Washington's Carbon Tax

[RiverDog]

I'm no electrician, but it would seem to me that it would be rather easy to bypass a charging meter at home or install a charger w/o a meter.
Transponders would be darn tough to defeat as every cop would know when a car wasn't being tracked by GPS. The big issue with GPS would be privacy and security as it obviously has to be internet based.

They are already assessing an additional charge for EV's on license registrations, but in order for it to be fair, they need to have some sort of tax based on highway usage. Even the gas tax isn't fair as it doesn't measure mileage and people that can afford the modern, fuel-efficient cars end up paying fewer taxes than those that have to drive a 20-year-old vehicle.

The easiest and least invasive method is increase the tax on all electricity.

I'm not sure what is the difference between a transponder and the onboard computer most EVs have at this point. I'm not sure why they would need to use a lower tech transponder when they can check your car's computer system when it's plugged in and get the info they need.

EVs are very advanced. Almost all come with an onboard computer capable of loading and operating self-driving or advanced cruise control software. They can monitor all energy systems and charging history. Be pretty easy to pull that information and make sure the bill applies to whoever used it.

I haven't seen this issue brought up as concern. The main concerns are what method to use, not the difficulty of applying the method. The onboard computer and tracking software is all very advanced and easy to tie to the owner of the car. That shouldn't be a problem at all.

I'm sure you're right. The problem isn't the technical aspect, it's overcoming the "Big Brother" fear of government intrusion into our everyday lives and convinced that it's secure. But whatever they come up with, they need a tax or fee based on highway usage. There's too much variance in people's driving habits for them just to levy a general tax on electrical usage.

You should check out some of the modern EV vehicles. They are amazing. Tesla's can park themselves and you can have them come and meet at the front of a store with your key fob equivalent. They can self-drive a bit and have a full onboard computer that can load powerful self-driving software, monitor all your systems, notify if anyone is too close, and deliver all types of information. It's some real movie spaced aged tech. That's why I think EV adoption is going to continue to occur because the tech is so good that people will want them regardless of the environmental benefits. They're just great vehicles at this point. If you can afford one and have enough charging around, you should get one. Amazing advancement in vehicle design.

I have. A friend of mine owns a Tesla and they're fantastic cars. As you said, they're nearly autonomous. The next car I buy is likely to be an EV as we don't take a lot of long trips in the car.

[c_hawkbob]

Next car I buy will be a plug in hybrid. That way I can have EV operation around town but can still take the car out of state without planning the trip around charging capabilities.

[Aseahawkfan]

The younger generation has nearly no fear of "Big Brother." I lack that fear as well. If the government wants to track you, have fun trying to stop them. It isn't the movies. You aren't competing against a government backed with trillions of dollars of tax revenue who has tools hack and defeat hacks from other billion and trillion dollar governments. Then companies with billions in revenues employing top level techs to do the job. On top of that 99.999999999999999999% of people are not important enough to track. The government is far too busy tracking real threats than to spend time tracking Granny Jane or Uncle Bill doing nothing worth tracking.

Though even I balk at the younger generations willingness to have cybernetic internet connections in their body. I'm not going there. Younger generation can have that to themselves. If I choose to buy a private product or use private internet networks, then I'm agreeing to the possibility of being tracked and if I want to adjust that I can get rid of the devices. I don't want something imbedded in my body to do that. Hard to undo that.

Then again biological tracking with facial recognition, fingerprints, eyes, voice recognition, and the like already exist. They can map your genetics and use DNA tech to track you if they want to. It would take far too much energy to win that game against the powerful entities capable of doing so.

I don't plan to go back to living all cash or bartering and growing my own food. I want no part of that.

[RiverDog]

The younger generation has nearly no fear of "Big Brother." I lack that fear as well. If the government wants to track you, have fun trying to stop them. It isn't the movies. You aren't competing against a government backed with trillions of dollars of tax revenue who has tools hack and defeat hacks from other billion and trillion dollar governments. Then companies with billions in revenues employing top level techs to do the job. On top of that 99.999999999999999999% of people are not important enough to track. The government is far too busy tracking real threats than to spend time tracking Granny Jane or Uncle Bill doing nothing worth tracking.

Though even I balk at the younger generations willingness to have cybernetic internet connections in their body. I'm not going there. Younger generation can have that to themselves. If I choose to buy a private product or use private internet networks, then I'm agreeing to the possibility of being tracked and if I want to adjust that I can get rid of the devices. I don't want something imbedded in my body to do that. Hard to undo that.

Then again biological tracking with facial recognition, fingerprints, eyes, voice recognition, and the like already exist. They can map your genetics and use DNA tech to track you if they want to. It would take far too much energy to win that game against the powerful entities capable of doing so.

I don't plan to go back to living all cash or bartering and growing my own food. I want no part of that.

I mostly agree. My best friend, 85 years old and one of the smartest people I've ever called a friend, is extremely paranoid about government intervention and personal privacy. He won't wear a seatbelt because his personal safety "is none of the government's business!" He won't use a credit card because they send him an annual summary showing the categories where he spent his money: "It's nobody's business where I spend my money!" I try to explain to him that there is no human involvement in the preparation of those reports and even if there was, no one would give a chit where some old phucker like him spends his money, but it goes in one ear and out the other.

Although it's going to take a while, like you, I do get the sense that the younger generation is less likely to adapt that kind of thinking. But it won't happen in time for when the government is going to have to start levying some type of usage-based fee to replace the gas tax. And even I have security have security concerns.

[Aseahawkfan]

I mostly agree. My best friend, 85 years old and one of the smartest people I've ever called a friend, is extremely paranoid about government intervention and personal privacy. He won't wear a seatbelt because his personal safety "is none of the government's business!" He won't use a credit card because they send him an annual summary showing the categories where he spent his money: "It's nobody's business where I spend my money!" I try to explain to him that there is no human involvement in the preparation of those reports and even if there was, no one would give a chit where some old phucker like him spends his money, but it goes in one ear and out the other.

Although it's going to take a while, like you, I do get the sense that the younger generation is less likely to adapt that kind of thinking. But it won't happen in time for when the government is going to have to start levying some type of usage-based fee to replace the gas tax. And even I have security have security concerns.

