Climate change/Greta Thunberg [merged threads]

[roegner]

	Quote:	BasP72
	But keeping prices the same and introducing a quota system would be fair as it impacts poor and rich people alike. .

I doubt that. Remember that after WWII there were quota on getting food? Some people always managed to get more than others.

And if quota, the rich can afford to buy more from others, poor people probably not. There will just be another black market

[omtatsat]

	Quote:	roegner
	I doubt that. Remember that after WWII there were quota on getting food? Some people always managed to get more than others. And if quota, the rich can afford to buy more from others, poor people probably not. There will just be another black market

Yes. The rich never cease to profit!

[3Wishes]

	Quote:
	A lot of people wonder how they'll get to work if they used their 50 liters?

Pretty much.

In a place like Switzerland I could see how a quota system might sort of, kind of work, but in places like the States it's not even remotely realistic. Public transport, particularly outside of major metropolitan areas, is abysmal to non-existent. My hometown has no public transport. If you work for the grocery store, the post office, or the town you can walk to work if you live close enough. Everyone else has to work in a larger city, which means needing a car. Even most teens have to drive to get to the high school.

It sounds nice to say "increase public transport options" but that also costs money, and means buying up land for infrastructure projects - land that is currently selling at record prices to build houses as fast as possible.

[omtatsat]

	Quote:	3Wishes
	Pretty much. In a place like Switzerland I could see how a quota system might sort of, kind of work, but in places like the States it's not even remotely realistic. Public transport, particularly outside of major metropolitan areas, is abysmal to non-existent. My hometown has no pubic transport. If you work for the grocery store, the post office, or the town you can walk to work if you live close enough. Everyone else has to work in a larger city, which means needing a car. Even most teens have to drive to get to the high school. It sounds nice to say "increase public transport options" but that also costs money, and means buying up land for infrastructure projects - land that is currently selling at record prices to build houses as fast as possible.

It stinks of Nazi Germany!

[roegner]

	Quote:	omtatsat
	It stinks of Nazi Germany!

Have you ever read up on what happened????

	Quote:	BasP72
	And this is how you get to real options for reducing the amount of gas used. When the ever reducing quota starts to impede you in your daily life, you stary to think about carpooling, public transport etc etc. Plus as you can see the impact of the gradual decrease of your quota, you start to think about maybe the next car should be smaller and more economical. Maybe a 1.2 is enough, no need for a 3.0 V6 as with the 1.2 in 4 years you will still be able to drive to work, but with the 3.0 halfway through the month your quota is used up.

You assume that everybody has the option for such choices like public transport and such. I've had jobs where I at Sundaymorning 5:00 had to be at remote industrial areas. Choice is simpel: Use your car or stay at home.

PS: Even a 1.2 starts consuming a lot uphill

[BasP72]

	Quote:	omtatsat
	Its made into such a big issue so as to enable them to hit YOU with more taxes ( CO2). . Its a money making machine thats all it is.

Yep, and please dont be so ignorant as to think that this tax income will be used for climate improvement. It'll just go on the big pile and be used to plug the hole in the budget.

[omtatsat]

	Quote:	BasP72
	Yep, and please dont be so ignorant as to think that this tax income will be used for climate improvement. It'll just go on the big pile and be used to plug the hole in the budget.

And it will fill the pockets of these fake politicians and government lay arounds!

[BasP72]

	Quote:
	You assume that everybody has the option for such choices like public transport and such. I've had jobs where I at Sundaymorning 5:00 had to be at remote industrial areas. Choice is simpel: Use your car or stay at home. PS: Even a 1.2 starts consuming a lot uphill

Coming from NL, like you, we both know that at a certain point it makes more sense to, eh, reduce your economic activity. If you cant get to work anymore and there is no work closeby, just stop working and get government benefits. No reason the government should not feel the impact of climate change policies.

[omtatsat]

	Quote:	BasP72
	Coming from NL, like you, we both know that at a certain point it makes more sense to, eh, reduce your economic activity. If you cant get to work anymore and there is no work closeby, just stop working and get government benefits. No reason the government should not feel the impact of climate change policies.

For these non-workers the punishment will be the energy generating treadmill

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	BasP72
	Whether to agree with climate change being man made or not, what I really dont like about climate 'solutions' is that they almost always come down to making things more expensive. Take gas for instance, to help the climate we have to reduce how much people buy by increasing the price. This always comes down to poor people being affected and rich people not. Who cares about 5 chf per liter when you make 30000 a month ? But at 4000chf a month its a different story.

That's what it comes down to. And yes, increasing the price of energy will affect everything else. That's the most effective way with the least amount of (additional) bureaucracy.

	Quote:	BasP72
	Why not a system where gas prices stay the same but everyone gets a quota: only 50 liters per month. With centralised registration to prevent people buying other peoples quota. This is a much fairer system, and allows for the gradual reduction of quota.

Same difference. You're creating a grey market where the less-well-off will, once they deem it profitable enough, selll their energy vouchers forward. And if you try to outlaw these kinds of dealings, people will definitely find ways around it. You're raising the bar, but any bar can be overcome once the incentive is strong enough.

Whatever you do (in a market-based system), at the end of the day the rich will buy from the poor if you limit energy consumption. There's no avoiding that if you propagate a reasonably efficient system.

