Both if you please.. and more important what it means to you?

Environmentally unfriendly products are not only gasoline and energy. Sure, it will cost companies more to produce it, but the idea is that they charge it to the costumer that buys it (which is exactly how it works with all other costs for that matters).

And The Yell, products produced in Europe and exported to the USA are taxed in the USA. Products produced in the USA and exported to Europe
are taxed in Europe. So basically what I am saying is, it doesn't matter if a product is imported from elsewhere or produced in your own country, it'll have to pay the same taxes. That has nothing to do with free market.

I think nothing in this forum has ever been said that was more ironic than this. Flint, this is your signature move, and now you accuse others of doing it? Get a grip man, stop smoking weed.

Yea...no.

I studied this exact thing, flint, you can tell me it's not like this, but it is.

>>it doesn't matter if a product is imported from elsewhere or produced in your own country, it'll have to pay the same taxes.<<

That's wrong. Tariffs, taxes levied on imports or exports, are not necessarily "the same" no matter where a product is produced. Nor are they frequently in practice. No wonder I'm not buying your misunderstanding of basic economics.

You've completely neglected to address the fact that nobody in the world is willing to buy products that are twice as expensive in order to be "green." The vast majority of them couldn't, even if they were willing. Instituting policies to make the cost of materials, energy, production, and transportation skyrocket won't save the planet: it would just result in areas with those policies ceasing to produce those products, hurting those areas economically. And the same product continues to get made--somewhere else, where no such ridiculous policies are in place. Net gain to the environment: 0.

Unless every nation in the world agrees to tax it the same... You cannot "tax it the same."

As I have previously pointed out, most nations of the world are not volunteering to pillage their economies.

>>in response to me saying "don't drive" you tiraded about how hybrid cars are bad for the environment as if I had suggested them, which I hadn't.<<

Wasn't in response to you. Just a general point. I do support conservation. My arguments are against idiots seeking to classify the air you breathe out as polluted. I didn't respond to your basic conservation suggestions because I do not take issue with them. There are other harmful chemicals in auto emissions that it wouldn't hurt to reduce. (which CO2 concerns do nothing to reduce)

>>You are right that the conscientious consumer will make ill informed mistakes but they will always cause less damage than the thoughtless consumer.<<

Not when the conscientious consumer chooses "green" products in an attempt to be responsible when "green" products, in fact, hurt the planet more than their non-green counterparts, but this fact is not exposed because of the interests of powerful entities/entities in power. Ie, ethanol fuel, hybrid cars. Always? Explain these two top-of-my-head examples. I think your claim oversteps the facts.

>>If you don't like the Green party because you think they are socialists, why don't you make your own non-socialist environmentalist party? This is how democracy works.<<

I don't like them because they are socialists. Ralph Nader doesn't care about the environment. And he's not particularly energetic in hiding it. Neither are any of the rest. Democracy works by people like me speaking freely and not repeating mindless lies. Democracy works by people like me not creating their own parties and cluttering up the landscape until it is incomprehensible. I'm not a member of any party nor am I interested in creating one. I just call them like I see them.

>>If government intervention would be ruinous due to foreign competition, then how's about this for an idea; multilateralism and international co-operation.<<

Talk is cheap. I already addressed your question repeatedly. Saying "multilateralism and international co-operation" doesn't get anything done. You can't force nations to cripple their economies in the name of CO2 paranoia. And they're not volunteering to. You can take corporate volunteers to trim their profit margins to be "greener," but progress here is limited by their profit margins and how much they can/are willing to spare to invest in this cause. There are green initiatives that actually do save money. They're mostly limited by available technology. Well-run businesses invest in them on their own. They'd invest in them more if their development wasn't hampered by an overtaxed society leading to everything being dramatically overpriced.

Its totally erupting sillica deficient tholeiite basalt MORB