Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Sid's Post # 1582 - 23/8/6

My Post # 1581 (23/8/6) makes not one single reference to "negative climate change".

Yet Sid's post refuses to address the issue of "sustainable farming" raised therein. He uses the deflection tactic in order not to address it, by changing the essence of my post to being one of "Farming and Climate Change", which it clearly is not.



Does anyone have a challenge to the main issue I am raising, that the goal of the future farming industry must be "Sustainable Farming"?

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Dilip (Post # 1580 - 23/8/7) - Yes!!

There was a time when farmers recognized that the land had to be sustainably used. Thus crop fields, having had much of the nutrients removed from a number of years of use, rotated leaving one field "fallow" for one year's regeneration. Green fertilizers, such as clover, were sown during that year, and in the late summer/fall, were "mulch cut" in order to have organics deteriorate in the field and rejuvenate that one field. Done in rotation, the system was sustainable.

Sid is absolutely right in one thing - chemical fertilizers increased both yield and profit (Yes humans in many areas destroy what they have in the headlong rush after the "Sacred Dollar"; and usually it is not "just to make a little more profit temporarily" - big profits come, and the problem of "sustainability" falls off the radar; the capitalist system demands that you maximize your profit, and we see all over the place that the negative consequences of such headlong rush to "wealth" are ignored, until the chickens (Farm animals!) come home to roost.

Have you seen "chicken farming" that maximizes egg production and minimizes expenses, and is cruel and unusual treatment of one of our co-resident species on this planet ?

Consider:

1. "Few people think about the chicken as intelligent, however. In recent years, though, scientists have learned that this bird can be deceptive and cunning, that it possesses communication skills on par with those of some primates and that it uses sophisticated signals to convey its intentions.

The Startling Intelligence of the Common Chicken"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mmon-chicken1/

2. Have you heard of any problem in the Amazon and the rain forests, due to the headlong rush for profit of the Brazilian cattle ranching industry? No? Google "Deforestation - South America"!

Dilip - this is your "natural law" consequence when Libertarians crow about the great societal consciousness of "ALL" humans, and that self-regulation for the benefit of all society will be the gold standard. Read some of my earlier posts on the fining of companies in the grocery industry for "price fixing" (A Capitalist strategy to maximize profit, and screw the consumer).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Sid is absolutely right in one thing - chemical fertilizers increased both yield and profit

I provided fact-based arguments showing that methane and nitrous oxide do not contribute to climate change statistically significantly and that this is the primary rationale used to put farmers out of business worldwide by restricting access to these nitrogen fertilizers. If I am wrong, please show me how especially the abstracts I have provided in posts about Nitrous Oxide and Methane.
It seems this hits the nail on the head about the main problem with climate alarmism.

Given the above is correct good farming practices can mitigate the overuse of nitrogen fertilizers that you correctly described, including those below, and given that they do not contribute to climate change is simply deliberate harm being inflicted on citizens (induced famine) the same way Stalin's collective farming murdered millions in the early 1930s.
The substitute for Stalin is a weird coalition of elite business leaders and politicians strongly affiliated with the CCP-controlled Genocidal WEF and its partner in this, the UN, that includes "depopulation" as part of its goals. They consider you and I, Bob, the carbon.

Good farming practices can considerably mitigate the negative impacts of nitrogen fertilizers:

1. Application Rate: Applying the right amount of fertilizer based on soil tests and crop needs ensures that plants utilize most of the nitrogen, leaving less to leach into waterways.
2. Timing: Applying fertilizers at the right time — when plants can take up nitrogen most efficiently — reduces environmental losses.
3. Placement: Properly placing fertilizers, such as injecting them into the soil or banding them near plant roots, can increase plant uptake and reduce environmental losses.
4. Type of Fertilizer: Using controlled-release fertilizers or stabilizers can reduce the rate at which nitrogen is available, matching it more closely with plant uptake rates.
5. Crop Rotation and Cover Crops: Certain crops can take up leftover nitrogen. For example, legumes can fix atmospheric nitrogen, reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers.
6. Soil Health Practices: Maintaining soil health by adding organic matter, reducing tillage, and promoting soil microbial life can improve nitrogen retention and utilization.