Charlie Munger has a great story about a highly intelligent person he knew that showed him no matter how smart someone is, they can still lack common sense in more than a few areas of their life.

I'm always of a mixed mind on the level of government intervention. On the one hand, I hate being told what to do as I don't need the help. On the other hand the majority of people around me don't appear to act responsibly or seem willing accept the consequences of their actions driven mostly by emotion and the drive to survive. So the government operates at least partially as herd management. It is in the interest of us all for them to do so since at the end of the day they are absorbing the cost of human incompetence, criminality, along with bad luck. A car accident occurs on the freeway causing your friend not wearing a seatbelt to get launched from the car into the window of another vehicle causing a dual accident. The government will at least partially involve themselves in the incident for both parties with police, ambulance, and other repair activities. So it is in the government's best interests to encourage good driving practices not necessarily for the safety of the citizen as the selling point, but for the easier management of society's various levels of involvement. Encouraging survival of possible child rearing parents, ensuring less damage to taxpayer paid roads, and reducing the load on insurance companies large payouts, and the like.

So I understand and believe in a certain level of government regulation of human activity. The economic costs and often the one individual being the rebel isn't paying those costs alone if a problem occurs.

That's why I've never bought into the philosophies surrounding the idea of constantly viewing the government as the bad guy. I don't think that was ever the intent of the Constitution, which is why a right to privacy was not spelled out in it.

Even back then when individual rights were a very important element of the Constitution, it was always understood that you were part of a community and expected to be an active, invested, and helpful part of your community. Not some off the grid, lone wolf looking out for number one.

Humans have thrived by being strongly social creatures that exist as we do now because of a massive community of humans blending all their talents and resources to create human society. Lone wolves benefit from it, but those that don't appreciate all that has contributed to this world we have now are just lying to themselves. The government is part of the means by which we coordinate large human groups in a productive manner with the aim of survival because of how large the human population has grown.

That's why I'm always of a mixed bag. I understand why people hate being told what to do, especially with the modern government encroaching more and more into the area of personal beliefs. But seat belt laws and tracking and such don't concern me much. I'm more concerned with the socialization and pushing of lies or half-truths.

[RiverDog]

[i] A car accident occurs on the freeway causing your friend not wearing a seatbelt to get launched from the car into the window of another vehicle causing a dual accident. The government will at least partially involve themselves in the incident for both parties with police, ambulance, and other repair activities. So it is in the government's best interests to encourage good driving practices not necessarily for the safety of the citizen as the selling point, but for the easier management of society's various levels of involvement. Encouraging survival of possible child rearing parents, ensuring less damage to taxpayer paid roads, and reducing the load on insurance companies large payouts, and the like.[/quote]

I don't think that there's too many incidents where injuries/accidents occur because someone else didn't wear their seatbelt.

My buddy worked it out once, arguing that you're doing the government a favor by not wearing a seat belt and dying in a car accident when you're 50 years old and consequently not drawing SS, Medicare, pension, etc. Most health insurance company' payouts are to those over age 50 as they require more medical attention, so if you die young, you're saving them money, too.

But that's my friend's argument, not mine. My position has always been that I don't care if the government mandates it or not, if it makes sense, I'm gonna use it.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't think that there's too many incidents where injuries/accidents occur because someone else didn't wear their seatbelt.

My buddy worked it out once, arguing that you're doing the government a favor by not wearing a seat belt and dying in a car accident when you're 50 years old and consequently not drawing SS, Medicare, pension, etc. Most health insurance company' payouts are to those over age 50 as they require more medical attention, so if you die young, you're saving them money, too.

But that's my friend's argument, not mine. My position has always been that I don't care if the government mandates it or not, if it makes sense, I'm gonna use it.

The seatbelt to my understanding reduces the severity of the accident and does not reduce the number of accidents. It has been well supported scientifically to reduce the severity of the accidents by competent statisticians and engineers. Health insurance company payouts are only one of the associated costs of car accidents.

I'm similar to your viewpoint. I just tire of the socialization government attempts to the point I doubt I would support public schools if I did not have to. There are also very untrustworthy with politicians constantly talking out both sides of their mouth.

[RiverDog]

The seatbelt to my understanding reduces the severity of the accident and does not reduce the number of accidents. It has been well supported scientifically to reduce the severity of the accidents by competent statisticians and engineers. Health insurance company payouts are only one of the associated costs of car accidents.

I'm similar to your viewpoint. I just tire of the socialization government attempts to the point I doubt I would support public schools if I did not have to. There are also very untrustworthy with politicians constantly talking out both sides of their mouth.

Wearing a seat belt does not reduce the severity of the accident. It reduces the severity of the injuries to one person. It does not increase the insurance co. payout of other damage to the vehicles or injuries to other occupants. It's like wearing a motorcycle helmet in that it's almost exclusively for the protection of one person and has nothing to do with property damage or risk to others.

The counter to my buddy's argument is that insurance companies have to pay out more to cover the increased injuries/severity of injury of not wearing a seat belt by having to pay for extended hospital stays, more extensive rehab, etc. But as far as the government's interest is concerned, not wearing a seatbelt benefits them financially because it increases the chances of an individual dying before the government has to support them in their later years. They generally don't have to pay out anything in an automobile accident unless the injured are covered by some sort of government insurance, like Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.

You'd have to understand my friend. The seat belt law was passed well over 40 years ago, but he still fumes about it. He'll buy a new car then pay to have them relocate the dimmer switch from the steering column to the floorboard. They relocated the switch when they started coming out with front wheel drive vehicles in the late 70's. He refuses to admit that he could benefit from a smart phone, pays with cash and won't use a credit card. I tell him that he's a living museum who failed to step through the Y2K time portal and is stuck in the 20th century.

[Aseahawkfan]

Wearing a seat belt does not reduce the severity of the accident. It reduces the severity of the injuries to one person. It does not increase the insurance co. payout of other damage to the vehicles or injuries to other occupants. It's like wearing a motorcycle helmet in that it's almost exclusively for the protection of one person and has nothing to do with property damage or risk to others.

