This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:33 am
To attain the necessities of life, in most cases, you need a car. Being a consumer isn't really optional in this late capitalist hellscape.
So, if it's putting the blame on people who have the dreadful corkscrew of necessity poking into their prostate, or putting the lions share of it on people who have enough money to do just about anything they could conceivable want to do, including bribing policy makers with multi-million dollar campaign contributions, I'm going with the varblenecking klorbags who own all these carbon-spewing factories and oil-extraction machines and could, by their own hand, make clean energy much more viable, but don't because they'd rather make $2,017 an hour instead of $2,012 an hour.
It's not necessities, its the low level luxuries that we don't even think about.
Ride the bus
Eat local produce
Don't eat off season fruit/veg
As for green power, solar and wind make NatGas more necessary not less.
It was environmentalist that created the nuclear scare not big oil.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:33 am
To attain the necessities of life, in most cases, you need a car. Being a consumer isn't really optional in this late capitalist hellscape.
So, if it's putting the blame on people who have the dreadful corkscrew of necessity poking into their prostate, or putting the lions share of it on people who have enough money to do just about anything they could conceivable want to do, including bribing policy makers with multi-million dollar campaign contributions, I'm going with the varblenecking klorbags who own all these carbon-spewing factories and oil-extraction machines and could, by their own hand, make clean energy much more viable, but don't because they'd rather make $2,017 an hour instead of $2,012 an hour.
As ABS pointed out, you don't need a car. And carpooling is a thing. And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.
And being rich doesn't make you responsible for someone else's actions. Those klorbags could be OK with more energy-efficient factories because they could pass the cost to the consumers, if consumers didn't have a choice. But those consumers would rather have goods cheaper, which often means made overseas where environmental controls aren't quite so stringent.
Yeah, in the argument of who the burden is placed upon, I don't follow the idea that comparative advantage appropriates immediate measure to redistribute wealth. Tax policy is implemented impartially and enforced predominantly on transaction points. Like incomes or inheritance, and not methods effecting forfeiture.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:33 am
To attain the necessities of life, in most cases, you need a car. Being a consumer isn't really optional in this late capitalist hellscape.
So, if it's putting the blame on people who have the dreadful corkscrew of necessity poking into their prostate, or putting the lions share of it on people who have enough money to do just about anything they could conceivable want to do, including bribing policy makers with multi-million dollar campaign contributions, I'm going with the varblenecking klorbags who own all these carbon-spewing factories and oil-extraction machines and could, by their own hand, make clean energy much more viable, but don't because they'd rather make $2,017 an hour instead of $2,012 an hour.
As ABS pointed out, you don't need a car. And carpooling is a thing. And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.
And being rich doesn't make you responsible for someone else's actions. Those klorbags could be OK with more energy-efficient factories because they could pass the cost to the consumers, if consumers didn't have a choice. But those consumers would rather have goods cheaper, which often means made overseas where environmental controls aren't quite so stringent.
There are a lot of places in the US, especially in the south and the midwest, where public transit is minimal and the cities are sprawling with large amounts of suburban style housing in the city limits.
One, the primary thing that moved industry out of the US is the cost of labor, not environmental regulations. Two, the energy efficiency of the factory would be far less of an issue if the grid was cleaner. A deeply energy inefficient factory getting it's power from solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear will be infinitely cleaner than a factory 10 times as efficient that runs on coal.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:33 am
To attain the necessities of life, in most cases, you need a car. Being a consumer isn't really optional in this late capitalist hellscape.
So, if it's putting the blame on people who have the dreadful corkscrew of necessity poking into their prostate, or putting the lions share of it on people who have enough money to do just about anything they could conceivable want to do, including bribing policy makers with multi-million dollar campaign contributions, I'm going with the varblenecking klorbags who own all these carbon-spewing factories and oil-extraction machines and could, by their own hand, make clean energy much more viable, but don't because they'd rather make $2,017 an hour instead of $2,012 an hour.
As ABS pointed out, you don't need a car. And carpooling is a thing. And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.
And being rich doesn't make you responsible for someone else's actions. Those klorbags could be OK with more energy-efficient factories because they could pass the cost to the consumers, if consumers didn't have a choice. But those consumers would rather have goods cheaper, which often means made overseas where environmental controls aren't quite so stringent.
There are a lot of places in the US, especially in the south and the midwest, where public transit is minimal and the cities are sprawling with large amounts of suburban style housing in the city limits.
One, the primary thing that moved industry out of the US is the cost of labor, not environmental regulations. Two, the energy efficiency of the factory would be far less of an issue if the grid was cleaner. A deeply energy inefficient factory getting it's power from solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear will be infinitely cleaner than a factory 10 times as efficient that runs on coal.
Which of these cities don't have buses?
One, yes, but that doesn't change my point that consumers want cheaper goods, will buy from less ecology-friendly places to get it, and that this will become worse if regulations here push business toward those places. Two, yes, but that doesn't change my point, unless that cleaner grid delivers power at the same price or cheaper.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:33 am
To attain the necessities of life, in most cases, you need a car. Being a consumer isn't really optional in this late capitalist hellscape.
So, if it's putting the blame on people who have the dreadful corkscrew of necessity poking into their prostate, or putting the lions share of it on people who have enough money to do just about anything they could conceivable want to do, including bribing policy makers with multi-million dollar campaign contributions, I'm going with the varblenecking klorbags who own all these carbon-spewing factories and oil-extraction machines and could, by their own hand, make clean energy much more viable, but don't because they'd rather make $2,017 an hour instead of $2,012 an hour.