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip (Post # 1580 - 23/8/7) - Yes!!

There was a time when farmers recognized that the land had to be sustainably used. Thus crop fields, having had much of the nutrients removed from a number of years of use, rotated leaving one field "fallow" for one year's regeneration. Green fertilizers, such as clover, were sown during that year, and in the late summer/fall, were "mulch cut" in order to have organics deteriorate in the field and rejuvenate that one field. Done in rotation, the system was sustainable.

Sid is absolutely right in one thing - chemical fertilizers increased both yield and profit (Yes humans in many areas destroy what they have in the headlong rush after the "Sacred Dollar"; and usually it is not "just to make a little more profit temporarily" - big profits come, and the problem of "sustainability" falls off the radar; the capitalist system demands that you maximize your profit, and we see all over the place that the negative consequences of such headlong rush to "wealth" are ignored, until the chickens (Farm animals!) come home to roost.

Have you seen "chicken farming" that maximizes egg production and minimizes expenses, and is cruel and unusual treatment of one of our co-resident species on this planet ?

Consider:

1. "Few people think about the chicken as intelligent, however. In recent years, though, scientists have learned that this bird can be deceptive and cunning, that it possesses communication skills on par with those of some primates and that it uses sophisticated signals to convey its intentions.

The Startling Intelligence of the Common Chicken"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...mmon-chicken1/

2. Have you heard of any problem in the Amazon and the rain forests, due to the headlong rush for profit of the Brazilian cattle ranching industry? No? Google "Deforestation - South America"!

Dilip - this is your "natural law" consequence when Libertarians crow about the great societal consciousness of "ALL" humans, and that self-regulation for the benefit of all society will be the gold standard. Read some of my earlier posts on the fining of companies in the grocery industry for "price fixing" (A Capitalist strategy to maximize profit, and screw the consumer).

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Farming with chemical fertilizers goes against "Sustainable Farming", a very worthwhile goal for the industry. Nature works on there being a sustainable cycle in all things; many unexpected benefits come from implementing "sustainability" wherever possible.

This is totally aside from any negative consequences of chemical fertilizers re negative climate change.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

So you think farmers are so stupid as to destroy their own land (which all farmers value as precious to them, emotionally and economically), just to make a little more profit temporarily?

[Sid Belzberg]

Farming with chemical fertilizers goes against "Sustainable Farming", a very worthwhile goal for the industry. Nature works on there being a sustainable cycle in all things; many unexpected benefits come from implementing "sustainability" wherever possible.

This is totally aside from any negative consequences of chemical fertilizers re negative climate change.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

That's true, but it would apply only in the case of excessive use of these products. The game-changer in global food production was nitrogen fertilizer production via the invention of the Haber-Bosch process in the early 20th century. This process, developed by Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, involves ammonia synthesis from nitrogen and hydrogen. The ammonia can then be used to produce various types of nitrogen fertilizers. The Haber-Bosch process allowed for the large-scale, industrial production of nitrogen fertilizers, making them more widely available and significantly increasing agricultural productivity.
The introduction of these fertilizers revolutionized agriculture, contributing to a massive increase in global food production throughout the 20th century.
Farming practices, including using animal manure, compost, and other organic materials to enrich the soil with nitrogen. have been around for hundreds of years, and in the 19th century, farmers started using sodium nitrate and ammonium sulfate as fertilizers. However, there was not enough of it to significantly increase global food production.
What is going on here is excessive restrictions on the use of this chemical in the name of climate change, knowing that the contribution of either nitrous oxide or methane, separately or combined, does not significantly contributes to the climate, if at all.
Here are the facts about the Methane nonsense you have spent two years mindlessly parroting.

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...nd-Climate.pdf

Abstract
Atmospheric methane (CH4 ) contributes to the radiative forcing of Earth’s atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally specified in Watts per square meter (W m−2), depends on latitude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for a representative temperate latitude and for the altitude of the tropopause, or for the top of the atmosphere. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing at the tropopause, per added CH4 molecule, is about 30 times larger than the forcing per added carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the abundant greenhouse gas, CO2 . But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.3 ppm/year (ppm = part per million), is about 300 times larger than the rate of increase of CH4 molecules, which has been around 0.0076 ppm/year since the year 2008.

