Scientific Discussion (No Politics) regarding validity of climate change

[wheatbeer]

Overseas trade will decline due to rising energy costs (and increased Chinese wages) even without any special carbon tax.

But I agree with Gargantua’s assessment of the efficacy of carbon taxes.  Such taxes would need to be prohibitively high to achieve their goal.

If you want to use the market to change behavior, invest in a superior alternative (for example: high speed rail).

[Guest]

solar panels

[GoSanchez6]

I will say it again man may have a slight impact on the environment but to think that we are in complete command of the environment due to SUV’s and aerosol cans is lunacy. Once again follow the money trail gents. The people that are pushing this stand to gain finacially from this. Al Gore has 10,000 sq ft house and flies on private jets if he cared soo much about the environment don’t you think he would be doing his part to preserve it. I know politics is not supposed to be involved in this discussion but oh well. I get tired of people(politicians) telling me because I drive a Ford explorer and I have my temperature set at 72 somehow I am destroying the planet while they fly on private jets and and have SUV’s bigger than mine.

[LHoffman]

@Vance:

solar panels

?

[wheatbeer]

@GoSanchez6:

Once again follow the money trail gents.

Certain representatives from both sides of this debate have strong economic interests in public policy.  Certain representatives from both sides also live hypocritically.

If someone advocates the right course for the wrong reasons, does that make the course they advocate wrong?

[LHoffman]

@wheatbeer:

If you want to use the market to change behavior, invest in a superior alternative (for example: high speed rail).

Governments all over are doing this; investing in a a “superior” alternative. Unfortunately, such a thing does not yet exist in most circumstances. I would think that the figures on solar, wind, bio-fuel etc… show that they are not (yet perhaps) superior alternatives. I would think that “superior” means more efficient, effective and cost effective. So far this has not proven to be the case, if the massive gov subsidies required to sustain them are any indication. High speed rail may be a fine application in very specific situations, but very rarely in the United States at least. It too must be gov subsidized because the costs are so huge to construct such a system. Plus, it is generally wasteful of taxpayer money because Americans either drive or fly or take a bus… all costs considered, rail is not really superior.

One aspect is similar to the experiment with coins vs. paper money. For years the US government has been trying to get people accustomed to using coins over paper bills. I believe the reasoning is that coins have a longer life than bills and are ultimately more cost effective to produce. However, it is not what people here want. Men do not wish to carry around euro manpurses and jingle with change all the time. It is more convenient to use bills. Unfortunately, that it what the people “buy”, in a manner of speaking, so that is what gets produced. That is how the free market works.

Now, the government could force people into using only coins by only minting coins and discontinuing bills, which I think is a good analogy to what Frimm and Canuck are suggesting governments do through executive order or tax/fee. Fortunately, the people are not so far to one end which would allow elected officials to implement something so… radical… (yet).

[frimmel]

@Gargantua:

As for you Frimmel. :)

Let’s say I have chosen to accept you are 100% right?

This massive social upheaving you are talking about…� is the plan to infect huge swaths of the population with a fatal biological agent?� Because you seem to support VERY drastic change and feel that it needs to happen immediately -or else-.

There isn’t a plan, Garg. As a society we’ve barely accepted there is a problem in need of a solution. Social upheaval is what happens when there isn’t enough food and water and room to live.

We (i.e. society) can choose to change and try to prevent catastrophe and make preparation for what is likely or we can have change forced upon us by circumstances utterly beyond our control and for which we haven’t made any preparations. We can act or be acted upon.

I linked earlier to a rough outline of the sorts of things that would be required.

[frimmel]

No Lhoffman, superior means, “Doesn’t dump loads of carbon into the atmosphere that contributes to global warming.” Destroying the biosphere is not cost effective.

[wheatbeer]

My point isn’t limited to any particular technology or nation.  I am just saying that investing in (not subsidizing) superior alternatives will be more effective than taxing undesirable behaviors (especially if those behaviors lack practical alternatives).

By superior I mean both long term environmental viability and long term economic viability.

[LHoffman]

@wheatbeer:

By superior I mean both long term environmental viability and long term economic viability.

Right now, the options fitting both of these categories are few.

[LHoffman]

@frimmel:

No Lhoffman, superior means, “Doesn’t dump loads of carbon into the atmosphere that contributes to global warming.” Destroying the biosphere is not cost effective.

Oh, I beg to differ, destroying the biosphere is very cost effective. All I need to do is unload all of my moms hairspray and burn my garbage; the first costs little and the second costs nothing. Ha-ha but I get your point… the environment is better to preserve in the first place than to wreck and repair. Agreed. Unfortunately, most people are not going to want to radically change their lifestyle and quality of life to combat an invisible and mostly imperceptible (to them) threat. I am not agreeing with them, I am just stating that. I for one do not want to ride my bike 14 miles to and from work every day. Or take a bus. Or a train which does not exist and would be too expensive to build. I think my definition of “superior” is just that compared to yours. Yours is defined by one element, when it is utterly impractical for it to be defined that way. Human civilization cannot be based solely on doing no harm to the earth; to believe so is erroneous and foolish. If you want to throw in the clause “and minimizes adverse effects on the environment” to my definition then good, it was my assumption that was understood as intrinsic to the discussion. The world market today (generally capitalism) cannot run on the premise you take. Even multiple national government controlled command economies could not elicit the change you seek. The base world economic system would have to be altered to the point where some sort of carbon footprint becomes currency… call it what you want, but I call it both impractical and stupid. If you really believe that radical change is the only way to survive, then more power to you and good luck. I will disagree with you the whole way.

[wheatbeer]

I am doing my part by not procreating.  :-D  The cumulative environmental impact of my (potentially infinite) descendants would dwarf any damage I can do personally.

[Canuck12]

@Gargantua:

Also, you still haven’t addressed the Carbon tax….

I thought I had?  But I’ll clarify.

You’re right Canuck, we have a carbon tax in British Columbia.  Other than increase the cost of living for folks in British Columbia, what has this actually done for the enviroment?

Jack-all.  You and I both know it’s a joke, I just dump that extra 5 cents a litre right into the tank of my SUV anyways, without giving a damn.  And the government revenue isn’t even used directly on enviromental programs/enforcement.

Canuck, you cannot deny that the carbon tax as implemented is just an excuse for another tax hidden by the guise of making us feel guilty.

Please see this article Published Last year in the Economist (a decidedly right-wing but extremely well-respected news magazine)

http://www.economist.com/node/18989175?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2

And pay special attention to the following quotes:

“…the law introducing the levy required its proceeds to be recycled back to individuals and companies as cuts in income taxes. […] It seems to be working as planned. Since 2008 fuel consumption per head in the province has dropped by 4.5%, more than elsewhere in Canada. British Columbians use less fuel than any other Canadians. And British Columbians pay lower income taxes too.”

The new tax has not weakened the province’s economy, which has been boosted by high world prices for its commodity exports. Unemployment is slightly below the national average, and growth slightly higher. Because the tax started low and its rises were set out in advance, businesses had plenty of time to make plans to cut their carbon use."

" British Columbia has shown the rest of Canada, a country with high carbon emissions per head, that a carbon tax can achieve multiple benefits at minimal cost."

[Canuck12]

So it can be empirically shown to have worked.

Yes, we will need much higher taxes in order to get radical change, but you have to start somewhere. And this shows us that a Carbon tax is a good place to start.

You claim it has had no effect on you (you just dump the same fuel into your tank) but consider that business and income taxes are LOWER as a result. Which incentivises job creation and WORK rather than pollution and climate change (seems like a no-brainer to me).

And you also disregard all of the upstream effects. Sure YOU might no actively seek to change your consumption patterns based on the new prices, but you damn-well bet any smart business man will. When you run a budget for a project, especially big projects, every dollar counts and a 5% increase in fuel cost or a 20% increase in emissions cost WILL and DOES change behaviour. Especially when you may be budgeting for $200 000 worth of fuel over 5 years (for example). So though you dont see the direct effects, the products and services you buy have been effected by the tax and when we aggregate over the whole economy we see that there has been a significant change.

What you said about not noticing sums up the tax perfectly. And that’s really the beauty of it: it is efficient. The tax naturally compels people to find the cheapest and easiest ways to reduce their emissions which is why its so much better than subsidising solar power, or Hydrogen (Who ever thought THAT was a good idea) or Biofuels, none of which are efficient answers to how we reduce our greenhouse gasses.

The fact that you don’t notice any change Garg is evidence of how well it works: We manage to reduce our emissions, lower income taxes and no one even notices that they are emitting less CO2.

WIN, WIN and  WIN!

[Imperious Leader]

In about 100,000 years the sun will be a % hotter than it is now, far outweighing any effect from man. Probably it will be too hot to sustain life anyway. Note also the moon will be farther away and eventually the gravitational tug on the Earth from the Moon will shift to the sun, which will be another disaster. On top of that the earth will go into another ice age, and magnetic north will change to the south. All these matters are of greater importance than this silly business of cow farts or CO2 gas.

Instead of dealing with marginal human effects, it would be better to develop space travel to other stars and or terraforming Mars.

In effect we are fighting the battle with the wrong set of tools. A last resort would be to move the earth further out of its orbit.

[Canuck12]

Wow. Thanks for chiming in there with a massively over-simplified un-nuanced view of things that completely dismisses the topic and adds nothing to our discussion.

Oh and is really unrealistic.

[wheatbeer]

The scale of the problem is so immense and the sources of CO2 dispersed across so many different political entities that these relatively minor efforts seem unlikely to impact the future in a palpable way (especially when the efforts are localized but the benefits are globalized).

Understanding the problem has not produced popular will to sacrifice for the good of the future.  Therefore, in my opinion, humanity needs to gamble on big fixes via research or stoically accept that average quality of human life will decline rather than improve for at least some of its collective future.

[666]

@Vance:

North Korea would be better than nothing I guess, but I was hoping more for a full on China-Japan holocaust over those stupid islands they are so worked up about, or maybe an Iran-Israel battle of armageddon kind of scenario with Jesus returning and all that sh!t.  Come on somebody’ gotta go first!  Press the button and let’s get the show on the road!!

This is beautiful.

[Imperious Leader]

Wow. Thanks for chiming in there with a massively over-simplified un-nuanced view of things that completely dismisses the topic and adds nothing to our discussion.

Right because Humans didn’t cause this change to the extent of which it is portrayed. Obviously, you believe Humans caused all damage and my opinion goes against yours?

Perhaps you care to prove that what i posted is not true? Or you accept the truth but continue to ignore it and just concentrate on making rules against people/nations as your sole solution?

Talk about simplistic.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

Obviously, you believe Humans caused all damage and my opinion goes against yours?

Classic troll behaviour by Imperious Leader…

IL, He never stated that.  Why must you resort to troll behaviour and make people defend against statements that they did not make.

Perhaps you ought to prove your assertion that ANYBODY has made a claim that climate change is entirely human caused.

I am frankly getting sick and tired of your troll like behaviour.