Conquer Club

Global warming... again.

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:55 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I think individual action is the only way this problem can be solved. Effectively, we need to incentivize people to modify their lifestyles, which may include, for example, finding new jobs or having less children. Our current system of government does not permit societal change through government action; rather, government action results in rent-seeking which results in virtually no change.


I agree that we need to incentivize people to modify their lifestyles. A tax on carbon emissions is an effective way to do that. It is simple logic. If it costs more to buy something, people will buy less of it (this is certainly true in the case of gasoline, though less strong of a statement for goods with more inelastic demands like water). Regulation on cigarettes is a great example of how this works. It is not just correlation; many studies show that increasing taxes on cigarettes results in a net reduction in smoking. This is an example of societal change through government action. There are also more direct related examples. See the amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990; this effectively set up a cap-and-trade system for acid rain emission, and is widely credited as a main reason why acid rain problems substantially declined following the law. It is too pessimistic and narrow-minded to go all philosophical on this question. This is an area where government intervention has proven to be effective in achieving goals, so let's stick with what works.


With respect to smoking, I still don't see (in the new link to the PDF you provided) any data showing causation (there isn't even data showing correlation really). I think if the tax on cigarettes resulted in the cost rising to, let's say, $50 a pack, people would quit smoking. Therefore, I agree, in theory, that taxes can be used to affect peoples' activities. I just don't think that's how our government uses taxes. If the government was interested in, say, stopping the use of tobacco (or guns or gasoline or carbon), it could impose a very onerous tax or could outlaw the use of the product completely. So, the question I have is - why doesn't the government do this? The only reasonable answer is that the government wants to collect revenue and can point to the dangers of the product as justification of increasing revenue collection.

Reserved for remaining thoughts on your other stuff (don't have time right now).
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:11 pm

thegreekdog wrote:There continues to be a few disconnects with respect to the issue of global warming.

It's fairly clear that global warming is occuring and it's mostly manmade (although I'm not entirely sure whether that's a correlation or not). But let's assume it's manmade.

After that, the following issues pop up:

- What's going to happen and when - unanswerable by science at this point, although we can speculate
- What do can we do
- What do we do

And involved in those questions are issues of self-interest, revenue generation, rent-seeking, and all the other attendant issues associated with global warming, not to mention currently industrializing countries getting screwed.

So "climate change skeptics" (what a horrendous phrase) are probably concerned with the three issues more than they are with the underlying science (although maybe not given this thread). I'm more concerned with what do we do than anything else. Because what we do will most likely have a negative impact on people now. And that makes me also concerned about what's going to happen and when. If someone says "the world will be destroyed by 2020 if we don't do something now" then I'm probably okay with loggers and car manufacturers losing their jobs. If someone says "we don't know" then I'm probably not okay with hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs.

This is the crux of ALL environmental questions. I remember an environmental biologist taking about how her view of toxics changed when she became pregnant. When looking at numbers on a data sheet, saying that there is only a 10% chance of harm.. or even a 1% chance of harm might seem OK, but if it is about YOUR child, particularly in YOUR womb.... then maybe not so much.

I used to say that I would expect the son of the Lousiana Pacific's CEO to have different opinions than the head of Earth First! (because forestry was the "big" issue back then), but that if they could at least agree on the facts, they could have a discussion. Today, the move is to change the actual data, to refute the facts... so we don't even GET to the point of real discussions about solutions.

thegreekdog wrote:The carbon tax is like the cigarette tax or the alcohol tax or the soda tax - it exists to generate revenue, not to change the underlying activity. So it's not the answer (unless it's a 100% tax, then maybe it will change activities).

Sort of disagree here, though BBS will clarify, I am sure.

It IS aimed to reduce the basic activity, but not to completely eliminate it. The key is to create a balance between revenue earned and the damage caused. This works somewhat in specific pollution situations, but not in public health issues. Looking at "why" requires getting into behavior and what seems to be called "freakanomics", but I don't think you really want to get into that discussion right now. (nor do I, honestly)

The biggest problem with all carbon taxes proposed is that they focus on too few impacts. Also, the science is evolving on this. It used to be, for example, that methane was more or less ignored, but it turns out it may be among the worst greenhouse gases.
A tax is necessarily going to be slow to implement and difficult to change. I am not saying it won't work at all, should not be part of the solution. I am saying that the proposals put forward so far ware not going to work. We need NEW ideas, NEW approaches, that may or may not include specific use taxes.

One thing we absolutely must do is to give more value to green growing things and open spaces, in all forms (even garden plots on city roofs, for example) and less value to simply building any structure to produce a profit, without any regard to the future of that building. Today, someone can buy up a completely open, green space, plop down a factory and if it goes out of business in 10, even 20 years and becomes a decrepit mess... that is just "progress" or "doing business". YET.. that harms each and every one of us. One foundation of civil society is to not allow people to just cause other's harm for selfish purposes, to generate short term benefits. Yet, that is exactly what our society currently does all too often.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby Nobunaga on Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:21 pm

thegreekdog wrote:There continues to be a few disconnects with respect to the issue of global warming.

It's fairly clear that global warming is occuring and it's mostly manmade (although I'm not entirely sure whether that's a correlation or not). But let's assume it's manmade.


I'm sorry to see you say that with such conviction, Greek. Perhaps you've been away from the topic for a while.

The climate panic house of cards is falling down. I'd post a list of links, but that's pretty pointless here.

Do a bit of research and you will see:

- We've been cooling since the mid 90's.

- Data used by the UN panel ignored decades of recorded temperatures to create the data they needed, as well as eliminating the "heat island" compensation equation (to compensate for very high temps near concrete & asphalt) from their overall equation.

- The earth's surface heated (til the 90's) more than the atmosphere (looking at averages), effectively debunking the notion that this is atmospheric-based (I didn't get all the science, but maybe you will).

And the revelations go on and on...

For what it's worth.

Ask yourself also, who is making money on this, and who stands to make more if policies based on this belief continue? That's a big hint in unraveling what's going on.

For what it's worth.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:39 pm

Nobunaga wrote:Ask yourself also, who is making money on this, and who stands to make more if policies based on this belief continue? That's a big hint in unraveling what's going on.