So the contribution of methane to the annual increase in forcing is one tenth (30/300) that of carbon dioxide. The net forcing from CH4 and CO2 increases is about 0.05 W m−2 year−1. Other things being equal, this will cause a temperature increase of about 0.012 C year−1. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on methane emissions because of warming fears are not justified by facts

Interestingly that the leading profiteer of vaccines (death shots) and America's largest farmland owner and climate alarmist extraordinaire is Bill Gates himself, who is the leading investor in insect foods, and artificial meats ( highly carcinogenic) is also the leading advocate of eugenics depopulation as was his father before him who was on the board of Planned Parenthood founded by Margaret Sanger the leading advocate of wiping out all people of color in America, Her presentations were so powerful that this new pseudoscience of eugenics inspired Hitler himself in the early twentieth century. Yes indeed Bill Gates is a leading partner in the CCP-controlled WEF and WHO. Bill Gates gets along fabulously with the genocidal CCP.

Bob, you have promoted a straight flush of nonsense fed to you by the folks you think are "benevolent."

[Bob Armstrong]

Farming with chemical fertilizers goes against "Sustainable Farming", a very worthwhile goal for the industry. Nature works on there being a sustainable cycle in all things; many unexpected benefits come from implementing "sustainability" wherever possible.

This is totally aside from any negative consequences of chemical fertilizers re negative climate change.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

But I can say, that although Nitrogen-base fertilizers serve a purpose in farming, they raise broader societal issues, and are problematic, at the least

The main societal issue you cite is increased Greenhouse gases) however, the paper I cite in my post proves that Nitrous Oxide emissions are insignificant as a contributor for so-called climate change.
As far as the benefits are concerned that you cite that is up to the farmer to decide, not the government. If a farmer wants to waste money with a presumably less efficient methodology, that is his or her prerogative PERIOD,
Please, no more uninformed rhetoric. You put a lot of faith in governments and even believe NGOs like the WEf are benevolent. All these crazy ideas because you don't bother reading or listening to posts that displease you. Being a secretary does not require much thought. You are overqualified to be a secretary, your time is better spent listening and learning.

[Bob Armstrong]

When I get some time, I will read Sid's farming post slowly and carefully to see if, and where, it contradicts my position (See my Post # 1573 - 23/8/4).

Should there be contradictions, then it may be more source searching will be necessary.

But I can say, that although Nitrogen-base fertilizers serve a purpose in farming, they raise broader societal issues, and are problematic, at the least. This is part of # 1 in my Post # 1573 on a number of important issues re farming.)

Bob A (Anthropogenicist; own 20 acres of hayfield; rented to a cattle farmer - Black Angus - will put a number of his calves into my barn for the winter, which is part of the rental contract, in the later Fall; an application for an "Organic Farm" Licence can be made for my hobby farm; never used chemical fertilizer on my hayfields for about 30 years - use cow manure).

[Sid Belzberg]

Farming & Climate Change

1. Organic Farming - Anti-Negative Climate Change

How do farmers help climate change?

Organic farming prohibits most synthetic inputs, which means reduced GHG emissions, as well as cleaner soil, water, and food. Furthermore, organic and sustainable techniques bring additional benefits for farmers, such as increased soil health and fertility, which leads to additional climate-friendly benefits.

https://foodwise.org/articles/10-way...limate-change/

2. Non-Carnivore Directed Farming

Global elimination of meat production could save the planet

https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/02/01...ave-the-planet

3. Agriculture & CO2

a. Greenhouse gas emissions and agriculture

10% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are from crop and livestock production, excluding emissions from the use of fossil fuels or from fertilizer production.
The main gases emitted by agricultural activities are:

• Carbon dioxide
• Methane
• Nitrous oxide

Conversely, agriculture helps slow climate change by storing carbon on agricultural lands. Storing, or sequestering, carbon in soil as organic matter, perennial vegetation, and in trees reduces carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere.