The counter to my buddy's argument is that insurance companies have to pay out more to cover the increased injuries/severity of injury of not wearing a seat belt by having to pay for extended hospital stays, more extensive rehab, etc. But as far as the government's interest is concerned, not wearing a seatbelt benefits them financially because it increases the chances of an individual dying before the government has to support them in their later years. They generally don't have to pay out anything in an automobile accident unless the injured are covered by some sort of government insurance, like Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.

You'd have to understand my friend. The seat belt law was passed well over 40 years ago, but he still fumes about it. He'll buy a new car then pay to have them relocate the dimmer switch from the steering column to the floorboard. They relocated the switch when they started coming out with front wheel drive vehicles in the late 70's. He refuses to admit that he could benefit from a smart phone, pays with cash and won't use a credit card. I tell him that he's a living museum who failed to step through the Y2K time portal and is stuck in the 20th century.

I understand your friend. I know people like this myself. I don't see the point of it myself, but some folks like to spend their energy in some private battle they think they are in. I shrug about it. Spent years talking with a lawyer paranoid about government surveillance who was working to become what is known as a Grey Man, someone living completely off the grid and as invisible as possible to the system. Main reason I enjoyed the conversations is he had spent a great deal of time researching the government's capacity to electronically track someone. I learned a great deal about the government's tracking and data collection abilities and the laws in place to direct this mostly outside the United States at least legally. The tracking system is extremely powerful and the only way to beat it is live completely off the grid so that any electronic transactions or activities associated with your name can't be tracked by the government systems built to do so passively and actively. My final feeling on the matter is it was not worth the effort or costs versus the benefits I receive of being part of the system.

Severity of the accident meaning damage to the individual is what I meant. The idea is if all parties are wearing the seatbelt, both will benefit from the reduced injuries and higher rate of survival. It is not built for individuals, it is built to operate on a large scale with multiple individuals wearing the seatbelt causing an overall reduction in injury severity which leads to an aggregate improved survival rate and reduced injury rates. Since I don't know what the final statistical model was built around, I'd have to see what they were aiming for. Seatbelts are only one part of a variety of measures taken to reduce the problems associated with car accidents. Air bags, speed limits, road construction, wheels, and a variety of other systems are in place as well.

The argument about the payout does not hold water in the aggregate. The government may incur other costs as it does with someone like my buddy who had to be supported his entire life by the government for driving drunk while not wearing a seatbelt causing him to have such severe injuries he was paralyzed. Death is but one possibility of a car accident. There are worse possibilities.

These laws that act as protections are based on statistics over large groups, not individuals. Statisticians that model these behavior changes do not do so for single individuals, but use aggregate statistical models with a specific aim. They used multiple methods of which the seatbelt law is but one of a variety of measures taken to reduce car accidents and injury severity. I have not thoroughly researched the statistical model used for the seatbelt law. I won't pretend to be an expert on it other than I can see the logic of it.

But your friend getting uptight over seatbelt laws is a waste of mental energy in my opinion. I would not spend much mental energy on it. I usually see people unhappy with the seatbelt law falling into the "Government can't tell me what to do" regardless of the intention or the effect of a law. They just hate government intervention and being told what to do. I can understand the sentiment, but the seat belt law is not where I would spend this energy since that is small potatoes compared to what the government is pushing in the modern day.

[RiverDog]

But your friend getting uptight over seatbelt laws is a waste of mental energy in my opinion. I would not spend much mental energy on it. I usually see people unhappy with the seatbelt law falling into the "Government can't tell me what to do" regardless of the intention or the effect of a law. They just hate government intervention and being told what to do. I can understand the sentiment, but the seat belt law is not where I would spend this energy since that is small potatoes compared to what the government is pushing in the modern day.

I agree completely. What I tell my buddy is that one should pick their battles, and seat belts was a battle fought decades ago and he lost. But principle means a lot to him.

One time, he and his wife went into a McDonald's, and he ordered a regular hamburger. When the teenage clerk told him what he owed, he got into an argument with him, telling him that sales tax was only 8% and it didn't account for the additional $.25 above the stated price that he was charging him while the clerk was saying all he did was push a button and the tax was automatically calculated. It turned out that the clerk had pushed the button for a cheeseburger instead of the regular hamburger he ordered, and there was an additional $.20 added for the slice of cheese. But he embarrassed the crap out of his wife by making a scene by arguing over such a trivial amount. He won the battle and lost the war as his wife chewed him up one side and down the other, probably cut him off for a week.

[Aseahawkfan]

I agree completely. What I tell my buddy is that one should pick their battles, and seat belts was a battle fought decades ago and he lost. But principle means a lot to him.

One time, he and his wife went into a McDonald's, and he ordered a regular hamburger. When the teenage clerk told him what he owed, he got into an argument with him, telling him that sales tax was only 8% and it didn't account for the additional $.25 above the stated price that he was charging him while the clerk was saying all he did was push a button and the tax was automatically calculated. It turned out that the clerk had pushed the button for a cheeseburger instead of the regular hamburger he ordered, and there was an additional $.20 added for the slice of cheese. But he embarrassed the crap out of his wife by making a scene by arguing over such a trivial amount. He won the battle and lost the war as his wife chewed him up one side and down the other, probably cut him off for a week.

Hah. He sounds real extreme.

I do calculate what I owe at the register. If something is off, I do let them know and fix it. I don't usually bother with 20 cents. I do hate it when a clerk rings up the wrong price. Given I have a good memory even at my age, I can usually calculate very closely what my total should be with tax. So I'll notice when it's off.

[RiverDog]

I agree completely. What I tell my buddy is that one should pick their battles, and seat belts was a battle fought decades ago and he lost. But principle means a lot to him.

One time, he and his wife went into a McDonald's, and he ordered a regular hamburger. When the teenage clerk told him what he owed, he got into an argument with him, telling him that sales tax was only 8% and it didn't account for the additional $.25 above the stated price that he was charging him while the clerk was saying all he did was push a button and the tax was automatically calculated. It turned out that the clerk had pushed the button for a cheeseburger instead of the regular hamburger he ordered, and there was an additional $.20 added for the slice of cheese. But he embarrassed the crap out of his wife by making a scene by arguing over such a trivial amount. He won the battle and lost the war as his wife chewed him up one side and down the other, probably cut him off for a week.

Hah. He sounds real extreme.

I do calculate what I owe at the register. If something is off, I do let them know and fix it. I don't usually bother with 20 cents. I do hate it when a clerk rings up the wrong price. Given I have a good memory even at my age, I can usually calculate very closely what my total should be with tax. So I'll notice when it's off.

The real story was the stupid ass kid that couldn't do simple math in his head. For example, on a $20 meal and an 8% sales tax, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the total should be just under $22. I think that's what frustrated my friend more than anything else.

I just used it as an example that the man does not pick his battles. He fights every single one no matter what the subject is, how long it's been, or how much it costs. It's the principle that counts. He got pissed off at the auto industry for moving the dimmer switch for headlights for cars from the floor to the steering column, so when he buys a new car, he pays extra to have it moved to the floorboard, refusing to adjust to the new location.

[NorthHawk]

And to think someone once called me a Luddite...

[Aseahawkfan]

And to think someone once called me a Luddite...

Haha. My mother is a definite Luddite...at least when it comes to new tech. Has no trouble using the TV and radio or cable, but smart phones and computers are the Devil.

[Aseahawkfan]

Another example of the left's Armageddon politics on the environment.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/23/world/mass-extinctions-explained-scn-climate/index.html

This is all based on theory, yet being sold as fact to fearmonger the masses providing an open-ended directive to "fix the environment."

Anyone that has been alive for the past 50 or more years has been sold this idea of human-caused environmental Armageddon with varying timetables endlessly backed by a scientific elite given political power and a voice to enact sweeping changes that will mostly effect regular working people in the world, while the wealthy make money selling us the technology driving change.

It makes the issue very problematic figuring out what is a real concern, how big that concern is, and how to go about fixing it while not completely empowering the government to forcibly change the way we live by whatever means a small scientific elite deem necessary.

[RiverDog]

Another example of the left's Armageddon politics on the environment.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/23/world/mass-extinctions-explained-scn-climate/index.html

This is all based on theory, yet being sold as fact to fearmonger the masses providing an open-ended directive to "fix the environment."

Anyone that has been alive for the past 50 or more years has been sold this idea of human-caused environmental Armageddon with varying timetables endlessly backed by a scientific elite given political power and a voice to enact sweeping changes that will mostly effect regular working people in the world, while the wealthy make money selling us the technology driving change.

It makes the issue very problematic figuring out what is a real concern, how big that concern is, and how to go about fixing it while not completely empowering the government to forcibly change the way we live by whatever means a small scientific elite deem necessary.

This is one of the reasons why I'm opposed to the removal of the LSRD's in the name of restoring a disappearing species, the salmon. Extinction is part of nature. If a species is not adaptable enough to adjust to its changing environment, it will cease to exist. In its absence, something else will rise to take its place. Man is part of nature, and as a part of nature, some species may wax and wane due to man's activities. Man is not alone in this phenomenon. Many species will dominate an environment at the expense of others.

[Aseahawkfan]

This is one of the reasons why I'm opposed to the removal of the LSRD's in the name of restoring a disappearing species, the salmon. Extinction is part of nature. If a species is not adaptable enough to adjust to its changing environment, it will cease to exist. In its absence, something else will rise to take its place. Man is part of nature, and as a part of nature, some species may wax and wane due to man's activities. Man is not alone in this phenomenon. Many species will dominate an environment at the expense of others.

We already have farmed salmon. Salmon are not in danger of going extinct save in the wild. It's all part of resource management.

They want to remove the dams, while at the same still wanting to greatly curtail meat production while feeding us processed plant crap under the guise of environment. That will reach a point where even the quality of the food you eat will be decided by your income level, where in America quality, inexpensive food was been something the rich and poor had access to. The political and financial elite are pushing an agenda where they will even control the food supply from farm land to types of food produced and we will be managed. It's pretty insane when you read their plans.

I was even recently watching a Jeff Bezos podcast and this guy is talking about humans living on giant space stations to preserve the earth. This is his plan for preservation. A trillion plus humans living in floating space stations around the earth.

You analyze who funds the Democrats and the left, the big money, and it's pretty scary what they want to do with human beings. They don't even think of humans as people that should be free. They think of us as cattle to be managed. These are the scientific and financial elite that back the left and the Democrats. A lot of Dems don't dig very deep on who runs their party and where the financing comes from or the plans of the financiers. They think of themselves more as working class union Democrats, who I have respect for, but they're under a big umbrella of powerful scientific and financial elite who have many other agendas they wanted pushed.

It's similar to what Republicans do when they think they're supporting working class, religious people that want a more moral America, when the Republicans are often supporting powerful business interests looking to control taxation, military power useful to extending their business interests, and protecting industries like oil and mining from excessive and costly regulation.

Big money agendas are very different from the public agendas of each party. Once you dig past the surface crap they sell on Fox and MSNBC, you see some pretty scary agendas being pushed that will not be to our long-term benefit. Americans need to wake up to these parties problems and get control before they end up with an American neither side really wants or likes.

[RiverDog]

We already have farmed salmon. Salmon are not in danger of going extinct save in the wild. It's all part of resource management.

They want to remove the dams, while at the same still wanting to greatly curtail meat production while feeding us processed plant crap under the guise of environment. That will each a point even the quality of the food you eat will be decided by your income level, where in America quality, inexpensive food was been something the rich and poor had access to. The political and financial elite are pushing an agenda where they will even control the food supply from farm land to types of food produced and we will be managed. It's pretty insane when you read their plans.

I was even recently watching a Jeff Bezos podcast and this guy is talking about humans living on giant space stations to preserve the earth. This is his plan for preservation. A trillion plus humans living in floating space stations around the earth.