What do you think is larger: the amount of money that can be made by scientists from a shriveling National Science Foundation budget if climate science continues to be supported and shown to be solid, or the amount of money that can be made by the oil industry if policies based on the denial of climate science continue?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby oVo on Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:02 pm

Nobunaga wrote:That's a big hint in unraveling what's going on.

Let's see, glaciers in the Himalayas, Andes and Alaska have already retreated so much that there is exposed land and lakes formed in locations where none have ever existed in recorded history. Polar Bears, a variety of seals and Arctic Whales and other sea life are in jeopardy for the first time because of changes to their habitats in the Northern Hemisphere due to climate warming. There are a number of other environmental events being observed that indicate something has/is changing and we're still going to debate who stands to profit from policy changes?
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby Nobunaga on Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:22 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:Ask yourself also, who is making money on this, and who stands to make more if policies based on this belief continue? That's a big hint in unraveling what's going on.


What do you think is larger: the amount of money that can be made by scientists from a shriveling National Science Foundation budget if climate science continues to be supported and shown to be solid, or the amount of money that can be made by the oil industry if policies based on the denial of climate science continue?


You are limiting your view. New taxes based on fringe science, worth billions. Carbon credit brokerages making millions per trade... That's what I'm talking about and I'm amazed I'm the only one here who knows about this.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby Night Strike on Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:49 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:However, its not just about the temperatures warming. If it were, that might not be so bad. The reality is more extreme weather events, such as we are already seeing.


Where? Weather is always cyclical...there's no indication that it's getting any worse than any other particular year. You can almost always take one year and find worse weather in another year. And don't forget, our stats usually only go back about 125 years or so......not even as long as fossil fuels have been used in society. THAT is the entire problem with blaming humans for global warming.....it ignores all the heating pre-fossil fuels, and it doesn't even account for all the history using fossil fuels (plus toss in the shotty "science" of heat sink thermometers, etc.).
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby Night Strike on Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:01 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:Individual action cannot solve this problem. I could choose to stop driving my car, and it would not make any meaningful difference to whether global warming continues. It's best to think of our society as being addicted to carbon and we need to forcibly break ourselves off the addiction if we're going to improve. You don't get very far by asking an alcoholic to kindly stop. But if you make the alcohol twice as expensive, you'll likely get what you want.

It's not about blame or credit. We have a problem, and no substantial action has been taken by the market to address the problem, because the externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions are not appropriately factored into the price we pay for products that cause such emissions.


If the market hasn't taken any actions to address the problems, why are US carbon dioxide emissions at their lowest levels since 1992? In fact, why are they lower than the standard set by the environmentalists' Kyoto Protocol even though the US did not ratify that treaty? Sounds like the free market is doing better at what the government wanted done.

See, the problem is that the only "substantial action" you environmentalists want to take is to abolish fossil fuels in favor of extremely inefficient, and in some cases antiquated, technologies. We're only "addicted" to carbon because it actually works. Be the first company to develop an efficient and profitable alternative and that company will make billions. Stop handing over billions of dollars of our taxpayer money to inefficient technologies at bankrupt companies.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:47 pm

Nobunaga wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
Nobunaga wrote:Ask yourself also, who is making money on this, and who stands to make more if policies based on this belief continue? That's a big hint in unraveling what's going on.


What do you think is larger: the amount of money that can be made by scientists from a shriveling National Science Foundation budget if climate science continues to be supported and shown to be solid, or the amount of money that can be made by the oil industry if policies based on the denial of climate science continue?


You are limiting your view. New taxes based on fringe science, worth billions. Carbon credit brokerages making millions per trade... That's what I'm talking about and I'm amazed I'm the only one here who knows about this.


Say what you will about the money trail, but do not accuse this of being "fringe science." As I linked above, 97% of climate science papers published in peer-reviewed journals agree with the consensus view that human-induced CO2 emissions play the primary role in recent warming, and the upcoming IPCC report is stating this with greater than 95% certainty -- a remarkably confident statement given just how complicated the science is. The people who insist that this is a hoax are the ones on the fringe, numerically speaking. They could still be right, though this is quite unlikely -- but they conduct science that is questionable at best, and have been repeatedly called out by other scientists for this reason.

Nobunaga, you trust scientists to develop the medicine that you take, the simulations that verify the trustworthiness of the cars you drive and planes you fly, the computer that got you connected to the internet. This despite probably not having any formal study in these subjects. Why would you think that you can accuse climate scientists of engaging in incorrect methodology? Just because you read a few op-eds? I strongly encourage you to keep an open mind and recognize your ignorance in the subject, rather than revel in it. If you want to know what scientists are really saying about it, that information is out there and I can help you find it. But I assure you that articles like the one you found can be (and already have been) thoroughly debunked by working climate scientists. Will you read their rebuttal, and attempt to find the flaws in the Daily Mail piece? Please at least go that far.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:58 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Individual action cannot solve this problem. I could choose to stop driving my car, and it would not make any meaningful difference to whether global warming continues. It's best to think of our society as being addicted to carbon and we need to forcibly break ourselves off the addiction if we're going to improve. You don't get very far by asking an alcoholic to kindly stop. But if you make the alcohol twice as expensive, you'll likely get what you want.

It's not about blame or credit. We have a problem, and no substantial action has been taken by the market to address the problem, because the externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions are not appropriately factored into the price we pay for products that cause such emissions.


If the market hasn't taken any actions to address the problems, why are US carbon dioxide emissions at their lowest levels since 1992? In fact, why are they lower than the standard set by the environmentalists' Kyoto Protocol even though the US did not ratify that treaty? Sounds like the free market is doing better at what the government wanted done.


The decline in US carbon dioxide emissions is attributable to a number of factors. Prominent among these has been the economic decline, which resulted in people traveling less and using less electricity. But also the market has taken small steps such as using more natural gas and increasing the amount of wind and solar power that is used. What's important to note, though, is that a ~10% decline from peak levels does not count as substantial action to address the problem. Even if the entire world was following the track we're on (they're not, currently), we'd still need to drastically reduce emissions well beyond current levels if we want to curtail the most negative impacts of climate change. There's no doubt that if we wait long enough, the market will adjust (painfully) to our warmer world. But people's lives and livelihoods hang in the balance of just how bad that transition is. We should be paying the correct price for carbon so that we don't do lots of damage to our environment, which will only come back to haunt us in the end.

