Remember me
▼ Content

How tax policies can save the planet!


How tax policies can save the planet!17-12-2016 20:19
Saviaje
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
It's not every day that a tax geek is asked to deliver a talk of a lifetime. I had that amazing opportunity a few weeks ago when I delivered a TEDx Talk on Climate Change, with a dose of tax policy, innovation, and direct democracy. I can't thank the wonderful people at TEDxBeaconStreet enough for helping me curate an idea TED style. Very excited to officially share my TEDx Talk: http://bit.ly/2h2oTZw Please send me your thoughts. Let's fix climate change with some grassroots activism!
17-12-2016 22:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Saviaje wrote:
It's not every day that a tax geek is asked to deliver a talk of a lifetime. I had that amazing opportunity a few weeks ago when I delivered a TEDx Talk on Climate Change, with a dose of tax policy, innovation, and direct democracy. I can't thank the wonderful people at TEDxBeaconStreet enough for helping me curate an idea TED style. Very excited to officially share my TEDx Talk: http://bit.ly/2h2oTZw Please send me your thoughts. Let's fix climate change with some grassroots activism!

"Direct Democracy" is the secret code for "Marxism."

Ooops, I guess it's not much of a secret anymore.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-12-2016 21:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Taxing the poor via energy taxes will add greatly to the deaths already being caused by the use of food as fuel.

The world is paying 30% to 70% more than it should be for basic food because loads of it is used to make biofuel. This must be killing at least 20 million of the world's poorest billion people anually. That is faster than WWII ever managed and it has been happening for the past 20 years or so.

Edited on 18-12-2016 21:48
18-12-2016 22:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The world is paying 30% to 70% more than it should be for basic food because loads of it is used to make biofuel. This must be killing at least 20 million of the world's poorest billion people anually. That is faster than WWII ever managed and it has been happening for the past 20 years or so.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?
19-12-2016 03:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The world is paying 30% to 70% more than it should be for basic food because loads of it is used to make biofuel. This must be killing at least 20 million of the world's poorest billion people anually. That is faster than WWII ever managed and it has been happening for the past 20 years or so.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?

Taxing energy has that effect. It's obvious. Is there anything preventing you from learning basic economics and answering your own question?

Oh, that's right! That would require you visit non-warmizombie websites and your religion strictly forbids that.

Maybe Tim will feel kind enough to do all your legwork for you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-12-2016 12:57
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The world is paying 30% to 70% more than it should be for basic food because loads of it is used to make biofuel. This must be killing at least 20 million of the world's poorest billion people anually. That is faster than WWII ever managed and it has been happening for the past 20 years or so.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?


What the +30% to 70%?

or the 20 million per year?
19-12-2016 20:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The world is paying 30% to 70% more than it should be for basic food because loads of it is used to make biofuel. This must be killing at least 20 million of the world's poorest billion people anually. That is faster than WWII ever managed and it has been happening for the past 20 years or so.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?


What the +30% to 70%?

or the 20 million per year?

Both. Where are your figures from, or how have you calculated/estimated them?
19-12-2016 22:37
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The world is paying 30% to 70% more than it should be for basic food because loads of it is used to make biofuel. This must be killing at least 20 million of the world's poorest billion people anually. That is faster than WWII ever managed and it has been happening for the past 20 years or so.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?


What the +30% to 70%?

or the 20 million per year?

Both. Where are your figures from, or how have you calculated/estimated them?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs._fuel

Food price inflation

From 1974 to 2005 real food prices (adjusted for inflation) dropped by 75%. Food commodity prices were relatively stable after reaching lows in 2000 and 2001.[20] Therefore, recent rapid food price increases are considered extraordinary.[25] A World Bank policy research working paper published on July 2008 found that the increase in food commodities prices was led by grains, with sharp price increases in 2005 despite record crops worldwide. From January 2005 until June 2008, maize prices almost tripled, wheat increased 127 percent, and rice rose 170 percent. The increase in grain prices was followed by increases in fats and oil prices in mid-2006. On the other hand, the study found that sugar cane production has increased rapidly, and it was large enough to keep sugar price increases small except for 2005 and early 2006. The paper concluded that biofuels produced from grains have raised food prices in combination with other related factors between 70 to 75 percent, but ethanol produced from sugar cane has not contributed significantly to the recent increase in food commodities prices.[20][21][22]


Even higher numbers there.

