If the implementation were the that the funds from the carbon tax were going directly to promoting renewables (another source of jobs and productive economic activity) then we'd have something worthwhile.
The scam works about like this. Anyone wanting to generate CO2 would have to buy carbon credits, imaginary items which are sold and speculated on by big finance. As CO2 limits decrease price increases = big profit.
It's like a tax, except the revenues go directly to the banks, bypassing the government entirely.
Once you eliminate all the stated reasons, all that is left, and so the true purpose of the Selective Service registration, is to attempt to be a nucleus for protest. Those who chose to protest the military-industrial complex in the US by failing to register can all be rounded up and eliminated. Or, the next best thing, eliminate them from all federal programs, which, unless they are massively independently wealthy will prevent them from ever being in a position where their views will be heard.
I'd recommend against using those and use ones that don't have such a large carbon footprint. For example:
so long as you realize that the myth that solar panels generate more CO2 lifetime than say coal (or even natural gas) has long ago been de-bunked. (max 72g vs 1.68lbs or 2lbs for coal) (http://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/energy-gap-climate-change/solar-and-the-energy-gap-climate-change and http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/...)
I'd rather look around in the future and curse the scientist for being wrong than acknowledge that they were right, but that it's now too late to do anything.
There's a path forward that does not carry huge economic damage, indeed may help the economy. The problem is that this is at the expense of the oil and coal companies. Organizations not noted for doing the right thing but for protecting their limited interests with large campaign contributions and educational trips for politicians (not to be confused with bribes).
(older data) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-...
While the price per kWh in Germany is high, it's not even the highest in the EU and certainly not the highest in the world. That statement is just plain WRONG. The price in Germany is not even that far out of line with the rest of the EU where prices are generally at least double the US rates:
These must be comments from the US, the home of the NSA and the largest domestic spying program in the world.
In the US, as in Germany, you are entitled to your own opinion, however only in the US is there a clear belief that ignorance makes your opinion more worthwhile. Here's a clue, it doesn't. Study some facts, get information from places other than FOX news and come back when you actually know something about, well, anything really, but you could start with geography and the poltics of countries in Europe. Here's a hint, Ted Cruz is not electable (even on the crackpot fringe) and Obama is center-right anywhere outside the US.
What happens if we clean up the environment and it not the cause of global warming. All we'd have then is no smog, non-polluting power and clean water.
A bird in a taxi's worth two on a bus.
So, they've already demonstrated that they CAN filter content. I see lots of repercussions to this ruling, but I'm not at all sympathetic to Google's plight - they already demonstrated that they have the technology and have used it for evil purposes.