Page 1 of 2
#5
Quote by JackalUK
The cost of which will probably be passed on to the consumer.

Yes as it is supposed to. Pollution is an externality that needs to be priced. As we have known for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. But governments are too chickenshit to do it cause it would somehow *infringe* on the free market. Yet by definition it is a market failure that governments are supposed to tackle for the market mechanism to work.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#6
It makes sense. Better to set something up now (a known quantity) and adapt than wait for governments to cook up God knows what in the future. Plus they gotta live on the planet too.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#7
Quote by ErikLensherr
It makes sense. Better to set something up now (a known quantity) and adapt than wait for governments to cook up God knows what in the future. Plus they gotta live on the planet too.

Yeah, as opposed to most other pollutions, knowing what the actual damages are of the greenhouse gas emissions is near impossible. Any number they'll come up with will probably not be optimal (given political issues probably too low, also if it is done through market mechanisms like cap and trade), but at least some is better than no.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#9
Quote by chrismendiola
I don't doubt that it happened, but the letter doesn't look real.

Could be Scribd that looks suckish. Don't know.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#10
Quote by Neo Evil11
Yes as it is supposed to. Pollution is an externality that needs to be priced. As we have known for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. But governments are too chickenshit to do it cause it would somehow *infringe* on the free market. Yet by definition it is a market failure that governments are supposed to tackle for the market mechanism to work.


yet they're very much willing to tax for externalities on cigarettes. it's interesting
i don't know why i feel so dry
#11
Quote by Eastwinn
yet they're very much willing to tax for externalities on cigarettes. it's interesting

It is a measure that only hits a few people, so easier to get a majority for that under the notion that there is an easy alternative available for it; not smoking. There is not really a good alternative yet for fossil fuels, which makes this a much more complicated issue than the cfc problem in the 90s and indeed things like smoking. Difficult to get a majority for something that will actually hit everyone. Selfish people will not vote for that as long as they can postpone it while not being hit too hard with the consequences yet.

Hope this post makes sense, typed it on a phone and the size of the page is ****ed up, not going to bother reading it before hitting the sent
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#12
Quote by Neo Evil11
Yeah, as opposed to most other pollutions, knowing what the actual damages are of the greenhouse gas emissions is near impossible. Any number they'll come up with will probably not be optimal (given political issues probably too low, also if it is done through market mechanisms like cap and trade), but at least some is better than no.


Based on current knowledge, I think this is a good thing.

I do wonder though at some point in the future if, as has been suggested, we enter another ice age, will we then tax businesses that are not producing enough CO2, and regret this measure?

As you've noted, knowing the actual damage is an extremely difficult proposition.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#13
Wouldn't excessive CO2-emissions also eventually cause an ice age though?

At least, I thought that was a thing.
#14
I thought time passing causes an eventual ice age

it's all good though, we can move to Saturn or something
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#15
Yeah from what I understand it just goes warm - cold - warm - cold - warm - cold - ...

So I'd assume that if you speed up the warming part, you'd get to the cold part sooner.
#16
Quote by Baby Joel
I thought time passing causes an eventual ice age




Quote by ultimate-slash
Yeah from what I understand it just goes warm - cold - warm - cold - warm - cold - ...

So I'd assume that if you speed up the warming part, you'd get to the cold part sooner.


Ummm...no.

Time itself isn't a causal factor, it's merely a marker, a way of keeping track.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#17
if we did have an ice age, would it be like the films?

Can I be the sloth?
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#18
Quote by Baby Joel
if we did have an ice age, would it be like the films?

Can I be the sloth?



Probably not.

I picture you more as either Crash or Eddie.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#19
Quote by Arby911
Ummm...no.

Time itself isn't a causal factor, it's merely a marker, a way of keeping track.

I get that, but there seems to be a cycle, and if one part of that cycle is sped up then I'd think the next part of the cycle will also occure sooner.

I'm gonna look up this stuff though, because I'm just pulling words out of my ass here.
#20
Quote by Arby911
Ummm...no.

Time itself isn't a causal factor, it's merely a marker, a way of keeping track.

I get that, but there seems to be a cycle, and if one part of that cycle is sped up then I'd think the next part of the cycle will also occur sooner.

I'm gonna look up this stuff though, because I'm just pulling words out of my ass here.
#21
Quote by Arby911
Probably not.

I picture you more as either Crash or Eddie.

nah that's Eastwinn and Minterman22

I think I'm more of a Scrat
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#22
Quote by ultimate-slash
I get that, but there seems to be a cycle, and if one part of that cycle is sped up then I'd think the next part of the cycle will also occure sooner.

