which leads to people dumbing down because life has gotten soft and easy, which leads to life getting hard again. Or, another way to put it is "may you live in interesting times" which is regarded as a curse, and yet, are uninteresting times really any better?

        Paradise is within our grasp, but maybe, we don't actually want it because it would be too boring. It really would not be that hard to deal with our current problems if only there was the will to do it. instead, there's all this diversion, denial, lying, and foolish motivated reasoning about what our problems really are.

        The folly of the oil companies is egregious. 40 or more years ago they figured out CO2 pollution would be a problem, and what did they do about it? Tried to cover it up! And now, the whole world knows plenty about the problem and their role in trying to bury it. Most of us bear some responsibility for the situation, but by their short-sighted actions, Big Oil has put a big, big target on their backs. It's so big it will spill over into every facet of our lives-- the governing systems that allowed the corruption and propaganda, and the nations that stood by, ignoring the warnings while continuing to burn oil. BP's troubles over the Deepwater Horizon accident will be as nothing to the trouble that's coming should Greenland and Antarctica melt and sea levels rise significantly. It will be not just Big Oil being judged and found wanting, it will also be capitalism, the West, and, hell, our entire civilization. Going to be very, very hard to contain the nuclear weapons when wars break out over the famines and questions of where millions of refuges from the flooding will go.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Spamalope on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:13PM (4 children)

    by Spamalope (5233) on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:13PM (#763466) Homepage

    but why should it be only the little folks who have to pay while the elite can easily grin and bear it -- why not tax also all that heavy fuel burned by aeroplanes and tanker ships?

    Around here, new toll roads were put in heading to wealthy suburb areas. This looks to be motivated similarly - keep the poors from congesting the roads wealthy folks are using.

    Of course, later it will just be about the money. In California they raised gas taxes to encourage use of electric cars, then wanted an excise tax on electric car registrations because they were avoiding the tax!

    Hopefully someone will do a hypocrisy check to see if the authors/supporters of the tax are being frugal with their own carbon foot print. In the US lots of 'do as I say not as I do' came to light.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Unixnut on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:51PM (3 children)

      by Unixnut (5779) on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:51PM (#763492)

      > Around here, new toll roads were put in heading to wealthy suburb areas. This looks to be motivated similarly - keep the poors from congesting the roads wealthy folks are using.

      The entire "climate change" as a political concept seems to have been created solely to justify actions that cripple the non rich, from what I can see. Every single "solution" seems to disproportionately hit the poor and middle class, while the rich can still enjoy their private yachts, massive houses, private aircraft, and other trinkets of wealth.

      All those politicians and rich people flying across the world (often in private jets) to meet for a climate change conference to decide how to tax the rest of us into submission "for the environment" is a perfect example.

      I do feel the the eventual goal (and ideal solution) for the rich will be to restrict all the poor people to massive cities where they will work till death, have a minimal environmental footprint, minimal quality of life, and limited mobility , while leaving most of the free space for the wealthy to enjoy.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:29PM (#763527)

        yes, that's the plan. just look at "national" and "state" parks. UN land and natural resource theft for the elite to use in the future. soon, all the major cities will completely dominate elections and they will use these masses of slaves to pass the laws required to further enslave humanity. rural people who know better and refuse to go along will be made into "criminals" and "terrorists" by the anti freedom laws. pigs and patriots will die.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @02:50AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @02:50AM (#763753)

        Every single "solution" seems to disproportionately hit the poor and middle class, while the rich can still enjoy their private yachts, massive houses, private aircraft, and other trinkets of wealth.

        You only notice this when it comes to climate change? Every solution the bourgeois propose to attempt to reconcile the inherent contradictions of capitalism (such as the build up to world war 3) disproportionately hits the working class--and what's left of the middle class as they continue sinking down into proletariat (as predicted by theory).

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 19 2018, @05:19AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 19 2018, @05:19AM (#763797) Journal

          You only notice this when it comes to climate change? Every solution the bourgeois propose to attempt to reconcile the inherent contradictions of capitalism (such as the build up to world war 3) disproportionately hits the working class--and what's left of the middle class as they continue sinking down into proletariat (as predicted by theory).

          What inherent contradictions? Most alleged by Marx were purely imaginary.

  • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:15PM

    by zocalo (302) on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:15PM (#763467)
    The UK is some way ahead of the EU average on green energy use, despite being at the higher end of the scales for population, GDP, and most of the other metrics that the EU might realistically use for any pro-rata allocation of emission credits. In that light, it's pretty much a given that there would be a surplus for export and - once again - it's one of those things where we actually get something back from the EU (they're basically bartered away for other considerations) that gets overlooked.

    That's going to swing both ways should the UK actually leave the system given that with the current state of the Brexit negotiation train wreck and the compromises being made it's anyone's guess which EU structures the UK might remain part of going forwards. It's one less thing the UK is going to be able to use as a bargaining chip, so that's going to mean some other compromises or cold hard cash will be required to replace it, and it's going to make it much harder for the rest of the EU to meet their climate control obligations, probably meaning more targetted taxation schemes like the one implemented by the French.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:16PM (13 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:16PM (#763480)

    Reminds me of water conservation in Florida. Dry season? Make up all kinds of crazy rules about even-odd car washing days based on license plate numbers, same for lawn watering, etc. Pass building codes restricting residential showers to trickle flow max. Basically, the rules hit the masses of population with fines and in-your-face DON'T WASTE WATER messaging, meanwhile, loopholes in the rules mean that people with (expensive) automatic sprinkler systems can just go program them to water even more than they ever did during the loophole times, people who have people who wash their cars for them just tell them to deal with it, plumbers get paid to install the code compliant low flow appliances for inspection, then paid again to put in something that really works.

    Meanwhile, the tomatoes of Sarasota county always have, and still do, consume more fresh water than all the people put together. The strawberries of Plant City suck so hard on the aquifers that they alone can be held responsible for 90%+ of the sinkholes that have appeared in the last 20 years, etc.

    Similarly, my personal vehicle in Houston which only drove 3000 miles a year / consuming 100 gallons of fuel per year in relatively efficient manner - that one had to go through inspection three times to pass the tailpipe sniffer, while driving by chemical processing plants in Pasadena which were pouring the equivalent of 100+ gallons of VOCs, monoxides, nitric oxide, ammonia, chlorine, ozone, and above all else: gummy particulate soot into the atmosphere every minute. Sure, there's a million cars like mine and only one Pasadena industrial complex, but the emissions from all the cars put together were cleaner than the chemical plants.

    If we're going to "get tough on CO2 emissions" it needs to be across the board, including jet fuel, industrial processes, all energy users. This means that, until generation goes to solar and wind, the price of electricity also needs to rise to reflect the CO2 emissions it represents.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:46PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:46PM (#763489)

      Pasadena which were pouring the equivalent of 100+ gallons of VOCs, monoxides, nitric oxide, ammonia, chlorine, ozone, and above all else: gummy particulate soot into the atmosphere every minute. Sure, there's a million cars..

      Yeah, 1 million cars produce much more pollution than some industrial complex. An industrial complex is a single point of emissions that can be checked and improved. Cars are not.

      the price of electricity also needs to rise to reflect the CO2 emissions it represents.

      That already happens in some jurisdictions. CO2 credits or CO2 price per kWh is higher for gas than for coal. This happens as a producer cost.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:25PM (1 child)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:25PM (#763567) Journal

        Don't be so sure about that million cars vs on industrial complex. GP mentioned Pasadena, rather than any one chemical plant. I really don't know how many plants are in Pasadena, but I know there are several ass-tons of them. Going east out of Houston, those plants extend for miles on both US 90 and Interstate 10. Like Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and other old major polluting cities, Houston has cleaned it's act up some. But, at the same time, so has the auto industry.

        It's easy for me to believe that the chem plants around Houston spew out the equivalent of several million cars each and every day. I don't know about that every minute that GP claimed, but every day, yes.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 19 2018, @02:13AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 19 2018, @02:13AM (#763729)

          Houston cleaned up its act in large part by pushing gasoline refinement offshore, when Rita and Katrina took out the offshore refineries they moved it back onshore and polluted worse than ever for at least a year (I don't know if/when they ever got it cleaned up again, we left town in 2006, in large part due to the lack of air quality.) Worse: when the refineries got a green light to pollute in the cause of keeping the gasoline flowing, all the other plants turned off their scrubbers too - those things are expensive to run, ya know? If just one plant is polluting, it's easy to finger it, maybe even do something about it. When they're all doing it and some have a free pass from Washington to do so, apparently the local EPA is toothless.

