Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Is Germany the Harbinger of America's Energy Future Under Cap-and-Trade?
German industries are reeling
from the high cost of energy reports the Financial Times.
Energy costs more, in part, because of the post-Kyoto Protocol's
European Trading scheme that aims to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide that are thought to contribute to man-made global warming.
So what to do? Subsidize the energy costs that public policy has
made more expensive, of course! As the FT
reports:
Berlin is preparing to help domestic industries overcome the economic crisis by cutting the electricity bills of the country’s largest energy users....
The bulk of any relief is likely to be found by reimbursing companies for the cost of carbon dioxide emissions trading certificates that utilities currently price into their electricity bills.
Germany successfully argued at an EU summit in December that energy-intensive industries should be not be forced to buy emission permits between 2013 and 2020 because companies would otherwise shift production overseas.
Berlin now wants to go further by compensating energy-intensive companies in the intervening years.
Officials are also considering whether to reward big power consumers for their role in balancing the electricity network during peak-load periods.
But Claudia Kemfert, head of energy policy at the German Institute of Economic Research (DIW Berlin), said it was “not the government’s job to subsidise the profits of energy companies”.
Soon Americans may find out whether or not it's their government's job to subsidize those profits.
|5.27.09 @ 10:02AM|#
"not the government's job to subsidise the profits of energy
companies".
But is it the government's job to compel companies to continue an
unprofitable business?
Chad|5.27.09 @ 10:05AM|#
This is exactly why we need a large-scale international agreement that includes China and India. It is a classic prisoner's dilemma.
|5.27.09 @ 10:17AM|#
Wow! Jacking up the price of energy has negative economic consequences? Who could possibly have forseen that?
John Tagliaferro|5.27.09 @ 10:17AM|#
The surprise is not that they are adding another level of complication to the market. The surprise will come when they stop complicating the market.
|5.27.09 @ 10:24AM|#
"Wow! Jacking up the price of energy has negative economic
consequences? Who could possibly have forseen that?"
Shocking isn't it. But they don't worry because as we see here the
politically powerful full never pay those rates. Only dumb asses
like you and me will.
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 10:29AM|#
Chad - a large scale agreement enforced by what? Trade wars?
Real wars? Fines, taxes and tariffs on those nation's products who
were made with "too much" carbon?
This is the naked face of the War on Productivity.
Warty|5.27.09 @ 10:34AM|#
Threadjack: I nominate the following as most infuriating
statement of the day.
"Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it's an example of government intrusion into people's lives," said the moderator. "How do you respond?"
"About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people's lives," said LaHood. "So have at it."
The paternalism, the arrogance, the sureness that he knows
best...it's got everything.
|5.27.09 @ 10:40AM|#
"This is exactly why we need a large-scale international
agreement that includes China and India. It is a classic prisoner's
dilemma."
Fuck it. This CO2 fear is total bullshit. Absolute crockery. The
second biggest scam evah!
Xeones|5.27.09 @ 10:44AM|#
AO, arguing with Chad is the naked face of the War on A Particularly Well-Done Spoof. You got played, Holmes.
Chad|5.27.09 @ 10:46AM|#
The Angry Optimist | May 27, 2009, 10:29am
Chad - a large scale agreement enforced by what? Trade wars? Real
wars? Fines, taxes and tariffs on those nation's products who were
made with "too much" carbon?
Ultimately, any nation who does not enter the global system for
carbon regulation will have tariffs slapped on its products.
|5.27.09 @ 10:49AM|#
Ultimately, any nation who does not enter the global system
for carbon regulation will have tariffs slapped on its
products.
By the Global Anti-Prosperity League.
Chad|5.27.09 @ 10:50AM|#
J sub D | May 27, 2009, 10:17am | #
Wow! Jacking up the price of energy has negative economic
consequences? Who could possibly have forseen that?
The economic consequences are small when everyone does it, and the
benefits vastly outweigh the costs. However, there is a serious
problem when you do it and your competitors don't, as they capture
the market. As I said earlier, this is a classic prisoners'
dilemma, and binding treaties are the way that nations work through
these types of problem.
Chad|5.27.09 @ 10:51AM|#
Chad, ever hear the truism "if goods can't cross borders,
armies will?"
It is obviously not a very true truism, given all the subsidies and
tariffs out there right now that AREN'T causing wars.
Chad|5.27.09 @ 10:53AM|#
By the Global Anti-Prosperity League
Yes, because clearly the path to prosperity is to pillage all the
world's resources as fast as we can so that we can construct
McMansions, SUVs, and cheap Chinese crap.
Errr....yeah...
|5.27.09 @ 10:54AM|#
"The economic consequences are small when everyone does it, and
the benefits vastly outweigh the costs."
So if we all went back to horse and buggy, the economic
consequences would be small since everyone is equally penalized?
Are you fucking kidding me.
|5.27.09 @ 10:55AM|#
"Yes, because clearly the path to prosperity is to pillage all
the world's resources as fast as we can so that we can construct
McMansions, SUVs, and cheap Chinese crap."
