- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Carbon/Petro Regulations and the Third World
Posted on 1/22/14 at 7:41 am
Posted on 1/22/14 at 7:41 am
on the OT yesterday there was a thread about AGW and i kept asking a variation of this question, without response, so i come to the poli board: what do we do about the third world?
raising the cost of petro products (via regulation) is going to be really rough on developed economies, but it will be disastrous on developing/poor economies. you think a major increase in the price of gas, oil, and petro products will your your wallet, imagine how it will affect a person making $5/day
petro goes well beyond a power source (although that is typically the narrow view, in my experience, of eco-warriors).
there are three options as i see it
1. only apply restrictions to developed nations. this means China, India, Indonesia, etc will run rampant polluting the earth, so it isn't really a solution as much as punishing the developed West
2. apply restrictions to every country and cause a downturn in the lives of billions of poor people, likely leading to tens of millions (conservative) of deaths
3. applying even regulations, but with a tax. the idea is to take more money from developed nations to subsidize the poor nations (the IMF is proposing something similar)
*ETA: i don't give a flying frick about AGW in this thread. this is about the impact of proposed regulations
raising the cost of petro products (via regulation) is going to be really rough on developed economies, but it will be disastrous on developing/poor economies. you think a major increase in the price of gas, oil, and petro products will your your wallet, imagine how it will affect a person making $5/day
petro goes well beyond a power source (although that is typically the narrow view, in my experience, of eco-warriors).
there are three options as i see it
1. only apply restrictions to developed nations. this means China, India, Indonesia, etc will run rampant polluting the earth, so it isn't really a solution as much as punishing the developed West
2. apply restrictions to every country and cause a downturn in the lives of billions of poor people, likely leading to tens of millions (conservative) of deaths
3. applying even regulations, but with a tax. the idea is to take more money from developed nations to subsidize the poor nations (the IMF is proposing something similar)
*ETA: i don't give a flying frick about AGW in this thread. this is about the impact of proposed regulations
This post was edited on 1/22/14 at 7:46 am
8
Posted on 1/22/14 at 8:01 am to SlowFlowPro
I think this guy had it figured out...
Posted on 1/22/14 at 8:01 am to wickowick
is that papa spy from munich and/or the ronin healer from ronin?
Posted on 1/22/14 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
petro goes well beyond a power source (although that is typically the narrow view, in my experience, of eco-warriors).
People forget that petro is in all the plastics and other man made materials.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 8:12 am to Jcorye1
oh yeah. watching eco-warriors talk about petro products while they type on plastic phones/computers makes me chuckle
we could have nuclear/hydrogen-based power sources for our homes, cities, cars, etc, but we'd still need a frick ton of petro to be drilled/refined. with the booming population of the earth, it would only be a matter of time until we faced this issue again
our ascent as a species really ramped up once we started using/honing petro products. if they disappeared tomorrow we'd go back to the middle ages. one byproduct of this development is the ability for our world to sustain the billions of humans on earth. you decrease/eliminate petro and that population will decrease in kind
SOME eco-warriors do want this to happen b/c they want society to devolve into hunter-gatherer...but these are your rare eco-terrorist types who live in the pac NW. they are certainly not mainstream
this is a question for the moderates...what do you plan on doing for the billions of poor who would face much shittier lives?
we could have nuclear/hydrogen-based power sources for our homes, cities, cars, etc, but we'd still need a frick ton of petro to be drilled/refined. with the booming population of the earth, it would only be a matter of time until we faced this issue again
our ascent as a species really ramped up once we started using/honing petro products. if they disappeared tomorrow we'd go back to the middle ages. one byproduct of this development is the ability for our world to sustain the billions of humans on earth. you decrease/eliminate petro and that population will decrease in kind
SOME eco-warriors do want this to happen b/c they want society to devolve into hunter-gatherer...but these are your rare eco-terrorist types who live in the pac NW. they are certainly not mainstream
this is a question for the moderates...what do you plan on doing for the billions of poor who would face much shittier lives?
Posted on 1/22/14 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
The Statist plan will be the same for poor Third World Nations...as it is with poor Middle Class workers in regard to health care cost (ACA). There will be (Carbon-use) taxes on the affluent, and subsidies for the poor.
I've oft argued that the Obama/Prog model in this Nation, will intentionally and necessarily morph into a World Economic Mechanism. Of course, always get the 'black helicopter' thingie.
Re those Green Idealist *Moderates*...a lot are going to be like the young'uns who voted for Obama's Universal Care; it's 'compassionate' and they want it...but didn't realize that it will be THEM that pays for such altruism.
Next few years will be interesting.
I've oft argued that the Obama/Prog model in this Nation, will intentionally and necessarily morph into a World Economic Mechanism. Of course, always get the 'black helicopter' thingie.
Re those Green Idealist *Moderates*...a lot are going to be like the young'uns who voted for Obama's Universal Care; it's 'compassionate' and they want it...but didn't realize that it will be THEM that pays for such altruism.