          I knew a little about the worst offender in our neighborhood, right at the end of NASA road 1 in Seabrook, French owned plant, seemed to care about as much about the locals as Union Carbide cared about Bhopal. At every opportunity they'd be discharging something or another whether it was massive amounts of groundwater (+ who knows what) on the surface or giant billowing black clouds from the stacks when a tropical storm was approaching.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @11:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @11:46PM (#763664)

        15 chinese ships produce more pollution than all the cars in the world. Trump is saving us by putting tariffs on stuff transported by these ships:
        http://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more-pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182 [industrytap.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:03PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:03PM (#763501)

      > including jet fuel

      The physics of aircraft separate them from other vehicles -- they require enormous power to take off and then have much lower power requirements at cruise. Does anyone have a way to calculate the fuel savings if takeoffs were catapult assisted (as on aircraft carriers?) As soon as some of the power for acceleration is provided from the ground, the plane can carry less fuel, and have somewhat smaller engines, all in a "virtuous circle". And that full power launch could be handled by a clean stationary power source.

      Note that I'm not proposing the same violent acceleration required for a carrier launch! A commercial aircraft take-off assist could approximate the same length as current take-off runs. It might be economical to accelerate a bit harder and hold the plane on the ground longer before rotation, so that the initial part of the flight would be a "zoom climb".

      No cables or hooks either, those would require extra trained staff and be safety/maintenance issues. Instead, use a moving carriage that cradles the tires and drags the plane forward. The forces on the landing gear would be similar to braking forces (but reversed). Under the runway is a maglev and linear motor to support and propel the carriage.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:20PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:20PM (#763507) Journal
        Sounds interesting, but most of the energy of the climb happens after the aircraft leaves the tarmac (the kinetic energy of the aircraft at takeoff is only good enough to get to about 10-15k feet). And the plane consumes most of its fuel after it gets to altitude (else short plane hops would be nearly as expensive as long plane hops).
      • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:08PM

        by Unixnut (5779) on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:08PM (#763515)

        > The physics of aircraft separate them from other vehicles -- they require enormous power to take off and then have much lower power requirements at cruise.

        How so? That is how pretty much every single vehicle works. They require far more power to accelerate then they do to keep going at a steady state. If you don't believe me, set the consumption display on your vehicle. I've done in on mine. Under acceleration onto the motorway I've seen my consumption go up to 45l/100km (5.2MPG), but when I reach the cruise speed it drops to ~8l/100km (~29mpg).

        A change in velocity requires energy input, in a steady state you only need energy input to overcome frictional losses (hence, in a perfect vacuum, you would not need any extra energy input unless you want to change velocity).

        As for the rest of your idea, it sounds over-complicated and error prone, not to mention a maintenance headache. Aircraft carriers have to have such catapults to overcome the lack of runway length, and they are a massive PITA they would not bother with if it wasn't for the length restriction.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:28PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:28PM (#763570) Journal

        LOL at catapult takeoffs. You'll see old people dropping dead routinely. You'll see younger people dropping dead as well, just less often. If you fly, keep an eye on your fellow passengers. You'll see signs of anxiety among them, with our "regular" takeoffs now. Subject those people to 2 or 3 gravities at takeoff, and they'll fall like flies.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 19 2018, @02:16AM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 19 2018, @02:16AM (#763730)

        Catapult launch for commercial aircraft, great idea, don't see it happening anywhere. Meanwhile, for the next 20 years, you can buy a ticket to emit more CO2 from your share of jet fuel than your car will emit all year, for the low low price of $329 round trip, cross country.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:39PM (1 child)

      by suburbanitemediocrity (6844) on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:39PM (#763510)

      emissions from all the cars put together were cleaner than the chemical plants.

      The output of those chemical plants are necessary to build those cars.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 19 2018, @02:18AM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 19 2018, @02:18AM (#763732)

        Mostly those plants are taking the byproducts of refining fuel for those cars and turning them into other profit streams.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:34PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:34PM (#763529)

      don't forget pasadena dumps it's illegal levels/compounds of shit out on sundays, making neighboring towns' houses smell like ass on the inside. your closed windows are no match for the death angel.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 19 2018, @02:21AM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 19 2018, @02:21AM (#763734)

        your closed windows are no match for the death angel.

