- Status
G
GEddie
Guest
So?
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Don’t worry. I am sure that any problems will be solved as soon as Chancellor Merkel issues the proper orders.
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
Sounds like someones name dropping for cotes at her next election bid…
F
frobert
Guest
Merkel will try but even if she were to prevail it won’t make much difference at this late date.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
International cooperation to fight hunger, oppression and terror?
Sounds good to me. I wonder when she is going to send 20,000 German soldiers to help carve out safe zones in Syria and Libya so the refugees can return home. Should be any day now.
Sounds good to me. I wonder when she is going to send 20,000 German soldiers to help carve out safe zones in Syria and Libya so the refugees can return home. Should be any day now.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
European approaches seem to be self-destructive.
They use propane [a heating fuel] as a refrigerant in their refrigerators.
They are unable to discern what is fire proof and what is flammable. So they ended up with a 27-storey apartment house that burned up like a roman candle.
They use propane [a heating fuel] as a refrigerant in their refrigerators.
They are unable to discern what is fire proof and what is flammable. So they ended up with a 27-storey apartment house that burned up like a roman candle.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I was hoping this thread would be about climate policies, but it is only that we should address the issue, that each nation should do so.
It would be great if there could be a discussion on what policies seem good and promising to effectively address the issue without harming the poor and others.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Perhaps we should simply watch and see what the Paris signatory nations really do. Let’s say for a period of 5-10 years. If it’s all posturing, we’ll know there’s nothing this country can do as a country to affect MMGW.
Personally, I believe it’s all show.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Perhaps those signatory nations should simply watch and see what we do.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Actually I think we may meet our previously agreed to obligation, simply because we can do so in ways that strengthen the economy and save us money.
That is if people start acting rationally and economically as Adam Smith expected them to do, and we can overcome the blinders put on us by the fossil fuel industries.
When I was actively following the “solutions” side of the issue I was coming across all sorts of promising mitigation solutions, like one that involved algae to fuel and another fungus (a particular type in S. America that closely resembles petroleum) to fuel. I’m thinking at least some of these would have panned out by now.
I’ll get some of the things I found and post them here.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Here’s a story about the Carbon Dividend approach, which is supported by Republicans and some fossil fuel companies, and many Democrats:
“This is the one climate solution that’s best for the environment — and for business” at washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-the-one-climate-solution-thats-best-for-the-environment–and-for-business/2017/06/19/9736b72c-542f-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html?utm_term=.803d392096fb
As for gov policies, I think this is one of the best proposed ones.
Of course it will not work if people are simply willing to pay higher prices for fossil fuels use by using their carbon dividends to offset the price hikes. But hopefully it would make people think about saving those dividends and using less fuels, or investing those dividends in efficiency. Or for caulking their windows, etc.
In other words for the most part CC mitigation still comes down to what individuals and businesses are willing to do, regardless of gov policies.
Ridgerunner rightly speaks of land use issues, so it would be good if the gov gave incentives to gear land use to mitigate CC…or do the same on gov lands. Or have Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and env groups come and plant trees on gov lands, etc. I know the env club at my college campus joins in such multi-org tree planting once a year.
“This is the one climate solution that’s best for the environment — and for business” at washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-the-one-climate-solution-thats-best-for-the-environment–and-for-business/2017/06/19/9736b72c-542f-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html?utm_term=.803d392096fb
As for gov policies, I think this is one of the best proposed ones.
Of course it will not work if people are simply willing to pay higher prices for fossil fuels use by using their carbon dividends to offset the price hikes. But hopefully it would make people think about saving those dividends and using less fuels, or investing those dividends in efficiency. Or for caulking their windows, etc.
In other words for the most part CC mitigation still comes down to what individuals and businesses are willing to do, regardless of gov policies.
Ridgerunner rightly speaks of land use issues, so it would be good if the gov gave incentives to gear land use to mitigate CC…or do the same on gov lands. Or have Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and env groups come and plant trees on gov lands, etc. I know the env club at my college campus joins in such multi-org tree planting once a year.