First, it is none of your business what people chose to do with
their money. Second, cheap energy is the only way to prosperity.
Get rid of cheap energy and everyone gets very poor very
quickly.
John Tagliaferro|5.27.09 @ 11:07AM|#
BTW, the drawing is too darned appropriate for words. Well
done.
Noticed that too. Why can't the Friday Funnies be that good?
|5.27.09 @ 11:07AM|#
If I ever wanted to troll on here (I mean really troll as opposed to just being a smartass), I would do a better job than Neil or Chad. It is not like it is hard to get people going on here.
|5.27.09 @ 11:09AM|#
The bulk of any relief is likely to be found by reimbursing
companies for the cost of carbon dioxide emissions trading
certificates that utilities currently price into their electricity
bills.
Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of cap-and-trade? Isn't
cap-and-trade supposed to make carbon-base energy more expensive
all down the line to incentivize reductions in its use? If so, why
are the Germans now subsidizing its use to cancel those
incentives?
|5.27.09 @ 11:13AM|#
If I ever wanted to troll on here (I mean really troll as
opposed to just being a smartass), I would do a better job than
Neil or Chad. It is not like it is hard to get people going on
here.
I know I've said it before, but Neil's contributions to the beer
thread approached genius.
kinnath|5.27.09 @ 11:13AM|#
Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of
cap-and-trade?
Yes
Next Question
|5.27.09 @ 11:13AM|#
"Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of cap-and-trade?
Isn't cap-and-trade supposed to make carbon-base energy more
expensive all down the line to incentivize reductions in its use?
If so, why are the Germans now subsidizing its use to cancel those
incentives?"
But everyone else will still be paying the higher rates and using
less energy. This just lets the poltically connected out of having
to make a sacrifice.
|5.27.09 @ 11:19AM|#
"If so, why are the Germans now subsidizing its use to cancel
those incentives?"
They are simply facing reality.
Nikola T|5.27.09 @ 11:19AM|#
Energy is the cheapest thing known to man. Imagine if I charged
you for gravity!
Think that's ridiculous? Wait until the government starts to figure
out we've been getting our gravity on the cheap and they figure
we'll pay more for it.
They'll find a way to line their pockets and increase their power.
That's what they do.
Energy is nothing but a transfer of potentials. It is free. We need
to wake up.
T|5.27.09 @ 11:20AM|#
AO, arguing with Chad is the naked face of the War on A
Particularly Well-Done Spoof.
It took Libya a decade to realize it was pointless. Maybe AO will
get the hint sooner, with no french involvement necessary.
Xeones|5.27.09 @ 11:24AM|#
God, i miss Neil. Was it Jesse who outed him as Cesar? That was a sad day, for on that day he left us forever.
Nikola T|5.27.09 @ 11:27AM|#
I propose we begin to charge people for the amount of gravity
they use. Obviously the more gravity used is contributing to a
crisis of biblical proportions in which the earth is collapsing in
upon itself. So the more you weigh, they more you will pay. This
will encourage people to weigh less. We will also charge you by the
weight of your home and business. The smaller the home, the smaller
the business, the smaller your bill.
Of course you could always trade your bill to another company whose
business is lighter than yours. Or if your business is deemed
politically favorable, then you can weigh as much as you like and
offset your weight in payments directly to political coffers.
Does anyone else see how moronic this is?
John Tagliaferro|5.27.09 @ 11:29AM|#
I must be overly drama sensitive today or I just did not pay attention to my past visits here. Possibly bad memory too.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 11:35AM|#
Whatever happened to this idea to tax carbon emissions and accompany that with corresponding payroll tax cuts?
MNG|5.27.09 @ 11:38AM|#
"Does anyone else see how moronic this is?"
It's not hard to see how moronic you are.
Look, maybe you think it is a case of collective madness or a cabal
of demon possessed scientific madmen bent on secret world ruin, but
here are some facts:
1. A lot of experts think global warming is occuring
2. A lot of experts think this global warming will have negative
effects on mankind
3. A lot of experts think our carbon emissions contribute to all of
this
So it's not exactly the height of stupidity for a policymaker to
connect these dots and suggest something to curb our carbon
emissions.
|5.27.09 @ 11:41AM|#
1. A lot of experts think global warming is NOT occuring
2. A lot of experts think this global warming will NOT have
negative effects on mankind
3. A lot of experts think our carbon emissions DO NOT contribute to
all of this
Fixed that for ya.
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 11:48AM|#
MNG - I'm willing to stipulate that AGW is real.
So what? What now? The main contributors are developing countries,
and it would be a real "fuck you" to the abjectly impoverished in
those countries to say "fuck you Jack, we got ours using pollution.
YOU NEED TO USE WINDMILLS!"
Also, any global-scale strategy (which, bless his heart, Chad is
right about) is destined to fail. Nations have an incentive to
cheat. Do you really want to see something like a worldwide
OPEC?
Whatever happened to this idea to tax carbon emissions and accompany that with corresponding payroll tax cuts?