You analyze who funds the Democrats and the left, the big money, and it's pretty scary what they want to do with human beings. They don't even think of humans as people that should be free. They think of us as cattle to be managed. These are the scientific and financial elite that back the left and the Democrats. A lot of Dems don't dig very deep on who runs their party and where the financing comes from or the plans of the financiers. They think of themselves more as working class union Democrats, who I have respect for, but they're under a big umbrella of powerful scientific and financial elite who have many other agendas they wanted pushed.

It's similar to what Republicans do when they think they're supporting working class, religious people that want a more moral America, when the Republicans are often supporting powerful business interests looking to control taxation, military power useful to extending their business interests, and protecting industries like oil and mining from excessive and costly regulation.

Big money agendas are very different from the public agendas of each party. Once you dig past the surface crap they sell on Fox and MSNBC, you see some pretty scary agendas being pushed that will not be to our long-term benefit. Americans need to wake up to these parties problems and get control before they end up with an American neither side really wants or likes.

Yeah, I read where Bezos and Musk are talking about becoming a "multi planet species." Until they can come up with an economical way to defy gravity, something like Star Trek's transporter, their musings are nothing more than a Buck Rogers cartoon. Musk has also talked about a population collapse, that our birth rate has plummeted to such a degree that human beings will soon become an endangered species. I've used his quotes to tease this friend of mine who wants to blame everything from global warming to the common cold on over population.

I hadn't thought about the farmed salmon/aquaculture angle, but you make a good point. However, the wild salmon is doomed to extinction no matter what they do about the dams. And 10-4 on the plant-based meat substitutes. I've tried marinading them in all sorts of stuff and they still taste like crap.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, I read where Bezos and Musk are talking about becoming a "multi planet species." Until they can come up with an economical way to defy gravity, something like Star Trek's transporter, their musings are nothing more than a Buck Rogers cartoon. Musk has also talked about a population collapse, that our birth rate has plummeted to such a degree that human beings will soon become an endangered species. I've used his quotes to tease this friend of mine who wants to blame everything from global warming to the common cold on over population.

I hadn't thought about the farmed salmon/aquaculture angle, but you make a good point. However, the wild salmon is doomed to extinction no matter what they do about the dams. And 10-4 on the plant-based meat substitutes. I've tried marinading them in all sorts of stuff and they still taste like crap.

And the processed plant matter isn't even healthy for you. Lean, quality beef is one of the most nutritious foods on the planet. Huge amounts of protein, vitamins, and other nutrients that make you feel strong. Sure, fatty, crap beef or even expensive fatty meat not so great in high quantities, but lean beef with a balanced diet is great for you. Very few things as nutritious. You mix in some quality salmon with maybe some lean chicken breast, you feel nice and strong.

Milk is also great if you can tolerate it. I understand mostly Western nations and nations raised on milk can handle it, but it's very nutritious if you can.

As far as living in space stations, not my cup of tea.

Overpopulation is a problem and Elon Musk is wrong. Why? Because we have problem called human-caused global warming. When you source the cause of environmental issues as human, then you suddenly view any expansion of humanity as dangerous and problematic for the environment. You said yourself you believe in human-caused environmental issues, thus you too have given the government the power to control the population if environmental Armageddon is the end game for human-caused environmental issues.

This is why I highly encourage people to spend time contemplating what you are supporting, the way it is communicated, and the answers are when you have determined an issue is human-caused environmental Armageddon. It's why I push back against it.

I prefer targeting specific behaviors in communication so the problem end game solution is never less humans to the point we're engaging in China-like population control.

Global warming as an example is specifically tied to use of carbon fuels that emit carbon gases that in the quantities we use causes an amount of carbon emissions that causes heat retention due to the density of the gases in the atmosphere. This problem is solved not be reducing the number of humans, but by reducing the number of human activities that release carbon gases. This we can do and is a focused, solveable problem that we can do in steps starting with electrification of vehicles and other industrial processes including farming.

But when you let the environmentalists ramp up to environmental Armageddon and humans bad, you immediately create a precedent for extreme policies. That should not be how we do things. It works badly for religion and makes everyone look stupid and causes ridiculous behaviors. It does the same for science or really any human thought system.

I prefer to look at these environmental issues more as moving to educate and alter human behavior to create a more sustainable world. Which is why I support things like true reduction of carbon emissions (not fake carbon taxes with fake bookkeeping), water preservation, farming improvements, and farmed animal proteins like fish farms and improved methods of meat production.

I really wish humans were less emotionally driven and used reason more. I also wish the media did not profit off emotional manipulation to drive ratings and profits. The media has a responsibility to report the news and provide good information with quality guests, but now it's just a big business of creating entertaining news with smarmy talking heads making fun of each other and encouraging each political group to tune the other side out or ridicule them depending on their media of choice. That's just not a great way to run the media of a nation. It's better than the tightly controlled media of a China or Russia, but not as good as the ethical media of yesteryear where journalists felt an ethical responsibility to provide well-reasoned, open-minded journalism and show both sides of an argument between non-insane people. Now it's become put the biggest nut you can find on the news and rev everyone up hating on them. I don't like it much at all.

[RiverDog]

Overpopulation is a problem and Elon Musk is wrong. Why? Because we have problem called human-caused global warming. When you source the cause of environmental issues as human, then you suddenly view any expansion of humanity as dangerous and problematic for the environment. You said yourself you believe in human-caused environmental issues, thus you two have given the government the power to control the population if environmental Armageddon is the end game for human-caused environmental issues.

The overpopulation issue will correct itself. The global birth rate has been on a steady decline for over 50 years. With the exception of Africa and the Middle East, of whom their people aren't creating as much of a carbon footprint as they are in industrialized nations, the birth rate is near or below the replacement rate of 2.0 births per female. In this country alone, the birth rate has declined by 30%.

China’s population changes are not unique among the superpowers. According to the United States’ most recent census, the US birthrate has declined for six straight years and 19% since 2007 in total. Like China, the US birthrate is now well below replacement rate at 1.6. (China is now at 1.3.) For a country to naturally replace its population, its birthrate needs to be at least 2.1.

You can also add the world’s second-most populous country, India, to the list of low-fertility countries, with a birthrate at replacement rate (2.1). Also include Japan (1.3), Russia (1.6), Brazil (1.8), Bangladesh (1.7) and Indonesia (2.0).