X
Xystus
Guest
I am happy to see you agree that everyone saying the sky if falling because of pulling out of the Paris agreement was no more than a bunch of hot air
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Actually the Paris Agreement is not much of a deal according to people who want life on earth to persist and thrive.
All of the goals are voluntary and there is no way to make any government or person do the right thing.
So it is and always has been up to us – you and me and all others – to do the right things, despite our weak-kneed governments.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think they know already, don’t they?
Since it was non-binding on them and us, the only new thing they know is that we’re not going to participate in it, either as a unilateral detriment or as farce.
This country will do what’s in its best interests and as effective technology allows, just as they will, and would have whether we agreed to it or not.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This particular approach seems truly wasteful to me. We’ll tax companies that produce carbon and pay the proceeds to citizens to help them pay for higher prices caused by taxing the companies that produce carbon.
Rube Goldberg would be proud of the scheme.
I could be wrong about this, but when it comes to land management, there probably isn’t a whole lot the government could do to improve it other than turn a lot of government land over to private operators. Most farmers and ranchers I know are using their own capital to improve management. There are government programs but they’re unduly inflexible and probably always will be. What the government perhaps could profitably do is shift funding from climate change studies at universities to agricultural departments to devise efficient means of carbon sequestration that are also profitable to farmers and ranchers. They’re really the only people who pay any attention to that.
In other countries, there’s nothing we in the U.S. can do.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
However, the smart people might use their dividends to invest in energy/resource efficiency/conservation…then their energy bills will stay the same despite the fees (due to less consumption of energy), or even go down, while they will be getting dividends thereafter each month…so their economic situation will gradually improve from this.
It is only those who don’t give much thought to the matter (the rich, who can’t be bothered, or the poor who don’t figure things out well) who will be using their dividends to pay the high prices.
So actually what they also need is some good scouts to point out how they can use the system for their benefit and to help save the earth for future generations.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think by the time the bureaucrats took out the cost of administering the program, there wouldn’t be all that much going into the hands of the citizenry.
Better just to allow people to buy energy or energy-requiring goods at lower prices without the tax. Cut out the middlemen.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
It said “revenue neutral” (which is what many environmentalists were hoping for) but an earlier version had some of that money diverted into program, good tho they be.
I’m thinking the overhead won’t be too much…not more than when Bush gave us back $400 or so in taxes, or when we receive our tax overpayments. Rather it would be up to all people to have a bank account to which the money could be sent electronically. The SS/Medicare people at various local offices could help people with that, explaining what to do for those who need “in person” help.
You are right, though, it might just be better to give people energy efficient products, etc. The fees could go into that.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The government makes everything difficult.
You have to enter the amount on the little dots on line 36 of your Form 1040.
irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf
See page 25:
irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf
**CFR › Title 26 › Chapter I › Subchapter A › Part 1 › Section 1.194-1
26 CFR 1.194-1 - Amortization of reforestation expenditures.
§ 1.194-1 Amortization of reforestation expenditures.
(a)In general. Section 194 allows a taxpayer to elect to amortize over an 84-month period, up to $10,000 of reforestation expenditures (as defined in § 1.194-3(c)) incurred by the taxpayer in a taxable year in connection with qualified timber property (as defined in § 1.194-3(a)). The election is not available to trusts. Only those reforestation expenditures which result in additions to capital accounts after December 31, 1979 are eligible for this special amortization.
(b)Determination of amortization period. The amortization period must begin on the first day of the first month of the last half of the taxable year during which the taxpayer incurs the reforestation expenditures. For example, the 84-month amortization period begins on July 1 of a taxable year for a calendar year taxpayer, regardless of whether the reforestation expenditures are incurred in January or December of that taxable year. Therefore, a taxpayer will be allowed to claim amortization deductions for only six months of each of the first and eighth taxable years of the period over which the reforestation expenditures will be amortized.
(c)Recapture. If a taxpayer disposes of qualified timber property within ten years of the year in which the amortizable basis was created and the taxpayer has claimed amortization deductions under section 194, part or all of any gain on the disposition may be recaptured as ordinary income. See section 1245.
[T.D. 7927, 48 FR 55849, Dec. 16, 1983]
**
- Status