UN Secretary-General Calls For 'Windfall' Tax on Profits of Fossil Fuel Companies (yahoo.com) 208
U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres called Wednesday for a "windfall" tax on profits of fossil fuel companies to help pay for the fight against global warming, decrying them as the "godfathers of climate chaos." From a report: Guterres spoke from the American Museum of Natural History in New York in a bid to revive focus on climate change at a time when many national elections, and conflict in places like Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan this year have seized much of the international spotlight.
In a bare-knuckled speech timed for World Environment Day, Guterres drew on new data and projections to trumpet his case against Big Oil: The European Union's climate watching agency reported that last month was the hottest May ever, marking the 12th straight monthly record high. The EU's Copernicus climate change service, a global reference for tracking world temperatures, cited an average surface air temperature of 15.9 C (60.6 F) last month -- or 1.52 C higher than the estimated May average before industrial times. The burning of fossil fuels -- oil, gas and coal -- is the main contributor to global warming caused by human activity. Meanwhile, the U.N. weather agency predicted an 80% chance that average global temperatures will surpass the 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) target set in the landmark Paris climate accord of 2015. Further reading: UN Chief Says World is On 'Highway To Climate Hell' as Planet Endures 12 Straight Months of Unprecedented Heat.
In a bare-knuckled speech timed for World Environment Day, Guterres drew on new data and projections to trumpet his case against Big Oil: The European Union's climate watching agency reported that last month was the hottest May ever, marking the 12th straight monthly record high. The EU's Copernicus climate change service, a global reference for tracking world temperatures, cited an average surface air temperature of 15.9 C (60.6 F) last month -- or 1.52 C higher than the estimated May average before industrial times. The burning of fossil fuels -- oil, gas and coal -- is the main contributor to global warming caused by human activity. Meanwhile, the U.N. weather agency predicted an 80% chance that average global temperatures will surpass the 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) target set in the landmark Paris climate accord of 2015. Further reading: UN Chief Says World is On 'Highway To Climate Hell' as Planet Endures 12 Straight Months of Unprecedented Heat.
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who cares? This is not news that matters.
Re: (Score:3)
Up there with others can sacrirfice before me (Score:3)
Skeptical of public figures asking me or others to sacrifice money, time or labor when those same public figures either do nothing or make a token 0.0001% of their budget/wealth photo opportunity and publicity advertisement of their charity.
Left, right or center if a public figure asks for sacrifice, they should be proposing a sacrifice on their own part first before asking others to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't asking you, they are asking fossil fuel companies. A windfall tax is where extra unexpected profit is taxed heavily, e.g. the money that gas suppliers made when the Ukraine war started.
The boss of Shell said they had more money than they knew what to do with after that war began. I have an idea, we will tax it and use it to hasten the demise of fossil fuels. Or take some money off people's bills so they can afford to heat their homes in winter.
they'll just pass on the increased costs (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
are politicians that stupid not to know this? the people at the top always pass costs down to us "little people"
Of course that still fits the plan, to make fossil fuels, and thus people's lives, more expensive. Of course our government here in Canada is facing the prospect of losing the next election over their carbon tax, so politicians everywhere should be cautious about jacking up the price of the necessities of life. The electorate are quite possibly smart enough to know who really pays for these schemes in the end.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
some of the electorate are smart enough, the rest believe the BS that Donald Trump spews daily
Actually its Trump that says such costs are passed on to the average person.
Its the progressives that pretend that they are just making the wealthy pay their share, or corporations pay for their externalities.
Re:they'll just pass on the increased costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why is he all gung-ho to put massive import tariffs on things, if he "says such costs are passed on to the average person" ?
If we are to believe what you are saying about him, that would mean that he is intentionally looking to double the price of a Kia or Hyundai car that is imported, complete with all the ramifications on inflation that brings with it.
More reasonably and believably, he does not understand that at all, or he doesn't give a shit. Either way, his trade policies are not going to make your bank account balance more healthy if he enacts his trade tariff plans.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the south, my neighbors fly confederate flags and want all people who aren't defined as white to either die or be their slaves.
The confederate flag part is believable. Sadly they don't really know their heritage despite their claims. They believe in an 1880s-1920s Klan reimagining of their heritage. If they did they would know that according to confederate regulations that flag was strictly for the battlefield. Never for camp, parade, or any other non-battlefield use. Off the battlefield the national confederate flag was to be used by the army. And to be honest, no confederate soldier would have thought of their national flag as an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am 64. Also a former army vet. Both my two white neighbors have complained about the black guy, even though he was living there before they moved in, at separate times they have both said that in a 'better world' he'd be lynched for ' having the solid brass balls to think he could mov
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I don't believe these ignorant fucks know much at all, just have hate in their hearts because that's what they were taught at a very young age.
That is absolutely the heart of it, it's largely taught and accepted for some reason. But that acceptance has been harder and harder to pull off each decade. Again, I wish their decline was faster but they are just a fringe today. Nothing like the 1920s and their mass acceptance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Had you not heard of the teen boy who was killed (by dragging him around town behind a pickup truck with a logging chain) until his body came apart? That was in the late 90's. Why did they kill him? As i recall he said a white girl in one of his classes was pretty. She complained to her father, and he and several of his redneck friends decided to 'teach those damn n'ers a lesson'
Again, such incidents are aberrations today. Hence the shock when they occur. In the 1920s it would have been common enough not to be newsworthy.
Re: (Score:2)
The confederate battle flag being used as a "hate" symbol is something relatively NEW....and erroneous.
I grew up as a teen in the years where no one in the south, no matter race, gave a flip if someone flew the flag...it was nothing more than a symbol of living in the south or "southern pride"....something you commonly saw as a backdrop for a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert.
I'm not denying that. I am pointing out that the actual heritage of that flag says it is not to be used in that manner. That such use is evolved from the Klan reimagining not the actual confederate use.
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up with the confederate flag being nothing more than a backdrop for a Skynyrd concert....a southern pride thing. It wasn't racist....and no one got their panties in a wad about it.... None of my black school mates had a problem with it back in the day.
I'm not denying that. I am pointing out that the actual heritage of that flag says it is not to be used in that manner. That such use is evolved from the Klan reimagining not the actual confederate use.
Re:they'll just pass on the increased costs (Score:5, Informative)
It wasn't racist....and no one got their panties in a wad about it.... None of my black school mates had a problem with it back in the day.
Or at least, none of them would have said so out loud when they were outnumbered by white people.
Because that would have been dangerous.
But, times are getting better. Why, Missisippi even outlawed slavery! In 1995.
Re:they'll just pass on the increased costs (Score:4, Informative)
Re:they'll just pass on the increased costs (Score:5, Informative)
Taxes are neither good or bad, the implementation is all that matters.
Fact is there is a cost to pollution right? Just because the cost is diffuse does not mean it isn't there so we pay whether there is a tax or there isn't. Just like the US taxpayers have to make up shortfalls for Superfund cleanup sites. Did you and I pollute that landscape? No but it's a problem that exists and has to be dealt with just the same.
There was corporate opposition to banning CFC's just like there is corporate opposition so issues around PFC platsics just like there is corporate opposition to any additional cost to business, it's their incentive to tell everyone "prices will go up!!!" but we don't have to believe it every time.
You are 100% right that this is a necessity of life but in that case what is the logic of having profit margins dictate how something vital to life is operated? A temperate environment around large population centers is also vital to life.
You tax inappropriate users, not suppliers (Score:2)
Taxes are neither good or bad, the implementation is all that matters.
Correct. In this particular case you should not tax the producers, you should tax the inappropriate users. There are legitimate users, you don't want to turn them into collateral damage. Unless targeting the middle class is really the intent here, which is where the money really comes from in reality, and the talk of the rich and the corporations is just the political smoke screen to hide the reality.
For example tax the politician or celebrity or rich person flying in a private jet, not the average trave
Re: (Score:2)
Personally...fsck the UN and the horse they rode in on.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering just who the UN thinks they are...
Well when they can tear themselves away from their legal immunity fed visits high end hookers and drug dealers, they are our moral guardians.
Re: (Score:2)
So, don't tax people in proportion to their actual participation in problematic activities, tax them based on whether some guy on slashdot thinks it's more or less appropriate to tax them? Brilliant, I'm sure that'll solve the problem.
Actually, what I wrote is saying tax problematic activities. The private flights, the big engines without a justifiable need, etc.