OK, I appreciate your thought processes on this one, but you're
insufficiently cynical if you don't think that the following will
happen:
1. Carbon tax
2. Payroll tax cuts
3. Increase in prices chews up savings from the payroll tax
4. Government gradually increases the payroll tax again
C: We're all much, much poorer
|5.27.09 @ 11:48AM|#
"2. A lot of experts think this global warming will have
negative effects on mankind"
As Enough About Palin said, "A lot of experts think this global
warming will NOT have negative effects on mankind". We should be
damned sure that the effects on mankind will be devastating and
that there is really something we can significantly do about it
before we destroy our standard of living by significantly reducing
our carbon emissions.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 11:51AM|#
Enough About Palin
Look, a lot of them do think that though, and it's simply not
madness for a policymaker to go with that set of them.
And do you think there are more that say it will have a negative
effect, or more that say it will not? And do you have like, any
fucking proof about that? Because pretty much every professional
scientific agency I've seen has issued statements consistent with
the side you are not on.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 11:54AM|#
TAO
You don't dispute my 3 points right? I mean, OK, you don't agree
with some of the experts saying those things, (but with all due
respect, what the fuck would you know about the science involved in
"agreeing" or not on any of this [hey, wft would I know either]),
but you at least agree there are experts saying these things.
Now as to your question about developing nations, of course it
would be OK to say to a developing, or any other nation, "hey you
need to stop doing x" if you think x will lead to harm to your and
their citizens.
|5.27.09 @ 11:57AM|#
Chad is almost as good as Neil.
Chad is almost as good as Dan T. Neil was in a class all by
himself. I miss Cesar.
|5.27.09 @ 11:57AM|#
"And do you think there are more that say it will have a
negative effect, or more that say it will not? And do you have
like, any fucking proof about that? Because pretty much every
professional scientific agency I've seen has issued statements
consistent with the side you are not on."
There is pretty much a scientific consensus that global warming is
occuring and that there is a human footprint, but I there is no
scientific consensus that the resulting climate change will be all
that serious.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 11:57AM|#
My position on the carbon tax/payroll tax is this:
Let's say, just for nutso sakes, that the experts that say that
carbon emissions must be limited or negative effects will occur are
right, then we really have a simple moral question: will the
negative effects of not addressing this create a higher decrease in
welfare than the restrictions on carbon emissions would? If yes
then it would be immoral NOT to do it, regardless of any other
policy.
Now, I realize that carbon taxes will make prices of things go up.
People will have less money, so I would like to see that offset by
a payroll tax reduction. If we have to take the sting, might as
well take some of the sting away.
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 11:58AM|#
I don't care about your three points, MNG. I really don't.
Now as to your question about developing nations, of course it would be OK to say to a developing, or any other nation, "hey you need to stop doing x" if you think x will lead to harm to your and their citizens.
It's just not that simple. When I say "saying", I mean that there
are a whole host of very expensive policy prescriptions and
enforcement vehicles that I don't think anyone advocating for
carbon controls has thought about.
As Chad stated, you're in a dilemma. Unless every major industrial
nation, primarily the developing ones, gets on board and is able to
have the agreements enforced against it, developed nations, who
won't cheat for various reasons, are basically crippling themselves
for the benefit of "cheater" nations.
Slapping a tariff on cheater nations would be disastrous as well.
How much of our stuff comes from China, India, Taiwan? All you're
going to do with a high tariff (and it has to be high, to
incentivize the other nations to actually cut carbon emissions) is
create a black market is just. about. everything.
Al Gore|5.27.09 @ 11:59AM|#
I'll make this simple for you:
Everything you use in your life requires energy to acquire the raw
materials that go into the things you use, produce the things you
use, distribute the things you use to you, and finally dispose of
whatever is left after you use the things that you use.
We're gonna make everything you use in your life, and I mean
everything, more expensive by artificially increasint the cost of
energy.
The end result is that people you will never meet, now and in the
future, will live marginally better lives, while you see your
standard of living plummet due to the increase in cost of
everything you use in your life.
And I know you will all be so much happier when we do this.
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 12:01PM|#
To continue:
Let's say that for the sake of the hypothetical you get all of the
world's major developing nations to go along with your plan. *Now*
not only have you cut off a cheap and easy vehicle for them to
raise their own standard of living, but they are going to be
completely in the right to demand that developed Western nations
make up the difference. This is going to require staggering amounts
of foreign aid, because you've shut off the coal plants of the
world, you have to put something in their place.
And why should we do this? Well, it's either help those nations
develop with our tax dollars or bomb a coal plant when it
inevitably opens up again. So, yay...massive foreign aid or war.
All for the sake of lowering emissions to prevent AGW, which may be
harmful to humans in the distant future.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:02PM|#
"I don't care about your three points, MNG. I really
don't."
That's madness TAO. What to you mean, that even if you thought
these experts were right you would be like "oh fuck it let the
negative effects come!" Or do you mean "I don't think the experts
are right?" If the former, that's morally inexcusable and
borderline crazy. If the latter then you are of course in the realm
of not knowing what the fuck you are talking about...
"Slapping a tariff on cheater nations would be disastrous as
well."
