Orton's Arm Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I'm not surprised you're not understanding this. If you implement a "carbon tax" or some other contrived governmental scheme to limit CO2 emissions, you WILL damage the economy. It's not a question of will you, but HOW MUCH. I believe it will further erode an almost-dead American manufacturing sector. If Chinese firms have no such caps, it means they have capital to spend on growing their business and, by extension, the Chinese economy. So tell me again how it would IMPROVE our competitive advantage to "limit CO2 emissions"? You bring up good points: 1. The West isn't in control of whether global warming gets addressed, because China and India can produce more than enough pollution for everyone. 2. Additional pollution controls on American manufacturers could very easily result in yet more industrial jobs going overseas. But we still need to address the environment. We could do that by 1. Impose higher fuel efficiency standards on cars and SUVs. In addition, there'd be tax incentives to do more than just meet the minimum standard. 2. Buy up or otherwise decrease the number of emissions certificates available for coal power plants. Steps like these would make a real difference for the environment, but without going after American manufacturers. I'd like it if we could impose a "pollution tax" on imports, thereby punishing overseas companies that pollute too much. But such a tax would violate a trade agreement we signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Cohen Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I still say it comes down to the utopianism of liberals in general. The world has certain real energy needs. The most realistic way to cut carbon emissions is to increase nuclear power production, but they won't do that either. It's very simple economics, which socialist and communist theory doesn't recognize. The principle of scarcity. Human wants are unlimited. Recognize this, and you see the truth. The question is how to address it, with utopian clap-trap, or with real world possible solutions. Everything has consequences. Deal with that fact, and you can start to address the possible solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 I still say it comes down to the utopianism of liberals in general. The world has certain real energy needs. The most realistic way to cut carbon emissions is to increase nuclear power production, but they won't do that either. It's very simple economics, which socialist and communist theory doesn't recognize. The principle of scarcity. Human wants are unlimited. Recognize this, and you see the truth. The question is how to address it, with utopian clap-trap, or with real world possible solutions. Everything has consequences. Deal with that fact, and you can start to address the possible solutions. There is utopianism on both sides of the spectrum - the failing of the capitalist model seems to me to be that there are no efficient markets to protect a shared ecosystem. (pollution credits have been one idea, but that requires regulation.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 There is utopianism on both sides of the spectrum - the failing of the capitalist model seems to me to be that there are no efficient markets to protect a shared ecosystem. (pollution credits have been one idea, but that requires regulation.) What evidence do you see that the market failed? The issue got warm enough to have people focused on it - enough that some are willing to pay a premium for "cleaner" technologies. That naturally set of a round of investment to capitalize on the potential. As more people embrace newer technology, the costs will drop. If anything, the market system has been much more adept in identifying potential problems because there are always destructive agents working to undermine the incumbents. You don't get that with a nationalized industry that is closely aligned with the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 What evidence do you see that the market failed? The issue got warm enough to have people focused on it - enough that some are willing to pay a premium for "cleaner" technologies. That naturally set of a round of investment to capitalize on the potential. As more people embrace newer technology, the costs will drop. If anything, the market system has been much more adept in identifying potential problems because there are always destructive agents working to undermine the incumbents. You don't get that with a nationalized industry that is closely aligned with the state. I'm not saying the markets have failed - it just may mean they need a nudge (which means they are not perfect). I think it was the sulfur dioxide pollution credit market (?) that Bush I created that proved to work quite well. I wasn't suggesting that nationalizing industry was the answer, merely that there are people somewhere between a Utopian left and right that see solutions in areas where well crafted policies and regulations may meet to enable new markets. Perhaps there are predictive elements in markets that can be helpful, but these seem mostly akin to short term commodities. Credits and things like that may help nudge beneficial industries to a point where they can compete. Maybe something like biofuels, or even in certain cases deregulation of things like hemp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 ...there are people somewhere between a Utopian left and right that see solutions in areas where well crafted policies and regulations may meet to enable new markets. And then there's the politicians that run for office... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 And then there's the politicians that run for office... yep. that's all it took to just get my head out of clouds. Newt Gingrich - - is one person that I think has some interesting ideas on this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 yep. that's all it took to just get my head out of clouds. Newt Gingrich - - is one person that I think has some interesting ideas on this stuff. Newt's always had good ideas and been misunderstood. I remember back when he was Speaker, and suggested that every homeless person should be provided with a free laptop. People got up in arms..."Newt's crazy, he wants to give homeless people free laptops!" To which, he responded "No, I don't actually. I just want to get people thinking about new ways to address the problems in this country." Which is pretty damn smart, really. I still don't like him...but I can respect that kind of thinking, at least. Unlike "I didn't inhale" or "I voted for it before I voted against it" or "It's a international issue so the UN has to deal with it, except that it's a national security issue so the UN doesn't need to be involved..