Conquer Club

Thankfully unspeakable global devastation has been averted by an unprecedented unilateral deal via Obama and Xi.

Within a few short years I expect wonderful progress updates:

President to Xi: You guys upholding your side of that deal?

Xi: It has been hard. This year we were expecting a decrease in CO2 emissions, so we burned a few billion tires and are still peaking. How about for you Jeb?

President: Well, there was some opposition from my core constituents, but they only make up 0.01% of the population, so we had that to work around. We've been pissing off the rest of our guys, but that is part of the Bush promise to pass on the presidency to the democrats. It's looking good.

The media is sending out glowing messages of the non-deal, reinforcing the idea of climate change, an unbridgeable political synthesis, the president's ability to go it alone and that other countries should get on board. What they don't talk about is the impact of the deal, which is basically none.

The US is to reduce emissions by 25% from 2005 levels. Half of this has already been achieved. China is to attain a peak in emissions by 2030, and then reduce its energy from fossil fuels by 20%, by which time their thorium program should be producing at least as much.

"Historic: Peace Cats and Mice"

Cat pledged not to eat mouse if he can't find it. Mouse was not present.

Climate Change headline 1999, "Irrevocable Worldwide Catastrophe Unless Immediate Drastic Change"

Climate Changist: In three moves, you'll be in checkmate.

2005 headline, "Global CO2 Emissions See Sharp Increase"

Opponent: Check.

Climate Changist: Good move. As soon as I'm out of check, three moves and you lose.

2014 headline, "IPCC: We Must Stop Emitting NOW"

Opponent: Check.

Climate Changist: You can dance around checking me if you want, but I've calculated your defeat.

2030 headline, "China Peaks"

Opponent: Checkmate.

Nonsense deal= "breakthrough", nonsense reporting= "global consensus", nonsense predictions= "wasn't mine". Record heat, climate changist, "Global Warming". Record cold, climate changist, "Don't you know the difference between climate and weather?"

And we don't give a shit. They could tell us anything they want, they being politicians, media, scientific bodies. People have lost the ability to put things into context. They have gained the ability to double think. The government gains the most off of oil: whereas the oil companies actually need to do something like extract, transport and purify, the government just taxes. This very same government who is gaining the most for the least off of fossil fuels, then tells you its the evil oil companies who are creating the mess. The media is then willing to publish contradictory reports, often beside each other, not link them or even act as if the other exists and direct their audience with both to whatever ends they intended with them.

Some folks don't know they should hang up on telemarketers, some don't know that the "news" is just the official government marketing team.

Where is the 97% or whatever consensus now, when they can actually use the tools they've learned to inform the public of the actuality of the deal and its impact based on their predictions? They are busy heralding it.

There's a bright shiny light and they named it "Truth". It burned everyone who approached it, and all that everyone debated was whether they should get burned by approaching it from the left or right. Leave the light alone.

Pretty sure everyone in OT will be dead by the time global warming really kicks in.

Which means the question is: who gives a crap?

My kids won't be dead. I don't think that leaving them to the mercy of society would make me a very thoughtful dad. And I mean, won't be dead when the legislation and prohibitions start dictating their every move, not when the temperatures actually, if ever, do change.

One king is like another. He tells his subjects that he is protecting them from the other while leading them to death to take the other kings goods. Kings got bored with the threat of dying, and after interrelating themselves decided that there was a better way to profit. After all, isn't one king getting the wealth from the subjects, by saying they should fear the other? And in taking the others wealth, aren't they just expending the taxes they demanded of the people in the process if victorious, and if defeated, they've robbed their people to give to another king.

So they found a better way. We get the taxes and keep them and do a big show on how the money is being spent.

Would I trade peace for the nonsensical fear of global warming? No, because I don't like being extorted, I don't like being in a prison and I think we are better than that. This isn't Animal Farm or Lord of the Flies.

