Imagine how great Bitcoin would be if the Quantitative Easing by unaccountable bureaucrats were built into the protocol!
Do you decide for yourself what is bad for you, or are you content to let others decide on your behalf?
“When goods cannot cross borders, soldiers will” - Frederic Bastiat
While gag orders exist, we can believe nothing from an American, or a company domiciled in America, or a country beholden to America.
You can blame the cops, manufacturers, criminals all you want, but the root cause of these shenanigans is that the courts are allowing it to happen.
When we have arrived at the point where everyone shrugs their shoulders, and says "Slap on the wrist, at most", then we find ourselves in a sad situation.
The third branch of government is asleep at the wheel, or holding its ankles, depending on your choice of metaphor. But the cue from SCOTUS is, do what you want. They have abdicated their responsibility as a bulwark against the inevitable excesses of the executive and legislative branches.
Time for some real consequences for contempt of Constitution and sworn oath to uphold same.
Admins, please add a "Naïve" category to the moderation options.
All the links in your search refer to cost-benefit of GHG reductions relative to the cost of a changing climate.
How about some consideration of alternatives to GHG reduction and forcing people to switch to renewables?
He didn't do shit, other than sign his name to CONGRESSIONAL appropriation bills.
He has veto power.
Because the President threatens to veto it.
Yes, Congress passes the laws and the budget, but the President has veto power, which gives him a lot of leverage.
Note that I am not advocating this, or any particular "solution", just that they should be studied and compared on a rational basis. Unfortunately, the average person is not scientifically literate enough to understand the issues properly.
My problem with this is that only a single option for global warming mitigation is considered - reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The fact that there might be other alternatives completely escapes those who prefer to argue about who is going to pay for the option which has been reflexively selected.
The solution with the least impact on our standard of living, which is also within our means to achieve is : Electric cars and electric heating sources, while investing in low or no-carbon emission sources of energy such as solar, wind, fission and fusion
Some citations to back this up, please?
Short of massive engineering projects to reflect heat back into space, condense carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it underground, or some other ridiculous proposal, the reduction of burning fossil fuels is the most practical and brings other benefits (except for oil producers).
The lack of original ideas is very troubling. Let's see some out-of-box, creative thinking.
There is a country called the Netherlands, largely below sea level. They seem to be doing just fine.
Actually, 30 MPH is dangerous enough. What is your point?
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions...
Is that the only idea you have? No wonder the sky is falling.
So global warming is real, scientists agree.
What to do about it? Please show me the scientific and engineering studies that prove a particular course of action is appropriate. I am tired of the knee-jerk reaction that blithely assumes reducing carbon emissions is the way to go. There are many possible alternatives, including doing nothing at all. A proper cost/benefit analysis is needed, before we decide to forcibly relocate everyone back to caves.