Only if the negative effects from a tariff outweigh the negative
effects from not addressing this problem...This isn't that complex
(well, this part isn't).
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 12:06PM|#
I am stating that the so-called "negative effects" are debatable
and any kind of enforcement mechanism is going to be a disaster in
implementation.
So, yes, let the negative effects come. It is so
astonishingly naive to think that you can get the entire
industrial world to go along with any kind of carbon reduction
plan.
|5.27.09 @ 12:07PM|#
"Let's say, just for nutso sakes, that the experts that say that
carbon emissions must be limited or negative effects will occur are
right, then we really have a simple moral question: will the
negative effects of not addressing this create a higher decrease in
welfare than the restrictions on carbon emissions would? If yes
then it would be immoral NOT to do it, regardless of any other
policy."
Those who claim there will be serious negative effects need to
prove their case before we destroy our standard of living by
significantly reducing our carbon footprint.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:07PM|#
TAO
By that logic groups that currently possess wealth from activities
that we used to think were allowable but now think are immoral
could not tell groups using those acitivities now to build their
wealth couldn't move to end the latter's use of such activity. And
I know for a fact you don't think that!
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:10PM|#
"I am stating that the so-called "negative effects" are
debatable'
Yes, but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about here.
What, you covered this in Environmental Law class?
I'm not trying to be offensive, I don't have the expertise in the
requisite areas to judge whether and what negative effects to
expect. But certainly neither do you. You're just hoping, for the
sake of your values and ideology, that x is the case.
|5.27.09 @ 12:11PM|#
"And do you think there are more that say it will have a
negative effect, or more that say it will not? And do you have
like, any fucking proof about that? Because pretty much every
professional scientific agency I've seen has issued statements
consistent with the side you are not on." [citation needed]
The science of every age is not based on data, but rather, it's
absence.
To run around blindly is a fool's solution.
|5.27.09 @ 12:11PM|#
"And why should we do this? Well, it's either help those nations
develop with our tax dollars or bomb a coal plant when it
inevitably opens up again. So, yay...massive foreign aid or war.
All for the sake of lowering emissions to prevent AGW, which may be
harmful to humans in the distant future."
Or may not.
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Uh, no, I don't think that anymore than I think it's permissible
for developing nations to say, have slaves because we had
them.
But are you really going to make the entire Western World police
that? Really?
Imperialist|5.27.09 @ 12:11PM|#
We can impose whatever cabon-limiting strategy we want on the whole world after we're done conquering the whole world.
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 12:12PM|#
They're debatable. Not a controversial statement.
Now, if you would just move past the fact that you think you have a
hammer on the AGW-deniers and tell me what, practically, can be
done about it, I'm all ears.
From where I am sitting, any attempt at enforcement is going to
have to be worldwide, with war or trade wars as the weapon of
enforcement, and its not worth it.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:13PM|#
"Those who claim there will be serious negative effects need to
prove their case before we destroy our standard of living by
significantly reducing our carbon footprint."
Well, duh!
T|5.27.09 @ 12:13PM|#
any kind of enforcement mechanism is going to be a disaster
in implementation.
Let's try "functionally impossible" in implementation. What kind of
bizarre avoidance behavior are we going to see with respect to
energy usage? People will game the system in ways unthought of at
the moment, and it's all gonna go to crap.
|5.27.09 @ 12:13PM|#
"There is pretty much a scientific consensus that global warming
is occuring"
The earth is in it's tenth year of cooling.
|5.27.09 @ 12:14PM|#
"I'm not trying to be offensive, I don't have the expertise in
the requisite areas to judge whether and what negative effects to
expect. But certainly neither do you. You're just hoping, for the
sake of your values and ideology, that x is the case."
The burden of proof is on those who claim there WILL be serious
effects. Until they've proven their case, why should we destroy our
standard of living to treat something that might not even be that
serious of a problem?
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:16PM|#
"But are you really going to make the entire Western World
police that? Really?"
If someone in your neighborhood started a pig farm which from which
things originated that made you and your neighbors sick, the value
of your homes decline, etc., then damn skippy you'd be in your
rights to "police" that.
People who see global warming as a threat see it as analogous to
that.
Now maybe you think that the science is wrong on that. Of course,
like me, you don't know enough to know whether it is or not. And
there are experts on both sides. But it's not madness for
policymakers to go with one of those sides (especially if it were
more numerous!).
|5.27.09 @ 12:18PM|#
"Let's say, just for nutso sakes, that the experts that say that
carbon emissions must be limited or negative effects will occur are
right, then we really have a simple moral question: will the
negative effects of not addressing this create a higher decrease in
welfare than the restrictions on carbon emissions would? If yes
then it would be immoral NOT to do it, regardless of any other
policy"
Wow! I think I've seen that argument before:
Do you believe in God, MNG?