We have the tools of communication, commerce, and habitation to not need a government. As people, we would dispose of the overlords unless weak. The government knows this better than anyone and therefore anyone who suggests disposing of the government becomes a terrorist. I don't know who took MLKs position when he was assassinated, i.e. taking down the leader quiets the restless flock.

It's to everyones advantage to not have a government, except the ruling class. The ruling class that controls the media, politicians and scientific body in question here. I find it funny how Brits justify the existence of their queen.

But the government invents problems. The flock demands they fix them, government gets the power and resources to fix the non-existent problems and just further amalgamates their position.

They structure society. This amount shall make up the lower class, and they shall live as such. This will keep the middle class in check. And now we are giving them a better mechanism than ever before to be intrusive, abusive and its only due to deceit and fear.

It's just an illusion. It's an illusion that will keep my children from realizing their potential, keep them in fear, unable to function on this fine planet and subject to the whims that the ruling class gets asskissers and thugs to carry out.

No one is more than one, and no one is less. I'm just doing my thing, and my thing harms no one, but my thing might give others ideas. They might want to do their thing too. And the government doesn't want you to do your thing.

There is a lot of good research on the reality of climate change. Isn't it odd that the Republicans don't make use of it? They come with weak ass positions making any half intelligent person think that the reality is the opposite of what they claim. Why would they do that...oh they are part of the same ruling class that would like to justify the further reduction of freedom, opportunity and self governance of the population and place it into their own greedy hands.

Its a sham, but in no way harmless. Its the same thing you could say when they pull your neighbour from their house and disappear him, who cares? he was probably doing some bad shit. And then one night, its your house.

Why would you put yourself in such a society? They allowed you to think there was no choice, but there is a choice. I would hope that when presented to you you'd have more than who cares as a response.

Eh? All I said was that I don't care if the world floods in 100 years. Good to see you continuing to live up to your avatar though.

shickingbrits wrote:My kids won't be dead. I don't think that leaving them to the mercy of society would make me a very thoughtful dad. And I mean, won't be dead when the legislation and prohibitions start dictating their every move, not when the temperatures actually, if ever, do change.

The average temperature of the surface of the planet is now 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than before the industrial age began. This is a noticeable shift and there is zero disagreement about this.

This problem of global warming is not some futuristic scenario that will only matter in several decades. We have already substantially modified our environment, in large part through greenhouse gas emissions. Climate changed.

The average temperature of weather stations have warmed by 1.4 fahrenheit. According to some. According to others, the weather stations that they have chosen to collect this data from were the ones that were moved to asphalt, which gets 15 degrees C warmer than nearby land. Of course, the weather records for the past have also been shown to be manipulated.

And if the data isn't manipulated, if the university professor was paid by the evil oil companies to point out these anomalies in the collection, then it still is nothing abnormal. Climate has been changing for millions of years exactly as it is changing today. Throughout the changes, we and all other living creatures managed to both thrive and survive.

But then as a person who has no stake in it, I'm sure you can be trusted, as much as you can be trusted the last time we had a nice discussion where you said here is the rate of change, I said but this rate is impossible, you said no thats the rate, I said its impossible because of this and then you said, no that wasn't the rate.

Where's your post on the how shitty a deal it is and how we are all doomed because of it, i.e. where is your post linking the deal to your scientific awareness? You are full of shit. It's not a flame, not a troll, it is what you are.

Millions of bees died right near me this year, they pollinate 90% of food that humans eat. That is a reality. Hard, cold, unmitigated data. 25% of my province suffers from energy poverty resulting in fires at many homes each winter. We have a volunteer firefighting force as well as three fire departments within a span of 10,000 people. Sirens blare past my home almost every night in winter, that's a reality. We have natural gas, but no access. We have biofuel but no access. We have a private energy provider guaranteed a profitable monopoly by the government who then legislates against competition. There's acres of dead corn on the corner of my property feeding into my acre pond that doesn't support life. We've got oceans that can longer be fished. Thousands of acres of farmland that are bought up and closed. We clearcut millions of acres of trees and didn't see a dime from it.

These problems are not due to a 1.4 F change in temperature, they are due to the government following agenda 21, getting on board with globalization to the devastation of the locals.

The weather channel guy is lying about the non-existence of climate change, so the changist say, and yet he is advocating for thorium. Universities are heated by their parking lots acting as solar collectors, but that isn't happening here. Cities are being heated by human waste, but that isn't happening here. In fact we legislate against it. The number of solutions to the "problem" are plentiful and being ignored while the same people who ignore them are ringing the alarms.

Don't come at me with your nonsense. If you can't say the deal sucks, if you can't ever bring up any solutions, then why do you feel that I'm so damn stupid as to listen to a damn word you say? Next time you feel the need to cry wolf, buy a german shepherd instead.

shickingbrits wrote:Millions of bees died right near me this year, they pollinate 90% of food that humans eat. That is a reality.

That's not even close to the reality.

Seventy out of the top 100 human food crops, which supply about 90 percent of the world's nutrition, are pollinated by bees.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... in-Crisis/

shickingbrits wrote:The average temperature of weather stations have warmed by 1.4 fahrenheit. According to some. According to others, the weather stations that they have chosen to collect this data from were the ones that were moved to asphalt, which gets 15 degrees C warmer than nearby land.

Who are these others? What are their credentials? Where is your source indicating that all of the weather stations are on "asphalt?" (Hint: they're not.)

Of course, the weather records for the past have also been shown to be manipulated.

Been show by who? What is their proof? And what is the real past weather record? Come on, this is just lazy.

And if the data isn't manipulated,

Think about what you're doing here. "Even if I'm wrong, I'm still right." You've chosen to believe that anthropogenic global warming cannot be happening, and so you're coming up with reasons why it has to not be true, instead of really engaging with the evidence. You can't have it both ways -- either the climate is warming and it's "normal," or the data is falsified and nothing is happening. You get to pick exactly one stance, because they're contradictory. You don't get to pick both. So which one are you sticking with?

then it still is nothing abnormal. Climate has been changing for millions of years exactly as it is changing today.

Please provide a source for the claim that the current rate of warming is "exactly" the same as it has been at any time in the past several million years.

But then as a person who has no stake in it, I'm sure you can be trusted, as much as you can be trusted the last time we had a nice discussion where you said here is the rate of change, I said but this rate is impossible, you said no thats the rate, I said its impossible because of this and then you said, no that wasn't the rate.

You don't have to trust me, but I do know more about science than you do.

Where's your post on the how shitty a deal it is and how we are all doomed because of it, i.e. where is your post linking the deal to your scientific awareness?

I don't even know what you're talking about. Do you want to talk about whether it's happening, or whether it's bad for us if it is happening? Again, you don't get to just throw up a whole bunch of arguments. This isn't high school debate class. There's only one scientifically accurate truth, since we're all living on the same planet. This is not a question of opinion. Either the earth is warming and we're the cause, or we aren't. If you're going to be intellectually honest, you need to actually figure out what it is that you're arguing instead of just saying a bunch of random, unconnected things.

If you can't say the deal sucks, if you can't ever bring up any solutions,

I have presented a solution. We simply need to place a rising fee on greenhouse gas emissions. This will mitigate the external cost of climate change, and will allow the market to naturally sort out which energy sources we will transition to next.

then why do you feel that I'm so damn stupid as to listen to a damn word you say?

Why are you being an asshole?

shickingbrits wrote:Seventy out of the top 100 human food crops, which supply about 90 percent of the world's nutrition, are pollinated by bees.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... in-Crisis/

Or, as the very first sentence says: 'You have a bee to thank for every one in three bites of food you eat'. As I understand it, 'one in three' means 33%.

