The Newer Greener Deal

on


Climate Change.  Stupidity Like a House Afire:
   The Extreme Democrats and the media like CNN an MSNBC have talking heads who keep saying, "this is a talking point, how can 100% renewable and giving everybody free stuff be bad?" To which I posted an entire bit on "moral hazards" to describe that. However, The other mantra is "You aren't offering anything else".   But by "you" they are talking to Republicans.  The best analogy of the "Climate change" discussion is there is a house on fire.  The Republicans are denying it is on fire even as they feel the heat.  AND they say, "Even if it is, God will save us."  The democrats have recognize the house is on fire, but their idea is to take a 5 gallon bucket, run 1 mile away to get water from a source, then bring it back and throw it on the fire.  They plan on repeating until its out.   And, on the way back they stop and give 5 bums on the side of the path a drink of water and ask them how they are doing.   OH.. BTW,  it is a grease fire and the water is just going to spread it around. Then there is Stephen Hawking who says we have only 100 years left to find a new house. (He died a year ago, so that means we only got 99.)

   This analogy fails when you are looking for a real solution. Because it would be to remove those people who keep feeding oxygen to the fire. Because the real problem with "Human Influenced Climate Change", is the humans.

Real Solutions, Attacking the Root Cause:

  Let me start out by stating the obvious.  Since the "root cause" is that there is a population growth rate problem at the root of the climate change dysfunction, there are a million immoral ways to approach this. Everything from starting wars for the sake of population reduction to WWII style genocide, to forced Eugenics. In the words of Sheldon Cooper, "If you let me use positive reinforcement methods, I could have that behavior trained out of Penny in a month. If you let me use negative reinforcement we could see an end to it by the end of today."  Morality and ethics take more time.  (That is why so many parents choose to beat their kids instead of explain 1000 times.)

   So what ethical positive method could we use to "Train" people to having less kids? Below is a new method I am going to try of bullet points and then page jump links to make it easier to read.

Tenants of the "Greener Newer Deal":
(These page jumps are not working properly. They just link to info on this page.)





18 to 40 No Child Tax Credit:
   Let me make an observation that is impossible to deny. (Though the left nut jobs still will.) The Child Tax Credit unproportionally encourages the least educated, least resourced, and least fiscally responsible members of our society to act irresponsibly and bring children into this world they can not afford.  Please, I invite counter argument to the notion that is false.  Let us agree that Mark Zuckerburg, who makes like a million dollars a second, his decision to have a child or not have a child does not hing on whether he gets an extra $1500 back in his taxes.  That amounts to .0001% of his income. However, trailer projects girl who makes $10,000 a year on actually collected child support, food stamps, and her first Child Tax Credit, ads another $1500, she just increased her income by 15%.  Who wouldn't like a 15% pay raise.  So stop that. Just stop it already!

   Instead, we are now going to pay trailer project girl $5000 to go around the outside.  I picked 18 because that is the age we have decided children magically become mature responsible adults. I think actually we could cut it off about 32 to 35.. but by including up to 40 brings more people into the fold wanting to vote for this.  Also, this isn't just for "trailer project girl" the same will be true for "trailer park guy" as well.  That is unless she can't tell the IRS who the father is.  Then she is getting charged for both of them. She can collect it when she finds out who it is.

  Because the negative of this "Childless Tax Credit" is that it is reduced by after the first kids, that is reduced in half to $2500.  After the second kids that drops to $500. The 3rd kids will cost you $500 which will be taken in either taxes or loss of benefits.

  The idea is that this will be seemingly costly at first. However, the cost of children born into poverty or near poverty on the system will bring returns in multiple magnitudes. That is $110,000 paid if they go the entire 22 years. It costs the public about $14,000 a year to feed, cloth, house, and educate each year if their parents can't afford it. $5000 a year is a steal of a bargain.

The Sterile Option:
  If at age 18 you look out into the world and you decide you want to do a more permanent option, you can get paid right up front.  Much like the lottery, "lump sums" are much less than taking the payments. The offer of $75,000 until you are 20 without penalty. (Meaning you could get as much as $85,000 if you can not be involved with the creation of a child for the first two years.) After that, you are prorated at $5000 a year for the first 15 years.  If at any point you have just one child, you loose access to this option all together.

   If money isn't your thing, and you think it would be better invested elsewhere, you can choose from other options.  There may even be other or better ideas than these offerings.  However, A free ride to college. Provided you have been accepted and meet all other qualifications to get into the school. Stipulations about the degree and total cost to the government would have to be ironed out in the details.  But, so long as you remain in school, on track, will have your college paid for.  Deals worked out with the school could be made in such a way as they are worth $100,000 to the student, but only cost the government 3/4 of less of that price.

  Or you could choose to get your health insurance paid for for the 22 years.  It would be a government expansion of Medicare, but comparable to the best options public has to offer. If your parents can cover you, the coverage is combined to cost nothing. If a spouse has outside this system coverage, the same is true.

  So if up front your absolutely positively certain you never want children, then tube tie or vasectomy option might be for you. This is a win-win for both the society and the individual.



Minor Parents/ Major responsibility:
   Far too long Parents have not been held responsible for these creations.  You had he sex, your are getting the money, you don't get to go off pawning the responsibility of making sure they are raised to the magical age of adulthood without making a child, taking mind altering drugs, or getting thrown in jail. There will be a system that makes failure to do so punitive, and we will rip those kids right out of their irresponsible mama's and papa's hands if they can't do a suitable job of this.  Better they be raised in a strict governmental facility than by irresponsible parents. When parents have a stake in what their kids are doing they won't be so passe with the "oh you can't stop kids from doing (x) "  If your ass will go to jail for it, you will.