How do you think these prices effect people who spend over 80% of their earnings on trying not to starve?

The poorest billion people live on less than $1.25 a day.
19-12-2016 22:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The world is paying 30% to 70% more than it should be for basic food because loads of it is used to make biofuel. This must be killing at least 20 million of the world's poorest billion people anually. That is faster than WWII ever managed and it has been happening for the past 20 years or so.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?


What the +30% to 70%?

or the 20 million per year?

Both. Where are your figures from, or how have you calculated/estimated them?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs._fuel

Food price inflation

From 1974 to 2005 real food prices (adjusted for inflation) dropped by 75%. Food commodity prices were relatively stable after reaching lows in 2000 and 2001.[20] Therefore, recent rapid food price increases are considered extraordinary.[25] A World Bank policy research working paper published on July 2008 found that the increase in food commodities prices was led by grains, with sharp price increases in 2005 despite record crops worldwide. From January 2005 until June 2008, maize prices almost tripled, wheat increased 127 percent, and rice rose 170 percent. The increase in grain prices was followed by increases in fats and oil prices in mid-2006. On the other hand, the study found that sugar cane production has increased rapidly, and it was large enough to keep sugar price increases small except for 2005 and early 2006. The paper concluded that biofuels produced from grains have raised food prices in combination with other related factors between 70 to 75 percent, but ethanol produced from sugar cane has not contributed significantly to the recent increase in food commodities prices.[20][21][22]


Even higher numbers there.

How do you think these prices effect people who spend over 80% of their earnings on trying not to starve?

The poorest billion people live on less than $1.25 a day.

So your figures were just made up then. Wouldn't be the first time.
20-12-2016 01:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote:So your figures were just made up then. Wouldn't be the first time.

So you're an expert on that whole number fabrication thing. Good. We won't have to explain it to you then.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-12-2016 01:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:So your figures were just made up then. Wouldn't be the first time.

So you're an expert on that whole number fabrication thing. Good. We won't have to explain it to you then.

Is that supposed to make some sort of sense?
20-12-2016 02:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:So your figures were just made up then. Wouldn't be the first time.

So you're an expert on that whole number fabrication thing. Good. We won't have to explain it to you then.

Is that supposed to make some sort of sense?

Only to those who understand English. Those who can only barely manage by redefining common words will wonder if it is supposed to make sense.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-12-2016 02:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:So your figures were just made up then. Wouldn't be the first time.

So you're an expert on that whole number fabrication thing. Good. We won't have to explain it to you then.

Is that supposed to make some sort of sense?

Only to those who understand English. Those who can only barely manage by redefining common words will wonder if it is supposed to make sense.

Enough of your gibberish. The point is that Tim made a specific claim, but is either unable or unwilling to provide evidence to support that claim. Are you saying that we should simply accept what he says on faith?
20-12-2016 02:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote:The point is that Tim made a specific claim, but is either unable or unwilling to provide evidence to support that claim.

Tim has made many claims. He has supported many of those claims. Of course he has made some points with which I disagree along with his "support."

But I prefer to focus on you and your hypocrisy. You complain tirelessly about one minor point that you feel is not sufficiently supported while you expect everyone to accept on blind faith that Greenland is losing ice mass balance when all surveying measurements indicate the opposite by a rather large volume.

You expect everyone to accept on blind faith the "greenhouse effect" violations of physics while dismissing all the science that answers all the questions.

You are the one making the affirmative assertion of all this Global Warming crap.

The full burden rests with you.

I think you need to get around to answering the mail before you start changing the subject by demanding support for trivial points.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-12-2016 13:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The world is paying 30% to 70% more than it should be for basic food because loads of it is used to make biofuel. This must be killing at least 20 million of the world's poorest billion people anually. That is faster than WWII ever managed and it has been happening for the past 20 years or so.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?