Yesterday I ate an egg pancake for breakfast, sushi for lunch and meat dumplings for dinner. Sounds like I don't have the bees to thank for shit.

shickingbrits wrote:Seventy out of the top 100 human food crops, which supply about 90 percent of the world's nutrition, are pollinated by bees.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... in-Crisis/

Looking for citation.... looking for citation.... Nope! Greenpeace.org is "not even close to the reality."

Look at my insano-blog! It says, "cavemen descended from space lizards." I don't need any citations because opening my claims to falsifiability will likely undermine my strong beliefs!

http://www.panna.org/sites/default/file ... nators.pdf

It's from the UN, not the most reliable source. Living in a farming community, I didn't really expect to need to prove that we need bees, but I guess most kids these days think food comes from the supermarket.



You don't know what I'm talking about Mets? So, you feel immediate action is not needed to prevent global warming? If you do think that immediate action is needed, you would disagree with the deal, since it is actually a promise for inaction. Yet, disagreeing with it is to disagree with your clique, so I suspect you will laud it as they have, which goes against your contention that immediate action is needed.

I'm being an asshole? You just want to further tax, enforce and persecute the human race, and me disagreeing makes me an asshole? What do I care about the opinion of those who wish humanity ill?

shickingbrits wrote:Seventy out of the top 100 human food crops, which supply about 90 percent of the world's nutrition, are pollinated by bees.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campai ... in-Crisis/

"The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)
4 estimates that
out of some 100 crop species which provide 90% of food worldwide, 71 of these
are bee-pollinated. In Europe alone, 84% of the 264 crop species are animal-
pollinated and 4 000 vegetable varieties exist thanks to pollination by bees5. "


Ah, thanks.

I like how the greenpeace.org website ignores "other factors"--e.g. other insects which kill bees. I'm sure the rest is not cherry-picked nor garbled into a particular political agenda. I look forward to their weighing the costs and benefits of using insecticides to keep down parasite populations while potentially harming bees. Can't save 'em all, I guess.

shickingbrits wrote:http://www.panna.org/sites/default/files/Global_Bee_Colony_Disorder_and_Threats_insect_pollinators.pdf

It's from the UN, not the most reliable source. Living in a farming community, I didn't really expect to need to prove that we need bees, but I guess most kids these days think food comes from the supermarket.

Yeah, saying stuff like that makes you an asshole (it's a dumb strawman), so it's funny to see you flustered about being called an asshole.

Assholes.

shickingbrits wrote:You don't know what I'm talking about Mets? So, you feel immediate action is not needed to prevent global warming?

I do feel that immediate action is needed. It was needed 10 years ago.

If you do think that immediate action is needed, you would disagree with the deal, since it is actually a promise for inaction.

I don't "disagree" with the deal since it doesn't really do anything. In terms of making meaningful progress on climate change, it is not serious, and I feel justified in saying that this President has not taken real action on climate change. (However, that is surely the job of Congress, so blaming the President is kind of an absurd argument.) This is merely a way to look like he has done so. In practice, China has done more to deal with the issue than we have.

I'm being an asshole? You just want to further tax, enforce and persecute the human race, and me disagreeing makes me an asshole? What do I care about the opinion of those who wish humanity ill?

The problem here is that if we don't start from the agreement that everyone is generally trying to improve our situation, and not harm it, then we get nowhere. I give you enough basic respect to assume that your motivation is that you also want a better future. As it stands, we may just disagree on how to get there. But to impugn my motives without justification is what makes you an asshole. What reason do you have to think that my ulterior motive is to f*ck over the human race? Why would I even want to?

Zionist plot.

Metsfanmax wrote:
The problem here is that if we don't start from the agreement that everyone is generally trying to improve our situation, and not harm it, then we get nowhere. I give you enough basic respect to assume that your motivation is that you also want a better future. As it stands, we may just disagree on how to get there. But to impugn my motives without justification is what makes you an asshole. What reason do you have to think that my ulterior motive is to f*ck over the human race? Why would I even want to?

Ok let's start with an agreement.