See, the problem is that the only "substantial action" you environmentalists want to take is to abolish fossil fuels in favor of extremely inefficient, and in some cases antiquated, technologies. We're only "addicted" to carbon because it actually works. Be the first company to develop an efficient and profitable alternative and that company will make billions. Stop handing over billions of dollars of our taxpayer money to inefficient technologies at bankrupt companies.


I am not an environmentalist. I don't particularly care whether we damage the environment for some hippie philosophical reason. I think that we are gravely damaging our own futures through global warming, and I worry that many coastal cities and islands will be partially or fully submerged in a century. This is bad for us.

But also, there's nothing antiquated about solar or wind power -- these technologies have steadily made progress. I would like to accelerate the progress that is being made on these. The problem with your perspective is that carbon is only so cheap and profitable because we are not paying the right price for it. The true price of carbon-based fuels is much higher than what we pay at the gas pump, when the damages from climate change are factored in. It is not correct to say that because fossil fuel energy is cheaper at current market prices than solar energy, that the former is a better technology. No, it's quite clearly a very dangerous technology, given what we are doing to our atmosphere and our oceans. We just don't pay the right price for it, because no one is holding us accountable for the damage we do when we burn it. Society needs to pay the right price for it, and when that price is being paid, these competing technologies will be on a level playing field. Right now the government is giving the fossil fuel industry a huge subsidy (both literally and also by having fuel taxes that are way too low), and I thought you conservative folks all hated subsidies. I sure do.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:28 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
oVo wrote:Equating Carbon Credits to Sin Taxes is interesting and I'm always curious as to where any revenue collected in such a way goes.

There is certainly something going on with the environment we live in and Global Warming is just one part of the problem. Nobody alive today really needs to concern themselves with it, let's just leave it for our children's, children's, children to resolve.

I live in the most wasteful nation on the planet and the bad habits of the citizens around me will take generations to alter. These people can't walk five steps to place garbage in a trash can, how can they be expected to recycle anything? There's enough resources around (oil, wood, water, food) for our existence now, why worry about the condition of this place when we're gone?

It will all come to an end soon enough anyways.


Wow. Antarctica is a dirty place.

You posted a lot of rhetoric here. It is interesting how many people are interested in the government doing "something" about global warming (probably upwards of 50% of people in this country) and yet there is a lot of criticism levied at the people of the same country for not doing anything about it. It's weird. It's like if I say "Government, you need to stop me from jumping down the stairs" and then I continue to jump down the stairs.


Individual action cannot solve this problem. I could choose to stop driving my car, and it would not make any meaningful difference to whether global warming continues. It's best to think of our society as being addicted to carbon and we need to forcibly break ourselves off the addiction if we're going to improve. You don't get very far by asking an alcoholic to kindly stop. But if you make the alcohol twice as expensive, you'll likely get what you want.

It's not about blame or credit. We have a problem, and no substantial action has been taken by the market to address the problem, because the externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions are not appropriately factored into the price we pay for products that cause such emissions.


Also, I should add that this idea of having the government levy a tax to correct an externality (Pigovian taxation) has been supported by a number of economists, even conservative ones like Greg Mankiw and George Shultz. That's because the whole point of the tax is to make the market work as it should -- which it doesn't, when people pollute the environment and don't pay for it. I don't take the addiction metaphor lightly. Two of the most important causes for the historical decline in smoking have been 1) learning more about the dangerous health effects of smoking and 2) higher taxes associated with purchasing cigarettes. Of course, industry advocates threw as much doubt onto the science linking cigarettes to cancer as they do now onto the science linking carbon dioxide emissions and global average temperature rises. We can help combat this by clearly describing the scientific consensus to people (97% of peer-reviewed papers published by climate scientists agree that humans are a primary cause of global warming).


#1 sure, #2 not so much. Demand for cigarettes, like alcohol, is relatively inelastic, so increasing the price doesn't result in great changes of quantity demanded. Sure, some quantity demanded will decrease, but it's not the main driver that prevents people from smoking. It's rather the awareness of greater risk for getting cancer.

Cigarettes, like alcohol, are taxed because goods which have relatively inelastic demand yield greater tax revenues. Other goods have deleterious effects like consuming sugar, chocolate, working in dangerous environments, etc., but you don't see the 'logic' of taxing goods applied there. Why? Because the demand for those goods are much more elastic (i.e. people can seek substitutes more easily). Substitutes for cigarettes and alcohol are (1) nonexistent, or (2) come at much higher prices (e.g. nicotine patches), and less value (can't smoke patches).

What's most interesting about these taxes is that they increase the price of more expensive brands relative to cheaper brands. For example, say we have Luxury Cigs going for $4 and Cheapo Cigs going for $1. If one buys the Luxury Cigs, their opportunity cost is 4 packs of Cheapo Cigs. If you tax all cigarettes at $2, then Luxury goes for $6 and Cheapos go for 3. Now, if one buys Luxury Cigs, then the opportunity cost is 2 packs of Cheapos. Purchasing cheaper cigarettes becomes more costly (opportunity cost), so more people would opt toward greater quantities of Luxury packs relative to quantities of Cheapos.


Look at how the tobacco industry supports higher taxes on the tobacco of their competitors (e.g. roll-your-own machines). Through taxation, the lobbyists of the large tobacco industries have leveled their competitors. Even the convenience stores teamed up against those competitors.
Notice how the relatively lower taxes on pipe tobacco and cigars were allowed to remain in place.

Regulation and taxes can be used to beat down competition, which politicians and their donors are completely fine with--so long as they're not stepping too hard on the toes of big donors (roll-your-own operators are small potatoes).
http://www.moneynews.com/Markets/cigare ... /id/524546

Taxes definitely are not about reducing the consumption. They're for maximizing government revenue for the politicians who in turn coordinate with their commercial donors, who also benefit from these taxes. All of this occurs under moral rhetoric and faulty economic analysis (notice how similar this is to the US Bombing Syria issue).

The problem with Pigouvian taxation and that type of economic analysis is that it completely overlooks how the political process operates. It just assumes benevolent 'despots' into existence. Besides, Pigouvian taxation doesn't account for the loss in cost-savings from reduced competition (it omits relevant variables, whoops). Consumers can be made worse off for the sake of 'helping' them. You won't get the expected outcomes if the special interest groups can team up with the very politicians who are presumably passing the 'best' laws to 'correct' our nation's ills.

