so the only thing that is keeping this from becoming a reality: http://www.gallup.com/poll/190268/prioritize-alternative-energy-oil-gas.aspx --- "73% want U.S. to emphasize alternative energy rather than oil and gas" is gov't regulation? This isn't like going to the grocery store and buying wheat bread over white bread. Gov't regulation of industry and its pollution is unbelievably necessary. Go back to the early 70s and check air/water quality then and compare it with now.
It should be (it's not) a property rights issue. If an industry pollutes a river on your land you should be able to take them to court and force them to pay. If enough people did this the company would either clean up or go broke. What stops a government agency from being more corrupt than the industry? When government gets involved in industry it creates monopolies, something that would never happen in a free market. There have only been two monopolies free market, NYE stock exchange and De Beers, competition brings change not the gment
Well part of the problem is that these companies have the financial resources to make people go broke when they get taken to court. Our current PEEOTUS is a prime example of this tactic.
Hmm...free market, no monopolies. What has happened to all the telecommunications industries that were broke up due to the bell corporation. Bought up all competition due to the market being free. Your logic is flawed, good in theory but rarely works out. Now they are merging again and buying up competition essentially doing the same thing again.
Yes companies should be free to dump pollutants however they see fit, and if it renders your private land un farmable/fishable/swimmable/usable for who knows how long you should have to come up with the money to fight a team of corporate lawyers in endless litigation. Really no action should be taken until then.
What incentive do companies have to offer anything other than cheap ass oil? It's not going away any time soon and we all know that the market is all about the short term. People are only as environmentally conscience as their pocketbook allows them to be. If the options are oil or coal or paying a metric fuckton for alternative energy, the biggest poor hippy on earth is going to choose oil or coal. Not because they're hypocrites, but because they are just trying to make it day to day just like the rest of us.
Are you fucking serious? The giant corporation with ungodly amounts of money would just tie up the court until the other side is bled dry. That happens today and we aren't even living in this ancap dream world.
The reason professional sports and NCAAF are so damn competitive and fun to watch is because they all operate under the exact same rules. They're pushed to find little ways to get ahead of the competition and they innovate like a mother fucker. Their "CEO's" are held to ungodly standards and if the team isn't doing well then they are fired quickly. I had an entire sales seminar based on how sports teams operate so much better and more efficiently than 99% of businesses.
If there was ever a time of vigorous competition, it was the free market utopia of the Gilded Age, led by noted monopoly haters John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.
World temperatures hit new high in 2016 for third year in a row 8 / 18 Reuters By Alister Doyle27 mins ago SHARE SHARE TWEET SHARE EMAIL LO "2016 was the hottest year ever. it’s the third year in a row of record-high heat" will play after this ad - 00:01 World temperatures hit a record high for the third year in a row in 2016, creeping closer to a ceiling set for global warming with extremes including unprecedented heat in India and ice melt in the Arctic, U.S. government agencies said on Wednesday. The data, supported by findings from other organizations, was issued two days before the inauguration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who questions whether climate change has a human cause. Average surface temperatures over land and the oceans in 2016 were 0.94 degrees Celsius (1.69 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 20th-century average of 13.9C (57.0F), according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). U.S. space agency NASA reported almost identical data, and the UK Met Office and University of East Anglia, which also track global temperatures for the United Nations, said 2016 was the hottest year on record. © REUTERS/Pascal Rossignol People cool off in fountains as hot summer temperatures hit Paris Temperatures, lifted both by man-made greenhouse gases and a natural El Nino event that released heat from the Pacific Ocean last year, beat the previous record in 2015, when 200 nations agreed a plan to limit global warming. That peak had in turn eclipsed 2014. "We don't expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Global temperature records date back to the 1880s. Temperatures are unlikely to set a new peak in 2017 after the El Nino faded, even as greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels keep building up in the atmosphere, led by China and the United States. Piers Forster, climate expert at the University of Leeds, said this year was likely to be cooler. "However, unless we have a major volcanic eruption, I expect the record to be broken again within a few years," he said. Ash from big eruptions can dim sunlight. NATURAL DISASTERS Among last year's extreme weather events, wildfires in Alberta were the costliest natural disaster in Canada's history while Phalodi in west India recorded a temperature of 51C (123.8°F) on May 19, a national record. North America also had its warmest year on record, the Great Barrier Reef off Australia suffered severe damage from rising temperatures, and sea ice in both the Arctic Ocean and around Antarctica is at record lows for mid-January. At a conference in Paris in late 2015, governments agreed a plan to phase out fossil fuels this century and shift to renewable energies such as wind and solar power. They agreed to limit warming to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) above pre-industrial times, while pursuing efforts for 1.5C (2.7F). By that yardstick, the rise stood at about 1.1C (2.0F) in 2016. "Long-term indicators of human-caused climate change reached new heights in 2016,” Petteri Taalaas, head of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organisation said, referring to rising levels of carbon dioxide and methane. Trump, who has described climate change as a hoax, has threatened to cancel the Paris Agreement and shift to exploiting cheap domestic coal, oil and gas. At a meeting in Marrakesh days after Trump's victory, however, almost 200 nations said it was an "urgent duty" to combat climate change. "The hottest year on record is such a clear warning siren that even President-elect Trump cannot ignore," said Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at University College London. (Reporting By Alister Doyle; editing by John Stonestreet)
This is more of a reflection of how awful and bloated our legal system has become, changes need to be made there too. However, your point stands as things are the way they are.