Next few years will be interesting.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
1. only apply restrictions to developed nations. this means China, India, Indonesia, etc will run rampant polluting the earth, so it isn't really a solution as much as punishing the developed West
This is the tack taken by Gore and his ilk.
quote:
2. apply restrictions to every country and cause a downturn in the lives of billions of poor people, likely leading to tens of millions (conservative) of deaths
Not going to happen - everyone knows the scope of the problem is not severe enough to justify this - it is merely propoganda to get us to:
quote:
3. applying even regulations, but with a tax. the idea is to take more money from developed nations to subsidize the poor nations (the IMF is proposing something similar)
Ding, ding, ding. Now, this will have the same effect as 1., but is more palatable, politically. I still think that rich people in the West are too smart to fall for it, but, who knows? I'm probably being naive. Many of them keep funding liberal democrats to run for office - which is akin to shooting yourself in the head for a headache.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 8:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
is that papa spy from munich and/or the ronin healer from ronin?
It's the French detective who killed the Jackal.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 9:41 am to SlowFlowPro
Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the real key is to maintain maximum sovereignty, don't give it away in treaties or accords designed to transfer wealth, and continue pursuing the energy strategy that has decreased US reliance on imported oil AND lowered carbon emissions to their lowest levels in 20 years. I am no libertarian and I am more than happy to see reasonable regulation - which has LONG existed - to ensure efficient and environmentally sound extraction. Although it is difficult to tell because we are living under the market-stunting policies of the current administration, we have stumbled into an energy-led boom that could kick start manufacturing, decrease the cost of living, and rival the tech boom, possibly with the benefical impact spread more broadly across society. Government essentially just needs to let this happen.
By the way, if you think I'm exaggerating, google around a bit and look at, say, employment stats for the US energy sector. I realize our recovery has been "soft," but do we have any recovery at all if not for the fortuitous energy boom that the current administration has benefitted from while doing little, if anything to help? I want the USA to be the nation that realizes that the near-medium future is - stunningly, after all I was taught in school about peak oil - in fossil fuels.
By the way, if you think I'm exaggerating, google around a bit and look at, say, employment stats for the US energy sector. I realize our recovery has been "soft," but do we have any recovery at all if not for the fortuitous energy boom that the current administration has benefitted from while doing little, if anything to help? I want the USA to be the nation that realizes that the near-medium future is - stunningly, after all I was taught in school about peak oil - in fossil fuels.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 3:58 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the real key is to maintain maximum sovereignty,
i hope this means more "free trade" agreements and not tariffs and protectionist measures
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
"i hope this means more "free trade" agreements and not tariffs and protectionist measures"
On this specific question, I mean more not to become entangled in international agreements that seek to impose carbon limitations. In general, do prefer "free trade" - to the extent you can really obtain it - but my point was more that I doubt that treaties will be terribly effective and don't want to see the US to bound up with obligations. We've greatly reduced our carbon emissions; I see no real priority here.
On this specific question, I mean more not to become entangled in international agreements that seek to impose carbon limitations. In general, do prefer "free trade" - to the extent you can really obtain it - but my point was more that I doubt that treaties will be terribly effective and don't want to see the US to bound up with obligations. We've greatly reduced our carbon emissions; I see no real priority here.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:32 am to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
On this specific question, I mean more not to become entangled in international agreements that seek to impose carbon limitations.
gotcha. my bad
thread bump in honor of the south LA snowstorm of 2014!
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what do we do about the third world?
Nothing. Let Putin deal with them.
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:37 am to constant cough
Posted on 1/28/14 at 9:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i wonder if he's on the same page as Al Gore
He might be Putin is after all about controlling fertility LINK
Posted on 1/28/14 at 10:15 am to constant cough
i love Putin's sense of humor
Posted on 2/1/14 at 12:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
last night on bill maher, stephen merchant displayed exactly the type of ignorance that this thread was aimed to discuss
when discussing AGW, his comment was essentially, "even if it's not real, what will these preparations hurt?"
ironically, this pro-AGW argument sounds like the exact argument of Christians use about faith...that people like Merchant despise
but this ignorance of cost is the heart of my thread. this shite costs money, and these costs could end up being severe to economies all over the world (especially poor countries)
when discussing AGW, his comment was essentially, "even if it's not real, what will these preparations hurt?"
ironically, this pro-AGW argument sounds like the exact argument of Christians use about faith...that people like Merchant despise
but this ignorance of cost is the heart of my thread. this shite costs money, and these costs could end up being severe to economies all over the world (especially poor countries)
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
All developing countries either have their own production or buy crude on the open market then refine it at home. At what point could you "regulate" or "tax"?
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
In - and 40+ pages.
Posted on 2/1/14 at 1:30 pm to Manky
quote:
then refine it at home. At what point could you "regulate" or "tax"?
um...the refining?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News