Therefore, depending on government as the optimal choice to deal with pollution and health is based on an uninformed, normative position--or on an incomplete awareness of better alternatives, e.g. the market process.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:29 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I've always wondered about the relative benefits and costs of global warming. If it's getting warmer in globally(?) or in specifically areas at different rates(?), then new possibilities open up. For example, if Siberia was warmer, then it could produce better wine. Same with the UK. The effects are very vague, it seems.

True. The biggest gain might be a real northern passage opening up. Some folks are looking forward in that way.

However, its not just about the temperatures warming. If it were, that might not be so bad. The reality is more extreme weather events, such as we are already seeing.


Do you have some studies on "extreme weather events" which conclusively show that they're tied to rising temperatures/changes in currents, etc.?

And are there more extreme weather events in certain places, while in other places there are less extreme weather events?
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:35 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I think individual action is the only way this problem can be solved. Effectively, we need to incentivize people to modify their lifestyles, which may include, for example, finding new jobs or having less children. Our current system of government does not permit societal change through government action; rather, government action results in rent-seeking which results in virtually no change.


I agree that we need to incentivize people to modify their lifestyles. A tax on carbon emissions is an effective way to do that. It is simple logic. If it costs more to buy something, people will buy less of it (this is certainly true in the case of gasoline, though less strong of a statement for goods with more inelastic demands like water). Regulation on cigarettes is a great example of how this works. It is not just correlation; many studies show that increasing taxes on cigarettes results in a net reduction in smoking. This is an example of societal change through government action. There are also more direct related examples. See the amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990; this effectively set up a cap-and-trade system for acid rain emission, and is widely credited as a main reason why acid rain problems substantially declined following the law. It is too pessimistic and narrow-minded to go all philosophical on this question. This is an area where government intervention has proven to be effective in achieving goals, so let's stick with what works.


Did those studies include changes in preferences due to a change in awareness/knowledge of the relative risks with smoking?
Did they account for the change from lower insurance rates if one does not smoke?
I'm sure they've omitted as many relevant variables as possible in order to put the government policy in greater light. Again, it's about taxing inelastic goods to increase revenue. Anyone will use any means to justify such a goal (e.g. moral rhetoric and distorted studies). Again, this is similar to the US-Syria bombing issue.


Your assumptions of the benefits of government action would dovetail with EPA regulations. Did you know that forcing all gas stations to use more ethanol will result in greater problems for older model cars? This in turn will require more resources (thus pollution) in the repair of older cars, and/or for the additional supply of more cars due to the increasing depreciation rates of older models (thus increasing pollution).

And how did this happen? EPA conducted a study on <50 or so cars, and implemented the policy to the 'best' of their ability. Those are the kind of people you're assuming will improve things.


And what's your criteria for improvement? How much pollution should be reduced, and how much would reduce future temperatures? And what will be the outcomes of rising temperature rates for various places? Is it wise to implement policy with unclear goals and unclear consequences? And if so, is it wise to rely on a process which is impervious to change, does not go bankrupt, seeks to expand, and has poor corrective measures for holding itself accountable?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:37 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Individual action cannot solve this problem. I could choose to stop driving my car, and it would not make any meaningful difference to whether global warming continues. It's best to think of our society as being addicted to carbon and we need to forcibly break ourselves off the addiction if we're going to improve. You don't get very far by asking an alcoholic to kindly stop. But if you make the alcohol twice as expensive, you'll likely get what you want.

It's not about blame or credit. We have a problem, and no substantial action has been taken by the market to address the problem, because the externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions are not appropriately factored into the price we pay for products that cause such emissions.


If the market hasn't taken any actions to address the problems, why are US carbon dioxide emissions at their lowest levels since 1992? In fact, why are they lower than the standard set by the environmentalists' Kyoto Protocol even though the US did not ratify that treaty? Sounds like the free market is doing better at what the government wanted done.


The decline in US carbon dioxide emissions is attributable to a number of factors. Prominent among these has been the economic decline, which resulted in people traveling less and using less electricity. But also the market has taken small steps such as using more natural gas and increasing the amount of wind and solar power that is used. What's important to note, though, is that a ~10% decline from peak levels does not count as substantial action to address the problem. Even if the entire world was following the track we're on (they're not, currently), we'd still need to drastically reduce emissions well beyond current levels if we want to curtail the most negative impacts of climate change. There's no doubt that if we wait long enough, the market will adjust (painfully) to our warmer world. But people's lives and livelihoods hang in the balance of just how bad that transition is. We should be paying the correct price for carbon so that we don't do lots of damage to our environment, which will only come back to haunt us in the end.

See, the problem is that the only "substantial action" you environmentalists want to take is to abolish fossil fuels in favor of extremely inefficient, and in some cases antiquated, technologies. We're only "addicted" to carbon because it actually works. Be the first company to develop an efficient and profitable alternative and that company will make billions. Stop handing over billions of dollars of our taxpayer money to inefficient technologies at bankrupt companies.


I am not an environmentalist. I don't particularly care whether we damage the environment for some hippie philosophical reason. I think that we are gravely damaging our own futures through global warming, and I worry that many coastal cities and islands will be partially or fully submerged in a century. This is bad for us.

But also, there's nothing antiquated about solar or wind power -- these technologies have steadily made progress. I would like to accelerate the progress that is being made on these. The problem with your perspective is that carbon is only so cheap and profitable because we are not paying the right price for it. The true price of carbon-based fuels is much higher than what we pay at the gas pump, when the damages from climate change are factored in. It is not correct to say that because fossil fuel energy is cheaper at current market prices than solar energy, that the former is a better technology. No, it's quite clearly a very dangerous technology, given what we are doing to our atmosphere and our oceans. We just don't pay the right price for it, because no one is holding us accountable for the damage we do when we burn it. Society needs to pay the right price for it, and when that price is being paid, these competing technologies will be on a level playing field. Right now the government is giving the fossil fuel industry a huge subsidy (both literally and also by having fuel taxes that are way too low), and I thought you conservative folks all hated subsidies. I sure do.



