Global Warming very likely man made

[Orton's Arm]

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.

[Brian Cohen]

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.

[X. Benedict]

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.)

[GG]

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.

[X. Benedict]

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.

[Bungee Jumper]

...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...

[X. Benedict]

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.

[Bungee Jumper]

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..."

[X. Benedict]

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.

[BoondckCL]

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).

[Bungee Jumper]

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.

[BoondckCL]

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?

[/dev/null]

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

[BoondckCL]

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.

[Johnny Coli]

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?

[RkFast]

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.

[Taro T]

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.

[/dev/null]

Disputing Global Warming may be hazardous to your job

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_...e.59f5d04a.html

[yall]

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.

[Bungee Jumper]

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.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

I understand your ambiguous feelings. On the one hand, it's clear human industrial activity has caused a large increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. How much has this impacted the Earth's climate? That's a tough question to answer. Personally, I feel we should try very hard to reduce pollution; until we're absolutely sure that massive increases in greenhouse gases won't create a major climate impact.

 

To respond to a point GG raised earlier, the free market system has failed to adequately control pollution. The free market's response to pollution is a classic example of a negative externality. With a negative externality, you don't internalize the costs of your own actions. Say for example you're thinking of building a factory somewhere. Advanced pollution control equipment would cost you $250,000. Not installing the equipment would impose $750,000 in costs on the people living nearby, due to worsened health and quality of life. But as the factory owner, you're not stuck paying for that $750,000 in costs--they're a negative externality. The economically optimal outcome is where the pollution control equipment gets installed, but the outcome a free market will actually produce is one where it won't.

 

But, some might say, people could choose to buy things only from factories which have good pollution track records. That sentiment is ridiculous. Do you honestly know the environmental record of the company which produced the pizza box for the local pizza place? What about that milk you just bought--how good is the environmental track record for the company which produced it? Or you go to the local diner--what's the environmental track record like for the company which produced their napkins and straws? It is absolutely preposterous to expect normal people to do the level of research required to answer these questions--or at least enough normal people to make an economic difference.

[BoondckCL]

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?

 

He is still a liberal, and he wants to see a liberal in office. It really helps to get someone in office when they have something to fight for. What that means is that all though Mr. Gore may not be running for "POTUS" (A term which should never be used again) but he will still do and say anything to get a liberal into office over a conservative.

[Bungee Jumper]

I understand your ambiguous feelings. On the one hand, it's clear human industrial activity has caused a large increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. How much has this impacted the Earth's climate? That's a tough question to answer. Personally, I feel we should try very hard to reduce pollution; until we're absolutely sure that massive increases in greenhouse gases won't create a major climate impact.

 

To respond to a point GG raised earlier, the free market system has failed to adequately control pollution. The free market's response to pollution is a classic example of a negative externality. With a negative externality, you don't internalize the costs of your own actions. Say for example you're thinking of building a factory somewhere. Advanced pollution control equipment would cost you $250,000. Not installing the equipment would impose $750,000 in costs on the people living nearby, due to worsened health and quality of life. But as the factory owner, you're not stuck paying for that $750,000 in costs--they're a negative externality. The economically optimal outcome is where the pollution control equipment gets installed, but the outcome a free market will actually produce is one where it won't.

 

But, some might say, people could choose to buy things only from factories which have good pollution track records. That sentiment is ridiculous. Do you honestly know the environmental record of the company which produced the pizza box for the local pizza place? What about that milk you just bought--how good is the environmental track record for the company which produced it? Or you go to the local diner--what's the environmental track record like for the company which produced their napkins and straws? It is absolutely preposterous to expect normal people to do the level of research required to answer these questions--or at least enough normal people to make an economic difference.

 

Do I have to read the above to know Holcomb's Arm has NO idea what he's talking about again? Or is it just safe to assume?

[erynthered]

Do I have to read the above to know Holcomb's Arm has NO idea what he's talking about again? Or is it just safe to assume?

 

 

Just read 3.5% of the post, and then roll your dice. You'll have your answer.