Fighting for your right to be responsible.
   This issue is very personal to me and I am very animate about it. In courts today, we have far too many parents using the children as pawns in their personal war when they opt for a divorce. As a male who never wanted the divorce to begin with, but then wanted to be in sole custody after the drama of her mama came to light, I feel this one.  I was told, even though my case was one that would make most people studder in disbelief, "men never get custody." That is because there is nothing to loose if you are a crappy parent.  At the moment you accept full or primary custody, and you have blocked the other parent from being a daily influence in that child's life, your are putting your financial well being and physical freedom on the line. Just like when you first choose to create a child, so it is when you fight and choose to be the primary parent. You  are about to be the solely responsible parent for this child. The public can't hold a parent who hasn't the access to the child responsible for the crappy parenting of the custodial parent.



Remove the Labels and Letting Nature Take It's Course.:
    It is far past the time that we remove labels like those that warn people not to use a hair dryer in the shower, hold a chainsaw between your legs, take drugs you know you are allergic to, or consume sleeping pills while swimming.  This goes for those who hold hot coffee in their lap as well. It is time to pass a mandate down to the courts to support the removing of labels.  If you are too stupid to not use a hair dryer in the shower or while sleeping, then it is time to let you win a Darwin award.  I would go so far as to say the same thing about a cigarette package.  Who at this point doesn't know that smoking is awful for your health. If today you read that label and think, "Oh man! really?!  I just didn't know!"  The fact you had made if far enough in life to read a label is a miracle.



Bring on the Lions, The Tigers, and Dah-bears:
  Along the same lines as removing labels, I would advocate allowing large carnivorous animals loos in the streets of suburbs and inner cities. The reason why we are at the top of the food chain today.. is because we were at the middle of it at one time. Before we created cars and guns to give us an unfair advantage, bears ate the slow dumb ones of that days gathering.  Our herd was culled and because of it, we were able to invent new and wonderful things that made our lives easier, allowed us to live in places we otherwise could not, and even shoot ourselves out into space. Sadly it was a pursuit fraught with social dangers.  As the smarter ones of us found ways to keep the dumber ones from being eaten by bears, then the dumb ones were free to breed.  Which created a market for this internet thing.  While exchanging ideas around the world to maximize our collective IQ is possible, mostly we use it to jerk off, spread hate and stupidity, and post pictures of our cats and food. It is time to let the wild be wild.  Nature has been shaping us for the better part of a 100,000 years, why should we interfere.  Nobody is more just than Mother Nature.




1 % Reduction Rate Goal
    I grant that this is an ambition number.  Even if most people don't. At a 1% reduction rate, means that while we are at 327 million today, that would bring our numbers down to 163 million by 2120.   The numbers that we saw in 1954.  If we only make the 200 million mark the notable effect on global climate change will be relative. We can adjust this rate as needed. BUT we can also pressure the rest of the modernized world to follow our example. No longer would we be the butt of jokes because of our ignorance towards this problem. We would lead them with real change that matters.

 What to expect as a result:
  So unlike other climate change policy offerings, the "Greener Newer Dealio" will cut the carbon output in half by cutting the polluters in half. Even if there is push back from the established energy sources, this circumvents their effect while we still work on moving to more carbon neutral sources of producing energy.  We are only going to improve those technologies are the we evolve. But even if we don't the problem is handled.

  However there are other effects of this policy that doesn't require economics to do magic tricks.  There will be far more jobs than people. The law of supply and demand will mean the labor force will be more valued and that will translate into higher, even nearly equal wages.This will grant power to the unions again.  If they are even needed in a system that is labor short. The CEO will not be so outrageously valued.

   Since there will be a void of jobs, there will be a need, clear and defined for outside the system labor.  Immigrants will not only be embraced but paid well and treated like equals. With them not needing to sneak in, contingent programs could be set up to make them either temporary or permanent residents.

  Food consumption will go down.  With it the need to use water to irrigate and hydrate livestock.
For you Vegans, we will be consuming less animals and more will be afforded free range and “happier” lives. Not an end to eating meat, but a lot more natural approach. 

  Along with atmospheric pollution There are other kinds of pollution. A great flotilla of garbage rides in our ocean.  We have every county filling it's dumps with stuff that will take hundreds of years to get rid of.  We have overflowing sewage plants that are contaminating the great lakes water ways. Dams have rivers slowed to a crawl that once raged and teamed with life. Water that is now filled with drugs and lead. Then there is light and noise pollution.  All of these things will become far less of a problem with less people. Because it is people, most notably Western industrialized and/ or modernized societies. And then there is "Earth's Lungs" the rain forest.  We can stop chopping it down and bring health back to the globe.  Maybe even he coral reefs will return. But those are hopes not directly in out influence. 

When it comes to education, the leading determinant of a schools success rating is classroom size.  With half the people and that many less kids, nearly every school will be like private tutoring.  Education can be much more specialized and diverse. 

  Poverty has been tide to number of children one has.  In places like Africa there are already programs convincing women to have less children. If they can grasp this concept, so can we. As we are spending less money on social services and the problems related to deep poverty, we can spend that money on getting us off this rock.  We can be the example and lead this world in life expectancy, a feeling of liberty and opportunity, and general happiness. A nation where domestic tranquility that was promised really will reign. 



Comments

Post a Comment