So, you think the commuter in the hybrid is problematic behavior, or the airline passenger crowded in coach?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, what I wrote is saying tax problematic activities. The private flights, the big engines without a justifiable need, etc. So, you think the commuter in the hybrid is problematic behavior, or the airline passenger crowded in coach?
Yes.
All of the above.
Private flights and "big engines without justifiable need" both cause problems, but they are vastly outnumbered by the emissions from commuters and airline passengers.
The liberal idea "oh, you can just tax the rich guys, that will solve it" won't solve it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. All of the above. Private flights and "big engines without justifiable need" both cause problems, but they are vastly outnumbered by the emissions from commuters and airline passengers. The liberal idea "oh, you can just tax the rich guys, that will solve it" won't solve it.
You misunderstand, its not about taxing the rich, its about luxury vs necessity. The private flights are a luxury.
And you misunderstand. Banning private jets wouldn't make enough of a reduction in emissions to even notice; there just aren't enough of them to make a difference. That would be a symbolic move designed to cater well to the public outrage, but has nothing to do with solving the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes are neither good or bad, the implementation is all that matters.
End users still pay all of them in the end.
Fact is there is a cost to pollution right?
Yup. And it is extremely variable.
Just like the US taxpayers have to make up shortfalls for Superfund cleanup sites. Did you and I pollute that landscape?
It seems the argument being made here is that yes, yes we did. Indirectly of course we are responsible for all pollution.
it's their incentive to tell everyone "prices will go up!!!" but we don't have to believe it every time.
You don't have to, but you should.
what is the logic of having profit margins dictate how something vital to life is operated?
An argument can be made for public ownership of such infrastructure. This is not that.
Re:they'll just pass on the increased costs (Score:4, Informative)
Indirectly of course we are responsible for all pollution.
Thank you, so we pay either way, the cost remains and costs have to be paid, all we are discussing is "who pays"
This is also why economists have been so staunch on your hated carbon tax, it's a Pigovian tax, those who use pay, it solves a lot of these problems. Rich people want to take private jets? The environmental cost is baked into that flight, they use they pay.
Considering what we know what the energery producers have known for decades I am on the side of "don't believe them" or if their answer is "we raise prices to maintain our profit ratio numbers" well, that is to me a case for public infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich people want to take private jets? The environmental cost is baked into that flight, they use they pay.
Sure. Your food gets to the store by truck or train, you use, you pay. But who does it really hurt more? You, or the dude in the private jet?
if their answer is "we raise prices to maintain our profit ratio numbers" well, that is to me a case for public infrastructure.
Public infrastructure exists to keep the cost of essential services low and accessible. Exactly the opposite of the agenda being discussed here.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. Your food gets to the store by truck or train, you use, you pay. But who does it really hurt more? You, or the dude in the private jet?
If the tax is done correctly everyone does but just like most taxes the majority of the burden is (and should be) shouldered by the very wealthy, they use the most they pay the most. That's why marginal rates are a thing. Even in your example the million-ton-miles GHG for trains is much less than trucks but trucks are treated equally, same for planes which are even worse. How can I the consumer evaluate those costs if they are not represented in my prices? This is basic market stuff, companies will still
Re: (Score:2)
just like most taxes the majority of the burden is (and should be) shouldered by the very wealthy
Nice thought, but I don't think that is actually true.
If the end result is "all the energy companies all raise their prices in accordance" well, that pretty much means no effective competition and there are steps for that.
Every company (notwithstanding a small few that can operate with continuous losses) prices their product to cover all of their input costs plus hopefully a profit. I don't think that makes them a cartel. That is business 101.
This is basic market stuff, companies will still have to compete and innovate right?
No, this is putting your finger on the scales. The opposite of basic market stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice thought, but I don't think that is actually true.
Oh it's still very true but has been more true in the past, in fact the easement of this tax burden on the wealthy I find responsible for many negative outcomes we see today. Marginal utility of money is in fact a thing so taxes are and should be set accordingly. Progressive tax rates are good.
prices their product to cover all of their input costs plus hopefully a profit. I don't think that makes them a cartel.