 

 

Damn, that sounds like that Tom Hanks movie.

[yall]

Do I have to read the above to know Holcomb's Arm has NO idea what he's talking about again? Or is it just safe to assume?

 

Well he does have the general concept of a negative externality correct, but I'm not sure I would entirely agree with his point about the free market. I would argue that free market systems have done a better job at controlling pollution as more consumers become aware of the effects of pollution. No, I wouldn't expect every consumer to become experts in deciphering which companies and/or products are more "green" but as companies realize this is important to consumers they will advertise it themselves (kinda like trans fats).

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Well he does have the general concept of a negative externality correct, but I'm not sure I would entirely agree with his point about the free market. I would argue that free market systems have done a better job at controlling pollution as more consumers become aware of the effects of pollution. No, I wouldn't expect every consumer to become experts in deciphering which companies and/or products are more "green" but as companies realize this is important to consumers they will advertise it themselves (kinda like trans fats).

 

"global warming" is an air pollution problem. Like SO2 emissions or PCB dumping, it will be solved with science.

[GG]

To respond to a point GG raised earlier, the free market system has failed to adequately control pollution. The free market's response to pollution is a classic example of a negative externality. With a negative externality, you don't internalize the costs of your own actions. Say for example you're thinking of building a factory somewhere. Advanced pollution control equipment would cost you $250,000. Not installing the equipment would impose $750,000 in costs on the people living nearby, due to worsened health and quality of life. But as the factory owner, you're not stuck paying for that $750,000 in costs--they're a negative externality. The economically optimal outcome is where the pollution control equipment gets installed, but the outcome a free market will actually produce is one where it won't.

 

Good Lord, you give the retarded a bad name.

 

Read my post again, although I doubt you'll understand it any more the next time. Free market countries have not failed in pollution control, because free market economie are able to respond much quicker to the problems, once they arise.

 

Everyone would like to live in a utopian world where you know well in advance the problems your technology is going to cause 20-50 years down the line. But we don't, and the track record of free market countries in responding to pollution and other environmental issues has been much better than in countries where the government has a big say in the output.

[Orton's Arm]

Do I have to read the above to know Holcomb's Arm has NO idea what he's talking about again? Or is it just safe to assume?

You've been making unfair and inaccurate assumptions about my posts for months. Why stop now?

[Bungee Jumper]

You've been making unfair and inaccurate assumptions about my posts for months. Why stop now?

 

 

No, I've been making observations. Not assumptions.

 

 

That my observations were both fair and accurate is beside the point, since you can't tell the difference between an observation and an assumption - yet another concept you have precisely no clue about. Indeed, you give the retarded a bad name.

[Orton's Arm]

Good Lord, you give the retarded a bad name.

 

Read my post again, although I doubt you'll understand it any more the next time. Free market countries have not failed in pollution control, because free market economie are able to respond much quicker to the problems, once they arise.

 

Everyone would like to live in a utopian world where you know well in advance the problems your technology is going to cause 20-50 years down the line. But we don't, and the track record of free market countries in responding to pollution and other environmental issues has been much better than in countries where the government has a big say in the output.

Your original post claimed there was no reason to believe the free market has failed to adequately address the problem of pollution. That claim is absurd to anyone who understands the concept of a negative externality; and how our own economy typically responds to them. You made another claim too--that free market economies have generally done a better job of pollution control than centrally planned economies. This second claim is correct. While both systems have failed to properly address the environment, the failure of centrally planned economies has been far graver and more catastrophic.

[Orton's Arm]

No, I've been making observations. Not assumptions.

That my observations were both fair and accurate is beside the point, since you can't tell the difference between an observation and an assumption - yet another concept you have precisely no clue about. Indeed, you give the retarded a bad name.

Of course I give the retarded a bad name. It's sort of like Joe Montana giving an incompetent backup high school QB a bad name.

 

Nearly every point you've attempted to raise in our debates has been stupid, ignorant, and absurd. My use of the word "assumption" was an act of kindness; implying you hadn't put much thought or effort into those posts. Because if those posts represent your best--or anything close--that would make you far more pathetic than I already believe you to be.