Let's say, just for nutso sakes, that the experts that say that God
exists are right, then we really have a simple moral question: will
the negative effects of not addressing this create a higher
decrease in our welfare than acceting Him would? If yes then it
would be immoral NOT to believe in God, regardless of any other
policy"
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 12:20PM|#
If someone in your neighborhood started a pig farm which from which things originated that made you and your neighbors sick, the value of your homes decline, etc., then damn skippy you'd be in your rights to "police" that.
The world is not a neighborhood, for Christ's
sake. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
MNG, you have absolutely lost your mind. you want the United
States, on a practical level, to fly all around Western China and
the remote provinces of India looking for factories. You want every
nation, every year, to come before the UN and "prove" that they are
not polluting above a certain level.
I cannot even believe I am talking about this...this is pure
madness.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:20PM|#
"any attempt at enforcement is going to have to be worldwide,
with war or trade wars as the weapon of enforcement, and its not
worth it."
But again, you're not knowledgable in the subject matter, so you
can't ascertain the extent and likelihood of the negative effects
on one side of the equation, so for you to say "its not worth it"
is a conclusion full of more hope than Obama and more bias than
Hannity...
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:24PM|#
"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills."
Well, that would explain a lot of your positions over the years
;)
But you've got a couple arguments going on, in one you talk about
how wrong it would be to police developing nations on this, and
that was what I was addressing: it would be no more wrong than
policing that neighbor.
Now you've got a different argument, that no method for addressing
the problem can be devised or implemented. We can talk about that
if it's the tack you're taking today...
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 12:24PM|#
you talk alot about how you want to see Americans succeed over
other nations, and here you are, willing to absolutely put the
entire nation at a categorical competitive disadvantage.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you want the United States to commit
to a global military force to make sure that cheating and
recalcitrant nations aren't producing "too much" energy.
T|5.27.09 @ 12:25PM|#
But again, you're not knowledgable in the subject matter, so
you can't ascertain the extent and likelihood of the negative
effects on one side of the equation, so for you to say "its not
worth it"
Okay, simple scenario and not entirely unlikely. China says fuck
you, and doesn't play, or even more likely, signs the treaty and
ignores it. What are you going to do? Destroy the US (and by
extension, the world) economy with sanctions against them? Bomb
them into submission? What, exactly is your recourse?
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 12:25PM|#
It would be wrong to police developing nations on this because
they are sovereign nations, MNG. For God's sake, I thought
I was kidding when I said you're advocate for global government,
but you're serious.
Unbelievable. I'm sorry, but I've tried to show you how,
practically, this pie-in-the-sky New Global Order you have in mind
is not going to work. I cannot help you anymore.
|5.27.09 @ 12:26PM|#
Al Gore
You should consider consider changing your name to Al "Hal Lindsey"
Gore and retitle your book "The Late Great Planet Earth in the
Balance".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late,_Great_Planet_Earth
(Lindsey predicted that "the decade of the 1980s could very well be
the last decade of history as we know it.")
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Enough About Palin
You've got a stupid little inapt analogy there for several reasons,
but interestingly if you take away the difference between thinking
something true and governmental policy determinations and such, you
might have a version of Pascals wager (you can google it).
And you're hung up on whether the experts are correct or not, which
is funny because I'm asking you to assume they are: then what?
|5.27.09 @ 12:29PM|#
"it would be no more wrong than policing that neighbor."
I don't want to police my neighbors. That's what creepy losers
do.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:31PM|#
"It would be wrong to police developing nations on this because
they are sovereign nations, MNG."
You're kidding, right? Because we've already dealt with this above.
It would be wrong to police developing nations to make them stop a
genocide? Mass slavery? Creating pollution which harms their
neighbors? You really think that? And what would make action to
stop them ("police them") is that they are SOVERIEGN nations?
C'mon, you really are kidding!
"Destroy the US (and by extension, the world) economy with
sanctions against them?"
Holy shit is that full of hyperbole!
tekende|5.27.09 @ 12:32PM|#
And you're hung up on whether the experts are correct or
not, which is funny because I'm asking you to assume they are: then
what?
What if the "experts" (most of whom don't work in fields remotely
related to climate science, by the way) are wrong, MNG? Then
what?
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:35PM|#
It's easy to answer T's question. Whichever action creates the most net utility. So we weight the negative effects of various counters against the negative effects of allowing China to continue to harm us and others through their actions and pick the one that maximizes our and the world's welfare. While determining the policy is not easy, the principle used to measure it is.
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Look, MNG, you either accept the harsh reality that the United States is incapable and has no business wielding a sword in one hand and a checkbook in the other, fighting all around the globe for our version of what right looks like, or you don't. I don't care. Right now, you just implicitly endorsed the Iraq War to win this argument, so I'm not sure what to say.
|5.27.09 @ 12:35PM|#
"And you're hung up on whether the experts are correct or not,
which is funny because I'm asking you to assume they are: then
what?"
I work for one of the largest utilities on earth. I'm not hung up
on whether the experts are correct or not. I have studied this
issue for 7 years. Our portfolio, which has won countless awards
and honors is as balanced as any utility in America (wind, coal,
natual gas, refuse derived fuel, nuclear, solar, hydro).
Why, because the government forces us to be that way. So we do it.