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/env...eenhouse-gases

b. The Carbon Cycle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNLUzqW8IuA

c. Generally Accepted: Carbon is the primary component of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) that we burn to create power. Our growing use of energy has increased the volume of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. [ There is controversy over whether the amount of CO2 generated by man has a "significant" effect on Climate Change and rising temperature. The Anthropogenicists claim that man is increasing the air CO2 at a rate that is accelerating any "natural" warming of the Earth, due to a current warming cycle we are in.]

4. Elimination of All Farming

In my personal researching, all emphasis is on greater productivity in farming, given climate change, and how farming can reduce its carbon footprint. I have found almost nothing supporting the total elimination of farming, outside of the content provided in Sid Belzberg's Post # 1552 - 23/7/31. I am concerned that Sid gives no sources at all for his position (The one link is to a tweet about depopulation).

5. Farming & Methane

The global climate cult is getting ready to kick its war on food into overdrive with 13 nations – many of them major cattle and food-producing states led by the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Spain – signing onto a commitment to place farmers under new restrictions intended to reduce emissions of methane gas.

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...104#post228065

The headline reads "Abolishing Farming" - this is significant false reporting! "New restrictions" is not "abolishing". This is scare-mongering. The focus re elimination is, as noted above, re carnivore-directed farming.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

The focus re elimination is, as noted above, re carnivore-directed farming.

Bob, for your information, Dilip did not state that the most recent article I posted was the only article on this subject. I have posted earlier articles here
that also is about attacks on plant-based farming that require Nitrogen-based fertilizers. Do you ever read the news about the hell the farmers in the Netherlands
are being put through over Nitrogen-based fertilizers?
Do you want the facts, or do you simply like the sound of your uninformed voice? Maybe you should read and listen before posting.

Nitrogen-based fertilizers are commonly used in agricultural production to enhance the growth of crops that require higher levels of nitrogen. Some of the foods that benefit from nitrogen-based fertilizers include:

1. Grains: Crops like wheat, rice, corn (maize), and barley are significant beneficiaries of nitrogen fertilizers. These crops are staples in many diets worldwide and play a crucial role in feeding the global population.
2. Legumes: Leguminous crops like soybeans, peas, and lentils also benefit from nitrogen-based fertilizers. These plants have a unique ability to fix nitrogen from the air through symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, but they can still benefit from additional nitrogen to boost their growth.
3. Leafy Vegetables: Nitrogen fertilizers are commonly used for leafy greens such as lettuce, spinach, cabbage, and kale. These crops require ample nitrogen for their lush green foliage.
4. Fruits: Some fruit-bearing plants, including tomatoes, peppers, and eggplants, benefit from nitrogen-based fertilizers to support their vegetative growth and fruit development.
5. Oilseeds: Oilseed crops like canola, sunflower, and cottonseed may also be cultivated using nitrogen-based fertilizers to increase their yields.
6. Root Crops: While nitrogen is more critical for the vegetative growth of plants, root crops like potatoes and carrots can still benefit from a well-balanced supply of nutrients, including nitrogen.

https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/...rous-Oxide.pdf

Nitrous Oxide and Climate

C. A. de Lange1, J. D. Ferguson2, W. Happer3, and W. A. van Wijngaarden4

1Atomic, Molecular and Laser Physics, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, USA 3Department of Physics, Princeton University, USA
4Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada

November 10, 2022

Abstract

Higher concentrations of atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to slightly warm Earth’s surface because of increases in radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation flux from the Earth through a transparent atmosphere and radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing, normally measured in W m−2, depends on lati- tude, longitude and altitude, but it is often quoted for the tropopause, about 11 km of altitude for temperate latitudes, or for the top of the atmosphere at around 90 km. For current concentrations of greenhouse gases, the radiative forcing per added N2O molecule is about 230 times larger than the forcing per added carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. This is due to the heavy saturation of the absorption band of the relatively abundant greenhouse gas, CO2, compared to the much smaller saturation of the absorption bands of the trace greenhouse gas N2O. But the rate of increase of CO2 molecules, about 2.5 ppm/year (ppm = part per million by mole), is about 3000 times larger than the rate of increase of N2O molecules, which has held steady at around 0.00085 ppm/year since the year 1985. So, the contribution of nitrous oxide to the annual increase in forcing is 230/3000 or about 1/13 that of CO2. If the main greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and N2O have contributed about 0.1 C/decade of the warming observed over the past few decades, this would correspond to about 0.00064 K per year or 0.064 K per century of warming from N2O. Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions because of warming fears are not justified by these facts. Restrictions would cause serious harm; for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.