        Shelter in-place ;->

        I really wanted to like Shoreacres, big lots, near the bay, cheap houses, close to work - cheap for one simple reason: the drive to work (and everywhere else) was obviously carcinogenic, and even if it weren't it just smelled nasty - chlorine, ammonia and that certain je ne se quoi from the French owned plants.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 2) by legont on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:00PM (2 children)

    by legont (4179) on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:00PM (#763498)

    Tax fuel used in industry and it will make everything more expensive while the industry itself would be outsourced so the locals will pay more and get less.

    The only reasonable way to succeed is border tariffs.

    --
    "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:13PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:13PM (#763505)

      > ...border tariffs.

      All these do is shift manufacturing to other locations where the tariffs aren't. The smart money will always be a step or two ahead of the tariff-collectors. Shifting the business around the world causes it's own kinds of disruption. And local industry that might initially be protected by the tariff soon becomes lazy and inefficient due to the lack of competition.

      Try again. Until there are no more countries with low wages and low environmental regulations, the big capitalists will keep on moving to the next cheap location. This is hardly new, take a look at the history of sugar production over the last hundreds of years as it shifted around the world.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:18PM

        by Unixnut (5779) on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:18PM (#763520)

        It isn't just that, one thing forgotten is the increased costs of policing enforcement.

        The moment you restrict trade across a border, prices will increase on one side (probably the side that was doing all the importing), while the prices on the other side will drop (because the demand they had suddenly vanished, but supply hasn't adjusted yet).

        What usually happens when you have such an arbitrage opportunity? More people will find the risk of getting caught smuggling is less than the benefits from a successful operation, and you will have an increase in smuggling and cross border crime. Also, the economic impact from such a disruption may well end up with a lot of newly jobless, possibly desperate people with families to feed and no income. A perfect situation for recruitment for organised crime, or for people to form such enterprises.

        Plus, those people smuggling whatever item you slapped tariffs on, are considered criminals anyway in the eyes of the law now, and many may well diversify into bringing in other items, some of which were banned before, thereby increasing the existing criminal problems before.

        You then have to increase policing of the border, increase policing of your citizens, deal with increasingly agitated populace due to your policies. All in all, there is a chance that the costs of enforcing the tariffs, plus the economic disruption, plus increased policing and social costs, may well exceed the losses due to the original free trade that was occuring.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:05PM (#763502)

    While media and politics rightly, if very, very much belatedly, are warning about climate change, the alternatives proposed clearly are not to be taken serious.

    Sorry, but there really is no alternative to climate change. It will always be changing.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:38PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:38PM (#763531)

    "The hard choices we need to face apparently come down to cities investing in smart cameras to fine visitors based on production year and type of their automobile."

    Where's a mad gunman when you need one?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @05:22PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @05:22PM (#763551)

      Its so obvious at this point. For some reason the only solutions to climate change involve raising taxes and increasing spying.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:39PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:39PM (#763574) Journal

        Oh, definitely. Because litter and pollution are tied by physical laws to taxes. The higher the taxes go, the lower the pollution goes. And, spying too. East Berlin was the cleanest city IN THE WORLD when the Stasi held sway. Right? Right? Tell me I'm right. /sarcasm

  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:56PM (5 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:56PM (#763577) Journal

    A progressive gas tax. The more you consume (per person), the higher tax you pay, no deductibles, except maybe public transport

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:17PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:17PM (#763583)

      As a bonus, all your gas and other purchases will need to be reported to the government to make sure you are paying the appropriate tax rate.

      • (Score: 2) by Kalas on Sunday November 18 2018, @08:00PM (1 child)

        by Kalas (4247) on Sunday November 18 2018, @08:00PM (#763593)

        Yeah but then you'd want an organization in place authorized to track everything financial and make sure nobody is underpaying or overpaying.
        It could never work.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @11:52PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @11:52PM (#763667)

          Which would require further raising taxes until it worked. See, its a perfect plan. More taxes, bigger government, more spying on citizens, and more time wasted on filling out forms. This is the perfect solution to climate change.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @12:52AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @12:52AM (#763699)

      What if I kill you? Can I have your tax allowance? Because I'm willing to kill anyone with your ideas.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @12:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @12:28PM (#763854)

        I'm willing to kill anyone with your ideas

        There's a place for people like you, somewhere between the Tigris and the Euphrate [wikipedia.org].

(1)