As ABS pointed out, you don't need a car. And carpooling is a thing. And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.
And being rich doesn't make you responsible for someone else's actions. Those klorbags could be OK with more energy-efficient factories because they could pass the cost to the consumers, if consumers didn't have a choice. But those consumers would rather have goods cheaper, which often means made overseas where environmental controls aren't quite so stringent.
There are a lot of places in the US, especially in the south and the midwest, where public transit is minimal and the cities are sprawling with large amounts of suburban style housing in the city limits.
One, the primary thing that moved industry out of the US is the cost of labor, not environmental regulations. Two, the energy efficiency of the factory would be far less of an issue if the grid was cleaner. A deeply energy inefficient factory getting it's power from solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear will be infinitely cleaner than a factory 10 times as efficient that runs on coal.
Which of these cities don't have buses?
One, yes, but that doesn't change my point that consumers want cheaper goods, will buy from less ecology-friendly places to get it, and that this will become worse if regulations here push business toward those places. Two, yes, but that doesn't change my point, unless that cleaner grid delivers power at the same price or cheaper.
They have busses, but often ones that run on a limited schedule and only operate in or near the city center, were only a minority of people live. If work outside of the nine to five you need a car, if you own a home, you need a car, if there is a suburban area between you and your work you need a car. To put it in prospective San Antonio has a similar population to Philadelphia, but occupies three times the amount of land.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:33 am
To attain the necessities of life, in most cases, you need a car. Being a consumer isn't really optional in this late capitalist hellscape.
So, if it's putting the blame on people who have the dreadful corkscrew of necessity poking into their prostate, or putting the lions share of it on people who have enough money to do just about anything they could conceivable want to do, including bribing policy makers with multi-million dollar campaign contributions, I'm going with the varblenecking klorbags who own all these carbon-spewing factories and oil-extraction machines and could, by their own hand, make clean energy much more viable, but don't because they'd rather make $2,017 an hour instead of $2,012 an hour.
As ABS pointed out, you don't need a car. And carpooling is a thing. And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.
And being rich doesn't make you responsible for someone else's actions. Those klorbags could be OK with more energy-efficient factories because they could pass the cost to the consumers, if consumers didn't have a choice. But those consumers would rather have goods cheaper, which often means made overseas where environmental controls aren't quite so stringent.
There are a lot of places in the US, especially in the south and the midwest, where public transit is minimal and the cities are sprawling with large amounts of suburban style housing in the city limits.
One, the primary thing that moved industry out of the US is the cost of labor, not environmental regulations. Two, the energy efficiency of the factory would be far less of an issue if the grid was cleaner. A deeply energy inefficient factory getting it's power from solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear will be infinitely cleaner than a factory 10 times as efficient that runs on coal.
Which of these cities don't have buses?
One, yes, but that doesn't change my point that consumers want cheaper goods, will buy from less ecology-friendly places to get it, and that this will become worse if regulations here push business toward those places. Two, yes, but that doesn't change my point, unless that cleaner grid delivers power at the same price or cheaper.
They have busses, but often ones that run on a limited schedule and only operate in or near the city center, were only a minority of people live. If work outside of the nine to five you need a car, if you own a home, you need a car, if there is a suburban area between you and your work you need a car. To put it in prospective San Antonio has a similar population to Philadelphia, but occupies three times the amount of land.
And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:33 am
To attain the necessities of life, in most cases, you need a car. Being a consumer isn't really optional in this late capitalist hellscape.
So, if it's putting the blame on people who have the dreadful corkscrew of necessity poking into their prostate, or putting the lions share of it on people who have enough money to do just about anything they could conceivable want to do, including bribing policy makers with multi-million dollar campaign contributions, I'm going with the varblenecking klorbags who own all these carbon-spewing factories and oil-extraction machines and could, by their own hand, make clean energy much more viable, but don't because they'd rather make $2,017 an hour instead of $2,012 an hour.
As ABS pointed out, you don't need a car. And carpooling is a thing. And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.
And being rich doesn't make you responsible for someone else's actions. Those klorbags could be OK with more energy-efficient factories because they could pass the cost to the consumers, if consumers didn't have a choice. But those consumers would rather have goods cheaper, which often means made overseas where environmental controls aren't quite so stringent.
There are a lot of places in the US, especially in the south and the midwest, where public transit is minimal and the cities are sprawling with large amounts of suburban style housing in the city limits.
One, the primary thing that moved industry out of the US is the cost of labor, not environmental regulations. Two, the energy efficiency of the factory would be far less of an issue if the grid was cleaner. A deeply energy inefficient factory getting it's power from solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear will be infinitely cleaner than a factory 10 times as efficient that runs on coal.
Which of these cities don't have buses?
One, yes, but that doesn't change my point that consumers want cheaper goods, will buy from less ecology-friendly places to get it, and that this will become worse if regulations here push business toward those places. Two, yes, but that doesn't change my point, unless that cleaner grid delivers power at the same price or cheaper.
They have busses, but often ones that run on a limited schedule and only operate in or near the city center, were only a minority of people live. If work outside of the nine to five you need a car, if you own a home, you need a car, if there is a suburban area between you and your work you need a car. To put it in prospective San Antonio has a similar population to Philadelphia, but occupies three times the amount of land.
And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.
And I'm telling you that large portions of the country have very little high density housing and often have miles of suburban housing between areas with high density housing. And many of those areas purposefully don't have bus routes going through them.