But we shure as hell don't believe in AGW, because the proof is
that the earth is getting COOLER.
|5.27.09 @ 12:36PM|#
What kind of bizarre avoidance behavior are we going to see
with respect to energy usage? People will game the system in ways
unthought of at the moment, and it's all gonna go to
crap.
This is the heart of the issue. The discussion need not go past
this: human nature.
Failing to take human nature into account is the ultimate FAIL, and
anyone who proposes a "solution" without doing so isn't even worthy
of being listened to.
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 12:36PM|#
And is there any practical amount of harm from AGW, forecast from the experts, that would outweigh war with China?
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:36PM|#
"I don't want to police my neighbors."
If your neighbor was dumping trash on your lawn, or shitting in
your bushes, or throwing rocks at you every time you came out your
door, I bet you'd want to police him.
|5.27.09 @ 12:38PM|#
"If your neighbor was dumping trash on your lawn, or shitting in
your bushes, or throwing rocks at you every time you came out your
door, I bet you'd want to police him."
Rocs you say? I'd shoot him, which isn't policing.
The Angry Optimist|5.27.09 @ 12:40PM|#
So, now we're at war with China. So guess what India does?
Cranks up production (and pollution) to fill the massive void in
manufacturing because two other economic heavyweights are draining
themselves of blood and treasure to duke it out.
So, if and when the United States wins the war against China, now
we have to direct our mighty military force against
India.
And while we're fighting India, Mexico says "hmmm..."
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:40PM|#
Enough About Palin
You're an expert, huh? PhD in some hard science eh? Published a lot
of journal articles, eh? Got access to relevant raw data and
extensive knowledge and experience in the techniques and equipment
necessary to analyze it?
I'm betting, no.
tekende|5.27.09 @ 12:42PM|#
It's easy to answer T's question. Whichever action creates
the most net utility. So we weight the negative effects of various
counters against the negative effects of allowing China to continue
to harm us and others through their actions and pick the one that
maximizes our and the world's welfare. While determining the policy
is not easy, the principle used to measure it is.
In other words, you don't want to honestly answer this question.
Nice dodge, it's not transparent at all.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:42PM|#
"And is there any practical amount of harm from AGW, forecast
from the experts, that would outweigh war with China?"
Well of course there are actions which would be counterproductive
in trying to enforce this. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to
enforce it.
Do you think we should take measures to get China to respect our
copyright laws TAO? I mean, surely you don't want to go war with
China if they don't!
Al Gore|5.27.09 @ 12:42PM|#
I don't expect anyone to do more or less than I do. If Joe the Plumber can't afford to put up $20K worth of solar panels to heat his pool, then the federal government should help pay for them. It's the least we all can do.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:43PM|#
tekende
I answered the question. Do you want me to explain it in smaller
words? Which word or part are you struggling with?
|5.27.09 @ 12:44PM|#
"Enough About Palin
You're an expert, huh? PhD in some hard science eh? Published a lot
of journal articles, eh? Got access to relevant raw data and
extensive knowledge and experience in the techniques and equipment
necessary to analyze it?
I'm betting, no."
I don't recall using the word "expert". But experts do work for me
and I appreciate them greatly.
So what's your PhD in? I'm guessing the same as Al "Hal Lindsey"
Gore's. Am I right?
T|5.27.09 @ 12:44PM|#
"Destroy the US (and by extension, the world) economy with
sanctions against them?"
Holy shit is that full of hyperbole!
Sigh. Look up the numbers about trade and get back to me on how
much hyperbole this is.
I seriously hope you're arguing just to argue today. Otherwise,
you're insane to think this has any possibility of working on a
global level. Hell, I can cobble together a generator out of crap I
have laying around the garage, not even counting the actual
generator. Once energy taxes raise the cost of buying to where
self-generation is practical, how do you stop me from doing that?
If you can't stop me, how can you stop the other 6 billion people
on earth?
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:44PM|#
"Right now, you just implicitly endorsed the Iraq War to win
this argument, so I'm not sure what to say."
Wow, you weren't joking about those crazy pills...
|5.27.09 @ 12:45PM|#
"Do I really need to go on?"
No, I think we're done here. See ya in the funny papers!
|5.27.09 @ 12:45PM|#
I'll do it; but I'll hate myself in the morning.
What if your neighbor tries to force you to attend a church you
don't believe in? Are you within your rights to refuse?
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:47PM|#
"So what's your PhD in?"
Ahh, but I'm not claiming expertise, in fact my argument is to
defer to those who are.
Gotcha.
"Look up the numbers about trade and get back to me on how much
hyperbole this is."
Uhh, we currently have economic tariffs on China in some areas and
we aren't exactly wandering an apocalyptic landscape like in A Boy
and His Dog.
Like I said upthread, we ask developing nations to obey our
copyright laws and numerous others, and of course there are some
measures we are willing to use to police them in that area and some
that we would be fools to use, but that doesn't mean that tying to
police them in some way is a fools errand...
|5.27.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Whichever action creates the most net utility. So we weight
the negative effects of various counters against the negative
effects of allowing China to continue to harm us and others through
their actions and pick the one that maximizes our and the world's
welfare.