What the +30% to 70%?

or the 20 million per year?

Both. Where are your figures from, or how have you calculated/estimated them?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs._fuel

Food price inflation

From 1974 to 2005 real food prices (adjusted for inflation) dropped by 75%. Food commodity prices were relatively stable after reaching lows in 2000 and 2001.[20] Therefore, recent rapid food price increases are considered extraordinary.[25] A World Bank policy research working paper published on July 2008 found that the increase in food commodities prices was led by grains, with sharp price increases in 2005 despite record crops worldwide. From January 2005 until June 2008, maize prices almost tripled, wheat increased 127 percent, and rice rose 170 percent. The increase in grain prices was followed by increases in fats and oil prices in mid-2006. On the other hand, the study found that sugar cane production has increased rapidly, and it was large enough to keep sugar price increases small except for 2005 and early 2006. The paper concluded that biofuels produced from grains have raised food prices in combination with other related factors between 70 to 75 percent, but ethanol produced from sugar cane has not contributed significantly to the recent increase in food commodities prices.[20][21][22]


Even higher numbers there.

How do you think these prices effect people who spend over 80% of their earnings on trying not to starve?

The poorest billion people live on less than $1.25 a day.

So your figures were just made up then. Wouldn't be the first time.


So how many people do you estimate are dying today due to the use of food as fuel?

And I think that I have supported my position quite strongly. Perhaps I should have increased the 20 million number a lot but I try to make claims at the conservative end of probability.

Edited on 20-12-2016 13:55
20-12-2016 19:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
The world is paying 30% to 70% more than it should be for basic food because loads of it is used to make biofuel. This must be killing at least 20 million of the world's poorest billion people anually. That is faster than WWII ever managed and it has been happening for the past 20 years or so.

Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?


What the +30% to 70%?

or the 20 million per year?

Both. Where are your figures from, or how have you calculated/estimated them?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs._fuel

Food price inflation

From 1974 to 2005 real food prices (adjusted for inflation) dropped by 75%. Food commodity prices were relatively stable after reaching lows in 2000 and 2001.[20] Therefore, recent rapid food price increases are considered extraordinary.[25] A World Bank policy research working paper published on July 2008 found that the increase in food commodities prices was led by grains, with sharp price increases in 2005 despite record crops worldwide. From January 2005 until June 2008, maize prices almost tripled, wheat increased 127 percent, and rice rose 170 percent. The increase in grain prices was followed by increases in fats and oil prices in mid-2006. On the other hand, the study found that sugar cane production has increased rapidly, and it was large enough to keep sugar price increases small except for 2005 and early 2006. The paper concluded that biofuels produced from grains have raised food prices in combination with other related factors between 70 to 75 percent, but ethanol produced from sugar cane has not contributed significantly to the recent increase in food commodities prices.[20][21][22]


Even higher numbers there.

How do you think these prices effect people who spend over 80% of their earnings on trying not to starve?

The poorest billion people live on less than $1.25 a day.

So your figures were just made up then. Wouldn't be the first time.


So how many people do you estimate are dying today due to the use of food as fuel?

And I think that I have supported my position quite strongly. Perhaps I should have increased the 20 million number a lot but I try to make claims at the conservative end of probability.

I have have absolutely no idea how many, if any, people are dying today due to the use of food as fuel. Nor, apparently do you. You can't simply make up numbers to suit your argument and have people take you seriously.
21-12-2016 00:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5230)
Surface Detail wrote: I have have absolutely no idea how many, if any, people are dying today due to the use of food as fuel. Nor, apparently do you. You can't simply make up numbers to suit your argument and have people take you seriously.

It looks like Tim supported his points. It's your turn to refute if you can.

You accept Wikipedia, yes? Tim explained where he got his information.

Did you read
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2008/07/28/000020439_20080728103002/Rendered/PDF/WP4682.pdf
?

Did you read any of the other documents?

You need to get to work.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-12-2016 01:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: I have have absolutely no idea how many, if any, people are dying today due to the use of food as fuel. Nor, apparently do you. You can't simply make up numbers to suit your argument and have people take you seriously.