There are still big countries with high birthrates, such as Pakistan (3.4) and Nigeria (5.1). But even these numbers are lower than they were in 1960 – when Pakistan was at 6.6 and Nigeria at 6.4 – and declining every year.

What's been driving over population is the expansion of life expectancy, and there's obviously a limit to how long a human being can live. It's already reached its peak in this country as it's declined for two straight years:

Life expectancy at birth in the United States declined nearly a year from 2020 to 2021, according to new provisional data from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). That decline – 77.0 to 76.1 years – took U.S. life expectancy at birth to its lowest level since 1996. The 0.9 year drop in life expectancy in 2021, along with a 1.8 year drop in 2020, was the biggest two-year decline in life expectancy since 1921-1923.

Musk is wrong, we're not heading for a population collapse, but there's no doubt that global population will start to come down and come down dramatically.

[Aseahawkfan]

The overpopulation issue will correct itself. The global birth rate has been on a steady decline for over 50 years. With the exception of Africa and the Middle East, of whom their people aren't creating as much of a carbon footprint as they are in industrialized nations, the birth rate is near or below the replacement rate of 2.0 births per female. In this country alone, the birth rate has declined by 30%.

China’s population changes are not unique among the superpowers. According to the United States’ most recent census, the US birthrate has declined for six straight years and 19% since 2007 in total. Like China, the US birthrate is now well below replacement rate at 1.6. (China is now at 1.3.) For a country to naturally replace its population, its birthrate needs to be at least 2.1.

You can also add the world’s second-most populous country, India, to the list of low-fertility countries, with a birthrate at replacement rate (2.1). Also include Japan (1.3), Russia (1.6), Brazil (1.8), Bangladesh (1.7) and Indonesia (2.0).

There are still big countries with high birthrates, such as Pakistan (3.4) and Nigeria (5.1). But even these numbers are lower than they were in 1960 – when Pakistan was at 6.6 and Nigeria at 6.4 – and declining every year.

What's been driving over population is the expansion of life expectancy, and there's obviously a limit to how long a human being can live. It's already reached its peak in this country as it's declined for two straight years:

Life expectancy at birth in the United States declined nearly a year from 2020 to 2021, according to new provisional data from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). That decline – 77.0 to 76.1 years – took U.S. life expectancy at birth to its lowest level since 1996. The 0.9 year drop in life expectancy in 2021, along with a 1.8 year drop in 2020, was the biggest two-year decline in life expectancy since 1921-1923.

Musk is wrong, we're not heading for a population collapse, but there's no doubt that global population will start to come down and come down dramatically.

2020 to 2021 were the COVID measures proving that the measures taken by the government reduced life expectancy. That was to be expected. You cannot expect social animals like humans to live in forced isolation and do well. We don't work like that. It was a terrible and badly managed reaction to a global virus from the top down because we as people hire scientifically illiterate politicians as our leaders who can speak well and manipulate the masses, but aren't necessarily competent to manage a global pandemic. Of course, the Orange-haired idiot politicizing a virus made everything worse.

The rest of my above post still applies. When you have created an idea within a movement of human-caused environmental Armageddon, you set a lot of bad precedents within the movements that can lead to extreme policy and acts detrimental to human society and reasoning. It is fear driven politics at its worst.

I know a lot of the older people on here including myself have been listening to this crap for nearly our entire lives from being told to worry about nuclear Armageddon, religious Armageddon, Y2K, famine, running out of oil, and now the continuous refrain of human-caused environmental Armageddon. Now the environmental movement has even made it so that if you push back against this because you actually do understand the science they are using and have read their studies, you're suddenly the nut for questioning them in the minds of many. It's sort of like being called a racist for questioning some racial policy that seems badly designed.

I do generally agree the population issue will fix itself as humans adapt to their conditions as they have always done. Birth rates are generally tied to death rates and living conditions. You will have more children if you die younger and require more human labor for the human tribe to survive. If conditions for humans are as they are now with longer lives, less labor required for food production, higher standards of living, and less of a need for child production, then birth rates will fall. We don't need as many people to sustain human life as we did prior. So our systems will have to adjust to less people feeling the primal drive to reproduce.

Elon is right in one regard: space exploration and planetary colonization could change that. A group of humans moving to a new planet requiring population growth would provide the impetus for increased reproduction unless robotic technology fills that need.

[RiverDog]

Back to the OP.

It sounds like we might get to vote on repealing this POS law:

Signatures submitted for Washington initiative to repeal the state’s 2021 Climate Commitment Act and prohibit carbon cap-and-trade programs

Let’s Go Washington, a committee sponsoring six citizen-initiated ballot measures, submitted signatures for one of them — Initiative 2117. The initiatives would appear on the ballot at the general election in Nov. 2024.

Initiative 2117 was designed to prohibit carbon tax credit trading and repeal provisions of the 2021 Washington Climate Commitment Act (CCA), a state law that provided for a cap-and-invest program designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 95% by 2050. The cap-and-invest program sets a cap on the total carbon emissions in the state and requires businesses with emissions exceeding 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year (such as fuel suppliers and natural gas and electric utility companies) to obtain allowances equal to their allowed greenhouse gas emissions. The cap-and-invest program was designed to allow businesses that reduce emissions to sell their remaining carbon emission allowance permits to other companies.

The initiative was proposed by State Rep. Jim Walsh (R-19). Walsh said, “This cap and trade gas tax scheme is what is making Washington’s price of living the highest in the nation alongside California. This cap and trade gas tax scheme has created over $1.5 BILLION for Olympia Bureaucrats in this year alone – paid for by working families – and it doesn’t actually reduce emissions.”

https://www.thecentersquare.com/washing ... c77d8.html

I've also seen proposals to require the state Department of Agriculture to post the effect of the carbon tax at each pump in the state and keep it updated, and a measure to return a certain amount of tax revenue back to registered vehicle owners.

A state lawmaker is backing legislation in the form of House Bill 2050 that would require the Washington Department of Agriculture to amend the gas tax stickers on pumps to include what drivers are now paying in additional costs due to the cap-and-trade portion of the Climate Commitment Act.