Of course, what we really need to weight here are the actual harm
of China, etc. continuing to emit carbon. That actual harm is
highly speculative.
And it needs to weighed against the benefits of the actual
reductions in carbon emission of forcing them to adopt
cap-and-trade (or whatever). Those actual reductions are going to
be smaller than you think (see, e.g., the European experience with
this). And, of course, the benefit is a reduction in a speculative
harm.
So we are weighing smaller than expected speculative benefits
against speculative harms. What could possibly go wrong?
|5.27.09 @ 12:48PM|#
How much money do you make, E A P? That's what MaunderingNannyGoat really wants to know. Because he makes a lot. Shitloads. NannyGoat is fucking stupendously rich. And he reads Marx, you peasant.
freeforall232|5.27.09 @ 12:49PM|#
The higher the tax rate, the more people that have to work to
afford the things they want or need. The more people that have to
work means more office buildings which use more energy, more cars
on the road, more roads, more pollution.
Wouldn't it just be simpler to reduce (or eliminate) most taxes?
Lower taxes mean less people that have to work which means less
pollution from commuters and office buildings.
I know this is a little off topic, but wouldn't it also be easier
to eliminate government programs which give taxpayer money to those
who can't afford to have children, but have them anyway? This would
lead to a slow-down in population growth which would in turn lead
to reductions in our carbon footprint.
It seems to me that anyone who really cared about reducing negative
effects on the environment by mankind would favor small government
and low taxes.
MNG|5.27.09 @ 12:49PM|#
P Brooks
Before we play, let me ask you this:
IF your neighbor is doing something that physically harms you, are
you within your rights to act to make him stop doing that
thing?
OK.
Now IF a neighboring nation is doing something that physically
harms another nation's citizens, is it within the latter's rights
to act to make it stop.
OK.
Many experts think carbon emissions will harm people.
How hard has this been?
|5.27.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Its pretty obvious - if the overriding goal is to reduce carbon
emission because otherwise The World Will End, you need to tackle
that goal as far upstream as possible - by controlling carbon fuels
at their source - Saudi Arabia, Canada, etc.
If we are heading off a global catastrophe, and are willing to
disregard national sovereignty to do so, why aren't we talking
about seizing the Arabian oil fields, etc.?
Banjo Bob|5.27.09 @ 12:52PM|#
"Ahh, but I'm not claiming expertise"
Horsehockey.
I like the church analogy, P Brooks. Most appropriate.
Global Anti-Prosperity League|5.27.09 @ 12:54PM|#
why aren't we talking about seizing the Arabian oil fields,
etc.?
What do you mean "we" white man?
|5.27.09 @ 12:54PM|#
IF your neighbor is doing something that physically harms
you, are you within your rights to act to make him stop doing that
thing?
Depends on the nature of the harm and the steps necessary to make
him stop. My neighbors dog barks all the time. It interferes with
my enjoyment of my property. That's not exactly a license to gun
him down, or his dog, is it?
In fact, the rational thing to do is . . . nothing.
Now IF a neighboring nation is doing something that physically
harms another nation's citizens, is it within the latter's rights
to act to make it stop.
Depends on the nature of the harm, etc.
Banjo Bob|5.27.09 @ 12:55PM|#
"How much money do you make, E A P?"
The Shirpa say, a man is wealthy when he understands he has
enough.
Banjo Bob|5.27.09 @ 12:57PM|#
"IF your neighbor is doing something that physically harms you,
are you within your rights to act to make him stop doing that
thing?"
You have yet to prove that anyone is or will be harming us.
Banjo Bob|5.27.09 @ 12:59PM|#
"It interferes with my enjoyment of my property. That's not
exactly a license to gun him down, or his dog, is it?"
Just call the cops and tell them you've been in the house and it's
full of pot plants.
Dog problem solved.
T|5.27.09 @ 1:01PM|#
Uhh, we currently have economic tariffs on China in some
areas and we aren't exactly wandering an apocalyptic landscape like
in A Boy and His Dog.
What, you think the level of punitive tariffs required to ensure
compliance isn't going to be economically disastrous? The two
largest economies in the world getting into a pissing match over
energy usage is going to be a good thing? Especially since, under
your scenario, everybody else who signed the treaty should be
imposing the same level of tariffs on China? Yessir, that's some
good news for already troubled economies.
Like I said upthread, we ask developing nations to obey our
copyright laws and numerous others, and of course there are some
measures we are willing to use to police them in that area and some
that we would be fools to use, but that doesn't mean that tying to
police them in some way is a fools errand...
Umm, yeah. You do realize those "measures" to ensure copyright
enforcement don't work, right? We're not talking about something at
the margins, either. A country can function pretty well without
infringing copyright. No modern industrialized nation can function
without energy. The incentive to cheat becomes a wee tad bit
higher, doesn't it? But I'm sure there's some enforcement mechanism
that can make sure 1.3 billion people aren't gaming the system and
emitting too much CO2. I'm not sure what it is, but since I'm not
arguing for it, I don't have to guess. Why don't you take a swing
at that one?