[Bungee Jumper]

Your original post claimed there was no reason to believe the free market has failed to adequately address the problem of pollution. That claim is absurd to anyone who understands the concept of a negative externality; and how our own economy typically responds to them. You made another claim too--that free market economies have generally done a better job of pollution control than centrally planned economies. This second claim is correct. While both systems have failed to properly address the environment, the failure of centrally planned economies has been far graver and more catastrophic.

 

 

Plus, the free market doesn't protect the genetic heritage of the species...

[Bungee Jumper]

Of course I give the retarded a bad name. It's sort of like Joe Montana giving an incompetent backup high school QB a bad name.

 

Nearly every point you've attempted to raise in our debates has been stupid, ignorant, and absurd. My use of the word "assumption" was an act of kindness; implying you hadn't put much thought or effort into those posts. Because if those posts represent your best--or anything close--that would make you far more pathetic than I already believe you to be.

 

 

You believe a die has a "true value" of 3.5, and any other roll is wrong. So why the hell would I care if you believe I'm pathetic?

[GG]

Your original post claimed there was no reason to believe the free market has failed to adequately address the problem of pollution. That claim is absurd to anyone who understands the concept of a negative externality; and how our own economy typically responds to them. You made another claim too--that free market economies have generally done a better job of pollution control than centrally planned economies. This second claim is correct. While both systems have failed to properly address the environment, the failure of centrally planned economies has been far graver and more catastrophic.

 

It's hard to avoid calling you an idiot in any response.

 

My post was a logical progression of Brian Cohen's argument of utopian ideals as applied to real life situations and answering X's question about coming up with an efficient market to deal with pollution. Negative externality is a superfluous analogy, because by the time you're talking about creating a market for dealing with pollution, you've recognized that there's a problem.

 

Your moronic use of negative externality example is based on a utopian ideal that the power plant pollutes in absolute terms, and that alternative means are obviously cause less pollution and its easy for the power plant to pass the clean up costs on the community. That's a fallacious example, because it ignores real life decisions that utility managers must make.

 

Here's a question, what do you think is worse for the earth's CO2 levels, pollution from power plant smokestacks, or the deforestation of entire regions (like what happened between 1700 and 1850 in the Northeast US?)

[Bungee Jumper]

It's hard to avoid calling you an idiot in any response.

 

It has a nice symmetry to it. He can't avoid being an idiot in any response.

 

My post was a logical progression of Brian Cohen's argument of utopian ideals as applied to real life situations and answering X's question about coming up with an efficient market to deal with pollution. Negative externality is a superfluous analogy, because by the time you're talking about creating a market for dealing with pollution, you've recognized that there's a problem.

 

Your moronic use of negative externality example is based on a utopian ideal that the power plant pollutes in absolute terms, and that alternative means are obviously cause less pollution and its easy for the power plant to pass the clean up costs on the community. That's a fallacious example, because it ignores real life decisions that utility managers must make.

 

Here's a question, what do you think is worse for the earth's CO2 levels, pollution from power plant smokestacks, or the deforestation of entire regions (like what happened between 1700 and 1850 in the Northeast US?)

 

Why do we keep arguing with this spud? Not only does he not know anything, but he's completely oblivious to the fact that he doesn't know anything. Why are you wasting your time?

[Orton's Arm]

You believe a die has a "true value" of 3.5, and any other roll is wrong. So why the hell would I care if you believe I'm pathetic?

It's not a belief so much as it is a realization.

[Orton's Arm]

It's hard to avoid calling you an idiot in any response.

 

My post was a logical progression of Brian Cohen's argument of utopian ideals as applied to real life situations and answering X's question about coming up with an efficient market to deal with pollution. Negative externality is a superfluous analogy, because by the time you're talking about creating a market for dealing with pollution, you've recognized that there's a problem.

 

Your moronic use of negative externality example is based on a utopian ideal that the power plant pollutes in absolute terms, and that alternative means are obviously cause less pollution and its easy for the power plant to pass the clean up costs on the community. That's a fallacious example, because it ignores real life decisions that utility managers must make.

