Class A Team

Well it is a hypothesis that needs testing…

You are asking two how to questions “combat climate change” and “reduce emissions”

To realistically combat climate change:

• Admit that we need to try geoengineering (we are already doing this with all the CO₂ and CH₄ going into the atmosphere)
• Weather it is SO₂ injection or cloud seeding to artificially increase the albido; we need to reduce incident solar radiation to give us a few more decades to actually reduce emissions

To reduce emissions:

• Tackle the biggest emissions first.
• Electrification of the passenger fleet; that means batteries. Keep fuel cells for heavy transport (maybe)
• Encourage electric biking. And other micro-mobility. Along with better public transport.
• Normalise a historical style diet, meat is a treat only once or twice a week.
• Reduce concrete construction; keep it for the important things like the foundations.
• Reduce the practice of packaging everything in plastic; again keep it for the important things only like electrical insulation.
• Massive ramp up of solar and wind around the world.
• Where we use fossil fuels, ask is this important enough to use FF here?

Carbon taxes:

• Tax CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent) at a reasonable rate to encourage all of the reduction measures.
• At less than $65NZD/T the cost is too low to encourage significant movement on the issues.
• Have a ratcheting scheme in the CO₂ market, i.e. add $5-8/yr/T for CO₂e; in 10 years the price will be between $110-140/T. At the 10yr mark, make the ratchet $10-15/yr/T.
• Add a carbon tariff; basically make it more expensive to buy from countries that are not pulling their weight.
• Be careful not to double tax, this is important for buy in from the public. i.e. the carbon tax on fuel should be exempt from sales tax, taxing a tax is a great way to alienate people.

Market research?

Another vote for SyncThing.

I’ve been using it for more than 8 years, just awesome.

I’ll put in a word for my preferred sport here.

My super energetic boy has been rock climbing since 7.

Strength, flexibility, balance, self confidence, progression is based on solving problems, climbs are graded.

God save the Queen

Sorry for the YT link.

I get that, why import stuff that you produce locally…

I try to never get imported food products that we make here… It just seems wasteful.

I doubt it, I think the Miraka plant is produces mostly primary products not the secondary stuff.

Pretty sure I know the factory that this butter comes from. The Miraka plant; north of Taupō. Geothermally powered, restricts it to a relatively small region in NZ.

Great title.

Got very excited

You can, and do.

It helps set the bar, it is a tool for determining how to assess what level of imbalance is reasonable.

It’s not the only tool, nor an I arguing for it to be.

Nothing about gender wars here.

Just because Facebook is shit, doesn’t make this any better.

I was making the point, that despite the fact that this is mildly ok. The test for anything that gives one group power over another, is to switch the groups.

If it’s still reasonable, than it is probably OK to keep it. If however it seems wrong after the switch, the bar to keep the power imbalance should be very high.

Agreed, but it is worse the way I put it…

Change the target to any other group and the outrage would be 100-10000 fold bigger.

Try it out, instead of Women rating men, try subbing in various minority groups or races.

Bonus points for the most offensive combinations…

e.g. Russians rating Ukrainians in your area…it can get pretty bad…I can think of many worse combos.

I’ll accept it

Well yes. A model is just describes reality, the tools used in the description govern how accurate the model is.

e.g. the speedo in your car, is a model of reality. Obviously it only models a very tiny part, but depending on the quality of the tool; it is more or less describing reality covered by the model.

This is a concept that has been discussed for a long time ; you are in good company contemplating this fundamental paradox.