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Newt's always had good ideas and been misunderstood. I remember back when he was Speaker, and suggested that every homeless person should be provided with a free laptop. People got up in arms..."Newt's crazy, he wants to give homeless people free laptops!" To which, he responded "No, I don't actually. I just want to get people thinking about new ways to address the problems in this country." Which is pretty damn smart, really. I still don't like him...but I can respect that kind of thinking, at least. Unlike "I didn't inhale" or "I voted for it before I voted against it" or "It's a international issue so the UN has to deal with it, except that it's a national security issue so the UN doesn't need to be involved..." I have a personal distaste for the guy but at the same time I think he would be a shrewd person to be helping craft policy. I actually think that if he ran for president it would be the best thing for the Republican party even if he didn't win. He would be talking policy while Brownback is talking about the need to ban gay daddies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 We need to elect Al Gore so that he can take care of Global Warming the way Bill Clinton took care of El Nino. Seriously, if taking a natural thing that no one has control over, like global warming, and using it as a way to gain votes, then i am running for president when i turn 35. How's this, i start a campagn centered around the fact that the moon is moving away from Earth, and that it is because of __________ (Fill in the blank). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 How's this, i start a campagn centered around the fact that the moon is moving away from Earth, and that it is because of __________ (Fill in the blank). Transfer of angular momentum from the earth's rotation to the moon's orbital velocity due to the lunar landings. Not only is that causing the moon to move farther away, it's causing the earth's day to lengthen, which will not only wreak havoc with farming practices, but is causing global warming in itself (longer day means the sun's up longer, means there's more solar heating...) We need to cancel the space program, it's destroying our planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Transfer of angular momentum from the earth's rotation to the moon's orbital velocity due to the lunar landings. Not only is that causing the moon to move farther away, it's causing the earth's day to lengthen, which will not only wreak havoc with farming practices, but is causing global warming in itself (longer day means the sun's up longer, means there's more solar heating...) We need to cancel the space program, it's destroying our planet. Well done sir, i am sure you could get some liberals to vote for you. Who will be your running mate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Transfer of angular momentum from the earth's rotation to the moon's orbital velocity due to the lunar landings. Not only is that causing the moon to move farther away, it's causing the earth's day to lengthen, which will not only wreak havoc with farming practices, but is causing global warming in itself (longer day means the sun's up longer, means there's more solar heating...) We need to cancel the space program, it's destroying our planet. That's one theory. I suspect it may have something to do with a major shift in the Earth's center of gravity. Gravity due to the Earth's mass is what keeps the Moon in orbit. For the last couple billion years the center of Earth's gravity has been the Earth's core. However that was before a drastic shift in the center of gravity caused by Rosie O'Donnell's fat ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 That's one theory. I suspect it may have something to do with a major shift in the Earth's center of gravity. Gravity due to the Earth's mass is what keeps the Moon in orbit. For the last couple billion years the center of Earth's gravity has been the Earth's core. However that was before a drastic shift in the center of gravity caused by Rosie O'Donnell's fat ass Looks like the Donald needs to have sex with his beautiful wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 We need to elect Al Gore so that he can take care of Global Warming the way Bill Clinton took care of El Nino. Seriously, if taking a natural thing that no one has control over, like global warming, and using it as a way to gain votes, then i am running for president when i turn 35. How's this, i start a campagn centered around the fact that the moon is moving away from Earth, and that it is because of __________ (Fill in the blank). Except Al Gore isn't running for POTUS, has repeatedly said he has no interest in running for any public office, and hasn't been in public office for seven years. It couldn't be that he's just passionate about something? It couldn't be that maybe, just maybe, his only agenda is to bring to attention something he cares deeply about, whether you agree with him or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Count me in as a Newt fan, too. The man has baggage, fer sure. But he's shrewd, strong, has good leadership skills and has some damn fine ideas for both the foreign and domestic agendas. You may not agree with all his opinions, but as X.B pointed out, you know the man's going to shoot straight about the important issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Except Al Gore isn't running for POTUS, has repeatedly said he has no interest in running for any public office, and hasn't been in public office for seven years. It couldn't be that he's just passionate about something? It couldn't be that maybe, just maybe, his only agenda is to bring to attention something he cares deeply about, whether you agree with him or not? Except Dick Nixon wasn't running for POTUS and stated unequivocably "(y)ou won't have Nixon to kick around anymore", and hadn't been in public office for 8 years. He went into private practice for a few years, and then, lo and behold, there he was in '68. I guess we did have him to kick around again, afterall. I'll believe Gore's not running when it's August of '12 and he hasn't thrown his hat in the ring in either race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Disputing Global Warming may be hazardous to your job http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_...e.59f5d04a.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Except Al Gore isn't running for POTUS, has repeatedly said he has no interest in running for any public office, and hasn't been in public office for seven years. It couldn't be that he's just passionate about something? It couldn't be that maybe, just maybe, his only agenda is to bring to attention something he cares deeply about, whether you agree with him or not? I've stayed out of this one for the most part, due to the fact that I honestly don't know who is right and who is wrong even after doing a fair amount of reading on the subject. As usual the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. At any rate, I do take issue with this being something that Gore really care about, when he tends not to practice what he preaches. This is an older article, but I think it speaks volumes about these pseudo environmentalist types that want to tell the common folk that every bit matters, but are unwilling to make sacrifices themselves. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm I didn't bother finding a link, but I'm sure most of you remember Gore having a motorcade to drive him and his "posse" 500 meters at the Cannes Film Festival, to promote his conservation movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 I've stayed out of this one for the most part, due to the fact that I honestly don't know who is right and who is wrong even after doing a fair amount of reading on the subject. As usual the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. It ain't science anymore, it's politics. Which basically means: everybody's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts