- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Greenland & Antarctic ice loss
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:32 am to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:32 am to SpidermanTUba
rich coming from you. Maybe he should respond with: "k"
0
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:33 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:. . . and again:
Nor is it the principle driving force being cap & trade
Did cap & trade bring down Neanderthal's pollution levels?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:33 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The idea that CO2 does not affect the globe's temperature and/or that warmer temperatures do not melt ice is the height of ignorance and stupidity. If science is arrogant then fine - I'll take that over being a moron any day.
It doesn't matter. It's going to change no matter what.
That's the point.
Whether it changes because of CO2, sunspots, ocean current cycles, etc. is not the point; the point is that it has changed for eons now.
And it is arrogant to believe that we can make it stop, or that we even know this is exactly the perfect spot in time and that climate, sea level, etc. should remain the same in perpetuity.
Right now we have govt. invading other countries, we have civil wars across the globe, and we have groups of people maiming and killing others; and yet you really think we are going to get the whole world to cooperate and go along with an agenda that is going to wreck economies?
But I know, you are a genius, we realists are morons; and you are going to show us the way, the truth and the light.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:43 am to NC_Tigah
quote:There is a an incredibly large consensus among economists that Pigovian taxes are among the least destructive taxes you can come up with. Just don't slap it on top of the snarl of other taxes. You can make it revenue-neutral one of two ways:
. . . and to the extent that involves putting a price with negative externalities on atmospheric emissions?
- Put it in the general fund such that it replaces X amount of income or payroll taxes, which is an economic benefit because you're now taxing more of a negative (pollution) instead of a positive (labor).
- Do a fee-and-dividend where the carbon tax never touches the general fund, it gets refunded on a flat head-count basis (sort of like a carbon FairTax). This mitigates the inevitable energy price hikes.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:48 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Dur! dee big gubment nanny state is toopeed! dose dum libruls gobment lovers toopeed! dur herdy her her dur!
Example 1: USDA policies leading to the Dust Bowl
Example 2: Corp of Engineers building levees that stopped the flow of sediment into the Louisiana wetlands
Example 3: Maintenance on the NOLA levees before KAtrina
Example 4: Obamacare rollout How hard is it to build a fricking website in 3 years for a billion dollars. I am sure chicken could do it for $10 million
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:54 am to Iosh
quote:No.
There is a an incredibly large consensus among economists that Pigovian taxes are among the least destructive taxes you can come up with.
There is only consensus on the topic when considered in isolation. Under circumstances where competing countries with antithetical goals enjoy advantage because of our self-flagellation, the effect could be massively destructive.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 10:59 am
Posted on 9/3/14 at 11:02 am to NC_Tigah
quote:How so? Arthur Laffer doesn't even believe in global warming (he's an agnostic) he just wants less taxes on things like income and payroll. At worst, you've shifted the distortion.
There is only consensus on the topic when artificially considered in isolation. Under circumstances where competing countries with antithetical goals enjoy advantage because of our self-flagellation, the effect could be massively destructive.
Let's assume arguendo that China represents a constant button-pusher in our atmospheric prisoner's dilemma. How do either of the schemes I mentioned earlier "destroy" anything?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 11:17 am to CptBengal
quote:Because of the greenhouse effect?
ok. how is CO2 a negative?
I have a question of my own, since you will obviously disagree on CO2: do you agree that
GOVERNMENT COERCION was necessary to stop CFCs from degrading the ozone layer? If not, do you disagree that CFCs are bad, or would you like to offer some sort of non-coercive alternative to the Montreal Protocol? I ask because if your position on the science is derived from an axiomatic political belief rather than the other way around, it's not really worth discussing these sorts of things.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 11:17 am to Iosh
quote:Other than disproportionately slowing our economy, running up the cost of debt, potentially destablizing the dollar, and unnecessarily elevating nondemocracies to equal or superior economic and military status? Other than that, it wouldn't "destroy" anything.
Let's assume arguendo that China represents a constant button-pusher in our atmospheric prisoner's dilemma. How do either of the schemes I mentioned earlier "destroy" anything?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 11:36 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Okay, I say it will improve the economy, make debt cheaper, strengthen the dollar, and do more to reduce the elevation of nondemocracies in economic and military status. I have just as much proof for these assertions as you. Well, actually, more, since Laffer specifically cites improvements to income, jobs, and national security through independence from OPEC and other cartels, and Mankiw cites benefits to externalities independent of carbon mitigation such as localized smog, traffic congestion, auto accidents, and tax incidence. (The linked article is specific to gasoline and oil taxes, but these would be included in such a carbon tax along with coal.)
Other than disproportionately slowing our economy, running up the cost of debt, potentially destablizing the dollar, and unnecessarily elevating nondemocracies to equal or superior economic and military status? Other than that, it wouldn't "destroy" anything.
