EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: RJSV on November 25, 2024, 02:39:59 am
-
Did I read the news, hear the news from the current United Nations meeting, correctly ?
Didn't catch the details, but sounds like the, uh, 'rich' nations can get a Climate Tax.
My best first guess is that the rich have success partially due to a bunch of factories spewing pollution, (and atmosphere harming carbon build-up / CO2 build-up.
So, that industrial success must, fairly, PAY their way...Uh, that would be YOU, kind reader.
Wow. My mind is 'reeling', to use a colorful Jimi Hendrix lyric. Trying to anticipate what that will entail:
Somebody, or committee gets to decide, which regions pay what fees, (as pollution mitigation), or, ah now I remember, termed as greenhouse gas 'mitagation'.
So, then with a big fund banked, some committee, again, will decide the distribution, or re-distribution, to various underperforming regions.
The third aspect, of this whole thing, is the potential, for all kinds of waste and silliness.
Eight Billion $ dollars, for 'Outhouse emission stacks, (with solar panels), in
Czegasigastania.
Ok, I made that one up, and the actual stories there HAVE GOT TO BE better, irony-wise than anything sarcastic point I could attempt!
But it's that third point, above that is getting to my sense of the absurd.
I've watched, locally, as Climate Change has taken hold of weather patterns. Since about 2005 I guess, some miserable changes, both with Bay Area marine layers (heavy fog) that last all day, to extreme heat dangers.
We need solutions, but it's a pain to see the exploitation of our suffering...with the proposals that raise doubts about effectiveness .
-
If we need solutions to a problem, perhaps there will be costs associated to solving the problems.
-
Maybe we also need a couple problems to a solution.
-
Maybe we also need a couple problems to a solution.
Egg-ackley!
That's my take on AI, or at least self-driving cars: a solution in search of a problem.
-
Yes but I'm thinking of solutions like this:
Solar Powered Porta-Commode, with 10 meter vent stack, 45 inch display screen (for listing patrons during 'busy spells'.
All paper mache construction, for composting when at end of service life.
Includes Coin Toss bucket, for religious purposes, and 29 prayer wheels.
Women must be wearing Elvis T-shirts, and pay double.
All that above was lame attempt to get the reader to LOATH the product, they are forced to subsidies, off in some little distant country.
Fill in your own lame example, please.
But the idea being that a person may not LIKE to send their money off to places where they have moral or ethical issues.
What that little country, getting the 'greenhouse' subsidies has been getting credible accusations of genocide, and of fraudulent diversion of the (your) funds.
That plus the feeling of lack of control, and lack of meaningful enforcement of diversion fraud,...by your own country (originating payments).
-
If we need solutions to a problem, perhaps there will be costs associated to solving the problems.
Maybe the UN should first solve the problems it was made to solve.
Bunch of unelected bureaucrats, implementing the WEF agenda.
-
solution to the problem is simple. do not buy or believe in this BS. 8)
-
Just to be clear: there is NO actual proposal to subsidize any kind of dodgy or debunked techology, right?
-
solution to the problem is simple. do not buy or believe in this BS. 8)
Burying your head in the sand is 100% effective at solving all problems! ::)
-
solution to the problem is simple. do not buy or believe in this BS. 8)
Burying your head in the sand is 100% effective at solving all problems! ::)
OTOH clinging desperately to how things are right now out of natural fear of change isn't good either. The fact is that some pieces of land will become uninhabitable and it may not be worth it financially to try and fight nature.
-
Is it CO2 or the 31.5 inch tilt of the poles caused by pumping ground water that is causing warming.
The Earth has been warmer in the past with lower CO2 and colder with higher CO2 according to geological surveys.
I think the truth is we don't really know enough but what we do know is that many cities are highly polluted so any thing that reduces that is good, but I cannot see how banning cows helps with this.
-
solution to the problem is simple. do not buy or believe in this BS. 8)
Burying your head in the sand is 100% effective at solving all problems! ::)
Bury it there for 100 years, and it more certainly will. I keep being told how many problems I am going to have in the future, but I'm pretty sure that in 100 years I'll have none.
-
Yes, coppice, I feel same way, as many/most relatives and friends only made it to late 50 years old. Hundred years from now, who knows !
-
As far as I know, the agreement just sets up the funds, how they accumulate, and criteria for re-distribute them.
Good point, is that I don't know what process chooses or approves some individual projects.
