We can't afford a single-payer, universal health care system in the US, but we can afford to give billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry?
Does that make any sense?
We can't afford to maintain our roads, bridges and other infrastructure, but we can afford to spend $3 trillion--trillion--dollars to fight wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and every other Middle Eastern country.
Does that make sense?
What in this country in the year 2016 does make sense any more?
Our politicians - our ruling elites - oligarchy face us down and hold fast to their power to be corrupt. They do not fear being turned out of office. The politicians do not fear being accused of taking bribes or being corrupt. The oligarchy rules whether directly or by proxy and it flaunts its immunity from moral justification. The people's money - the tax payers - the vast majority of people ... have very little say as to where their money is being spent.
The world wants to end fossil fuel use but that will not be allowed to happen when fossil fuel interests have such unchallenged influence over the political elites. A political elite that has provided subsidies to fossil fuel interests for decades. The same political elite that has provided these same subsidies.
They control democracy ...such as it is. They will not change their own success... Not voluntarily.
How can people around the world take seriously government's (especially the big GHG emitting ones) commitment to act on climate change, much less on the Paris agreement when they absolutely can't take some pretty basic actions like ending fossil fuel subsidies?
The G20 representatives that take money and favors from Big Fossil should not be allowed to vote. They are supposed to represent the democratic public, but have sold out to the oiligarchy.
The G20 is a subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry.
Implementation of the Paris climate agreement is supposed to start in 2020. It looks like the G20 countries are going to wait until then to cut subsidies to fossil companies. Or, maybe the subsidies will continue indefinitely despite the statement in 2009 about intending to end such subsidies as they have gone seven years now without setting the deadline. The US should take the lead on this. But then again most of the Republicans in Congress claim they don't believe in climate change some even call it a hoax. Do they really believe that scientists are fudging the temperature readings to carry out this hoax? And presenting phony pictures of the Arctic sea ice extent? And lying about sea level rise measurements? And so forth.
I sort of doubt that they genuinely think it's a hoax...they bleat the words given them by their masters and overlords, as the dutiful sycophants that they are.
Frankly, I don't understand why the subsidies can't just be eliminated NOW, as opposed to being 'phased out'
beginning in 2020??? Obviously I understand the political motivation - but based upon what? Some worry that the people/corporations who have made fortunes would be harmed?
I don't trust that anything will even begin in 2020. It's time to take to the streets - I see no hope for the 99% of us that are motivated to maintain a liveable planet if we don't.
Dr. Jill Stein M.D., Ajamu Baraka!
Most voters' fear buttons are programmed to override their logic buttons.
Subsidizing Fossil Fuel profits is Corporate Socialism, Corporate welfare, Corporate Communism.
Why am I paying for this??????
We need to subsidize rooftop solar instead, from sea to shining sea.
I think at least many of the right wing voters think it is a hoax. They really do believe that Michael Mann made up the data to create the hockey stick graph. They really do think the e-mails in climate gate showed the scientists fabricated data and prevented scientific evidence casting doubt on climate change from getting published. They believe the goal of scientists is to create fear about global warming to get more grants to study it. They believe the scientists who are basically shills for the fossil fuel industry are the ones telling the truth. The reason the politicians call it a hoax is because that is what the their voters believe it is. And some of the politicians themselves probably believe it is a hoax. Ted Cruz quotes the satellite data that showed no warming for a long period after 1998. I think he believed that was the correct data (it was eventually found to be due to an error). Where the fossil fuel industry comes in is that they helped fund the campaign to cast doubt on global warming which led to millions of people believing it is a hoax.
Hello LadyK, I believe that the destruction of the Planet Earth for fun and profit will not end well. Humanity, plants and animals are doomed! When either aliens or some other kind of life forms on the planet Terra a long time into the future they might discover the follies of humanity and could go in another direction to keep the planet habitable. We are turning this planet into Psychlo!
Here's one of my pet theories on economics. Not your standard fare:
"How is the automobile like the global economy?"
There are 4 basic urban/suburban transportation system modes - cars/trucks, mass transit, walking and bicycling. Because automobiles present a severe impediment to the other travel modes, excessive traffic becomes an impediment to driving. Similarly, there are 5 basic scales of economy - Local, Regional, State, National, Global. The global economy, like the automobile, undermines the function of the lesser, though actually more fundamental scales of economy. In order for some sensible level of the global economy to function, the lesser economies must function.
Consider a bell curve study: Place Local economy and the Global economy at its extreme ends. Local economies are too small to take advantage of mass production, and, the gains of mass production are lost in the long-distance transport of the global economy. Thus, the most energy efficient economy at the peak of the bell curve are Regional (metropolitan area consists of local economies supported by State and National economies).
If you can grasp this admittedly unconventional theory, you can predict the direction
economic development will take, in theory, big time. Less is more?
Current rulers will not get this right because their power is founded on the system that causes the damage. Their response will not arrive until they perceive the degradation of that system as a threat to that power.
Given the approaching set of cascading failures, it would seem that something of the sort would be obvious. Perhaps it is, but there must be many ways of imagining security, whether that involves a place to walk to for water or the maintenance of a chain of command under a set of cascading broken promises.
We are going to have to do things that do not depend on their response.
I was kicked off another website (Seattle-based) for telling it like it is this week. The single sentence which offended the site author went like this: "some dunce can be manipulated (with deceitful propaganda) to likewise become manipulative." By this I meant to explain how the republican party faithful are misled, misleading propaganda taken as fact and propagated. I've got this thing about Seattle; a city much too invested in global trade and the military not to be corrupted. Seattle corporations include Boeing, Costco, Amazon; corporations that depend upon long-distance transport (petro dollars) and outsourcing basic industry. Seattle, conveniently sited on its toilet bowl of Elliott Bay, sucks.