What is the right price? And how does he know?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:49 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Individual action cannot solve this problem. I could choose to stop driving my car, and it would not make any meaningful difference to whether global warming continues. It's best to think of our society as being addicted to carbon and we need to forcibly break ourselves off the addiction if we're going to improve. You don't get very far by asking an alcoholic to kindly stop. But if you make the alcohol twice as expensive, you'll likely get what you want.

It's not about blame or credit. We have a problem, and no substantial action has been taken by the market to address the problem, because the externalities associated with carbon dioxide emissions are not appropriately factored into the price we pay for products that cause such emissions.


If the market hasn't taken any actions to address the problems, why are US carbon dioxide emissions at their lowest levels since 1992? In fact, why are they lower than the standard set by the environmentalists' Kyoto Protocol even though the US did not ratify that treaty? Sounds like the free market is doing better at what the government wanted done.


The decline in US carbon dioxide emissions is attributable to a number of factors. Prominent among these has been the economic decline, which resulted in people traveling less and using less electricity. But also the market has taken small steps such as using more natural gas and increasing the amount of wind and solar power that is used. What's important to note, though, is that a ~10% decline from peak levels does not count as substantial action to address the problem.

Even if the entire world was following the track we're on (they're not, currently), we'd still need to drastically reduce emissions well beyond current levels if we want to curtail the most negative impacts of climate change.


Which are what exactly? And what are the most positive impacts of climate change?

Is it wise to base one's decisions on a cost-only analysis? (No.)



Metsfanmax wrote:There's no doubt that if we wait long enough, the market will adjust (painfully) to our warmer world.


Notice the implicit assumption. Government can react faster, can readjust with less cost on net, and can better predict future benefits and costs (which are... what exactly?).

Is this assumption true? It might be if politicians and chief bureaucrats faced similar incentives to those in the market, but they don't. They can perform crappily, but it's not like you can take your money elsewhere. They can externalize the costs of wasteful policies onto others while hardly being held accountable (oh, gee, there's voting, but How many voters understand that the higher amounts of ethanol will result in greater damage to their older cars, and even if they knew that, how many would actually vote for someone else?)
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:54 pm

Pollution is a negative externality. If costs are internalized, then one would be forced to responsibly bear one's full costs, thereby (1) changing their current methods of production/consumption (i.e. become more efficient), and/or (2) lower their quantity consumed/produced.

Notwithstanding government's complete neglect of internalizing their own costs (especially the military's), the problem of externalities is dependent upon the rules within which the players operate. The most influential rules of our society, in regard to externalities, are predominantly controlled by a monopoly, the government court system. This system has failed time and time again to internalize people's externalities, yet the amusing solution from Mets is to rely again on the courts to provide the answer.

What's wrong with his line of thinking?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:27 am

Another fun example of why relying on government as the solution is misguided: prices of electricity!

Politically, it is not profitable to have 'your boys' increase the electricity bills, so you'd want to keep them low in order to secure more votes over a city or State*. Keeping low prices causes several outcomes: (1) greater consumption of electricity (more people will more often use their electronic devices, and (2) the incentive toward economizing on one's use of electricity is diminished (i.e. inefficiency). If the price of electricity was higher, one would opt toward methods that lower one's consumption--either through less use, or through more efficient use (energy-saving devices, etc.). In turn, the market would respond to this price change by creating products that consume less electricity. Overall, we'd get a greater shift of resources toward greater efficiency while consuming less electricity (since it's more expensive).

(3) People would seek substitutes. "What!? What can replace electricity?" No no, it's about relative changes--i.e. more to less. People would use less electricity by opting for methods and goods which require less electricity. For example, razors would be preferred to electric razors. There would also be greater demand for the permacultural market, which would lower pollution thus benefit the environment.

And people would do this even if they didn't care about environmental issues as much as Mets. That's how you get the right incentives; it's through the right prices, but regulatory policies restrict that pricing, which in turn prevents us from reaping the profits of this more environmentally friendly method--which would be voluntary. Therefore, there would be no need for coercion, thus no need for using more pollution in forcing people to comply, nor taking more of people's money.

However, some people still think the government is the optimal choice in these matters, which is baffling since the government is a primary cause of many environmental problems.


This has been mentioned in regard to water utilities being subsidized by government policy:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190361&p=4162208&hilit=water+farmers#p4162208


*
    At the federal level, I'm not sure how much control they directly exert over electricity prices, but I do know they implement many policies which favor greater investment, thereby causing more pollution. If you wish to internalize externalities, then relying on a process which rewards businesses for creating more externalities isn't the correct solution (e.g. tax write-offs for debt, lowering interest rates through monetary policy, providing subsidies to select businesses and interest groups, etc.) Notice how all of this can easily nullify nice-sounding carbon taxes. The taxes are simply passed onto consumers while the government compensates select businesses through more lenient regulation and subsidies.

Consider the above, and ask yourself: why rely on a process which initially causes and perpetuates the very problems we seek to resolve? That doesn't seem rational at all.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:07 am

Nobunaga wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:There continues to be a few disconnects with respect to the issue of global warming.

It's fairly clear that global warming is occuring and it's mostly manmade (although I'm not entirely sure whether that's a correlation or not). But let's assume it's manmade.


I'm sorry to see you say that with such conviction, Greek. Perhaps you've been away from the topic for a while.

The climate panic house of cards is falling down. I'd post a list of links, but that's pretty pointless here.

Do a bit of research and you will see:

- We've been cooling since the mid 90's.

- Data used by the UN panel ignored decades of recorded temperatures to create the data they needed, as well as eliminating the "heat island" compensation equation (to compensate for very high temps near concrete & asphalt) from their overall equation.

- The earth's surface heated (til the 90's) more than the atmosphere (looking at averages), effectively debunking the notion that this is atmospheric-based (I didn't get all the science, but maybe you will).

And the revelations go on and on...

For what it's worth.

Ask yourself also, who is making money on this, and who stands to make more if policies based on this belief continue? That's a big hint in unraveling what's going on.

For what it's worth.


