Quote from: K-Dog on May 04, 2024, 02:46 PMYou don't get it for whatever reason.  It is not for me to understand your recalcitrance.

I get the idea of it, I just need to see it actually implemented and what the price of gas, diesel and jet fuel are at the pump and finally how big my check is every month since I use zero gas or jet fuel.  I don't even take public transportation.  So if anybody will get rich on this scheme it's me, and I'd be very happy if it works like you think it will.

Now, is there a snowball's chance in hell they will try it out before I kick the bucket so we can find out who was right and who was wrong?  There's no other way to do it besides actually running the program.  A computer simulation would not be enough, even if you had AI simulating human behavior.

RE

Quote from: RE on May 04, 2024, 08:11 PM

Quote from: K-Dog on May 04, 2024, 02:46 PMYou don't get it for whatever reason.  It is not for me to understand your recalcitrance.

I get the idea of it, I just need to see it actually implemented and what the price of gas, diesel and jet fuel are at the pump and finally how big my check is every month since I use zero gas or jet fuel.  I don't even take public transportation.  So if anybody will get rich on this scheme it's me, and I'd be very happy if it works like you think it will.

Now, is there a snowball's chance in hell they will try it out before I kick the bucket so we can find out who was right and who was wrong?  There's no other way to do it besides actually running the program.  A computer simulation would not be enough, even if you had AI simulating human behavior.

RE

You should be on the citizens assembly that sets the rate.  Don't be late.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 04, 2024, 09:20 PMYou should be on the citizens assembly that sets the rate.  Don't be late.

As long as I don't need to fly or drive.

What's the proposed rate?  What would gas cost at the pump today?

RE

Quote from: RE on May 05, 2024, 01:31 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on May 04, 2024, 09:20 PMYou should be on the citizens assembly that sets the rate.  Don't be late.

As long as I don't need to fly or drive.

What's the proposed rate?  What would gas cost at the pump today?

RE

There is no answer for that because as time goes by the rate increases.  This is why a citizens assembly must control the pain.  The Citizens' Climate Lobby proposes starting at $15 per ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 per ton each year. This gradual increase is intended to give businesses and consumers time to adjust and to provide a clear signal to invest in cleaner technologies.

I struck out the bullshit.  If you made the rate high initially there would be enormous disruption.  Cleaner tech has nothing to do with it.  That is a lie.  The truth is money piles are threatened and the author of the above was not honest enough to state an uncomfortable truth.  The program changes human behavior by modifying the choices people can make and has nothing to do with tech.  Time to adjust means keep disruption within reasonable limits.  Changing people's choices is a threat to the established and well off. 

Consider two McMansions one in the city, and one thirty miles out in the burbs.  They are worth the same now. The mcMansion in the burbs is bigger and nicer if they are worth the same, because the land in the city is worth more.  Now double the price of gas overnight.  The property value of the suburban lot crashes.  The burb McMansion essentially becomes worthless.  This is the actual reason Carbon Fee and Dividend has to start slow.  The pain of too high a rate would cause a conservative counter-revolution.  There would be too many people who's lives would suddenly not work.

As people enjoy payments (in a program done right), the program becomes more popular and the rate ratchets up.  After a few years raising the rate causes less pain.  There are no more housing starts in the deep burbs now, and the dense city planning urban planners want is well under way.  People have adjusted, and as the rate ratchets up there is less pain.

$15 per ton of CO2 increased by $10 per ton each year will increase the cost of a gallon of gas by about $1.40 after ten years.  Average consumption of 23 gallons a week provides a weekly deposit of $32.20 per person. 

Ten years to get that far is way too long.  That said I'd be fine with a low initial rate which does not do much.  Not much is not the same thing as nothing, and as climate shocks wake up the general population there will be pressure to set the rate higher.  With the system is already in place, no problemo.

Once Fee and Dividend is in place society will change as fast as it wants to.  The way to fuck it up is to let politicians get in charge of Fee and Dividend and they will try, and this being America the sheep will probably let them.

I can already hear 'them' screaming 'this is how we do it in America'.  But as soon as politicians are in charge, special interests will game the system. 

Getting the system in place is more important than fighting capitalist nimrods who want to have the system their way and put politicians in charge right now.  We fight nimrods later.  By any means necessary.  The theft of the commons must stop.

Citizens climate lobby came up with this.

I think we can assume that the rate structure described earlier generated the graph.  I do not think it means anything without more info.  Citizens Climate lobby spins the proposal along capitalist lines.  Not exactly what I want and 'experts' absolutely should not be running things behind closed doors.

What the fuck is up with this graph going to zero.  The citizens assembly should structure things for a flat line set at a thousand a year or so at the end.  the graph is a wank IMHO.  The actual fact is an average consumer should always get a dividend.  The reason is corporations also buy fossil fuel and they do not get the kickback.  Their prices are higher because of their added fossil fuel costs.  The consumer deserves the kickback to offset the higher prices corporations will pass on.  Just having a graph does not mean smarts are involved.

