101–110 of 119 posts
Wouldn't this invite some kind of oyster-predator or oyster-disease? Biodiversity would be more sustainable ...
Apparently there used to be trillions of oysters in the area. Turns out humans were the predator.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only true if somebody else wasn't going to give them a big deal. Your premise requires a scenario where all cities work together to specifically avoid Amazon getting a deal, rather than any of them competing. All it takes is one city to breach that and start offering incentives, then it all folds. Short of implementing a federal law against it, there is no scenario where cities were not going to compete to lur…
> Short of implementing a federal law against it, there is no scenario where cities were not going to compete to lure Amazon. Fortunately no such federal law exists i would say that's unfortunate rather than fortunate. Cities competing for businesses is a net loss to the tax payer. If a business is to build a new HQ or invest, they should do it on the merits of their business needs and general condition applicable to…
Sure, if the taxpayer exists as an abstract concept. Not when the Taxpayer is a sandwich seller near the new company’s office. Or when the Taxpayer is given a new job at the company. Or when the Taxpayer is the family that can now rent out its mother in-law unit more easily
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest problem is that people don’t see the problem, because they can’t see it in historical context.
See what problem? That's the question here. Climate change is not a problem, it is a phenomena which have consequences. Some of them we see today some are 100 years into the future. We don't know what the right solution for the consequences in the future is as we don't even know what the consequences are and we don't even know what the problems are going to be. We can speculate but we can be wrong and so its much bet…
We’ve completely and utterly destroyed nature, seas are empty, air was unbreathsble at some point, all oyster banks completely gone, most wildlife going extinct and people are asking “what problem”?
Thank you for proving my point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Short of implementing a federal law against it, there is no scenario where cities were not going to compete to lure Amazon. Fortunately no such federal law exists i would say that's unfortunate rather than fortunate. Cities competing for businesses is a net loss to the tax payer. If a business is to build a new HQ or invest, they should do it on the merits of their business needs and general condition applicable to…
> Cities competing for businesses is a net loss to the tax payer. Sure, if the taxpayer exists as an abstract concept. Not when the Taxpayer is a sandwich seller near the new company’s office. Or when the Taxpayer is given a new job at the company. Or when the Taxpayer is the family that can now rent out its mother in-law unit more easily
these are not tax payers - these a private individuals.
Why should the sandwich seller from the bronx not be able to benefit from the city's policies, where as the sandwich seller from jersey does under these policies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I think op means we should have zero enemies in fixing our environment." You do. Everybody wants clean air, clean water, etc. The Captain-Planet-Villain model of somebody literally cackling about how much pollution they're going to release into the world today is nonsense. The problem is people who see a short-term gain of their own, standing against the environmental problems they cause. They may not even believe t…
> You do. Everybody wants clean air, clean water, etc. The Captain-Planet-Villain model of somebody literally cackling about how much pollution they're going to release into the world today is nonsense. Actually it's totally sensible and compatible with the actual actions of the various actors involved. Companies continue to plunder the ecosystem in ways that knowingly damage it (fracking, rainforest depletion, etc),…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See what problem? That's the question here. Climate change is not a problem, it is a phenomena which have consequences. Some of them we see today some are 100 years into the future. We don't know what the right solution for the consequences in the future is as we don't even know what the consequences are and we don't even know what the problems are going to be. We can speculate but we can be wrong and so its much bet…
That’s my point exactly, people don’t see a problem as they can’t compare our current situation with what it was like in the past. We’ve completely and utterly destroyed nature, seas are empty, air was unbreathsble at some point, all oyster banks completely gone, most wildlife going extinct and people are asking “what problem”? Thank you for proving my point.
So the question still is what is the actual problem and how do you know it's correctly defined?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only true if somebody else wasn't going to give them a big deal. Your premise requires a scenario where all cities work together to specifically avoid Amazon getting a deal, rather than any of them competing. All it takes is one city to breach that and start offering incentives, then it all folds. Short of implementing a federal law against it, there is no scenario where cities were not going to compete to lur…
It's bad for the cities as a whole because it's a zero sum game, if you attract a company with tax cuts that's a loss on some other city The EU does this better. EU courts can deem a tax break state aid and require the company to pay back taxes. This disincentives states competing against each other on tax revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Captain-Planet-Villain model of somebody literally cackling about how much pollution they're going to release into the world today is nonsense. And yet we have idiots in diesel trucks modded to "roll coal" cackling as they "own the libs" when they spew out soot.
Have you or anyone you know actually seen someone rolling coal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My general understanding about bioremediation is the material has to be removed and put in a landfill.
The "natural" process is that e.g. oysters grab the co2 and bad stuff from the water, die, sink to the bottom and get covered in sediment. That's where major carbon sinks ended up anyway, to be turned into oil/coal/gas over millions of years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes I think our only options going forward are a world where all natural habitat has been completely decimated, or an eco-fascist regime enforces pollution (and thus effectively population) control on the whole planet.
Those are ridiculously extreme alternatives.
"Climate change" is a red herring; we can "fix" the increasing temperature problem and yet deforestation, pollution, and overpopulation will still destroy every natural ecosystem on the planet.