Also, I'm working under the theory that Internet2 is a leftist poster's alt account in an attempt to get people to understand the absurdity of the libertarian platform.
Carnegie said the tariffs placed on steel were the single most important event in prompting him to enter the steel business. I understand the defense reasons for the tariffs and if they were positive is a different argument but without the tariff there wouldn't have been a monopoly.
I'm not, I realize the shit I say will never happen but it's good to remind people that there are other ways. We've bashed the free market for so long that the positives have been lost. The free market created the best working conditions in the world or the rest of the world wouldn't have continued to get on ships and brave the ocean to start a new life here.
I love the free market. It just needs to be regulated. Because people are short sighted as hell and we will eat everything around us if some force does not control our appetite. The example I love pointing to is the American Buffalo. In a pure free market economy, they would no longer exist. Not to mention the fact that the literal end game of capitalism is one company to rule them all. The biggest problem with pure capitalism is the exact same problem as pure communism: too much power in the hands of too few people.
Monopoly is literally the end game of the free market. Carnegie and Rockefeller were just the only ones that reached that point before we changed the rules.
libertarianism is so absurd it bothers me so many people think it makes sense and isn't just a propped up ideology that allows companies to abuse the population and their workforce for profit
At least Internet2 seems to be an ancap. I can at least appreciate the brazen disregard for the real world. Most "libertarians" are just Republicans who don't give a shit who you fuck or what you put in your body. It's not more complex than that.
The steel tariff was the main reason Carnegie entered the steel business. There were legitimate reasons for the tariff but it also created the monopoly. Carnegie took advantage of one of the few markets that wasn't free to create his monopoly.
Why did flocks of people get on ships and cross the ocean to be abused for profit? That's one of the biggest myths of the free market. The horrible working conditions that we think of from that time period were almost always in industry that had government involvement. This is also where unions started, gment involvement started unions.
I've done my battles with the ancaps years ago and it always ends at the same conclusion theres never been a modern true free market so any negatives that have happened in history can be pinned to "government" but all the magical positives of free markets that haven't been shown to exist get hung up on there never being a truly free market
Well there hasn't been a truly free market economy and to be honest I'm not sure I would be for it. Government serves a purpose as long as it's limited but we've seen throughout history that governments always expand.
I'm somewhat torn, I see the need for government but all current forms of government absorb power and outgrow their role. Until someone comes up with a gment that doesn't want power and doesn't take rights I'll consider myself ancap camp
Where is the line drawn for the government going too far in regulating businesses? Should they be regulating minimum wages? Workplace safety? Product safety? Privacy of personal information? False Advertising? Do you have any big holdups besides environmental regulations?
As I sit in a “green” and “efficient” building that was built because of “incentive zoning,” which benefits the public and the user, I am glad we did not leave it up to the building owner which certainly would have cut corners to save money.
here's your annual reminder that there isn't, has never been, and can never be a free market by definition have a nice day talking about unicorn frogs
These links were recommended at the bottom of your article. Wonder if the site has an agenda. Oh wait, it's founder worked for the Heartland Institute, the conservative think tank which receives funding from the Koch brothers and others. Also the founder was fired from the Washington Post for plagiarism.
I think you should focus on the substance of the article and answer the question(s) about why there is a concerted attempt to hide the actual numbers. Every time I engage with a "progressive" on TMB I'm always surprised by the inability to stay on the topic and by the lack of actual depth of knowledge. Your reply is a perfect example of that. But with that said I'm sort of tired of arguing with the so-called progressives and about politics in general. It's a pointless exercise because you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. The climate lobby and warmist nuts never want to talk about the actual numbers behind the shocking headlines because those numbers are often not supportive of their base argument. I've also never said climate change isn't happening. I've never said the earth isn't warming. It may well be. But so far your side hasn't proven much of anything and the overt attempts to cover up the real science makes it hard for many of us to take your "this is all science and not politics" mantra very seriously.
The actual numbers are so small as to be within the margin of error and in no way comport with the sensationalistic headlines. That is not arguable - it's just simple fact.
Fiance, they got engaged while he was posting on TMB between their rounds of hot sex last weekend. Don't you remember he said he would be married later this year? He conveniently left off that by the end of the year she'd be cheating and leave him again. Not till she gets knocked up so another man can raise more of his kids though.
Actually the writer that wrote the article pretty much gave all the numbers needed to already conclude global warming by itself is real. The manmade influence takes a bit more work as it requires the proof that correlation and causation are in fact both valid assumptions here. How one consistently sides with about 1% of the scientists even when the money flow of that 1% is really quite easy to find is beyond me. Sure there are climate scientists that profit from blowing up the thread as well, that too might be about 1%. That still leaves 98% of the relevant and unbiased scientist who almost to a man support the hypothesis of man made climate change. Thats about as broad based a concensus as you can find in science. But of course one part of the political spectrum doesnt like facts because facts have a liberal bias, therefore its easier to replace facts with feelings.
Jax you're better than this, stay on topic. There is absolutely no need to bring up his ex-wife fucking another man right in front of him, he's trying to engage in a serious conversation. Sorry Shakedown that Jax Teller can't stay on topic.