I have to accept that an actual American system won't be perfect to start with.  If a movement for Fee and Dividend gets traction I'll be writing about how to do it right.  That is all I can do.  Try.

Fee and Dividend is fundamentally different from a tax because government does NOT get the money.  But after that distinction is made, there are a range of variants to the proposals.  Meaning your question about how much you would get has no answer at this time.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 05, 2024, 10:59 AMThere are no more housing starts in the deep burbs and the dense city planning urban planners want is well under way.

So, in cities where we already don't have enough affordable housing, all the MaMansion dwellers are going to try and move back in so they have to drive less?  Where are all these new homes going to be built?  Urban density in NYC is already packed like sardines.  All the Bridge & Tunnel people from Long Island, Westchester and New Jersey are going to squeeze in also?

RE

Quote from: RE on May 05, 2024, 11:20 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on May 05, 2024, 10:59 AMThere are no more housing starts in the deep burbs and the dense city planning urban planners want is well under way.

So, in cities where we already don't have enough affordable housing, all the MaMansion dwellers are going to try and move back in so they have to drive less?  Where are all these new homes going to be built?  Urban density in NYC is already packed like sardines.  All the Bridge & Tunnel people from Long Island, Westchester and New Jersey are going to squeeze in also?

RE

The housing has to be made affordable.  You are giving the exact reason why the initial rate has to start low and be under the control of a citizens assembly.

QuoteSo, in cities where we already don't have enough affordable housing, all the MaMansion dwellers are going to try and move back in so they have to drive less?

Lack of planning made the existing system.  Replacing chaos with something that makes sense will not happen without pain.  Cities with not enough affordable housing die.  As it should be.

Cities which take care of their housing issues will own the future.  As it should be.

But your fear is unfounded.   Carbon Fee and Dividend is a sea change in attitude and behavior.  With Fee and Dividend all sorts of programs to fix housing issues now become required, and not simply desired or farts of wishful thinking. 

Fee and dividend will not happen in isolation.  If you want affordable housing solved, adopt Fee and Dividend.  People will be forced to solve housing issues.  They will have no choice.  Currently the choice is to do nothing, so I would not worry about something coming along and disrupting current efforts to rectify the situation because there are no such efforts that amount to beans.

Once upon a time necessity was the mother of invention.  It can be again.

I think we need to build the affordable housing first so when the fuel prices start to rise people have a place to move to.  Otherwise we'll end up with even more people living in their cars than we have now.

RE

Quote from: RE on May 05, 2024, 12:53 PMI think we need to build the affordable housing first so when the fuel prices start to rise people have a place to move to.  Otherwise we'll end up with even more people living in their cars than we have now.

RE

You are not going to get affordable housing without a revolution.  The profit motive took over and extraordinary measures must be taken to put that genie back in the bottle.  That being the case 'waiting for it first' is counterproductive. 

Without a party to demand change, there will be no change.  A social justice party built around carbon dividends will give you a base with which to demand affordable housing.  Without a base to make demands you simply are not going to get affordable housing or anything else. 

Humpty Dumpty fell off the housing wall long ago.  Greed was good in the 1980's.  It was as American as apple pie and the myth of greed is good is still pushed by our upper class.  Greed of course did not start in the 1980's.  But that was when Social Darwinism was rechristened with that catchy phrase.  Now forty years later, greed pushed prices so high affordable housing is out of sight.  Membership in the church of greed is as high as ever.  The century of the self is not over.

If you want affordable housing you have to change a lot of social programming first.  The way things are now, very few people have a problem with housing.  Anger at being locked out because prices are high is not the same thing as having issues with the arrangements.  Many people benefit from current arrangements, and these people are highly motivated to keep things exactly as they are.  Most of the rest are class traitor wanna-bees who support current property ownership arrangements even though they have no pot to piss in. 

I am the only person I know who actually does not like seeing their house increase in value.  Home ownership was never about making money for me.  Home ownership is a value to me because I remember my grandmother and her brothers talking about people being 'put out' of their homes in the 1930s.  Good people.  Owning a home I do not consider to be an 'investment', and I never have.  Ideally an average home should cost about five times an average annual wage.  That gives normal working people the ability to own one.  That would make my home worth a third to a half of what greed says it is worth now.  Maybe.  If I could buy an equivalent home with that lowered amount I would be fine with it.   

Try and find someone who thinks like I do.  Good luck.  You are going to implement affordable housing how?  You have no foundation on which to build it.

Well, you have a chicken-egg problem.  With so many people who live out in suburbia who are forced to use their cars every day, they will not support the carbon dividend, they will be the people losing the most money.  If there isn't anywhere for them to move to because the housing hasn't been built yet, they're stuck.  You'll get your revolution, but not the one you want.  They'll revolt against the dividend.

RE

Our last Billionaire Wet Dream Superyacht was still on the drawing board and there was no mention of how it would be powered.  However, today's superyacht has just been finished, although no buyer has been mentioned nor what it will cost to be the proud owner of this toy.

According to the article, it is the world's first GREEN SUPERYACHT!  Yes, you read that right.  They have taken the term OXYMORON to a whole new level with this bullshit.



Reading through it, in fact the boat CANNOT make a transatlantic crossing running on hydrogen, it only can carry enough to run all the hotel electrics.  To power the boat for longer crossings it uses "HVO" (Hydrogen Treated Vegetable Oil), which is basically Diesel sourced from plant oils.

Even with just running the lights, HVAC and heating systems, it still needs to refill the cryogenic liquid H tanks weekly, which really limits the number of ports you can park the thing at.  I don't think many marinas or yacht clubs store liquid hydrogen yet.

Not mentioned of course are the megatons of embedded energy from fossil fuels used to build it.  It's about as Green as a lump of coal.

So, will some Billionaire buy this latest monstrosity to show his commitment to Green energy?

https://www.superyachttimes.com/yacht-news/feadship-821-yacht-launch

Feadship 821: 119m hydrogen fuel-cell yacht launched

RE

OK!  We got the background on the Green Hydrgen Super Yacht! 

It didn't seem likely thatt a ship building company would build a monster sized boat with technology that had never been used for this type of vessel without having a buyer for it in advance.  They did, and it's none other than the Original IT Superstar, the Big Gorilla himself, Bill Gates!  Bill tries to portray an image of being an environmentally responsible Rich Fuck.

The reason the boat was portrayed as not having an owner is because Billy Boy decided he wanted to unload it before it even got finished. He apparently has had 2^nd thoughts about how Green it makes him look. lol.

We have a Pricetag on it now also, $646 Million buckolas.  Plus a minimum 10%/year maintenance & upkeep fee.  Even for a Billionaire, this is a significant chunk of change, especially considering that Bill gave a significant portion of his moolah to his non-profit tax dodge, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, also partly financed by his Bridge Partner Warren Buffett.

So far, nobody has stepped up to the plate to take this White Elephant off Bill's hands, and unless he can find a sucker amongst the Saudi Princes, I think he's going to have a tough time getting rid of it.   Maybe he'll have it converted to a research vessel and gve it to his non-prrofit to study micro plastics in the ocean.

Otherwise, it's a very expensive publicity disaster for Bill.  It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/the-600-million-question-why-is-bill-gates-selling-his-hydrogen-powered-megayacht-233555.html

The $600 Million Question: Why Is Bill Gates Selling His Hydrogen-Powered Megayacht?

RE

Forget the Super Yachts and Private Rocket Planes powered by Ammonium Chlorate, the Tech Billionaires have been buying up land in SoCal to build their own CITY!.  lol.  This is not quite as audacious as the Saudi Oil Princes who are Blowing Billions on "The Line", a mega city in th Sahara desert, but it's close.

They figure this is how they can keep tech jobs in CA instead of them migrating to TX, except wait a minute...tech jobs are disappearing and TX RE is in the deep doo doo. So is CRE everywhere.  They want to build this city which quite obviously nobody will be able to afford to live in NOW?

You can'r fix stupid.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-forever-tech-billionaires-planning-a-new-city-in-rural-solano-county/

Why tech billionaires are trying to create a new California city

RE

OK, I am now fairly convinced that besides being the world champion narcissist and ego maniac, Elon Musk has suffered a severe psychotic break with reality.  Elon apparently believes we can have a colony on Maes with a Million people in 20 years.  If we could even drop a single homo sap meat package on Mars and return him that would be surprising.  He thinks it can be self sustaining. 
The environment on Mars is even more inhospitable than Antarctica.  The atmosphere lacks enough oxygen for mammalian life.  His tinkertoy rockets couldn't lift enough material off the earth and get it to Mars if you started today with 100X as many of them as he has currently operational.

Besides the fully sprouted Homo Saps, Elon plans on starting a new species with his sperm, Homo Muskus.  Apparently Elon fancies himself the Adam of the species Homo Muskus that will evolve on Mars, after his SpaceX Rockets deliver 1 Million A-List Supermodel Vaginas to be impregnated on Mars.

Sanity has officially collapsed.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/thermonuclear-blasts-new-species-inside-musks-plan-to-colonise-mars/articleshow/111674217.cms

RE

Quote from: RE on Jul 13, 2024, 12:56 AMOK, I am now fairly convinced that besides being the world champion narcissist and ego maniac, Elon Musk has suffered a severe psychotic break with reality.  //

Besides the fully sprouted Homo Saps, Elon plans on starting a new species with his sperm, Homo Muskus.  Apparently Elon fancies himself the Adam of the species Homo Muskus that will evolve on Mars, after his SpaceX Rockets deliver 1 Million A-List Supermodel Vaginas to be impregnated on Mars.

Sanity has officially collapsed.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/thermonuclear-blasts-new-species-inside-musks-plan-to-colonise-mars/articleshow/111674217.cms

RE

Elmo is giving Trump a run for his money is the most despised person on the planet, in my opinion. he is like the Ur-incel: send me my government provided vaginas!

in a related story, sales of Teslas are in the toilet. Coincidence? We think not.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/business/tesla-sales/index.html