Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Carbon Tax

Carbon Tax is a good idea, however it cannot be made high enough fast enough to achieve the desired results.

As part of a multi-part strategy, it could play a part, especially in increasing over time.

It should be fully refunded to people, so almost all people have a net gain.

Study should investigate special problem areas, such as home heating oil costs, people with long commutes.

It should increase over time, as renewable energy and transportation systems come on line.

Public funding for alternative energy research and systems should be paid by taxes on wealth, including estate tax beefed up with extra higher rates 100M-100B, and corporate tax offset for US employment, but not executive bonuses, and income schedules above $100M.

We must achieve 50% renewable by 2030, 100% renewable by 2040.

Social security extended, with progressive benefits, to no earnings cap at all.

Jet fuel should go full ag renewable, using alcohol process.  Ag fuel should be for little else, ground transportation should be electric whenever possible, bio when electric is unfeasible.

The ultimate carbon tax should be sufficiently high that leaving fossil carbon in the ground makes sense for all energy use, fossil production only for chemical feedstocks when alternatives unavoidable.

Carbon storage is not likely reliable, effective, or inexpensive enough to be useful.  Nuclear fission processes are not safe enough for utilities, and even fusion should be avoided.  With minor tweaks to actual energy use, and massive energy storage, fully renewable energy is achievable and has sufficient advantages to recommend it over all other approaches.  Renewable energy includes, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal with some limits, very limited ag, and all forms of conservation.  However human populations must also be held to decrease as well, for global heating other sustainability reasons.  Meat production greatly reduced as well.

The true cost of carbon dixoide release is infinite.  In sufficient measure, it would destroy the capacity to support human life on our only planet.  Any CO2 tax is an underestimate of that ultimate cost, which me will barely miss if at all.

Join my Athiest church

This article on the development of an human need for Religion is quite nice.

Although many I respect consider Athiesm to be "No Religion," I'm afraid I regard it as a religion, or more precisely, a class of religions.

Most of which are not very well served by a thoughtful and dedicated clergy, while those religions which preach some form of subservience to race or empire are, perhaps not surprisingly.

If Athiests were so better served, more might join Athiest churches.  It wouldn't seem that hard to outstrip the mindless competition.

In my sect, we'd have twice weekly dance raves with hallucinogenic drugs, orgies, and free abortion.  (What could go wrong?)

But unlike others of arguably fewer scruples at the outset, including Carlos Castenada, and L Ron Hubbard, I'm afraid I haven't a single true faithful follower.  I am a cult of one.

That might well be good anyway.  I've long held that too much success is usually for the worst.  I'm not a great manager, I can barely manage myself and some have thought otherwise.  I'm already at my level of incompetence, all by myself.

But what I'm describing is so obvious, why haven't there even been more attempts?  There is still a movement of intentional communities, but it tends to the conservative and religious nowadays.  One of the earliest polygamous communties became The Oneida Corporation.  I think it's hard to keep a flame going beneath the sea.  The sea of empire and capital.  That topic--the ultimate bias of established religion for established power, despite some degree of seperation in modern societies, was barely touched by the article.  Less was how our very desires are manufactured, let alone the "solutions" for them.  We're in fishtanks we couldn't even live outside of. And each fishtank wants to absorb all the others through a race to the bottom, meaning less for each fish. 
And the reason why extablished power prefers the mumbo jumbo tranditional form of religion, as compared with something more reasonable, is that it prepares people for accepting mumbo jumbo regarding everything else too.

Once you open the door for intellectually free criticism, it could be pointed at established power itself.  So they want to keep that door firmly shut, and keep people reciting mumbo jumbo instead.

Though when it comes right down to it, even fairly reasonable interpretations of logic, reason, and science still require a considerable degree of faith.  Just not a total disconnect from reality, like traditional religion.

Monday, July 1, 2019

Being Undocumented

Illegal Immigration should be a mere civil offense, in the absense of violent crimes.

If an illegal immigrant causes a violent crime, then and only then should the immigration part could be criminal as well.

In such a regime, there should be no detention, deportation, family separation, etc.  People causing violent crimes are caught as always, and given additional immigration charges when applicable.

Nonviolent illegal immigrants should merely pay a extra tax to cover additional civil costs in addition to all normal taxes.

This is all based on a good ethical principle: the punishment should fit the crime.  The punishment should not cause more suffering than the crime.  Illegal immigrants who are causing violent crimes are not hurting anyone, so they should not be hurt.

The tax should best be this: a tax on money sent outside USA.

People who don't understand how employment works, think that "immigrants are taking our jobs."

Immigrants who earn and spend all their money in the USA, are creating as many USA jobs as they are taking.  It's only when money is sent abroad, that the money is creating jobs elsewhere instead of here.

This same economic principle applies to US citizens as well, but they may have rights, authorties, or privileges to send money abroad.  I think it should generally be discouraged, instead of course it has often been subsidized by laws and agreements which socialize the risks of speculation and production abroad.

Anger should most be directed at those laws and agreements, instead, they are barely mentioned in the mainstream distraction.

Media Circuses and the grim truth

Of course the mainstream media is circus, run indirectly by the ultimate power, the deep state, designed to distract.  Always has been.

And so, the way when finally a climate change question was asked at the Democratic debate circus, it turned into "Will your plan save Miami?"

And that's a partly a trick question, in which timeframe.  But mostly, no, Miami is a gonner in the long term, surely in 200 years if not 100.  But maybe other coastal cities could be saved.

But even that's doubtful, given the design and composition of our governing systems--power based on wealth based on exponentially growing destructive processes.  Collapse of everything is the virtually certain scenario, and epochal melt of all permanent ice--though that might take a millenia it will be baked into the cake before the collapse, in the next 100-200 years.

Repurposing the imperal and war machines into green development, turning capitalism and it's exploitative power system upside down, radical and total change could make a difference.  I argue to have a good chance, we also need to simultaneously reduce human population to 1 billion.  It's possible, it could be done without sweat--provided we had a radical communist society.

Under current social arrangement, it's unlikely changes will be more than the window dressing that even at best the world has seen so far, until far too close to total collapse.

If this sounds to hopeless to even care about, I don't mean to sound certain.  While I've suggested a median projection through my vast knowledge from endless sources filtered through a gut reaction (I'm just going a bit past Limits to Growth projections in their last 1999 edition.)  It's within the realm of possibility that a 10 year Green New Deal, if that were possible, that converted us to 100% renewable energy, if that were possible to do in 10 years, and applied through international agreements, mandates, and support everywhere the 600 ppm CO2 track to total ice melt might be avoided.

It's all stretching credibility, but rather than decry all approaches without mass population reduction as Limits to Growth did, which is almost inconceivable, and that the changing of energy sources is a mere slowing of total collapse...which would then be even greater when it did occur, I'm operating under the somewhat more intuitive idea that the more we can do, the better: the more doomsday can be delayed, the more sliver of a chance that we'll slip through the worst, somehow.

So it's worth trying everything we can, full speed ahead, on all hearts and minds, both because it improves the odds of avoiding collapse of everything, and because even if we're avoiding that anyway, it improves the outcome.

But radical change is almost certain to be necessary, ultimately, for success, and the longer it takes to get started, the more radical.

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Sanders nailed it

Sanders performance in the first two Democratic Candidates Debate was better than all the others in both debates by a mile.

Sanders absolutely nailed it, that unless we have the guts to take on the insurance companies, oil companies, drug companies, etc, nothing will change.*

In the first debate, Warren was the winner, though Tulsi Gabbard made the best foreign policy points against considerable pressure, and Tulsi is still my preferred candidate of the two for her anti war positions.  Despite not raising her hand regarding Insurance companies, a big mistake IMO, Tulsi has a longer history of endoring Medicare for All than Warren.  But it was indicative of the slight hedging that weakened Tulsi's performance, leading me to declare Warren the debate winner.  Still, Warren lacked the force, still sounding a bit wonkish (though--it was her best performance in that regards ever) rather than recognizing the identity and strength of the forces arrayed against truly progressive proposals.

*Sanders has also been clear that he alone could not do this.  But he has been committed to fighting the corporations since the beginning of his career decades ago.  In this regards, he is by far the most trustworthy of all candidates.  People who fear a Democratic Socialist becoming President should grow beyond the McCarthy era, and realize the best of this country was built by socialism, but socialism nowadays isn't democratic socialism, it's socialism for the corporate elite.

We need to restore the vision of people like FDR, who proposed the Four Freedoms.  If that was conceivable then, it should be more conceivable now.

Sanders is the only one who comes close to showing the vison, the grit, and the incorruptability of FDR, that made the first New Deal possible.  And perhaps Sanders seems even more knowledgable, experienced, and capable of helping us get the rest of the job started.

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Thoughts on the accusations of Russians regarding the 2014 Malaysian Airlines jetliner

Russia(ns) did not provide the hardware to shoot down commercial aircraft.  They would have provided anti-aircraft weapons only to shoot down already occuring flights of military aircraft in civil warfare resulting after repression by the central government which had been installed in a US backed coup.

Meanwhile, this US-selected central post-coup government of Ukraine approved a civilian flight through this war zone, as did the carrier, as did European government authorities.

By financing the coup in Yugoslavia, and by approving a flight to go through a war zone there, western societies have no moral authority here, and appear at least as the greater villans.

The original claims made at the time do not seem to have evolved.  Never has the west included any context.

Friday, June 14, 2019

Rules One and Two

Rule One.  What is not sustainable will not be sustained forever, though, perhaps longer than you can wait.  (Modern industrial society is not sustainable in about 50 easily enumerated ways.)

Rule Two.  When the end comes, the greater the overshoot, the greater the undershoot.