No offense, but I trust scientists more than you. In any event, I addressed your last three sentences in my original post in this thread. You're confusing the science behind global warming with the parties' responses to global warming. That seems to be the crux of the problem some conservatives have with debating this issue. Your position that "there is no global warming because scientists are self-interested" is untenable for a number of reasons. First, there is too much data and there are too many scientists to prove your point. Second, there is no inherent value in the scientific conclusion of global warming; as Mets accurately puts, there is more money in proving global warming doesn't exist or is not manmade than that it exists and is manmade. Third, you're ignoring science, which is always a bad way to start an argument.

So the issue that you and most conservatives should be debating is the magnitude of the problem and how to deal with it (if at all). That is a winning issue for conservatives as I laid out above. The solutions that have been put forward to global warming are either catrastophically ridiculous and would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs or are merely rent-seeking type ideas (i.e. carbon tax or credits for wind farms). Those are more easily debated in your favor than arguing about the science.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:13 am

Continued from previous discussion (although the most important part is the part I wrote yesterday).

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:]For example, car emmissions standards were raised again (last year?). This caused some hoopla in the conservative camp, but if you look at the actual standards, the deadlines to reach those standards are fairly ridiculous (e.g. "by the year 2040"). So the "most liberal" (in quotes because I don't agree) president in history is setting largely ineffective emmissions standards (probably because of lobbying by car manufacturers). What to do? Individual action is the only answer. I'm ignoring the hypocrisy of asking others to sacrifice when you will not sacrifice, but it is what it is.


I too believe that individual action is necessary -- but the individual action I envision is people calling up their representatives and telling them to pass a carbon tax. The beautiful thing about that is that we don't need every single American to be passionate about it; just enough so that we can defeat the lobbyists. There are something like four full-time oil industry lobbyists for every member of Congress. We wouldn't need that large of a fraction of the population to start drowning their voices out.


I don't want to rehash our "what is more effective to influence: calling reps vs. voting vs. donating" discussion. But, as I indicated in my response to your first response to my first paragraph, the only way a carbon tax would work is if it is prohibitvely expensive for companies to produce pollution and pay the tax. And I haven't even addressed the idea that costs of the tax would pass to consumers, which would effectively make the tax a tax on consumers (and no one likes paying more tax).

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:And, frankly, it is about blame (maybe not credit). There are certain industries and certain jobs that account for more pollution than others. Those industries and employees will have to suffer and receive the brunt of any major overhaul.


Everyone will have to adjust, and certainly some more than others. And when technology shifts, people have to shift industries. But I don't blame a coal worker in West Virginia for our problems; collectively society is responsible. The transportation industry is responsible for a large percentage of carbon dioxide emissions, but they are just responding to society's demand to transport things.


Okay. But you do understand that even though it's a collective problem, the people that will be harmed the most are people that cause the pollution, right? I'm not convinced you understand that. It may be that I am injured by a less effective transportation industry, but I will not be injured as much as a truck driver who loses his or her job.

I'm in favor of individual and incremental (if chosen by the individual) change. I'm not in favor of government intervention simply because the rent-seeking element is too prevelant and abusive.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:33 am

thegreekdog wrote:With respect to smoking, I still don't see (in the new link to the PDF you provided) any data showing causation (there isn't even data showing correlation really). I think if the tax on cigarettes resulted in the cost rising to, let's say, $50 a pack, people would quit smoking. Therefore, I agree, in theory, that taxes can be used to affect peoples' activities. I just don't think that's how our government uses taxes. If the government was interested in, say, stopping the use of tobacco (or guns or gasoline or carbon), it could impose a very onerous tax or could outlaw the use of the product completely. So, the question I have is - why doesn't the government do this? The only reasonable answer is that the government wants to collect revenue and can point to the dangers of the product as justification of increasing revenue collection.

Reserved for remaining thoughts on your other stuff (don't have time right now).


Freedom of choice. No one would put up with an absolute ban on a such a widely used product in this country (cf. Prohibition), so it would likely be political suicide to try and push for one. Cigarette taxes are indeed a combination of both an effective revenue-raising tool and a tool to help keep the public health cared for, as the link demonstrated. You're making an inaccurate assumption about the way smokers operate. It is simply not the case that everyone is a hardcore addict that will pay whatever price they need to continue smoking. As they point out, one obvious reason why high taxes keep smoking rates down is that it often convinces people who are not yet smokers to stay away, or those who once smoked and no longer do from getting re-addicted. Of course this doesn't work on everyone, but there's a smooth relationship there -- the more you raise taxes, the more people you stop from smoking, and the right balance needs to be found.

thegreekdog wrote:I don't want to rehash our "what is more effective to influence: calling reps vs. voting vs. donating" discussion. But, as I indicated in my response to your first response to my first paragraph, the only way a carbon tax would work is if it is prohibitvely expensive for companies to produce pollution and pay the tax. And I haven't even addressed the idea that costs of the tax would pass to consumers, which would effectively make the tax a tax on consumers (and no one likes paying more tax).


Your assumption about the carbon tax is incorrect. The market does not work like that. It doesn't need to be impossible to continue developing oil and natural gas for a shift in the industry to occur. All that needs to happen is for competing technologies to operate on a level playing field (which they currently don't). The price for carbon is artificially low because the global warming externality is not accounted for in the price. When we are paying the correct price for it, other technologies will naturally appear more viable, and the industry will gradually shift toward the better technology.

I also only advocate a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Pigovian taxation inherently requires that the money be returned to consumers to offset the damage that would otherwise be done to them. I would not be as happy with a bill where the government kept some of the revenue (though I recognize this is difficult to achieve in Congress these days). But I also think global warming is a concern, and perhaps in this case perfect is the enemy of the good.

Okay. But you do understand that even though it's a collective problem, the people that will be harmed the most are people that cause the pollution, right? I'm not convinced you understand that. It may be that I am injured by a less effective transportation industry, but I will not be injured as much as a truck driver who loses his or her job.


I would say that describing a coal miner or truck driver as "causing" the pollution is simply inappropriate, since they would not be driving the truck or mining the coal if someone else didn't want them to do so. But yes, I understand that some people will have to transition careers. This happens whenever a technology becomes antiquated. I can't control the fact that fossil fuels are dangerous and inherently nonrenewable. Eventually these people will lose their jobs either way -- I just want to speed up the timeline for that transition, for the safety of our species. And it doesn't have to be so bad for the coal miners anyway.

I'm in favor of individual and incremental (if chosen by the individual) change. I'm not in favor of government intervention simply because the rent-seeking element is too prevelant and abusive.