In Canada, the we have provincial tax, national tax and HST. I pay nearly 50% of my income as tax. So do the people who work at the gas station, the people who deliver the gas, the purifiers, the pipeline folks, the extractors. The oil companies pay profit tax.

Different provinces have different tax rates, as do different incomes, so let's say off the top that the government is getting 40% of the base price of oil before it hits market. At market, the government then takes another 100%. To break it down, a litre of oil costs about $1.20. $0.60 of that goes straight to the government at sale, and they received another $0.24 pre-sale. Obviously since that is far greater than half the price, the government is taking more per litre than the oil company.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but there may be a conflict of interest when the same government starts complaining about fossil fuel emissions and states they want to levy a further tax because of them.

But my community supports agenda 21, sustainable development, and within its guidelines produces policy at the municipal, county, provincial and national levels.

My community has supported agenda 21 for more than 2 decades. So I have a friend who went off grid, he's got a battery bank and two solar panels. Uses very few appliances. He received no help from the government in any way. When he tried to disconnect his house from the grid, he called the utility company. After more than a year of being ignored by them, he cut his cable line and called them telling them that there was an immediate danger. Two cops showed up with the utility guy. They told him that if he had touched the power line he would have been arrested. I live in the sticks, this guy lives in the woods. Leaving the power connected to his place is a waste of resources. For preventing a waste of resources, he is threatened with arrest.

Great, so what does it mean? It means we should start with an agreement. What should we agree upon?

I work in small building controls. We measure waste and if there is a decent ROI from our services, we implement measures to realize this ROI and get paid based on the ROI. We get paid from the savings that we produce as they are produced. The government is not involved in any way. No incentives, subsidies, nothing.

We are limited in what we are allowed to implement by regulation. Any power generation must be approved by the utility company, cannot provide a profit and must be approved by local research and local institutions and then approved by the regulators. After it gets approved, insurers and banks need to approve it.

Due to Agenda 21 and global warming, we have new regulations in our province stating that any new construction or renovation be done with R20 material. Hempcrete has been shown to have an R value of 3 per inch. My province was the first site in North America to produce hemp. So, we could easily grow hemp, put in 7 inches and meet regulation, if: under agricultural legislation hemp cannot be a dual use product. Hemp is grown in two varieties: for seeds and for fibre. Fibre plants are planted close together, encouraging vertical growth and eliminating its use for hempcrete. Seed plants are planted further apart, encouraging a chunky core suitable for hempcrete. But a farmer must decide whether he is growing the seed plant for hempcrete or for oil. If growing for oil, he must abandon the stalk, ie no hempcrete.

The seed value is about $1600 per acre, while the stalk value is about $800 per acre.

So I say, alright, I'll give you $1600 per acre for the stalk. Great now I have a locally produced insulating material. That I can't legally use. I have a zero carbon footprint resource that I now need local research on. I have pages of European, Australian, Asian research which is all useless. Though Agenda 21 was able to control my municipality based on research produced by the same institutions, I can't address it with their research.

So I pay for material research, which is going to cost approximately $1m. Yeah, now I have research! Which then needs to be approved by the the association of engineers. They have their own conflicts of interest. But they approve it, let's say. Now I go to the provincial level. The province protects existing businesses. But let's say they approve it. Now I go to insurers, since not everyone has to worry about the banks. They have their own conflicts of interest.

To make a long story short, if hempcrete is a cost effective measure, then some of the approving bodies are going to lose money. The approving bodies are not in the business of losing money.

Next, I have done nothing proprietorial. Any guy who knows a farmer or can buy or lease a few acres has as much access to the use of hempcrete as me who has spent years getting approval after spending a million doing the research.

So like most things that the government does, creating regulation has only furthered the population from meeting it. The same material suppliers are now just guaranteed sales of more expensive products. Products which are now less affordable and less likely to be implemented.

The government has protected the association of engineers, the suppliers, the banks, insurers, the approved contractors. And told me that I can only build or renovate with their approved products, from their approved suppliers at their set rates.

