- 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
re: Greenland & Antarctic ice loss
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:24 pm to WeeWee
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:24 pm to WeeWee
quote:
As far as CFC's go, public awarenesss and choosing to buy noncfc products was the ultimate factor not gov action.
The link between CFCs and the ozone layer was known since the 1970s. In fact, the US banned CFCs in consumer products in 1978. Not to piss on the unfalsifiable just-so story, but consumers in the late 1980s had no way to vote with their wallets, because CFCs at that point were mostly being used industrially, far up the supply chain, as refrigerants, solvents, and foaming agents. Would a consumer of cheap electronics in 1988 have any way of knowing whether the PCBs in their clock radio were manufactured using a process with CFCs or not? Were they required to put little stickers on the box? Did they do it anyway? My memories back then are a little hazy, of course, but it's not something I remember seeing outside of aerosol sprays (and propellants were covered under the 1978 ban, so it's not much to brag about).
What did happen in the late 1980s was the Montreal Protocol. Which banned not just sales, but production.
3
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:27 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:Of course.
everything has cost & benefits
But if the costs are predominantly ours while the benefits are disproportionately enjoyed by our competitors', then it is a losing strategy . . . at least it is a losing strategy for us.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:you haven't seen people claiming that there is no global warming, that it's all made up by socialists?
I haven't seen that.
Really?
And don't be obtuse, we're talking about the last hundred years.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:28 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Hey, look, you're doing exactly what I said you'd do, only talking about the increase in energy cost and not talking about the corresponding decrease in labor cost.
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 12:28 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:your assumption is that's the only solution.
But if the costs are predominantly our
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:29 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
just wanted to understand the current thinking. 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.
Good, keep up the hard work. In time people will eventually know if the climate changed or not.
right now it can not be proven either way.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:29 pm to Iosh
quote:Your solution is to give people tax breaks so they can pay more in taxes? Brilliant.
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.
quote:Your analysis is rather trite. Just like "stimulus" claims to have an economic muliplier... so do costs--only in the other direction. To put it simply, the government can never return an equal amount it collects because there are costs associated with the collection, enforcement, and inevitable waste.
I can already tell you are simply going to ignore the benefits and list the costs over and over again.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:29 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
you haven't seen people claiming that there is no global warming, that it's all made up by socialists?
Man made global warming. I've never seen a single person ever argue that the climate doesn't change over time.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:30 pm to Iosh
quote:to be fair, industrial users saw the change coming & started moving away from CFCs.
Iosh
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:37 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:so this position is that yes the globe is warming, but it's not humans' fault?
Man made global warming.
There is generally at least a weekly thread by someone on the right trying to discredit the simple fact of current warming.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:37 pm to Iosh
quote:It's a bit of chicken-egg.
but consumers in the late 1980s had no way to vote with their wallets
I look at the organic movement for an obvious example of the market making an en masse movement toward better environmental outomes. In the 1980s you couldn't buy "organic" food. No one even knew what it was. Today... entire grocery chains and brands revolve around the movement. I cannot recall any significant taxation or government coersion provoking such a movement...
So while, the changing desires of consumer may not be fast enough to satisfy you... claiming they do not trend in positive directions without government assistance is... easily deniable.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:38 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:No, it would be to give people tax breaks so that they can pay less, or more, or the same in taxes, depending on how much energy they consume. That's the entire point of a Pigovian tax. Perhaps I'd get more stick if I called it the "Al Gore And Mike Bloomberg Pay Up" plan?
Your solution is to give people tax breaks so they can pay more in taxes? Brilliant.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:38 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
so this position is that yes the globe is warming, but it's not humans' fault?
Warming since when? No one has ever denied that the globe goes through warming and cooling cycles. To your question, if it isn't man's fault that we are warming, what is the point of taxing us like it is?
quote:
There is generally at least a weekly thread by someone on the right trying to discredit the simple fact of current warming.
Well, that would be because there has been some debate on whether or not the warming cycle has paused or started to reverse. Being skeptical that the current warming is some catastrophic event that man caused does not mean that one is denying the fact that the earth warms and cools. Just that there still isn't enough evidence to prove cause or severity of where we are at.
What is your point?
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:45 pm to Iosh
quote:
No, it would be to give people tax breaks so that they can pay less, or more, or the same in taxes, depending on how much energy they consume.
You're presumption that energy demand is highly elastic. It is not. The other part missing is malinvestment. Consumers don't typically invest any additional free capital in wealth producing goods. Typically they go to additional consumer goods which--ironically, the production of tends to be quite wasteful of resources. How do you account for that?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:48 pm to Tigah in the ATL
Is it just me or are the deniers shifting their argument from "its a hoax" to "there's nothing we can do about it"?
Interesting....
Interesting....
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:49 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:no, the only debate is ideologically driven, not scientifically driven.
there has been some debate on whether or not the warming cycle has paused or started to reverse. Being skeptical
Saying "sure the earth warms and cools all the time" is moving the goalposts.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:52 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
no, the only debate is ideologically driven, not scientifically driven.
right...
quote:
Saying "sure the earth warms and cools all the time" is moving the goalposts.
Wat? How is that moving the goalpost? Nobody has ever tried to argue counter to that? That is the basis of the skeptics argument. The earth has always warmed and cooled. Why is now so different and problematic than before?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:52 pm to AUbused
quote:
Is it just me or are the deniers shifting their argument from "its a hoax" to "there's nothing we can do about it"?
Interesting....
You mean how the argument was changed from man made global warming (what the hoax argument was about), to just global warming, to climate change (what the "nothing we can do about it" argument is about?)
Nobody can argue that climate change is a hoax, as it is an observable event.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:57 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:it is now. It used to be "the earth isn't warming," and there are plenty still invested in this viewpoint
That is the basis of the skeptics argument.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 12:58 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
there are plenty still invested in this viewpoint
Show me one person who is arguing that the earth hasn't warmed since the ice age.
I'll wait.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News