Nope but in a market where the consumer *has* to consume a product (energy, sanitation, healthcare, etc) then it has to be under more scrutiny because the market is distorted by it's very nature. There is also no "
Re: (Score:2)
a market where the consumer *has* to consume a product (energy, sanitation, healthcare, etc)
..makes them the perfect target for corporations and government alike.
We make the rules and if pricing externalities is part of it now then it just is. Adapt.
And vote with your wallet.
here is also no "right" to profits at a certain rate for all of time.
Yes, and businesses fail all the time. That is the opposite of profits, and is considered by most as a bad thing.
the role of the state is pretty baked into capitalism since the beginnings
By nature there is nothing the state won't insert themselves into.
Re: (Score:3)
..makes them the perfect target for corporations and government alike.
There's a very crucial difference between those things.
And vote with your wallet.
What?!?! That's my point! How can we vote with our wallets if the real costs are obscured? Welcome to the carbon tax club pal!
By nature there is nothing the state won't insert themselves into.
That's right, that's democracy baby. That's like saying "there's nothing humans won't insert themselves into" it's redundant.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm Canadian
Well here in America at least there is no tax on "existence", only actions. To incur a tax burden means you made an active choice. Made income, bought goods, own property, collect payroll, etc etc. If you don't so any of those things there are no taxes. If your next answer is "well we need to do those things to survive in society" well you've answered your own question. You don't get to shirk the social contract and take advantage of society at the same time.
Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep debating dinner.
There it is, the brain destroyer comment, I
Pigovian tax [Re:they'll just pass on the incr...] (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"the electorate are quite possibly smart enough to know that the money that people pay taxes for is their own money"
like fucking duh
the only question is, are the electorate smart enough to know that the cheapest way to pay for it is to combine our efforts? or is the electorate stupid enough think that if we just assume somebody else will pay for it, it won't end us costing everyone a fuckload more in the end when the parameters of the choice become sufficiently close to literal survival?
Re:they'll just pass on the increased costs (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
yes, the dumb people, we get it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Continue to cower in fear, it's your life.
By your own statement, you are the one who's cowering in fear... pissing yourself behind your sofa about some conspiracy theory around the government.
Re: (Score:2)
The electorate are quite possibly smart enough to know who really pays for these schemes in the end.
Apparently not. The carbon tax is offset by checks, but everyone was cheering with the capital gains tax increase that is going after the people's life savings in local investments.
I find it funny that when politicians say they are going after the rich, most believe they are targeting people earning millions while in reality they are targeting anyone who has a living wage. More harm is done it just, takes years for it to wind through the system. In the 70's a single salary was enough. Today we have both pa
Re: (Score:2)
The carbon tax is offset by checks
The carbon tax is baked into everything and mostly hidden, so they hope giving you a token back will keep you like a mushroom and make you think they are benevolent. Apparently it is not working.
Today we have both parents working and struggling to get by.
Maybe because unlike int he 70s half of their income goes to some tax or another. Income taxes, carbon taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, sin taxes, often compounded tax upon tax, as well as the aforementioned hidden taxes built into everything.
Re:they'll just pass on the increased costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, don't forget that the price of fuel has a DIRECT cost on pretty much everything else in the economy....you gotta move goods to see them.
Re: (Score:2)
The result of higher prices will be reduced use of oil products and reduced emissions. Of course Bill Gates won't stop flying around in his private jet.
Instead of taxes on windfall profits from oil we should ration its use. Countries should agreed on a per capita annual limit on oil use. Countries that don't use their full quota would be allowed to carry it over to future years.
The political problem with that solution is that it would make clear that every gallon used by Bill Gates means someone else has t
Re: (Score:2)
Ellison had a pretty damn big yacht, but then some billionaire somewhere got one bigger than his, so Ellison bought a bigger one so once again he had one of the largest ones in the world.
by that exercise alone, I diagnose him with ei
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a great solution actually but as you explained, since that would hurt the rich, it won't be happening. Got to punish the middle class because there are more of us (for now).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:they'll just pass on the increased costs (Score:5, Informative)
Their goal is to increase the price of fossil fuel to make it less competitive in the marketplace, and to use those extra funds to invest in cleaner energy sources. Energy companies passing the increased costs on to consumers is kind of the point. If it just lowers corporate profits then it has less impact on consumer behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
my job is 28 miles from my home, one way.