I'm gonna look up this stuff though, because I'm just pulling words out of my ass here.


nah 'cause that cycle happens without human input so now we've got a unique problem.
#23
IMO an ice age and an age of extreme heating is fairly counter productive for humans.


however boating through miami's ruins wud b kewl
KIFFLOM
#24
Quote by ultimate-slash
I get that, but there seems to be a cycle, and if one part of that cycle is sped up then I'd think the next part of the cycle will also occure sooner.

I'm gonna look up this stuff though, because I'm just pulling words out of my ass here.


It would depend on why it was sped up, right? If you actually sped up the cycle, then sure, but if all you did was cause a premature warming while the cycle trundled on oblivously, then it wouldn't change it at all.

If the cycle is due to solar activity (or the lack thereof) then it's gonna get cold when it gets cold, and increased CO2 can only change one aspect of the equation. (It either traps more solar energy, causing it to stay warmer, or it reflects more, causing it to stay colder, you can't have it both ways.)

Quote by sonic_hippy

however boating through miami's ruins wud b kewl


Hydro-Thunder, the video game, come to life?

I think that actually was supposed to represent NYC, but whatever...

I can see that.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Jun 1, 2015,
#25
Quote by ultimate-slash
I get that, but there seems to be a cycle, and if one part of that cycle is sped up then I'd think the next part of the cycle will also occur sooner.

I'm gonna look up this stuff though, because I'm just pulling words out of my ass here.

No cause the Milankovitch cycles which have generally served as the instigating factor in creating the ice ages, are constants of the earth orbit and axis, and don't really have anything to do with CO2 (co2 normally is just a positive feedback in the system). You could actually not get the next ice age if the CO2 emissions keep up with the cooling factors.

Europe may get an ice age if the ice on greenland melts and stops the gulf stream. That does not mean that the rest of the world will cool down though. You can have local cooling and global warming.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
Last edited by Neo Evil11 at Jun 1, 2015,
#26
Quote by Neo Evil11
It is a measure that only hits a few people, so easier to get a majority for that under the notion that there is an easy alternative available for it; not smoking. There is not really a good alternative yet for fossil fuels, which makes this a much more complicated issue than the cfc problem in the 90s and indeed things like smoking. Difficult to get a majority for something that will actually hit everyone. Selfish people will not vote for that as long as they can postpone it while not being hit too hard with the consequences yet.

Hope this post makes sense, typed it on a phone and the size of the page is ****ed up, not going to bother reading it before hitting the sent


absolutely.
it would be nice if everyone was aware of the severity of anthropomorphic climate change, then maybe they might vote to not destroy the planet
but then again i'm in america, it's hard to enough to convince someone that anthropomorphic climate change exists in the first place
i don't know why i feel so dry
#27
Quote by Eastwinn
absolutely.
it would be nice if everyone was aware of the severity of anthropomorphic climate change, then maybe they might vote to not destroy the planet
but then again i'm in america, it's hard to enough to convince someone that anthropomorphic climate change exists in the first place

Believe in anthropomorphic climate change went slightly DOWN here Still the vastmajority beliefs in it though, but Geert Wilders (why always the right wingers?) denies it so his followers don't belief it either (they are idiots and/or old)
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#28
Quote by Neo Evil11
(why always the right wingers?)

we're not mature enough yet
KIFFLOM
#29
is this change in climate that releases radiation and rapidly modifies every animal, and sometimes rocks, and sometimes ice cones, into Pokemon?
it's all just coming back
it's all coming back

it's all coming back to me
#30
Quote by Neo Evil11
Believe in anthropomorphic climate change went slightly DOWN here Still the vastmajority beliefs in it though, but Geert Wilders (why always the right wingers?) denies it so his followers don't belief it either (they are idiots and/or old)


I think the problem is more how hard the left-wingers hit it a few years ago. They went full alarmist and made ridiculous predictions that didn't come true (I'm looking at you Al Gore!) and now more and more people are thinking that it's not really a problem seeing as Manhattan and the Florida Keys aren't completely submerged in water just yet. This happens every time the right or left (but especially the left IMO) see a possibly legitimate problem. They hit it like they're paying for it by the hour and then people think they're nuts and go the other way.

I'm more in the camp that we need to be mindful of it, but taxing people for their 'carbon footprint' is ridiculous. We ****ing breathe it out... It's about as dumb as arresting people for 'manspreading'...