Gilbert Martin|5.27.09 @ 1:03PM|#
"The bulk of any relief is likely to be found by reimbursing
companies for the cost of carbon dioxide emissions trading
certificates that utilities currently price into their electricity
bills."
And since those payments have to come from general tax revenue, the
German utility customers will simply be paying that extra cost
through direct government tax increases instead of paying in in
their electric bills.
But they will be paying for it either way.
Chad|5.27.09 @ 1:14PM|#
Enough About Palin | May 27, 2009, 12:35pm | #
Why, because the government forces us to be that way. So we do it.
But we shure as hell don't believe in AGW, because the proof is
that the earth is getting COOLER.
You should submit such revolutionary evidence to Science or Nature
and get your cushy academic job for life!
I suspect you just don't know what you are talking about.
Xeones|5.27.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Just call the cops and tell them you've been in the house
and it's full of pot plants.
Dog problem solved.
Oh shit, Banjo Bob, you just Balkoed a Bailey thread.
Banjo Bob|5.27.09 @ 1:53PM|#
"I suspect you just don't know what you are talking
about."
Perhaps EAP doesn't. But these folks do:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scarewatch/really_cooling.pdf
∞|5.27.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Just call the cops and tell them you've been in the house and it's full of pot plants.
Dog problem solved.
Classic.
Chad|5.27.09 @ 2:04PM|#
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scarewatch/really_cooling.pdf
Apparently you don't know the difference between science and
politics. You just cited "data" from a conservative policitian that
apparently doesn't even know the difference between weather and
climate, or ice volume vs ice coverage. Everything he says has been
refuted repeatedly by scientists at www.realclimate.org.
Do you really believe what you are saying? I am trying to sort you
into the "dishonest", "willfully ignorant", or "downright stupid"
bins.
John Tagliaferro|5.27.09 @ 2:05PM|#
TAO,
Uh, no, I don't think that anymore than I think it's
permissible for developing nations to say, have slaves because we
had them.
They still have them, but I am not sure your permission was a
factor.
Banjo Bob|5.27.09 @ 2:10PM|#
"www.realclimate.org"
I weep for your genetically substandard children.
But it always turns into laughter. Funny that.
Banjo Bob|5.27.09 @ 2:11PM|#
"I am trying to sort you into the "dishonest", "willfully
ignorant", or "downright stupid" bins."
My, my, my. How anal.
|5.27.09 @ 2:12PM|#
"Many experts think carbon emissions will harm people."
The key word above is "think". The extent of the harm has not been
established. There is no consensus on that. Many experts don't
believe the harm isn't anything society can't adjust to. There are
some who even believe that increased CO2 will benefit us by
creating more vegetation. As I've said before, the burden of proof
is on those who claim there will be serious harm from global
warming and that man is responsible for that added serious harm and
that there is something significant that we can do about it. Until
that proof is forthcoming, why should we sacrifice our standard of
living for a degree of harm that hasn't been proven?
|5.27.09 @ 2:17PM|#
"Apparently you don't know the difference between science and
politics. You just cited "data" from a conservative policitian that
apparently doesn't even know the difference between weather and
climate, or ice volume vs ice coverage."
Doesn't that also apply to liberal politicians like Gore?
|5.27.09 @ 3:01PM|#
The plan from Germany is rather predictable, and understandable.
It's a point similar to tax incidence.
Industries can move to China if electricity rates rise. That's much
less true for, say, taxing ordinary motor fuel. Motorists are much
less likely to go somewhere else to drive more; they'll cut back on
demand first. Sure, it happens eventually, but it takes
longer.
So Germany is realizing that it only wants to tax captive
industries that can't move, rather than the ones that can just exit
to China.
A similar argument applies for why capital gains and corporate
taxes tend to be inefficient. Capital can move to other locations,
so the incidence of those taxes often falls on labor. ("We'll
either pay you less or move to China.")
The corporate tax reduces the income of the little guy much more
than the income tax does.
|5.27.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Now hold on, let's not question folks with Nobels. We're just plain better than you. And we can afford a heavily taxed carbon footprint, which is why it's such a good idea.
Chad|5.27.09 @ 3:49PM|#
bookworm | May 27, 2009, 2:17pm | #
Doesn't that also apply to liberal politicians like
Gore?
I don't get my data from Al Gore. I get it from the same scientists
he does. And anyway, Al Gore actually listens to what the
scientists say, rather than just robotically repeating lies no
matter how many times the scientists refute them.
T|5.27.09 @ 4:18PM|#
Al Gore actually listens to what the scientists say, rather
than just robotically repeating lies no matter how many times the
scientists refute them.
Apparently you didn't read Earth In The Balance.
Michael Ejercito|5.31.09 @ 12:58PM|#
So it's not exactly the height of stupidity for a policymaker to connect these dots and suggest something to curb our carbon emissions.
Why cut carbon emissions.
Just do a TTAPS. You do know what TTAPS is, right
?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245