If however you switch to some kind of planned economy, any kind of statist economy, you're merely moving the place in the economic chain where these trades take place. In these systems the distributor will sell to the rich instead of distributing to the small guy, the result will be essentially the same. See the systems that were labled communist or similar, like the USSR, GDR, Cuba, etc.

	Quote:	BasP72
	But you never hear talk about this as it would affect the powers that be equally as all the plebs, and we cannot have that now can we ?

Yes we don't see that but nope, it won't come to that. For the bottom 50-80% it comes down to freely agreeing to the reduction of their own living standard. Perhaps for everybody but the top 1%.

See the gilets jaunes in France. That's what it means to regulate the reduction of CO2 emissions, just that your (you folks') effects will be more grave by multiple magnitudes. You're taking away the parents' hope that their children or grandchildren will have it better than they have it themselves.

	Quote:	BasP72
	Coming from NL, like you, we both know that at a certain point it makes more sense to, eh, reduce your economic activity. If you cant get to work anymore and there is no work closeby, just stop working and get government benefits. No reason the government should not feel the impact of climate change policies.

Yeah, very nice if you have a nice rental home on which they pay a lot along, not if you have your own home and are forced to take another mortgage to first eat up your own money to end up with more debts and nobody paying along on those and how on earth would I pay up 10K for a new roof?

Sell your home you'd say and live the paid for life?

Yeah, but what if I can pay the mortgage but don't have the money to close the gap due to being on welfare, a bank will not allow me to sell if I can't refinance the gap.

You should stop reasoning so simple and realise that some of your answers are brainfarts and not solutions.

[roegner]

Unfortunately some people seem to go that route though....

[omtatsat]

	Quote:	Urs Max
	That's what it comes down to. And yes, increasing the price of energy will affect everything else. That's the most effective way with the least amount of (additional) bureaucracy. Same difference. You're creating a grey market where the less-well-off will, once they deem it profitable enough, selll their energy vouchers forward. And if you try to outlaw these kinds of dealings, people will definitely find ways around it. You're raising the bar, but any bar can be overcome once the incentive is strong enough. Whatever you do (in a market-based system), at the end of the day the rich will buy from the poor if you limit energy consumption. There's no avoiding that if you propagate a reasonably efficient system. If however you switch to some kind of planned economy, any kind of statist economy, you're merely moving the place in the economic chain where these trades take place. In these systems the distributor will sell to the rich instead of distributing to the small guy, the result will be essentially the same. See the systems that were labled communist or similar, like the USSR, GDR, Cuba, etc. Nope. It comes down to freely agreeing to the reduction of one's own living standard (unless you're in the top 1%). See the gilets jaunes in France. That's what it means to reduce CO2 emissions, just that your (you folks') effects will be more grave by multiple magnitudes. You're taking away the parents' hope that their children or grandchildren will have it better than they have it themselves.

It comes down to the rich and super rich paying for this whole CO2 thing. They take the most so they have to give the most!

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	omtatsat
	It comes down to the rich and super rich paying for this whole CO2 thing. They take the most so they have to give the most!

That's why progressive tax rates were introduced, and I agree that that's one measure worth implementing. But the trend for the last 40-60 years, both internationally and domestically, has been in the opposite direction - with the domestic voter's support, mind. And it doesn't look like that trend's going to change anytime soon, quite the contrary.

[omtatsat]

	Quote:	3Wishes
	I think the new tax being proposed on airfares in Switzerland is similar. The rich people will not care if they pay an extra 30-120 CHF per ticket to fly. The average folks that need to travel regularly to the UK or USA or wherever for family reasons will get hit hard. Business expenses will go up. Not only that, but the travel industry employs millions of people, so changes need to consider all the factors not only the carbon footprint.

It really seems to belong to the Swiss mentality to be one of the first countries to implement such a tax.

[ZuriRollt]

OP, I think that I may have mentioned in a previous thread / Post, but EF is the last place to be discussing these real issues. Most educated, as well as non-educated people in this country has had ample opportunity to make themselves aware and informed of the issues. Unfortunately this didńt happen, so a topic like this is best discussed on other, better informed forums.

Can provide links if you like, but any well informed site will give more well-informed input than this thread on this site.

Just sayin‘

[omtatsat]

	Quote:	ZuriRollt
	OP, I think that I may have mentioned in a previous thread / Post, but EF is the last place to be discussing these real issues. Most educated, as well as non-educated people in this country has had ample opportunity to make themselves aware and informed of the issues. Unfortunately this didńt happen, so a topic like this is best discussed on other, better informed forums. Can provide links if you like, but any well informed site will give more well-informed input than this thread on this site. Just sayin‘

This how you see the world?

[ZuriRollt]

	Quote:	omtatsat
	This how you see the world?

No, this is how I see this as a thread. Itś a serious topic, that affects all. But itś being made a ridicule of.
No-one informed on the topic would contribute seriously to it. And I find that a shame for EF.

[omtatsat]

	Quote:	ZuriRollt
	No, this is how I see this as a thread. Itś a serious topic, that affects all. But itś being made a ridicule of. No-one informed on the topic would contribute seriously to it. And I find that a shame for EF.

Simply because you can't accept thoughts opposite to your own and seek to discredit EF members