I've read papers by climate scientists on both sides and it seems that we really don't know whether anthropomorphic climate change is really even a thing or not. The left took the side they thought would serve their interests and churned out a bunch of demagogues. I think we'd be better off planting more trees, because as I understand it, that's the real problem. We're putting more carbon in the atmosphere and cutting down trees at the same time (other half of the carbon cycle). More trees = more conversion from CO2 to O2. #stopdeforestation!
Last edited by mjones1992 at Jun 1, 2015,
#31
Quote by mjones1992
I think the problem is more how hard the left-wingers hit it a few years ago. They went full alarmist and made ridiculous predictions that didn't come true (I'm looking at you Al Gore!) and now more and more people are thinking that it's not really a problem seeing as Manhattan and the Florida Keys aren't completely submerged in water just yet. This happens every time the right or left (but especially the left IMO) see a possibly legitimate problem. They hit it like they're paying for it by the hour and then people think they're nuts and go the other way.

I'm more in the camp that we need to be mindful of it, but taxing people for their 'carbon footprint' is ridiculous. We ****ing breathe it out... It's about as dumb as arresting people for 'manspreading'...

I've read papers by climate scientists on both sides and it seems that we really don't know whether anthropomorphic climate change is really even a thing or not. The left took the side they thought would serve their interests and churned out a bunch of demagogues. I think we'd be better off planting more trees, because as I understand it, that's the real problem. We're putting more carbon in the atmosphere and cutting down trees at the same time (other half of the carbon cycle). More trees = more conversion from CO2 to O2. #stopdeforestation!

Taxing your carbon foodprint is not ridiculous. The market mechanism is supposed to work cause a trade would be best for both parties. Once you introduce pollution to the story, a third party who has had nothing to do with the trade of the two persons is now negatively effected. By not pricing the eternality you are creating a system in which trade and therefore also the pollution are too high from a social point of view. This can be fixed by a pigovian tax.

And you clearly have not read the papers otherwise you'd know that anthropomorphic climate change is a thing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, more co2 means more heat gets trapped. We have measured for decades now that co2 has risen. How do we know that it is caused by humans? cause the isotope content (c14/c12 ratio) of the co2 matches that of the coal and oil deposits, not those of naturally occuring sources like oceans, air and the biosphere. Man made climate change has been proven scientifically. That you and others are ignorant of basic facts, does not mean that it hasn't been proven. What the real questions are is what the actual effects will be long term.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#32
Quote by mjones1992
I've read papers by climate scientists on both sides and it seems that we really don't know whether anthropomorphic climate change is really even a thing or not.


nah, there's widespread consensus and more evidence for it than most scientific theories that people accept without question. that's usually the case with theories that have, for whatever reason, been controversial. look at quantum mechanics, for instance.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#33
I think it's dumb how power companies can sell the leftover emissions caps that they don't use.
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
#34
Quote by Neo Evil11
Taxing your carbon foodprint is not ridiculous. The market mechanism is supposed to work cause a trade would be best for both parties. Once you introduce pollution to the story, a third party who has had nothing to do with the trade of the two persons is now negatively effected. By not pricing the eternality you are creating a system in which trade and therefore also the pollution are too high from a social point of view. This can be fixed by a pigovian tax.

And you clearly have not read the papers otherwise you'd know that anthropomorphic climate change is a thing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, more co2 means more heat gets trapped. We have measured for decades now that co2 has risen. How do we know that it is caused by humans? cause the isotope content (c14/c12 ratio) of the co2 matches that of the coal and oil deposits, not those of naturally occuring sources like oceans, air and the biosphere. Man made climate change has been proven scientifically. That you and others are ignorant of basic facts, does not mean that it hasn't been proven. What the real questions are is what the actual effects will be long term.


Clearly you haven't read very much into this beyond the general leftist rhetoric. The CO2 we emit makes up about 3.6% of the total carbon emitted per year and it's not even the CO2 we need to worry about, but the chain reaction caused when the temperature increases evaporate more of the oceans, in turn adding more water vapor to the atmosphere. CO2 is useless as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor, on the other hand, could be of concern as water vapor makes up 98% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even cursory reading on the subject would tell you that.

It's still debated whether our additional 3.6% is having a significant effect on evaporation of the oceans and this simply wasn't accounted for in the original study which only focused on the amount of CO2 emissions humans were directly responsible for.

And no, taxing people more to help the environment is an awful idea. Taxing the corporations is a better idea, but that will only in turn raise prices which does the former in an indirect fashion. The world runs on fossil fuel as of today, and no amount of taxation that will likely NOT go toward research into energy alternatives (oil and coal companies will make sure of that!), is going to change that. You can't pay the earth in tax dollars either.