“The range is still being calculated, but it’s anywhere from 50 to 60 cents more per gallon of gas due to the CCA,” Rep. Andrew Barkis, R-Olympia, told The Center Square.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... nt-act-tax

Lawmakers propose sending drivers a refund check to offset carbon tax

https://www.thecentersquare.com/washing ... 0afef.html

I can personally confirm the effect the carbon tax is having on gas prices. It used to be that here in the Tri Cities, we had cheaper gas than they did 20 miles south in Oregon. Now, we're about $.50 more expensive. All this after our governor told us that the law would cost us "pennies".

[Aseahawkfan]

I am personally hoping they repeal the capital gains tax myself.

I have not felt the carbon tax at the pump. Western Washington gas has always been fairly high.

The method of communication is tied to this topic. If you paint something as human-caused environmental Armageddon, you give a blank check for fixing it. So if you are going to support completely without question the current viewpoint on the environment, then you are backing the government's moves to fix it. Carbon taxes are one method. Not one that works very well, but one of their methods.

More are coming.

On a side note, you should also be prepared to invest in this change as none of these changes happen without big money being made. Solar companies, EV companies, energy management companies, wind farms, heating, and companies that benefit from government incentives and contracts will help you make money while this change occurs.

[RiverDog]

I am personally hoping they repeal the capital gains tax myself.

I have not felt the carbon tax at the pump. Western Washington gas has always been fairly high.

The method of communication is tied to this topic. If you paint something as human-caused environmental Armageddon, you give a blank check for fixing it. So if you are going to support completely without question the current viewpoint on the environment, then you are backing the government's moves to fix it. Carbon taxes are one method. Not one that works very well, but one of their methods.

More are coming.

On a side note, you should also be prepared to invest in this change as none of these changes happen without big money being made. Solar companies, EV companies, energy management companies, wind farms, heating, and companies that benefit from government incentives and contracts will help you make money while this change occurs.

I'm retired, so we don't do a lot of driving, especially this time of year. But I definitely see and feel it in the spring and summer when we travel in our motor home as at least half of our destinations are out of state. It doesn't hurt us or affect our decision making, but I'd hate to be a middle-class family or a small business that relies on transportation. It's also inflationary.

I'm not even sure how they were able to get this law passed anyway. I always thought that our state constitution required any new tax, such as an income tax, to be approved by a vote of the people. This is clearly a tax as the oil companies are obviously passing the cost of these carbon credits on to the customer and the state government is raking in billions in additional revenue. It's the most egregious law that this state has passed since I started voting.

As far as investing in green energy, 2024 is an election year, and at this point, it appears to me that Trump is going to win the nomination and will beat Biden in the fall. That would mean that at best, nothing gets done on the green energy front.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm retired, so we don't do a lot of driving, especially this time of year. But I definitely see and feel it in the spring and summer when we travel in our motor home as at least half of our destinations are out of state. It doesn't hurt us or affect our decision making, but I'd hate to be a middle-class family or a small business that relies on transportation. It's also inflationary.

I'm not even sure how they were able to get this law passed anyway. I always thought that our state constitution required any new tax, such as an income tax, to be approved by a vote of the people. This is clearly a tax as the oil companies are obviously passing the cost of these carbon credits on to the customer and the state government is raking in billions in additional revenue. It's the most egregious law that this state has passed since I started voting.

As far as investing in green energy, 2024 is an election year, and at this point, it appears to me that Trump is going to win the nomination and will beat Biden in the fall. That would mean that at best, nothing gets done on the green energy front.

Tesla should still grow. Even without government support, Big Green Energy will grow. They are billion dollar companies now with economies of scale. Pick the winners, make money from the change. It's a major part of the reason the change is being pushed so hard. Nothing happens in America or the world without someone making big money doing it. Might as well join the party rather than be like a Greta Thunberg screeching at government leaders and getting fame for doing so.

Go check out the immigration thread. Tell me what you think of California's move. It wasn't passed by the people either. Both parties currently like to find ways to push agendas through without a vote or at least not of the people.

[RiverDog]

I'm retired, so we don't do a lot of driving, especially this time of year. But I definitely see and feel it in the spring and summer when we travel in our motor home as at least half of our destinations are out of state. It doesn't hurt us or affect our decision making, but I'd hate to be a middle-class family or a small business that relies on transportation. It's also inflationary.

I'm not even sure how they were able to get this law passed anyway. I always thought that our state constitution required any new tax, such as an income tax, to be approved by a vote of the people. This is clearly a tax as the oil companies are obviously passing the cost of these carbon credits on to the customer and the state government is raking in billions in additional revenue. It's the most egregious law that this state has passed since I started voting.

As far as investing in green energy, 2024 is an election year, and at this point, it appears to me that Trump is going to win the nomination and will beat Biden in the fall. That would mean that at best, nothing gets done on the green energy front.

Tesla should still grow. Even without government support, Big Green Energy will grow. They are billion dollar companies now with economies of scale. Pick the winners, make money from the change. It's a major part of the reason the change is being pushed so hard. Nothing happens in America or the world without someone making big money doing it. Might as well join the party rather than be like a Greta Thunberg screeching at government leaders and getting fame for doing so.

Go check out the immigration thread. Tell me what you think of California's move. It wasn't passed by the people either. Both parties currently like to find ways to push agendas through without a vote or at least not of the people.

I can't really give you an intelligent reply on investment strategy. I have a financial consultant managing my funds. All I'm saying is that there's a ton of uncertainty when you head into an election year.

I'm well aware of what CA is doing with regards to immigration, giving illegal aliens health care coverage while they have an enormous debt due to the fact that so many people, particularly rich people who their taxation system depends on, are moving out in droves due to the rise in the cost of living with their various social and environmental agenda. It's damn lucky for us here in WA that we don't have a personal income tax, or the Democratic leadership here would be doing the same damn thing.

My stance on immigration has changed somewhat because the situation has changed a bunch, but my biggest problem with Trump and his cronies is the demonization of immigrants in general, the "poisoning our blood" mindset. It's probably time that we dig that old thread back up.