https://dailysceptic.org/2023/05/11/...trogen-crisis/

Entire Global Food Supply at Risk From Disastrous Response to So-Called ‘Nitrogen Crisis’

BY CHRIS MORRISON

11 MAY 2023 7:00 AM



The full horror of the ‘nitrogen’ war on agriculture is becoming more apparent every day. Food supplies around the world face collapse if the use of nitrogen fertiliser is severely restricted under Net Zero requirements. It is claimed that the fertiliser is warming the Earth and causing the climate to break down, as the by-product nitrous oxide is released into the atmosphere. In fact the entire global food supply is in danger of being trashed for the sake of what recent scientific work notes is almost unmeasurable 0.064°C warming per century.

Policies to address this non-existent crisis have already done enormous harm in Sri Lanka, where a ban on nitrogen fertiliser caused a rapid collapse in food yields, and led to the President fleeing the country in a hurry. The Canadian Government is committed to a 30% reduction in N₂O levels by 2030. In the Netherlands, the Government is following European Union instructions and trying to remove farmers from the land. Any compensation paid will be tied to a restriction not to start farming again anywhere in the EU. Political discontent is growing, and there are already fears for the supply of agricultural products since the Netherlands is the second largest food exporter in the world.

Nitrogen is a vital component of plant metabolism which is obtained from the soil. Alas, there is not enough nitrogen in the soil to grow plants at the scale needed to feed global populations. Before the arrival of commercial nitrogen fertilisers, famine was a frequent feature of the unreliable food supply across parts of the world. Without the fertiliser, famine will resume its gruesome role, something mainstream Net Zero politicians have to address in the near future. Virtue-signalling green delusions about ‘rewilding’, bug diets and organic farming will not feed the world, probably not even a quarter of it.


Like all greenhouse gases, its ability to trap heat within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum diminishes after a certain level as the gas becomes ‘saturated’. This helps explain why greenhouse gas levels have been much higher in the past without the Earth turning into an Armageddon fireball. After a certain point, any increased warming becomes logarithmic, according to the physicists, meaning it rises ever more slowly in response to additional greenhouse gases, which again provides a plausible explanation as to why temperatures have stayed within a relatively small band across the paleo record.

Every day seems to bring fresh concerns about the destruction likely to be wrought by the collectivist Net Zero project. As we have seen in recent articles, absolutist Net Zero fanatics at the Government-funded U.K. FIRES project look to a world in 2050 where Britain will lose 75% of its energy. Flying, shipping and eating beef and lamb will be banned, while bricks, concrete and glass will almost cease to exist. All the major political parties supporting the current strategy run away from facing true Net Zero reality. In the view of U.K. FIRES leader Professor Julian Allwood, the current strategy is as unrealistic as “magic beans fertilised by unicorn’s blood”.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The headline reads "Abolishing Farming" - this is significant false reporting! "New restrictions" is not "abolishing". This is scare-mongering. The focus re elimination is, as noted above, re carnivore-directed farming.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Bob A, Everyone knows that farming abolition will starve us all to death, and hence even the stupidest, most climate-anxious government will not do it (despite whatever dreams Bob G may have). The point is, do the farmers think it is possible to maintain today's food output with the suggestions you make? If so, just tax (like the carbon tax), the environment harming practices, and let the market forces take care of the rest, better than any draconian government regulations could do.
But it seems that unfortunately, if that is done, by draconian regulations or by market forces, the poorer amongst us will still starve to death...

[Bob Armstrong]

Farming & Climate Change

1. Organic Farming - Anti-Negative Climate Change

How do farmers help climate change?