Quote by Eastwinn
nah, there's widespread consensus and more evidence for it than most scientific theories that people accept without question. that's usually the case with theories that have, for whatever reason, been controversial. look at quantum mechanics, for instance.


Who the hell debates quantum mechanics? Only those Electric Universe people and hard-core Einstein worshipers that can't accept that we might need to modify relativity someday to unify the two theories, I imagine.

BTW, not saying climate change isn't a thing. I have trouble with the anthropomorphic part, specifically the ones that say it's the sole cause, and the alarmists claiming Armageddon for profit and political support. Climate changes. That's what it does. The question is how much of an impact are we having on it (because we are. No getting around it), and what measures do we need to take to fix the problem. I still disagree with a carbon tax.
Last edited by mjones1992 at Jun 2, 2015,
#35
Quote by mjones1992
Clearly you haven't read very much into this beyond the general leftist rhetoric.

You know you're dealing with a dumb person when they consider scientific fact political rhetoric instead actual facts

(Invalid img)
KIFFLOM
Last edited by sonic_hippy at Jun 2, 2015,
#36
Quote by mjones1992
Clearly you haven't read very much into this beyond the general leftist rhetoric. The CO2 we emit makes up about 3.6% of the total carbon emitted per year and it's not even the CO2 we need to worry about, but the chain reaction caused when the temperature increases evaporate more of the oceans, in turn adding more water vapor to the atmosphere. CO2 is useless as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor, on the other hand, could be of concern as water vapor makes up 98% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even cursory reading on the subject would tell you that.

It's still debated whether our additional 3.6% is having a significant effect on evaporation of the oceans and this simply wasn't accounted for in the original study which only focused on the amount of CO2 emissions humans were directly responsible for.

And no, taxing people more to help the environment is an awful idea. Taxing the corporations is a better idea, but that will only in turn raise prices which does the former in an indirect fashion. The world runs on fossil fuel as of today, and no amount of taxation that will likely NOT go toward research into energy alternatives (oil and coal companies will make sure of that!), is going to change that. You can't pay the earth in tax dollars either.


Who the hell debates quantum mechanics? Only those Electric Universe people and hard-core Einstein worshipers that can't accept that we might need to modify relativity someday to unify the two theories, I imagine.

BTW, not saying climate change isn't a thing. I have trouble with the anthropomorphic part, specifically the ones that say it's the sole cause, and the alarmists claiming Armageddon for profit and political support. Climate changes. That's what it does. The question is how much of an impact are we having on it (because we are. No getting around it), and what measures do we need to take to fix the problem. I still disagree with a carbon tax.

Believe me, it is my ****ing job to know and study how climate change works and what we can best do about it. You are wrong on ALL accounts. You lack basic insight in how we have proven man-made climate change and you clearly have no idea how externalities work and how we can best stop them. I have degrees in both economics and earth sciences. Saying I haven't read beyond "leftist" rethoric is ****ing stupid. Science isn't left or right, it is correct.


Taxing pollution is about including the marginal external costs into the optimization scheme of businesses. Currently they are not taken into account and that means that the choice made about the quantity of pollution is not optimal. What you are doing is having third parties pay for trade between the first two due to pollution. Saying it is crap just shows you don't understand century old insights.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
Last edited by Neo Evil11 at Jun 2, 2015,
#37
Quote by Neo Evil11
Believe me, it is my ****ing job to know and study how climate change works and what we can best do about it. You are wrong on ALL accounts. You lack basic insight in how we have proven man-made climate change and you clearly have no idea how externalities work and how we can best stop them. I have degrees in both economics and earth sciences. Saying I haven't read beyond "leftist" rethoric is ****ing stupid. Science isn't left or right, it is correct.


An appeal to authority, especially when you are claiming yourself as the authority, is unlikely to be successful in changing anyone's mind...

Also, it seems that the consensus isn't as concrete as you like to claim it is.

From http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

If you're even half the scientist you think you are, you'll recognize that "very likely" isn't the scientific equivalent of "proven".

Before you freak out, I agree that anthropogenic global warming appears to be occurring, the problem is that many (most) of the supporting groups still use enough weasel words to generate doubt. In point of fact some of the statements read like they were written by politicians, not scientists.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#39
Neo_Evil11 once again uses the word "proven" in a context that makes its meaning clear
i don't know why i feel so dry
Page 1 of 2