[Aseahawkfan]

I can't really give you an intelligent reply on investment strategy. I have a financial consultant managing my funds. All I'm saying is that there's a ton of uncertainty when you head into an election year.

I'm well aware of what CA is doing with regards to immigration, giving illegal aliens health care coverage while they have an enormous debt due to the fact that so many people, particularly rich people who their taxation system depends on, are moving out in droves due to the rise in the cost of living with their various social and environmental agenda. It's damn lucky for us here in WA that we don't have a personal income tax, or the Democratic leadership here would be doing the same damn thing.

My stance on immigration has changed somewhat because the situation has changed a bunch, but my biggest problem with Trump and his cronies is the demonization of immigrants in general, the "poisoning our blood" mindset. It's probably time that we dig that old thread back up.

This is exactly why I sometimes wonder if this is coordinated between these two parties. It is probably not. It sure seems real strange that both parties pick a few issues to be really, really crazy over to keep voters divided.

I want no part of demonizing immigrants. Zero part of that.

And yet I want no part of open borders and irresponsible government spending sending messages about providing healthcare for anyone who can make it here.

So who exactly do these parties give you to vote for if these are your options? Demonize immigrants versus irresponsible government management of immigration that amounts to doing almost nothing? Why exactly are the American people being put in this position?

Why don't politicians have an obligation to govern responsibly and sanely? They should not even be allowed to pursue either of these options. They should both be responsibly managing immigration in line with the economy and not overstressing public social systems and sending messages that either make us seem like scummy, anti-immigrant racists or messages telling immigrants to rush across the border by any means necessary because if you make it, you get protection in sanctuary cities and free social services. Neither of these is representative of our people or responsible government management.

It's why I seriously wonder are they practicing the divide and conquer strategy to keep us all divided and unable to get anything real done on purpose while they take the money? If you read the history of empires like Britain or France, divide and conquer was a real strategy for controlling peoples and nations. A coordinated strategy conducted by the ruling class to use one group versus another to keep them from coming together to initiate positive change within a nation. It seems to me that there are elements within our nation that are able to use their wealth to purchase media tools like large papers or news media to promote this type of divide and conquer strategy to keep us divided while their main goals like tax cuts and huge government contracts for companies to build capacity for more jobs funnel the money to the upper 1% versus to working class people who get thrown scraps.

I know it seems paranoid and hard to imagine. At the same time, it seems to be what is occurring. You have working class people fighting each other and voting over issues that never get fixed or managed well, while the wealthy get wealthier from government policies like tax cuts or spending that mostly funnels to them. Thus the working American voting block remains divided and unable to take effective action on their own behalf. It seems pretty fishy.

It's funny coming from someone like me who makes money on investing capital, but I have family that has always been working class people. I still work myself, but like you I manage my income very, very well and don't have a ton of worry about. The moral part of me can't stand to see working people treated like they are in America and manipulated in such a fashion that it seems harmful to them. It seems contrary to the American moral principles outlined in The Constitution and the underlying idea behind this nation's creation. I don't mean the actual history, but the ideas that inspired the Founding of America. America is an experiment in human liberty that seems to be failing due to the ability of an elite class people to always move things in their favor, while the working people of a nation seem always stuck to lose that competition due to being so easy to divide on several levels. The history books show this has always been this way, but you always hope a nation like America can overcome the natural propensities of humanity with better leadership, which we don't seem to have right now.

[RiverDog]

It's funny coming from someone like me who makes money on investing capital, but I have family that has always been working class people. I still work myself, but like you I manage my income very, very well and don't have a ton of worry about. The moral part of me can't stand to see working people treated like they are in America and manipulated in such a fashion that it seems harmful to them. It seems contrary to the American moral principles outlined in The Constitution and the underlying idea behind this nation's creation. I don't mean the actual history, but the ideas that inspired the Founding of America. America is an experiment in human liberty that seems to be failing due to the ability of an elite class people to always move things in their favor, while the working people of a nation seem always stuck to lose that competition due to being so easy to divide on several levels. The history books show this has always been this way, but you always hope a nation like America can overcome the natural propensities of humanity with better leadership, which we don't seem to have right now.

That's one of the major things that I don't like about this tax, that it disproportionally hits the lower and middle-income class folks the hardest. It also hits people who live in rural areas and small towns who do not have access to mass transit and have no other choice but to commute to work in a personal vehicle, don't make enough money to plop down $60K for an EV. I also still don't understand what they're doing with this revenue, around $1.5 billion...billion with a 'b'. Lower the gas tax or have a tax holiday for a few months. And it's not a small hit, not the "pennies" that Inslee said it would cost. It's an increase of around 15-20% over what they're paying in Oregon and Idaho, and WA already has one of the highest gas taxes in the nation.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's one of the major things that I don't like about this tax, that it disproportionally hits the lower and middle-income class folks the hardest. It also hits people who live in rural areas and small towns who do not have access to mass transit and have no other choice but to commute to work in a personal vehicle, don't make enough money to plop down $60K for an EV. I also still don't understand what they're doing with this revenue, around $1.5 billion...billion with a 'b'. Lower the gas tax or have a tax holiday for a few months. And it's not a small hit, not the "pennies" that Inslee said it would cost. It's an increase of around 15-20% over what they're paying in Oregon and Idaho, and WA already has one of the highest gas taxes in the nation.

It never does seem to hit the wealthy. They fund the campaigns and have the numbers to politicians in their smartphones. Talking tough on TV is one thing, acting tough when someone is pulling your campaign funding or threatening to fund a different candidate is an entirely other matter.

I didn't agree with the head tax in Seattle. That was pretty stupid. It was passed by the Seattle City Council. That head tax got killed pretty quick. You know the Mayor likely got a call from several powerful business leaders including likely Bezos saying, "You do this and there will be severe consequences."

So when they do these taxes, they gotta hit the people who can't do much about it. That's working class folks, middle income, who just have to grin and bear it.

Hopefully this repeal works for you guys because gas prices in Washington are already high given we have the highest gas tax in the country. They didn't really need to stack on more.