Again, I am not proposing a tax on carbon and nothing else. I am proposing a tax on carbon in conjunction with either a corresponding offset in income/payroll tax, or a universal per-person dividend of the carbon tax revenues. I can already tell you are simply going to ignore the benefits and list the costs over and over again.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 11:37 am
Posted on 9/3/14 at 11:42 am to Iosh
quote:
Again, I am not proposing a tax on carbon and nothing else. I am proposing a tax on carbon in conjunction with either a corresponding offset in income/payroll tax, or a universal per-person dividend of the carbon tax revenues. I can already tell you are simply going to ignore the benefits and list the costs over and over again.
You are trying to impose a US solution to a global problem.
Do you think the Chinese care about offsets in income/payroll taxes? Do you believe the Indians care about a universal dividend?
The tax code is too complicated now, and you want to make it even more complicated for what?
Stopping sea level changes? Stopping climate change?
But I realize that you believe govt. can solve all our problems, and its obvious they can not.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 11:50 am to Iosh
quote:
have a question of my own, since you will obviously disagree on CO2: do you agree that GOVERNMENT COERCION was necessary to stop CFCs from degrading the ozone layer? If not, do you disagree that CFCs are bad, or would you like to offer some sort of non-coercive alternative to the Montreal Protocol?
well you didn't ask it to me but I am going to answer.
I do believe that CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" and we should limit our production of it so that we can let nature (AKA God's work) take care of nature the best it can. However a gov solution will create more problems than it solves. Let the free market do it, choosing to be green and living a green lifestyle is way more effective an a carbon tax.
As far as CFC's go, public awarenesss and choosing to buy noncfc products was the ultimate factor not gov action.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:05 pm to doubleb
quote:is this the right's model on this now?
Can you link the study telling us what the perfect climate is and exactly which sea level needs to be maintained?
A year ago global warming was not happening. Has it now switched to sure it's happening, it's all natural, don't worry about it?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:08 pm to CptBengal
quote:wow. Seriously, your political craziness has fricked up your mind.
the tragedy of the commons has nothing to do with coercion you moron.
quote:
The tragedy of the commons is an economics theory by Garrett Hardin, according to which individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group's long-term best interests by depleting some common resource.
quote:
"Commons" can include the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, national parks, the office refrigerator, and any other shared resource.
I guess the corporal bengal school of economics doesn't include this concept.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:12 pm to Iosh
quote:the board is so batshit crazy about GW (& the EPA in general) it can't think rationally about how government regulations are required to prevent pollution.
If not, do you disagree that CFCs are bad, or would you like to offer some sort of non-coercive alternative to the Montreal Protocol?
The only people who even have ideas on it are the anarcho-capitalists, who basically have a wish & a prayer that good things could happen thru torts.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:16 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
quote:Can you link the study telling us what the perfect climate is and exactly which sea level needs to be maintained? is this the right's model on this now? A year ago global warming was not happening. Has it now switched to sure it's happening, it's all natural, don't worry about it?
so you can't link a study telling us all what the perfect climate is. I didn't think so.
And I've said this repeatedly, while I don't believe the CO2 emissions are changing the climate, it really doesn't matter because the climate is going to change anyway.
We need to adapt to climate change, conserve our resources, and not pollute(CO2 is not pollution).
You guys can continue to trumpet how the US needs to do this, that, tax this, that, etc. but it isn't going to change anything.
You have to know that.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:19 pm to Iosh
quote:Then you're wrong. Sorry.
Okay, I say it will improve the economy, make debt cheaper, strengthen the dollar, and do more to reduce the elevation of nondemocracies in economic and military status. I have just as much proof for these assertions as you
If an energy-based economy unilaterally increases the cost of its energy, the cost of production, and cost of living, and you or Laffer, or anyone else claim such a move will "improve the economy, make debt cheaper, strengthen the dollar, and do more to reduce the elevation of nondemocracies in economic and military status," you are living a fantasy. Again, the problem lies in analysis which artificially isolates one economy from its international competitors.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:21 pm to doubleb
quote:just wanted to understand the current thinking.
it really doesn't matter because the climate is going to change anyway.
I haven't trumpeted anything that the US needs to do. Tho it's obvious the current line is to attack the disastrous taxes & wealth re-distribution that aren't happening. I'm taking one small step to counter the nuts who still think climate change isn't happening at all.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:22 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:everything has cost & benefits.
NC_Tigah
Your reductionist thinking is beneath you
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:23 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:I haven't seen that. There was someone here claiming the Earth has always been this warm?
A year ago global warming was not happening.
Please link to the ice age denier(s) you're referencing.
Take your time.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News