I'm in favor of the market working as it ought to, and it currently doesn't. Pigovian taxation is one of the obvious mechanisms that government actually exists to perform.

Oh, and I saw like seven minimized BBS posts show up, and I can only assume some of them are directed at me. Don't bother, I'm not reading your posts anymore.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:14 am

Metsfanmax wrote:Freedom of choice. No one would put up with an absolute ban on a such a widely used product in this country (cf. Prohibition), so it would likely be political suicide to try and push for one. Cigarette taxes are indeed a combination of both an effective revenue-raising tool and a tool to help keep the public health cared for, as the link demonstrated. You're making an inaccurate assumption about the way smokers operate. It is simply not the case that everyone is a hardcore addict that will pay whatever price they need to continue smoking. As they point out, one obvious reason why high taxes keep smoking rates down is that it often convinces people who are not yet smokers to stay away, or those who once smoked and no longer do from getting re-addicted. Of course this doesn't work on everyone, but there's a smooth relationship there -- the more you raise taxes, the more people you stop from smoking, and the right balance needs to be found.


The two links you've provided in this regard don't actually show any causation evidence. There aren't even quotes from ex-smokers saying "I quit because smoking is too expensive." I'm sure there are people who quit smoking because it's too expensive and because of health risks, but I simply don't know how many people quit smoking merely because the tax increases from 5 cents to 20 cents on a pack of cigarettes. I have anecdotal evidence - I was a smoker - and I quit because of health risks, not because of the cost. And a government does not need to raise the tax to 100%; if the government was interested more in dramatically reducing tobacco use (and not in generating revenue) it could raise a tax that was prohibitively expensive that is less than 100%. For example, raise the tax from 5 cents to $3.00 a pack (so that a pack now costs upwards of $15). Additionally, and maybe more importantly, tobacco costs more or less depending on the jurisdiction.

In the case of carbon emmissions, we don't live in a perfect government world. The government wants polluters to exist and therefore any tax on carbon emmissions, in my opinion, will be based primarily on revenue generated and not on "the right balance" as you put it. I guess we'll see, but even politicians ardently in favor of reduced pollution levels and the carbon emmission tax still receive funds and are lobbied by polluters.

Metsfanmax wrote:Your assumption about the carbon tax is incorrect. The market does not work like that. It doesn't need to be impossible to continue developing oil and natural gas for a shift in the industry to occur. All that needs to happen is for competing technologies to operate on a level playing field (which they currently don't). The price for carbon is artificially low because the global warming externality is not accounted for in the price. When we are paying the correct price for it, other technologies will naturally appear more viable, and the industry will gradually shift toward the better technology.

I also only advocate a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Pigovian taxation inherently requires that the money be returned to consumers to offset the damage that would otherwise be done to them. I would not be as happy with a bill where the government kept some of the revenue (though I recognize this is difficult to achieve in Congress these days). But I also think global warming is a concern, and perhaps in this case perfect is the enemy of the good.


See above (and you know my inherent distrust of government). The other problem is that consumers will bear the burden of any carbon tax. That may be a good thing (I think it is in the context of trying to reduce pollution - if I need to pay more for coal electricity than wind electricity because of carbon taxes, I'm purchasing wind electricty). But people inherently don't like to pay more for stuff via taxes (even cigarettes). In any event, as you've noted a revenue-neutral tax is difficult to achieve in Congress. Further, we need only look to the energy generation industry to find issues with rent-seeking.

Metsfanmax wrote:I would say that describing a coal miner or truck driver as "causing" the pollution is simply inappropriate, since they would not be driving the truck or mining the coal if someone else didn't want them to do so. But yes, I understand that some people will have to transition careers. This happens whenever a technology becomes antiquated. I can't control the fact that fossil fuels are dangerous and inherently nonrenewable. Eventually these people will lose their jobs either way -- I just want to speed up the timeline for that transition, for the safety of our species. And it doesn't have to be so bad for the coal miners anyway.


I don't disagree that consumers create the demand fulfilled by coal miners and truck drivers. And ultimately what you're going to tell me is that consumers should pay for retraining of the coal miners and truck drivers that they've demanded over the period of time. I tend to be in favor of retraining programs (generally), but get a little concerned when businesses don't bear the burden of the cost (where the government does). But I like it better than the alternative (which is unemployment compensation).

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm in favor of the market working as it ought to, and it currently doesn't. Pigovian taxation is one of the obvious mechanisms that government actually exists to perform.


At the risk of being BBS-ian (and incurring foe-ish wrath), why do you think the market doesn't work? My theory (untested and unproven) is that the free market doesn't work because the businesses that generate the pollution and the government work in tandem, rather than separately. In other words, I don't blame the market, I blame the individual business's influence on government to prevent competition, especially from cleaner forms of energy usage. As just one example and without getting into details, most electricity generation is highly regulated, including with respect to price. Why? To keep costs down for consumers. Why? So that consumers will continue to buy electricity that is generated by polluters. How does it happen? Lobbying, money, rent-seeking. Until these are removed, the free market cannot work. If my choices are electricity from a polluter that costs $1.00 (because of government intervention) compared to electricity from a wind farm that costs $3.00, I'm buying the former, not the latter.

Another quick example - when the U.S. motor vehicle manufacturing industry when down the shitter in 2009, the U.S. government bailed it out. Why did it not attach stringent pollution control measures to that bailout?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby Night Strike on Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:25 am

Metsfanmax wrote:Say what you will about the money trail, but do not accuse this of being "fringe science." As I linked above, 97% of climate science papers published in peer-reviewed journals agree with the consensus view that human-induced CO2 emissions play the primary role in recent warming, and the upcoming IPCC report is stating this with greater than 95% certainty -- a remarkably confident statement given just how complicated the science is. The people who insist that this is a hoax are the ones on the fringe, numerically speaking. They could still be right, though this is quite unlikely -- but they conduct science that is questionable at best, and have been repeatedly called out by other scientists for this reason.


It's called self-serving group-think. The same people who do the peer-reviewing are the same ones who profit off global warming hysteria (although not as much as the politicians profit).

Metsfanmax wrote:What's important to note, though, is that a ~10% decline from peak levels does not count as substantial action to address the problem. Even if the entire world was following the track we're on (they're not, currently), we'd still need to drastically reduce emissions well beyond current levels if we want to curtail the most negative impacts of climate change.


You're right....the only reduction good enough is to shut off all forms of technology immediately.....and the earth might cool by 1 degree. That's why it's all BS. And what are all of these "most negative impacts"? The same ones that said the Arctic ice would be gone by this year and that many port cities would be under several feet of ocean water? Yep, those are real and true impacts. :roll:

Metsfanmax wrote:But also, there's nothing antiquated about solar or wind power -- these technologies have steadily made progress. I would like to accelerate the progress that is being made on these. The problem with your perspective is that carbon is only so cheap and profitable because we are not paying the right price for it. The true price of carbon-based fuels is much higher than what we pay at the gas pump, when the damages from climate change are factored in. It is not correct to say that because fossil fuel energy is cheaper at current market prices than solar energy, that the former is a better technology. No, it's quite clearly a very dangerous technology, given what we are doing to our atmosphere and our oceans. We just don't pay the right price for it, because no one is holding us accountable for the damage we do when we burn it. Society needs to pay the right price for it, and when that price is being paid, these competing technologies will be on a level playing field. Right now the government is giving the fossil fuel industry a huge subsidy (both literally and also by having fuel taxes that are way too low), and I thought you conservative folks all hated subsidies. I sure do.


Wind power is antiquated.....but both solar and wind are extremely inefficient. They require a stable form of energy to be available as back up, which is why they can never become a substantial portion of the electric grid on their own (at least using current technology). And this "true-price" BS is only opinion and conjecture simply because you all believe that all of us evil-fossil fuel burners aren't paying enough to the government. The true danger in today's world is having an unreliable system of energy. Our world needs energy to run, and solar and wind cannot provide it reliably.

And there are no subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. In fact, the subsidies are given to the inefficient and antiquated "green" technologies. Just because we don't pay enough to the government (how that "fixes" global warming has NEVER been explained) in your arbitrary system doesn't mean we're not paying market prices. In fact, we're actually artificially raising the price of fossil fuels because the government is illegally piling on regulations on top of other regulations simply because they don't like it.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby oVo on Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:25 am

We're addicted to fossil fuels not because they work, but because that has been THE energy source for more than a century. Research into better ways of meeting energy needs has been ongoing because people have always known these resources are finite and have an impact on the world we inhabit. Accepting change is always a slow process, deep rooted big money wants everything to remain the same and will do it's best to hold fast, but people know change is inevitable. It isn't a matter of how, it is simply when.

Green technology receives subsidies as added incentive for research & development to make it practical, cost effective and efficient. Fossil fuels receive tax breaks as incentive to keep consumer cost down, profits up and new exploration constant.

Both methods are antiquated and need to evolve.

Night Strike, I'm in Texas and when Bush was governor restrictions on industry were limited and lifted, pollution climbed. Houston had the most polluted air in the nation and Dallas constantly had air hazard warnings with both cities posting air conditions with color codes, much like terror levels. There are signs adjacent to rivers warning people "Do Not Eat Fish Caught Here" and some days the chemical aroma is detectible driving over a bridge with the windows down.

In all American cities there is so much concrete --and so little green space-- that rain water run off from downtown and outward urban areas is even toxic to the region.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:45 am

thegreekdog wrote:Continued from previous discussion (although the most important part is the part I wrote yesterday).

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:]For example, car emmissions standards were raised again (last year?). This caused some hoopla in the conservative camp, but if you look at the actual standards, the deadlines to reach those standards are fairly ridiculous (e.g. "by the year 2040"). So the "most liberal" (in quotes because I don't agree) president in history is setting largely ineffective emmissions standards (probably because of lobbying by car manufacturers). What to do? Individual action is the only answer. I'm ignoring the hypocrisy of asking others to sacrifice when you will not sacrifice, but it is what it is.


I too believe that individual action is necessary -- but the individual action I envision is people calling up their representatives and telling them to pass a carbon tax. The beautiful thing about that is that we don't need every single American to be passionate about it; just enough so that we can defeat the lobbyists. There are something like four full-time oil industry lobbyists for every member of Congress. We wouldn't need that large of a fraction of the population to start drowning their voices out.


I don't want to rehash our "what is more effective to influence: calling reps vs. voting vs. donating" discussion. But, as I indicated in my response to your first response to my first paragraph, the only way a carbon tax would work is if it is prohibitvely expensive for companies to produce pollution and pay the tax. And I haven't even addressed the idea that costs of the tax would pass to consumers, which would effectively make the tax a tax on consumers (and no one likes paying more tax).


Exactly. And since government is more than willing to reduce costs for select businesses through tax write-offs, (in)direct subsidies, monetary policy, etc., then it's no surprise that corporations won't mind such taxes as much as they would without the government-provided benefits. They get their money anyway, and they'll pass on the costs to the consumers (i.e. the majority of Americans).

The only rebuttal is that taxes alone can reduce the quantity demanded, thereby diminishing their profits, which they otherwise would have made (of course, [insert benefits of rent-seeking], and that rebuttal becomes moot.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Global warming... again.

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:50 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I'm in favor of individual and incremental (if chosen by the individual) change. I'm not in favor of government intervention simply because the rent-seeking element is too prevelant and abusive.


I'm in favor of the market working as it ought to, and it currently doesn't. Pigovian taxation is one of the obvious mechanisms that government actually exists to perform.

Oh, and I saw like seven minimized BBS posts show up, and I can only assume some of them are directed at me. Don't bother, I'm not reading your posts anymore.


The fundamental problem with your stance is your omitting the rent-seeking element involved in politics. If you can't mitigate those effects, then any means for implementing environmentally friendly goals through government would be counter-productive. If you understand the outcomes of the political process, then you'd seek alternatives, e.g. the market (thus significantly less government intervention).

I know you're ignoring this, but you really need to think beyond your initial premises about government.

You selected a very small sample of what government can do (and argued that correlation = causation), but you've left out much of what government actually does (rent-seeking/corruption). You're exhibiting confirmation bias--and the Pigouvian taxation argument has already been defeated.

When you consider the greater realm of activities within political institutions, then your position becomes much more untenable. It's up to you to challenge your assumptions, and hopefully, you'll do so.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jusplay4fun