So let's agree on something, otherwise you are like PS and Tzor saying there should be no welfare and not caring about the ramifications. If the government demands lower CO2 emissions, then such activities as going off grid, use of materials that have sufficient international research, use of mechanisms which have sufficient international research, and regulators including banks and insurers should be required to allow them.

And this will hurt GDP. The whole point as a consumer of implementing these materials and technologies is to save money, money that will no longer be taxed, negating the need for a myriad of services. If I as a business person designing and providing these services can't show a worthwhile cost-benefit analysis, then I am merely relying on guilt money. I'm just extorting my customers based on "we all going to die because of you!" which doesn't go over as well as you might think.

When the government starts requiring high mpg cars on the road and cuts its own tax revenue by more than half passing the savings on to consumers and finding more effective means of servicing transport infrastructure to reflect their lower revenues, then I will start to listen when they talk about climate change. But they won't, the government is trying to get more revenue because of climate change, not less. More effective use of materials results in less waste and less cost and less government revenue and less need for government. This is both anti-capitalism and anti-government.

When the we stop exporting our resources for nothing, then I will start believing that they believe in climate change. When the government encourages local food production instead of insisting that meat be certified 3500 km away and then re-imported from a company that has proven it uses unsafe practices, then I will start to believe that they believe in climate change.

But we have to judge based on actions. And their actions all state they are trying to increase their power and income. They are limiting the options of their population. And yes, you are encouraging this, so you are trying to f*ck over humanity. Embrace it.

I like that public choice story.

Not sure about this though:
"And this will hurt GDP. The whole point as a consumer of implementing these materials and technologies is to save money, money that will no longer be taxed, negating the need for a myriad of services."

If you're lowering expenditures on energy, then that frees up cash for other goods. If people spend that money (or save it for future consumption), then GDP won't be affected.

What'll lower GDP is people consuming and saving less. 'Going off the grid' might be just that, but it depends. One could have a farm, go off the grid, while investing in new sources of energy. GDP goes down from less utility payments but up from the investments in new sources of energy.

shickingbrits, since you're so rich, can you buy me skullgirls on steam? It's only 5.09 right now.

If you do, I will post on-topic to all your threads, from now on.

Now we just need to get India on board. Good luck world!


--Andy

BBS,

If my window doesn't break, then I'm not going to replace it. Has GDP increased? I'm not a very good consumer. A large portion of my assets are fixed specifically to avoid consumption and depletion. I've had 3 iphones since they've come out, but if the first two hadn't broken to the point of being not worth fixing, I wouldn't have bought the next two. What would that have done to apple's profits? Some people definitely would have upgraded regardless, but there really hasn't been enough improvement since the first one I got to justify buying the newer models.

I heard that the 6 was going to have unbreakable glass. Over the years, on my and my wife's ipads and iphones, we have probably spent $1000 on applecare, repairing the glass and upgraded once because of it. I wonder why they didn't change to the less breakable screen?

shickingbrits wrote:BBS,

If my window doesn't break, then I'm not going to replace it. Has GDP increased? I'm not a very good consumer. A large portion of my assets are fixed specifically to avoid consumption and depletion. I've had 3 iphones since they've come out, but if the first two hadn't broken to the point of being not worth fixing, I wouldn't have bought the next two. What would that have done to apple's profits? Some people definitely would have upgraded regardless, but there really hasn't been enough improvement since the first one I got to justify buying the newer models.

I heard that the 6 was going to have unbreakable glass. Over the years, on my and my wife's ipads and iphones, we have probably spent $1000 on applecare, repairing the glass and upgraded once because of it. I wonder why they didn't change to the less breakable screen?

It depends on the costs and benefits for switching to the new screen. It's not just a technological issue (the screen is more durable) because it's also an economic issue. For example, how much does integrating this new screen into current and later models affect the price of the product? If the price goes up, how many consumers will buy less? If the price goes down, can we sell more at a profit or would it result in a loss? (Selling more doesn't always result in profit). How much does this affect our streams of profit from the maintenance revenues--part of which Apple controls?