 

Here's a question, what do you think is worse for the earth's CO2 levels, pollution from power plant smokestacks, or the deforestation of entire regions (like what happened between 1700 and 1850 in the Northeast US?)

I'm trying very hard to be patient here, so I'll overlook your use of words like "idiot" and "moronic." Let's just talk about economics without calling each other names, okay?

 

The power of a free market lies largely in its pricing mechanism. Goods and services naturally flow to their highest-valued use. If there's a shortage of wood, the price will go up. That will encourage those who place the lowest value on wood to find alternatives. This pricing mechanism applies to almost every aspect of a free market, and generally results in economically efficient outcomes.

 

But there are exceptions, such as the negative externality example I gave. The factory owner had to choose between a pollution control system which would cost $250,000; or imposing $750,000 in pollution costs on other people. The economically efficient outcome is for him to buy the pollution control equipment. The problem is, that he internalizes the cost of that equipment (i.e., he writes the check), but he does not internalize the $750,000 in pollution-related costs he would impose on other people. In the absence of regulation, most factory owners will choose not to buy the pollution control equipment.

 

The reason for this involves contracting costs. Let's say that 100,000 people would be affected by the factory's pollution. In theory, you could get those 100,000 people together, and have them negotiate with the factory owner. The factory owner would say, "I propose to increase my pollution level by X, and in return I'll pay each of you Y." The factory owner would continue to increase his bid until over half the people voted to accept it. Or in this case, the factory owner would install the pollution control equipment, because that would be cheaper than purchasing the right to pollute from the affected community.

 

Clearly there are a host of problems which prevent the above example from ever being implemented. A much simpler way to address the problem is to create a pollution tax. A pollution tax would force the factory owner to internalize the costs of his own pollution; and thereby cause him to invest in the pollution control equipment. Whether the pollution tax was too low ($500,000) or too high ($1,000,000); its outcome would encourage more economically optimal behavior than no tax at all. Generally speaking, pollution without an associated per-unit pollution tax results in an above-optimal level of negative externality behavior. Only a per-unit pollution tax can cause polluters to make economically optimal pollution control decisions.

 

Do you see a per-unit pollution tax on SUVs? Do you see one on gas-powered lawn care equipment? Other than coal-generated power, do you see much of a per-unit pollution tax anywhere? Because of the absence of such a tax, people and companies are making non-economically optimal decisions about pollution control. They're not forced to internalize the costs of their own polluting behavior, and so choose to pollute at a higher level than is economically optimal.

[GG]

Gee, a long response that still misses the main point. The negative externalities you're talking about are irrelevant, because pollution was not deemed to be an issue before. Now that it is becoming an issue, the free market based solutions (which you describe) will be the most effective ways to control them. You cannot apply a solution until you see a problem.

 

What in the hell does your example of wood pricing based on its scarcity have on its impact on pollution?

 

That's why it's irresistible to call you an idiot.

[Orton's Arm]

Gee, a long response that still misses the main point. The negative externalities you're talking about are irrelevant, because pollution was not deemed to be an issue before. Now that it is becoming an issue, the free market based solutions (which you describe) will be the most effective ways to control them. You cannot apply a solution until you see a problem.

 

What in the hell does your example of wood pricing based on its scarcity have on its impact on pollution?

 

That's why it's irresistible to call you an idiot.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962. We've had the last 45 years to realize pollution is a problem, and to deal effectively with it. We haven't done so yet, and I don't expect things to change anytime soon. Sure, it's possible that a combination of new technology and higher oil prices will force us to be somewhat less irresponsible about vehicles in the future than we are today. But a per-unit pollution tax is absolutely essential in order to force polluters to internalize the costs they impose; and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

As for the wood pricing example I mentioned, that was merely to illustrate how, in general, the free market's pricing mechanism produces economically optimal outcomes. Negative externality behaviors such as pollution are an exception to that general rule.

[Ramius]

good to see some things never change.