My EV has a range of 240 miles.
There are no electric vehicle charging points at my work and there are no charging points within 10 miles of my home
Do you have an electrical outlet at home?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
okay, so, an ev can charge off of a standard 110 volt socket?
Yes, but it will be slow.
An EV uses about 0.3 kwh/mile. 110v @ 15A = 1650 watts, so it would take about 10 hours to recharge an EV for a 56-mile roundtrip commute.
I paid $300 to install a 220v 50A outlet in my garage. It can recharge 56 miles in under two hours.
I thought they needed a special charger to be installed.
A special charger is needed for rapid supercharging. But 110v and 220v charging is built into the car.
The outlet in my garage is the same as a 220v socket used by a stove or clothes dryer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had a garage.
If you live in California, landlords/HOAs can't prohibit chargers at assigned parking stalls.
which car do you have?
2015 Tesla Model-S.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, in most of the other 49 states, landlords can prohibit you from making modifications to the property....
I dunno about HOA's...I'd never live in one of those fuckers...
Re: (Score:2)
They can, albeit slowly.
They can also charge using a 240VAC outlet, such as what you plug your clothes dryer into, and it will charge much faster.
If you have a garage that you park in, you can have an electrician install a NEMA 14-50 outlet and plug your car into that and charge even faster yet due to being capable of ~40A continuous current.
I charged my Model Y at my parents' house using the mobile charger that came with the car, and a standard 110V outlet @ 15A (20A breaker). It's slow, but doable - your
Re: (Score:2)
28 miles? So what's the issue? Are you looking at golf carts or cars?
Re: (Score:2)
so, uh, my job is 28 miles from my home, one way. There are no electric vehicle charging points at my work and there are no charging points within 10 miles of my home, Regardless of the price of gas, I need to drive to work each and every weekday. either drive to and from work every damn day, or shoot myself in the head.
Your house is plenty close enough to work to have an electric car, but perhaps you live in an apartment complex with no charging at home. In that case you will probably keep driving a gasoline powered car and pay an extra $30-50 per month for every $1/gallon of price increase in the near future. In the longer term you have the option of moving closer to work, moving to a home with an electric charger, or just cutting back on other expenses.
It's rare for a positive change to society to not have negative effe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not have electricity at your home?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, me getting to work is quite literally how I can afford to keep a roof over my head and food in my belly. I'd say that makes it pretty important. In fact, it's debatably the most important thing I do every day, as that's what keeps me alive.
Increasing the cost of staying alive isn't helping me.
Instead of taxing the oil company, which will most certainly pass on the expensive to me, we should do as someone else suggested, set a per capita limit on how much fuel an individual is allowed to use in a given s
Not being stupid changes nothing (Score:2)
they'll just pass on the increased costs, are politicians that stupid not to know this? the people at the top always pass costs down to us "little people"
Politicians not being stupid changes nothing, they know that most voters are stupid enough. Its voter behavior that guides politician behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
the people at the top always pass costs down to us "little people"
It's called reducing demand, works as intended, and politicians aren't stupid, but voters can be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The smart voters will vote out those politicians that are making their lives more difficult and expensive....
Re: (Score:2)
Smart voters...Who the fuck are those people? They must be so spread out that all the "normal" voters out vote them based on political ads. It's sort of what you should expect when you let everyone vote though.
Success! (Score:3)
We The People do not exist to be prey by politicians. The profits are the oil companies satisfying our needs, successfully.
If you have issues, do something. Except for preying on The People for successfully beating back chaos and want and need.
Re: (Score:2)
How about... (Score:2)
... we make the "tax" be to not sell any of those products to anyone working for political organizations? Surely that will fix things, by reducing emissions!
No plastics, no damaging energy products derived from fuels, only that which is generated by solar and wind. Transportation to their places of work would only be allowed using energy derived from the sun, so current battery tech would be excluded (made with energy from forbidden sources). Oh, and no damaging vehicles built using forbidden energy or chem
Re: (Score:2)
We already have 'sin' taxes (Score:2)
What we need now is 'external cost' taxes. Oil does a lot of expensive damage when we remove it from the ground - there needs to be a pricetag put on that and a tax based on it levied at the well.
Then we can all start paying the real costs of oil as that tax is carried through the entire chain from well to consumer - for fuel, for lubricants, plastics, whatever.
The politics of this is curious. (Score:3)
Calling it a "winfall profit tax" implies that the oil companies somehow got lucky and stumbled into some profits. But that's not what happened. The oil companies *knowingly* sell a product whose costs can be externalized -- shifted onto third parties who don't benefit from the transaction.
From the point of view of capitalism, if fossil fuel companies included the external costs of fossil fuels in the price, market forces would arrive at the "right" solution to how much fossil fuels to use, correctly balancing the environmental costs and social benefits of fossil fuel use. The current system is in effect a subsidy that undermines the free market's ability to determine the correct amount of fossil fuels to use.
Windfall profits, on the other hand, don't undermine the market at all; they're just the flip side of bad luck losses. Good and bad luck are correctly accounted for, at least as far as humanly possible, by discounting expected future income streams by risk. In other words windfall profits don't harm society. A social subsidy for polluting energy sources does.
So why is it more politically advantageous to frame this as stripping fossil fuel companies of good luck profits rather than making fossil fuel users pay for the expenses they impose on others?
Re: (Score:2)
The current system is in effect a subsidy that undermines the free market's ability to determine the correct amount of fossil fuels to use.
Not to mention the massive actual subsidies they receive...
Same old (Score:2)
UN wants member states to levy more taxes so UN can get an addition to its budget.
News at 11.
Just a scam (Score:3)
If they aren't planning on taking these taxes on 'excessive' profits and using all the money (no skimming!) to build nuclear plants then it's just a scam to transfer wealth from oil corporations to government corporations. And ultimately all that money is coming from you, the individual consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
the fuck are "government corporations"?
Will never happen (Score:2)
Oil companies are state owned, large multinationals or shady as fuck. Usually at least two of those, some even all three. He is ofcourse not referring to the oil companies from Russia, Venezuela, or Saudi Arabia. This is aimed at the sharepolder-owned western oil companies such as Shell, BP and Exxon. And thus it will never materialize but it will give the environmentalist activists another tune to dance to.
The UN is nothing but a group of money grifters (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Is that because you think there aren't private grifters, or is there another reason for the doctrine?
Re: (Score:2)
We're all to blame.
Re: Is the blame in the right place? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you sell a gun to someone you KNOW will use it for murder, then you are liable. So yes, this is exactly like that, and that is why it is right.
Re: (Score:2)
Like when Imperial Japan went to war with US/UK? (Score:2)
Except that the deaths occur when they stop selling oil. By the billions...
Oh, shut up, drama-queen ...
You might want to read up on why Imperial Japan invaded local oil producing regions and went to war against the UK and the US to secure the shipping lanes to get that oil back home.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you sell a gun to someone you KNOW will use it for murder, then you are liable.
So selling natural gas to someone, knowing full well they will heat their house with it, is akin to murder. You people really are nutty.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That is the weakest straw man I've ever seen. Aren't you embarrassed? If not, you should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see. You're just really, really, stupid.
We'll ignore your mad ramblings going forward. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is the blame in the right place? (Score:2)
Not really, and if so, you shouldn't be.
Believing that you are responsible for all the misuses of your product downstream of when you part with it takes away the agency of the bad guys who actually commit the crime.
We don't jail wives for crimes their husbands commit on the reasoning that spouses are in a position to intervene, do we? We don't jail children for their parents' crimes or vice versa*, and if we charge separate individuals with conspiring to commit the same crime, the burden of proof is on the
Re: Is the blame in the right place? (Score:2)
The military and police are ALLOWED to shoot people.
By the same token it is legal to sell a gun to be used for self defense.
Now go back and read what I actually wrote
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, it appears lots of people don't know that most plastics come from oil.
then of course there are lubricants. As long as you have moving parts, you need lubricants, unless you use magnetic bearings, and even then you will probably want to lubricate things just in case.
Re: Is the blame in the right place? (Score:2)
Naw. Just go back to using whale oil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres can't do dick about taxes. F him.
They really have no power. Impose sanctions, sure, but that isn't as powerful as it used to be. There was a while when they were an extension of the US armed forces, but thankfully that ended. Just let them give their "holier than thou" speeches and ignore them.