But room for fraud and lots of arguing and Loathing.
I'd start with the issue, that, in the U.S.A. our news cycles have little interest on substance.
Mass killings, can, sometimes show up (in our news), but has to be some real drastic news, to even get mention.
That means I could try and go find an SF CHRONICLE, to read the details.
But best guess is there is criteria, but easy to bypass or straight out LIE, in applying for grants.
-
Apparently, the 'climate helper' agreement served to INCREASE an existing program that right now is at $100 billion. So, it goes up, to $300. That means that there should be some records, of how things are going so far.
Some of the poor countries are concerned (that they got skipped; left out of the deal.)
Somehow, I bet with a little bit of digging, could access some existing cases.
Fraudulent activities generally get hidden, but who knows....?
-
Apparently, the 'climate helper' agreement served to INCREASE an existing program that right now is at $100 billion. So, it goes up, to $300. That means that there should be some records, of how things are going so far.
Some of the poor countries are concerned (that they got skipped; left out of the deal.)
Somehow, I bet with a little bit of digging, could access some existing cases.
Fraudulent activities generally get hidden, but who knows....?
Do you expect any of this money to NOT have been spirited away by corruption? Seems awfully optimistic.
-
No I'd bet that is over 50 % fraud.
I mean, even with transparency, there still can be solar roads, where the numbers (science, remember ?) numbers indicate not really that much energy, vs cost to build. I'm saying in lack of any real challenge, that project would roll out just fine....Who's to say what's efficient and what isn't ?
That data is out there right now, if one could get it. A low efficiency solar road stretch might not get any challenge, or demands to justify.
I would have to research that science, to 'catch' any fraud or simple impracticable.
Does the UN do that evaluation ?p
Like reader said, here, the U.N. struggles to perform the job they already have.
Who, then ? Dave ! Comes to mind.
-
No I'd bet that is over 50 % fraud.
I mean, even with transparency, there still can be solar roads, where the numbers (science, remember ?) numbers indicate not really that much energy, vs cost to build. I'm saying in lack of any real challenge, that project would roll out just fine....Who's to say what's efficient and what isn't ?
I'll repeat the question: "Just to be clear: there is NO actual proposal to subsidize any kind of dodgy or debunked techology, right?"
This thread has a very high level of "old man yelling at cloud" in it.
-
See article here, All about Solar Roadways: the promise versus the reality (https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/all-about-solar-roadways).
(The viral video to which Rick's title refers is actually "Solar FREAKIN' Roadways (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU)".)
The verdict: almost a complete bust. Super-expen$ive, can't hold up to traffic, produces far less energy than touted. In China a demo project was shut down after, among other problems, thieves made off with some of the solar panels!
In other words, not a thing.
-
I'm very aware that solar roadways are very, very dumb. That wasn't the question. The question was: is there an actual proposal to subsidize such a dodgy and/or debunked technology?
-
Thanks for question. No not at present, I don't have a specific 'gotcha' but rather it's just an educated 'probably', given the appetites of mankind, for folly.
Who's to judge each actual project, I'm asking myself? One country might tend to just shrug off the news of some other counties decision, just out of principal.
I'm saying that there could be glaringly stupid projects, that get built, simply due to money being thrown at them. Plus, since the financing initiative is already up and running, the predictions I made can now be checked.
What I need, is access to a periodical, or book, that has UN activities covered in lengthy articles, like in the mag 'Nature'.
If the whole burden is on myself, to prove things, you might get stuck, waiting.
I have the dreaded Chronic Fatique so rely on instincts and past follys.
Can you 'prove', that each project is a reasonable use, of grant money ?
-
Come to think about it, it's not as if all of the western world has 'good' projects...the waste is apparent in home country too.
It's just that local stuff feels more like any wasteful project can be fixed, maybe naive assumption!
-
Ice Tea,
Don't you realize:
You are quick to be skeptical, that I've been too quick to be skeptical.
Almost all sincere criticism is a good thing, when new things are proposed, with someone's money.
-
I'm very aware that solar roadways are very, very dumb. That wasn't the question. The question was: is there an actual proposal to subsidize such a dodgy and/or debunked technology?
Let me turn this around. Is there a precedent of anyone paying a tax to the UN?
-
I have the dreaded Chronic Fatique so rely on instincts and past follys.
I have found instinct and anecdotal evidence to be poor substitutes for data based science...