Anyway, how does your response demonstrate that investments in graywater and alternative sources of energy must shrink the extent of the market? Clearly, it might not because it depends, like I said....

Typically house here uses 32,400 kWh per winter for heating.

With smarter materials at cheaper cost and proper orientation can reduce that by half. Taking advantage of solar gains throughout the year can cut the cost of the remaining heat by 75%.

Your heating bill is down by 87.5%, haven't spent any more on the house and you haven't added any maintenance costs. Satisfying the other needs of your house just got a lot easier. Now, solar panels to get the power you need is much more feasible. This is not theoretical, uninvented stuff, this is widely available.

What cost you thousands per year that was going towards the economy is no longer a cost. Your point is that you have added to the economy with the systems in use that are replacing the existing infrastructure. Not really, because the house didn't cost any more to build and your solar set-up is now within the 10k range and will be good for at least 25 years.

Will that money then go to other uses? For the middle class. But the poor were already suffering from energy poverty, and alleviating it doesn't add money to their pocket, it just removes the problem. The rich don't have anything else they need to buy.

Now we just spent a few billion helping a private utility build their infrastructure which they are going to use to sell us electricity at higher rates. A half smart community who did make use of localized resources would demand that those funds go to better uses, such as being able to avoid clear cutting a few million acres, building a better transport network, etc, which further reduces the flow of money needed to benefit from our modern age.

Okay. So, say someone buys your product. What's the rate of return? (How much do they spend initially? How much does this save them--e.g. how much are their monthly bills lowered)?

You nor I can definitively conclude what the the effects of an investment on one's financial well-being are--if you don't mention all the prices and the rate of return. For example:

"Your point is that you have added to the economy with the systems in use that are replacing the existing infrastructure. Not really, because the house didn't cost any more to build and your solar set-up is now within the 10k range and will be good for at least 25 years."

That's not my point. My point is about the initial amount spent on the investment (principal), the rate of return (interest rate), the amount saved in energy expenditures per month (annuity), and of course the time.

If someone spends $10k on solar which is perfect for 25 years (i.e. no maintenance fees, no decrease in efficiency, amazing!), then how much do they earn? They'll earn some amount that is equal to the amount they no longer have to spend per month on their electricity bill. If the solar investment has a very crappy rate of return, then the investor is incurring a loss. They're making themselves poorer; the investment was too costly. Instead, they could've spent that $10k on an investment which yields a higher rate of return.

For example, let's use an annuity calculator http://www.calculator.net/annuity-payou ... lator.html

Principal: $10,000
Years: 25
Rate of Return: 1%
Annuity: $454

So, if you spend $10,000 initially, and the investment lasts 25 years, then you get $454 per month (i.e. you 'save' $454 per month on your energy bill). The rate of return is 1%. 1%.

A yield of 1% sucks for a 25-year investment, and we're assuming that the monthly amount saved is $454. If it's lower than that, then the rate of return becomes negative (e.g. a -3% 'saves' you $260 per month). That person is making his/herself poorer. This investment does not positively contribute to 'the economy', nor to the individual--unless they want to be poorer (thereby they have increased their utility, by being poorer--but they've become less 'off-the-grid').

Again, this investment reduces that person's wealth. Why? Because the cost of that investment is an investment which yields a higher rate of return: e.g. the 2.8% earned from $10k spend on 20-year T-bills.


See? It depends on the principal, the time, the rate of return, and the annuity (and we're not even talking about risk--which applies to ALL investments). Without enough information, for all we know, you could be selling products to people which makes them poorer. If you're at all concerned about poor people, then it would be comforting to know that you sell products which don't make people poorer.

shickingbrits wrote:Now, I'm not a lawyer, but there may be a conflict of interest when the same government starts complaining about fossil fuel emissions and states they want to levy a further tax because of them.

1) Non-unique: there's usually a conflict of interest when the government collects any tax revenue, because of the way state budgets usually work.

2) This argument doesn't really make sense. The existing taxes weren't somehow encouraging use of fossil fuels; taxes generally serve to decrease demand, not increase it, due to the increased price. So, adding another tax to further decrease demand isn't a new conflict of interest, it's just a continuation of existing policy.

3) I advocate for a carbon fee where 100% of the revenues are returned directly to the citizen. In this way, the government cannot use the funds to further its own interests.

4) Why are you talking about the government and its intentions? I am the one who wants the carbon tax, as a citizen; I am not the government, nor a representative of it.

Due to Agenda 21 and global warming, we have new regulations in our province stating that any new construction or renovation be done with R20 material. Hempcrete has been shown to have an R value of 3 per inch. My province was the first site in North America to produce hemp. So, we could easily grow hemp, put in 7 inches and meet regulation, if: under agricultural legislation hemp cannot be a dual use product. Hemp is grown in two varieties: for seeds and for fibre. Fibre plants are planted close together, encouraging vertical growth and eliminating its use for hempcrete. Seed plants are planted further apart, encouraging a chunky core suitable for hempcrete. But a farmer must decide whether he is growing the seed plant for hempcrete or for oil. If growing for oil, he must abandon the stalk, ie no hempcrete.

This story is interesting (or it would be if I hadn't heard you complain about regulation on hempcrete several times before), but it misses one key point: there's a huge difference between a direct and transparent fee on a good, and regulation. I am not advocating regulation since I don't think the government can do a great job predicting what the correct energy sources are for our economy. Instead, I advocate for a fee on fossil fuels to represent the fact that every time you buy the fuel with the intent to burn it, you are doing harm to others, and that harm is not reflected in the price you are paying. (BBS and I have discussed this in another thread; I believe this is true because most consumers don't really understand the future impacts of global warming, and don't appreciate or care about the impacts it will have on people that live far away from them. However, we never finished this conversation, I think.)

To make a long story short, if hempcrete is a cost effective measure, then some of the approving bodies are going to lose money. The approving bodies are not in the business of losing money.

This is an example of generalizing too far from a specific example. If your argument were truly meaningful, then new innovations would be very hard to achieve because the leading business would always go in with government to prevent it. And it's true, that we see this time and time again. But it hasn't been truly effective in stifling innovation. Despite the billions of dollars tech companies spend on their patent portfolio, for example, we still manage to have amazing innovations in technology every year. Yes, that trend puts a possible damper on it, but better engineering and tech will always win out in the long run.

So let's agree on something, otherwise you are like PS and Tzor saying there should be no welfare and not caring about the ramifications. If the government demands lower CO2 emissions, then such activities as going off grid, use of materials that have sufficient international research, use of mechanisms which have sufficient international research, and regulators including banks and insurers should be required to allow them.

OK. I generally support these things.

When the government starts requiring high mpg cars on the road and cuts its own tax revenue by more than half passing the savings on to consumers and finding more effective means of servicing transport infrastructure to reflect their lower revenues, then I will start to listen when they talk about climate change. But they won't

This is empirically false. Look at what happened after the CAFE standards were introduced here in the US. The miles-per-gallon requirement increased by 10 in about as many years. And now they're still increasing. Wikipedia has this cool graphic which basically demonstrates that by 2022, the average car on the road will be required to have the equivalent effectiveness that a Prius does now.

But we have to judge based on actions. And their actions all state they are trying to increase their power and income. They are limiting the options of their population. And yes, you are encouraging this, so you are trying to f*ck over humanity. Embrace it.

The reason I'm calling you an asshole is because I could just as easily say that you're trying to destroy humanity by letting temperatures and sea level rise several degrees over the next few decades, simply because you're too selfish and narrow-sighted to think about anything later than next week. But I won't, because that's not what inspires collaborative and effective communication.