Organic farming prohibits most synthetic inputs, which means reduced GHG emissions, as well as cleaner soil, water, and food. Furthermore, organic and sustainable techniques bring additional benefits for farmers, such as increased soil health and fertility, which leads to additional climate-friendly benefits.

https://foodwise.org/articles/10-way...limate-change/

2. Non-Carnivore Directed Farming

Global elimination of meat production could save the planet

https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/02/01...ave-the-planet

3. Agriculture & CO2

a. Greenhouse gas emissions and agriculture

10% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are from crop and livestock production, excluding emissions from the use of fossil fuels or from fertilizer production.
The main gases emitted by agricultural activities are:

• Carbon dioxide
• Methane
• Nitrous oxide

Conversely, agriculture helps slow climate change by storing carbon on agricultural lands. Storing, or sequestering, carbon in soil as organic matter, perennial vegetation, and in trees reduces carbon dioxide amounts in the atmosphere.

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/env...eenhouse-gases

b. The Carbon Cycle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNLUzqW8IuA

c. Generally Accepted: Carbon is the primary component of all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) that we burn to create power. Our growing use of energy has increased the volume of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels. [ There is controversy over whether the amount of CO2 generated by man has a "significant" effect on Climate Change and rising temperature. The Anthropogenicists claim that man is increasing the air CO2 at a rate that is accelerating any "natural" warming of the Earth, due to a current warming cycle we are in.]

4. Elimination of All Farming

In my personal researching, all emphasis is on greater productivity in farming, given climate change, and how farming can reduce its carbon footprint. I have found almost nothing supporting the total elimination of farming, outside of the content provided in Sid Belzberg's Post # 1552 - 23/7/31. I am concerned that Sid gives no sources at all for his position (The one link is to a tweet about depopulation).

5. Farming & Methane

The global climate cult is getting ready to kick its war on food into overdrive with 13 nations – many of them major cattle and food-producing states led by the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Spain – signing onto a commitment to place farmers under new restrictions intended to reduce emissions of methane gas.

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...104#post228065

The headline reads "Abolishing Farming" - this is significant false reporting! "New restrictions" is not "abolishing". This is scare-mongering. The focus re elimination is, as noted above, re carnivore-directed farming.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Post # 1569 - Dilip Panjwani - 23/8/4

I do not favour the elimination of all farming..........I have severe doubts that is the case.......does it include "Apple Farming"? I wish to eliminate carnivore-directed farming.

But I will re-read Sid's post on "farming & climate change" ( Post 1552 - 23/7/31) in case I do have my facts wrong.

I will return thereafter with my comments on farming and climate change.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

3. Those who benefit most from society's systems, in any form of government, must pay the most into the support of the "system". In our current capitalist system, there is nothing illegal about a "wealth" tax, in addition to progressive "income" tax. No one is stealing anything, not the government, not the neighbour. Rather it is a user-pays system, and billionaire's have been shirking (Morally, not legally [The Oligarchs have managed to skew the system to their advantage], usually) their fair payment in.

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

You are confusing 'legality' with 'rightness'. Slavery and oppression of women was legal till recently, but these were not the right thing to do even when they were legal or constitutional in some countries. If our system is faulty in that it enables some to become unfairly obscenely rich and obscenely powerful, then the right thing to do is change the system, not try to counter it by legalizing theft (direct taxation), or legalizing weaponization of stupid laws... two wrongs never make a right.
Libertarianism is a very inexpensive form of government, and minor indirect taxes would be the appropriate user-pays system...

[Dilip Panjwani]

2. Yes we must eventually eliminate fossil fuels for two reasons: a. pollution; b. they are finite (Renewables, that are "sustainable", as a percentage of our energy source, must increase, and rapidly).


Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

Pollution is already being appropriately taxed with the carbon tax in a rare Libertarian action by governments, and since the renewables are finite, market forces will take care of the transition to renewable energy... your big-government does not need to mess up with that.

[Dilip Panjwani]

1. Agriculture will not be "discontinued". What may have to be discontinued, because of its colossal use of resources, is carnivore-directed farming.


Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

You have not been reading the posts Sid has kindly provided you with, which details how badly European farmers are fighting big-government just to maintain their regular 'vegan' agricultural output...