Can you 'prove', that each project is a reasonable use, of grant money ?
Off coarse not. Or to be more precise: I'm sure there will be plenty of instances where this will not be the case. But to reduce the initiative to "you'll be paying for solar roadways" is disengenuous.
Almost all sincere criticism is a good thing, when new things are proposed, with someone's money.
I'm going to (respectfully) disagree. I personally don't care much for gut feeling based critcism, especially not if it is weighed against the stance of people who have didicated their life to the subeject and it is found to be of equal value. This is happening too much in the media and life already. Not all opinions are equal and some opinions are better kept to yourself.
Let me turn this around. Is there a precedent of anyone paying a tax to the UN?
I don't know all that much about what is actually being proposed so following my own advise I should probably keep this to myself :-DD But is this about a carbon tax being levied by the UN?
- I'm not against a carbon tax. It is a good way to make the implicit cost explicit. It is a good way to make the impact of certain choices visible to the end consumer in the clearest way possible and in the way that is most likely to have an impact.
- We are already paying for the functioning and projects of the UN, and we are paying with taxes the various countries levy but no, the UN does not directly levy a tax.
- It's not a bad way to get to keep countries to actually deliver on a promise. Now way to often stuff is pledged but never delivered.
Not saying it's the way to go, but I'm not against it either.
-
Let me turn this around. Is there a precedent of anyone paying a tax to the UN?
I don't know all that much about what is actually being proposed so following my own advise I should probably keep this to myself :-DD But is this about a carbon tax being levied by the UN?
- I'm not against a carbon tax. It is a good way to make the implicit cost explicit. It is a good way to make the impact of certain choices visible to the end consumer in the clearest way possible and in the way that is most likely to have an impact.
- We are already paying for the functioning and projects of the UN, and we are paying with taxes the various countries levy but no, the UN does not directly levy a tax.
- It's not a bad way to get to keep countries to actually deliver on a promise. Now way to often stuff is pledged but never delivered.
Not saying it's the way to go, but I'm not against it either.
We already have carbon tax. It's done on the EU level, by politicians that we elected.
We didn't elect anyone in the UN.
This would set a precedent to more globalization, by a goverment without any oversight, and without any way to get rid of them. There are no checks and balances in place.
And they want what, 1.3 Trillion per year? Take a hike, or try to enforce it.
-
Clearly, we need action, don't doubt I notice, when, for example, HEAT WAVES, drought or exacerbated drought, and historic fire storms are, ick, hard to ignore.
With that component getting worse, I'm saying that it gets even more relevant, watching some 'fool project' start-up somewhere distant, but with funding from UN initiatives.
Where they get the money, I've assumed each country has a set amount, by agreement. Also have heard and read fragments of that fund.
Global Climate Fund (GCF) at current meeting (was Oct.21), splits $1 billion for 16 projects, some are for 'Climate Innovation'.
But as to existing work, accomplished:
1.). Transformational planning and programming by promoting integrated strategies, planning and policymaking to maximize the co-benefits between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development.
---from October 21, 2024 meeting.
Now, try and argue that they don't really DO anything...
I'm going to be switching to Comedy Ironicist,
(This stuff is so hideously stiff and boring)!
-
watching some 'fool project' start-up somewhere distant, but with funding from UN initiatives.
I'll repeat the question: "Just to be clear: there is NO actual proposal to subsidize any kind of dodgy or debunked techology, right?"
Yeah, I know I'm a bit of a dick about this.
-
No, that's fine to question which project relates to the OP's point.
It might take a bit of time, so hold on, but a detailed answer and specific example (from local library info on UN news)
I'll do that.
Brings up a question:
I'm wondering if folks in the US under low income constraints, can, also, apply for a UN Climate grant ?
Or, maybe each recipient country gets pre-approved as $$$ compromised.
-
I'll repeat the question: "Just to be clear: there is NO actual proposal to subsidize any kind of dodgy or debunked techology, right?"
I think most of us are more concerned about a proven but dodgy technology - corruption. The spiriting away of money from the poor in richer countries to the richest in poor countries.
-
I'll repeat the question: "Just to be clear: there is NO actual proposal to subsidize any kind of dodgy or debunked techology, right?"
I think most of us are more concerned about a proven but dodgy technology - corruption. The spiriting away of money from the poor in richer countries to the richest in poor countries.
Valid point. But not the topic title. Which is my point ;-)