It looks like Tim supported his points. It's your turn to refute if you can.

You accept Wikipedia, yes? Tim explained where he got his information.

Did you read
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2008/07/28/000020439_20080728103002/Rendered/PDF/WP4682.pdf
?

Did you read any of the other documents?

You need to get to work.

The most commonly quoted figure for total worldwide deaths from starvation (e.g. here) seems to be 21,000 per day, that is, about 7.7 million per year. While this is indeed a terrible number, it shows that Tim's guess of 20 million deaths annually due to biofuels alone is completely wrong.

I'd also note that the paper you quote is based on outdated figures. While the prices for staples spiked in 2008, when the paper was written, they have fallen substantially since then. See, for example, here, where it is reported that currently low prices are adversely affecting US farmers.

I repeat, you cannot simply make up figures and expect to be taken seriously. You have to give your sources and show your working. Tim may have a point, but his tendency to make up figures to suit his argument gives him little credibility.
21-12-2016 02:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: I have have absolutely no idea how many, if any, people are dying today due to the use of food as fuel. Nor, apparently do you. You can't simply make up numbers to suit your argument and have people take you seriously.

It looks like Tim supported his points. It's your turn to refute if you can.

You accept Wikipedia, yes? Tim explained where he got his information.

Did you read
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2008/07/28/000020439_20080728103002/Rendered/PDF/WP4682.pdf
?

Did you read any of the other documents?

You need to get to work.

The most commonly quoted figure for total worldwide deaths from starvation (e.g. here) seems to be 21,000 per day, that is, about 7.7 million per year. While this is indeed a terrible number, it shows that Tim's guess of 20 million deaths annually due to biofuels alone is completely wrong.

So your random number is better than his random number?
Surface Detail wrote:
I'd also note that the paper you quote is based on outdated figures. While the prices for staples spiked in 2008, when the paper was written, they have fallen substantially since then. See, for example, here, where it is reported that currently low prices are adversely affecting US farmers.

I repeat, you cannot simply make up figures and expect to be taken seriously. You have to give your sources and show your working. Tim may have a point, but his tendency to make up figures to suit his argument gives him little credibility.

Take your own advice, dude.


The Parrot Killer
21-12-2016 11:38
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: I have have absolutely no idea how many, if any, people are dying today due to the use of food as fuel. Nor, apparently do you. You can't simply make up numbers to suit your argument and have people take you seriously.

It looks like Tim supported his points. It's your turn to refute if you can.

You accept Wikipedia, yes? Tim explained where he got his information.

Did you read
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2008/07/28/000020439_20080728103002/Rendered/PDF/WP4682.pdf
?

Did you read any of the other documents?

You need to get to work.

The most commonly quoted figure for total worldwide deaths from starvation (e.g. here) seems to be 21,000 per day, that is, about 7.7 million per year. While this is indeed a terrible number, it shows that Tim's guess of 20 million deaths annually due to biofuels alone is completely wrong.

I'd also note that the paper you quote is based on outdated figures. While the prices for staples spiked in 2008, when the paper was written, they have fallen substantially since then. See, for example, here, where it is reported that currently low prices are adversely affecting US farmers.

I repeat, you cannot simply make up figures and expect to be taken seriously. You have to give your sources and show your working. Tim may have a point, but his tendency to make up figures to suit his argument gives him little credibility.


You know that I have put on this forum supported arguments that you have not refuted other than appealing to authority that the ice at the poles is increasing well, here again you can use any figure you want for the number of people who are dying as a result of us using a large percentage of the world's food to make biofuel whilst a significant percentage of the world's people starve. My number is my best estimate of the minimum number.

I would like you to think about it and come up with your calculations. But I have no expectation of this happeneing. Your adherance to your scripture is total.




Join the debate How tax policies can save the planet!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Does anyone knew that plastic bags were made to save the planet ?215-11-2019 02:19
Our Fragile Planet27629-09-2019 19:30
Petition to pressure governments to save the planet and humankind1024-08-2019 05:16
Alberta throne speech followed by bill to repeal provincial carbon tax023-05-2019 09:20
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
Articles
Barack Obama: Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact