IGX

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:Pollution is bad, even if you don't believe in global warming. Taxing carbon emissions (or other polution) to reflect even the lower estimates of their costs will result in a more efficient outcome than either regulation or doing nothing. That revenue should then be used to lower other taxes, most of which are inefficient ways to raise revenue.

Allegedly free-market politicians are missing the boat here. They fail to understand (or care about) the distinction between efficient taxation that works with the market and inefficient taxation that works against it. The result is that they look like lunatics and we're left with a shitty tax system.

While you're right, there's more to it than that. Two problems IMO:
1. Regulators, especially federal ones, have not adapted to efficient regulation and taxation (partially because they want to defend their jobs in their current form).

The inefficiency of regulators, and the inherent inefficiency of most types of regulation, is another reason for people who favor smaller, more efficient government to push for the taxation of emissions. It can (and should) replace regulation.

2. Relevant efficiency arguments do not take into account poverty alleviation (real poverty) and other concerns of developing countries.

Are you referring to the fact that people in poor countries burn dirtier fuels than we would like them to, and that their demand for clean air will likely increase as they become wealthier? In any case, the amount that the developing world pollutes does not lessen the harm that our pollution causes, especially when you consider that all of the harm is not global.

grip junky wrote:People always seem to worry over the wrong things. 3 degrees over 300 years?

The "only X degrees?! who gives a fuck?!" responses strike me as dumber and more willfully ignorant than the usual "it's a commie conspiracy" shit.

That's largely just political rhetoric that has little to do with reality

Oh, okay then.

Pinky wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:The inefficiency of regulators, and the inherent inefficiency of most types of regulation, is another reason for people who favor smaller, more efficient government to push for the taxation of emissions. It can (and should) replace regulation.

2. Relevant efficiency arguments do not take into account poverty alleviation (real poverty) and other concerns of developing countries.

Are you referring to the fact that people in poor countries burn dirtier fuels than we would like them to, and that their demand for clean air will likely increase as they become wealthier? In any case, the amount that the developing world pollutes does not lessen the harm that our pollution causes, especially when you consider that all of the harm is not global.

Agree with your first point, but they are a powerful lobbying group and Congress has never demonstrated the sense to regulate so effectively.

Re the second point, I'm stating that not only do poorer countries burn dirtier fuels (and burn them in a dirtier manner), but also that market forces in their countries and ours make this economically advantageous for them. I agree that their demand for clean air/water will increase as they become wealthier-- but this assumes that they can effectively transform their economies into ones that make this possible. Even if they do, there is no guarantee that other less developed countries will not embrace these polluting industries.

We have pretty effectively limited our air pollution for the most part (largely by exporting it); the localized harm is mostly in areas that naturally collect pollution (like LA). Unless I'm mistaken, carbon and similar taxes will do little to reduce gross pollution, just the areas where it happens. Muller's argument (and I haven't read his paper, just the editorial) seems to be that the pollution in the developing world will have the largest effect on total environmental damage.

There are few mechanisms in place to regulate international pollution that damages neighboring countries-- those would probably have to be set by treaty, and both the polluting and polluted countries would have to agree to them, and agree to effective enforcement. Both have never been effectively done.

IMO the biggest weakness of the climate lobby is that they don't take the dynamics of economic growth/development and pollution seriously-- especially the developing country aspect. A pollution limiting model has to seriously consider this, and requires real buy in by these developing countries to work. Refusing to acknowledge this aspect of the argument is the biggest weakness of the climate change argument-- and until they are even willing to acknowledge it, it makes their argument very hard for me to take seriously.

milosz wrote:

grip junky wrote:People always seem to worry over the wrong things. 3 degrees over 300 years?

The "only X degrees?! who gives a fuck?!" responses strike me as dumber and more willfully ignorant than the usual "it's a commie conspiracy" shit.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Let me ask you, the earth has been hotter it has been colder what is the right temperature? The earth has never stayed the same, It has cooled down and it has heated up just as fast as it is now. What is that perfect temp?

I get why this is such a big thing with most people, It gives them something to think about during thier 40 mile one way commute with a drive time of hour and 15 minutes.

grip junky wrote:Let me ask you, the earth has been hotter it has been colder what is the right temperature? The earth has never stayed the same, It has cooled down and it has heated up just as fast as it is now. What is that perfect temp?

This isn't what you said. You made the usual "it's oooooonly x degrees" argument - which is problematic and offensive because it relies on the stupidity of the average person, who only sees a small number and falls back to the assumption that a small number can't be relevant.

Turdacious wrote: IMO the biggest weakness of the climate lobby is that they don't take the dynamics of economic growth/development and pollution seriously-- especially the developing country aspect. A pollution limiting model has to seriously consider this, and requires real buy in by these developing countries to work. Refusing to acknowledge this aspect of the argument is the biggest weakness of the climate change argument-- and until they are even willing to acknowledge it, it makes their argument very hard for me to take seriously.

that's not entirely true.

first, everyone knows that the pollution in developing countries is a major issue. limiting that pollution while allowing developing countries to develop is not an easy equation to solve.

second, the regulations in europe provide incentives to developing countries to invest in clean energy technologies--wind, biomass, hydro. the revenue from offset allowances generated by projects in china, india, etc have led to significant development clean energy projects in those countries.

perfect. no. but the fact is climate regulation in europe both recognizes and addresses the weaknesses you allege.

Pinky wrote:Taxing carbon emissions (or other polution) to reflect even the lower estimates of their costs will result in a more efficient outcome than either regulation or doing nothing.

The wealthy won't notice the taxes in their lives. The poor will get subsidies to "offset" the regressive nature of the taxes.

Guess who gets to pay the largest margins wrt their incomes? The same "middle class" that everyone claims they love but usually fuck.

cleaner464 wrote:http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.s ... chard.html

"There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers -- the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet -- demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions."

Politics. BFD.

One-Time Alarmist James Lovelock Recants A Bit On Global Warming

Hysteria: The scientist who brought us the Gaia theory that Earth is a living being, which has led to a bizarre planet worship, has decided that global warming alarmists have gone too far. It's nice to see some clear thinking.

James Lovelock admitted on MSNBC in April that he had overstated the case for man-made global warming and conceded that "we don't know what the climate is doing."

The 92-year-old Lovelock said: "We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened."

Moreover, Lovelock has cast doubt on the article of faith that the science on global warming is settled.

And they sure want to ignore that he said in reference to the "settled science" on global warming that the "one thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything."

He said: "You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time."

http://news.investors.com/article/61609 ... oo-far.htm

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote: IMO the biggest weakness of the climate lobby is that they don't take the dynamics of economic growth/development and pollution seriously-- especially the developing country aspect. A pollution limiting model has to seriously consider this, and requires real buy in by these developing countries to work. Refusing to acknowledge this aspect of the argument is the biggest weakness of the climate change argument-- and until they are even willing to acknowledge it, it makes their argument very hard for me to take seriously.

that's not entirely true.

first, everyone knows that the pollution in developing countries is a major issue. limiting that pollution while allowing developing countries to develop is not an easy equation to solve.

second, the regulations in europe provide incentives to developing countries to invest in clean energy technologies--wind, biomass, hydro. the revenue from offset allowances generated by projects in china, india, etc have led to significant development clean energy projects in those countries.

perfect. no. but the fact is climate regulation in europe both recognizes and addresses the weaknesses you allege.

Does it? It seems that while the localized pollution reduction would be a benefit to Europe (although at a higher cost, but in an area where it doesn't matter that much), is the overall benefit positive? It seems unlikely that industrial producers in developing countries pollute at the same level as the European ones did-- my guess is that they pollute more (as keeping costs down is likely more important in their economies). Even if you factor out the increasing pollution related to poverty reduction in developing countries-- there may be no real pollution reduction.

Serious question... why does this thread exist?

DMW already has a pretty good climate change thread, and even though my views on this would surprise many of the leftwing knobbers on the board, this particular batch of drivel takes up a worthy space that could be occupied by titties.

perhaps syaigh could rescue this thread with tits, if in fact the so-named poster is a woman

I'm not sure this thread is even able to be rescued anymore. If it is, it will take tits from a woman of the board.

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:The inefficiency of regulators, and the inherent inefficiency of most types of regulation, is another reason for people who favor smaller, more efficient government to push for the taxation of emissions. It can (and should) replace regulation.

Agree with your first point, but they are a powerful lobbying group and Congress has never demonstrated the sense to regulate so effectively.

We can rule out almost any good idea by looking at what might make it through Congress.

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote: IMO the biggest weakness of the climate lobby is that they don't take the dynamics of economic growth/development and pollution seriously-- especially the developing country aspect. A pollution limiting model has to seriously consider this, and requires real buy in by these developing countries to work. Refusing to acknowledge this aspect of the argument is the biggest weakness of the climate change argument-- and until they are even willing to acknowledge it, it makes their argument very hard for me to take seriously.

that's not entirely true.

first, everyone knows that the pollution in developing countries is a major issue. limiting that pollution while allowing developing countries to develop is not an easy equation to solve.

second, the regulations in europe provide incentives to developing countries to invest in clean energy technologies--wind, biomass, hydro. the revenue from offset allowances generated by projects in china, india, etc have led to significant development clean energy projects in those countries.

perfect. no. but the fact is climate regulation in europe both recognizes and addresses the weaknesses you allege.

Does it? It seems that while the localized pollution reduction would be a benefit to Europe (although at a higher cost, but in an area where it doesn't matter that much), is the overall benefit positive? It seems unlikely that industrial producers in developing countries pollute at the same level as the European ones did-- my guess is that they pollute more (as keeping costs down is likely more important in their economies). Even if you factor out the increasing pollution related to poverty reduction in developing countries-- there may be no real pollution reduction.

No international effort will be effective unless it's coupled with free trade agreements that aren't scuttled by special interests in the developed world.

Europe providing incentives for investment in clean energy in the third world is silly. What they need to do is stop protecting their local farmers and other assholes, and replace tariffs with a carbon tax.

Pinky wrote: What they need to do is stop protecting their local farmers and other assholes, and replace tariffs with a carbon tax.

presumably that advice applies to the u.s.

odds are impossibly long on anyone taking your advice.

out of curiosity, how do your students react when they figure out that rational policy choices have no chance? other than getting drunk and having casual sex, that is.

dead man walking wrote:

Pinky wrote: What they need to do is stop protecting their local farmers and other assholes, and replace tariffs with a carbon tax.

presumably that advice applies to the u.s.

odds are impossibly long on anyone taking your advice.

Europe is already trying it. However, it requires buy in from other countries and closing the work arounds (which would likely be difficult).

Never mind the fact that from a developing country perspective that carbon taxes are regressive (again with the poverty aspect...).

Turdacious wrote: Never mind the fact that from a developing country perspective that carbon taxes are regressive (again with the poverty aspect...).

you seem to assume there are not costs imposed on the poor if there is no tax. doing a full accounting of costs--from flooding, drought, health care, and such--is not simple.

what is your fairer solution?

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote: Never mind the fact that from a developing country perspective that carbon taxes are regressive (again with the poverty aspect...).

you seem to assume there are not costs imposed on the poor if there is no tax. doing a full accounting of costs--from flooding, drought, health care, and such--is not simple.

what is your fairer solution?

Assuming we're talking about those living below the international poverty line of $1.25:
health care-- they don't have any
flooding-- compare against constant struggle to keep from starving to death, and they already face it
drought-- compare against constant struggle to keep from starving to death, and they already face it

The simplest solution-- ensuring the desperately poor stay desperately poor-- is a workable solution, but pretty fucked up when you actually think about it. Which is why the climate change crowd ignores it...

I have a fair solution. One of the theories on what caused the cooling that started the little ice age was the rapid depopulation of the earth from the black death. So I was thinking a bunch of you green types could hang your selves and save the earth.

turd,

the poor will face more disease, have less food to eat, etc if something is not done.

the term "climate change crowd" reflects the same mindless bias behind terms like nigger, kike, women's libbers, and such.

I fucking hate wasteful pollution. Hate it. Can't stand to hear Rush Limbaugh cronies talk about how cool it is to by a Hummer to drive to soccer because "we can". Want to beat people over the head that attack green energy sources because they're not yet viable. No shit, since when has investing in future promise become automatically stupid?

On the other hand, the "global warming" and "climate change" movement are as worthy of my rage. They have absolutely ruined decades of progress on educating and reducing waste. They chase nebulous abstractions that are impossible to prove (it is a well-known, non-biased theory that warming creates CO2, not the other way around).

You want a movement? Focus on a locale and make changes. Show real data of existing pollutants. Expose waste and harm (see Simplot). The collective money spent on the current stupid global climate movement over the last decade could have funded material change around the world.

Instead we have stupid internet fights over abstract, unprovable theories that distract us from what is actually harming our well-being - unnecessary pollution.

Chik-fil-a is not getting warmer inside bichos.