Paris Convention and Trump
Newsletter from PEGE - Planetary Engineering Group Earth from 2017-05-28.
Trump could get out of the Paris Climate Agreement. But where is the difference between no agreement and a prepared excuse "We did not manage it"? Trump says "climate protection is nonsense", the Paris agreement says "climate protection is nonsense, but officially we deceive quite a lot of activity".
Which version is better? In the Trump version You have a clear opponent in front of you, but in the Paris version, on the other hand, you are always confronted with a "we've decided to improve, we do something, wait some more years for the effect."
|
Trump and the Paris Climate Agreement
|
The so-called "climate protectors" cry always "more money for climate protection". The latest salutary theory of climate protection is the economic downturn. Who wants it? Only the followers of the "poverty for all" movement! Against all this negative propaganda of "climate protectors" against the climate protection, Elon Musk could not get through with the truth: real climate protection is a high revenue-neutral CO2 tax with the effect Investment avalanche - Innovation avalanche - Economic boom.
If Trump could see through the fog of the negative propaganda by the climate protectors, he would start an exciting race with China in the field of renewable energy and electric mobility. A lot of billions of state loans, so the next Giga battery factories are also built in the USA. The promise "By the end of my second term, for more than 80% of US citizen mobility will be cheaper with electric cars and electricity from the own house roof than with the internal combustion engine".
|
The withdrawal of the US would open the path for a better deal
|
As early as 2010 there was from me a draft for a real climate agreement. There is also a chapter in the book "Calculation ERROR".
Over the next 30 years, a tripling of the global economy with a simultaneous reduction of fossil energy down to almost zero.
Investment Avalanche - Innovation Avalanche - Economic Boom
Even if the current price development reduces the costs of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, 12,000 billion a year are not affordable for today's humanity. However, it is affordable in the case of a threefold increase in the global economy and further cost reduction. Why should it be affordable? Thawing Permafrost floors and outgassing methane hydrate are an enormous threat potential for climate development. A little reduction could be too little. Even 100% less CO2 emissions could still be too little. 200% less, ie no further human CO2 emission plus active reduction by filtering and splitting, should be sufficient.
For this, the economic conditions must be created. That this can only work with the creation of worldwide wealth is nevertheless a nice side effect.
|
Religion in the sense of relegere
|
Latin relegere: “to consider carefully, to contemplate, to think about repeatedly, to be thoughtful in view of an important issue.”
This should be the first duty of beings "created in the image of God". In the natural sciences, this happens all the time, before their achievements can have only the greatest respect. The opposite must be said about the politics.
The Infinitism certainly describes the best possible for all currently living humans, nature and future generations to an unimaginably distant future. This spread will require much time and labor.
Please support this lengthy tedious activity with your membership.
|
Short description of all members translated to English
|
The organization to support infinitism has now 54 members from 4 different countries. One international know VIP, 3 localy known VIPs.
When You are not from Germany, Austria, Switzerland or Denmark, take the opportunity to be the first member from Your country.
My book "Calculation ERROR" is now free as a PDF.
|
| PEGE Manifesto
| |
|
To lead civilization on planet Earth into a sustainable future. To organize the resources of planet Earth in such a way that the whole of mankind can have a good standard of living.
|
| Tax system
| |
|
Earth has limited resources. We must share these resources as fairly as possible. A tax system based on resource use.
|
| Financing the social system
| |
|
The whole social system, including child care, education, health, and old age benefits should be financed by taxes on resources.
|
| Transition of the tax system
| |
|
Less expenses for the employer, more purchasing power for the employee,
Taxes and dues on human work replaced by taxes on resources.
|
| Pathway towards 100%
| |
|
Human right on future, human right on honesty, social problems will be solved by the change to 100% resource taxes.
|
| Regional differences
| |
|
Different regions are different developt. So every state should decide about level and type of resource taxation,
|
| Different applications
| |
|
Tax tariffs on resouces can be different depending on usage. Government should have the possibility to stear precise the use of resources.
|
| Political left right - fast slow
| |
|
The antecedent political spectrum from left to right will be complemented by a new dimension. The speed to change the tax system towards 100% resouce taxes.
|
| No difference professional or private
| |
|
Privat or professional use of resouces is an irrelevant question. This takes out the basis for all methods to determine the wins. Taxation only for the usage of resources.
|
| Early end taxation instead of VAT
| |
|
Taxes should not stand as barriers between humans. Regardless how much, regardless what bureaucratic effort. The duty for bookkeeping
|
Zum Newsletter Archiv
|
