Scientism and religion have a lot in common. It’s all about core belief systems.
I can understand your frustration that people disagree with you, but if you don’t address the basis of their disagreement, then you’re not really interested in a discussion anyway, and a discussion forum is probably the wrong place for you.
Namecalling (illogical, irrational, nut jobs) isn’t conducive to an exchange of information. Surely you can make your argument without such petty theatrics.
More precisely, we don’t need no tie-dye shirt and sandals wearing liberal arts infiltrator professors working for an organization founded by Alger Hiss, using roughly the same coat of arms as the Soviet Union telling us nothing, especially about economics. Of course, all of that is redundant in light of what else I’ve said…
Wow, the thread has exploded this weekend. Cool.
Caley, this is now what I’ve been saying. I’ve been saying very specifically that I’d favor quotas IF we knew that any emissions below some level would not constitute aggression, i.e. could be dispersed by the atmosphere.
So if , to continue my example, we knew that pour atmosphere could disperse with 5 million tons of CO2 per annum, why would it be donning privileges for people to emit that amount? Note that we’re not discussing CO2 as a pollutant itself, but merely as an alleged “greenhouse gas”. Why would quotas be privileges to commit murder? Why should we choose between either stopping CO2 entirely, while 5 million tons would be perfectly alright, or doing nothing? I don’t get your point.
Again, I favor quotas only if we knew that emission below some point could be dispersed by the atmosphere, hence not causing global warming. It’s a very, very specific scenario.
What you discuss, is the scenario where all CO2 emissions would be considered aggression. But in that case the proper way to go about it is not for the aggressor to compensate, but for the aggressor to stop aggressing. So, if CO2 would be proven to be some sort of carcinogenic agent with global circulation (a totally stupid scenario but bear with me), than a total ban would be imposed. There would be no other way (of course, one could enter into contracts with every earthling whereby they’d forgive the damage done, probably for a fee; good luck with that!). If the carcinogenic agent would be some sort of indispensable agent, say if electricity itself caused the issue, than I agree that nothing could be done about it. But CO2 is not crucial to the modern world, but rather a byproduct of a given production system rather than of an other.
Pertaining to libertarianism and first-come doctrine, only the most recent actions that push CO2 past the tipping point are the marginal cause of damage. Thus, allowing them to emit anything is a privilege and slapping quotas on everyone else is transgression. The former would have to be quotad.
Hm, now that I think of it, you’re perfectly right. The only problem would be a practical one, i.e. determining who was emitting before the threshold was reached. But otherwise you’re right: those who where emmiting prior to the breach have homesteaded the right to emmit the same amount, and others will have to buy such rights from them.
Why should they buy from them, why not from every earthling?
Because they where the first to use that right, thus they have homesteaded it, while some guy in Bangladesh did nothing to earn it. It would be like partitioning all land equally among all, instead of giving it to the guy who actually put it to use.
I concur with Student and whoever mentioned using pigovian taxes.
And how did the heck did the free market bring us nuclear and solar energy when they were largely funded by government subsidies? And countries like India weren’t producing large amounts of CO2 because they were socialists(they weren’t ever). Developing countries usually have the problem of emitting large amounts of pollutants simply because they can’t afford to mitigate it unlike developed nations which can(through regulation and taxes).
Why? The means don’t match the end.
So you wouldn’t apply the taxes based on CO2, but on ability to pay? How progressive!
Speaking of government subsidies, the USG is one of the biggest polluters in the world. How come the AGW folks never have a solution to clean up government CO2 emissions? How come no one even talks about the CO2 output of the US military?
Obviously you can’t tax the government, and if the statist solution is to vote in change, why not just start praying? How does the state police the state?
As usual, warmists and pro-taxers are exposed for what they are. Anti-private sector, anti-market and pro-violence.
But the people from Bagladesh are those who suffer from the emissions. Their villages can be flooded for example.
Sounds like you use the same arguments religion uses against science, in the debate over evolution. If you are all illogical, irrational, science denying nut jobs I would rather spend my time elsewhere to be honest.
I think he means just because you call it “science”, it doesn’t mean it actually is.
No one will suffer because emission above the agreed level are still considered aggression. All that has changed, is who has the initial right to emit up to that point.
No, I did not ignore your initial assumption. The fact stands that if people believe that global warming is going to be catastrophic, they will move away from areas likely to be hit hard, partly of their own will, and partly because insurance companies would not insure property in areas likely to flood at the same premia as areas further inland and/or on higher ground.
Why? The means don’t match the end.
The end is to curb emission levels by using the tax as an incentive to do so.
So you wouldn’t apply the taxes based on CO2, but on ability to pay? How progressive!
You misunderstood me. Developing countries would take a hit on their oveallr level of production if they had to start enacting enviromental legislation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Richer countries like the US can afford to do something like enact a carbon tax on companies emitting large amounts of it.
And supporting pigovian taxation does not make one a progressive. Most economist support pigovian taxation over other methods of dealing with some negative externalities including libertarian economist like Scott Sumner, Bryan Caplan, Arnold Kling(Austrian), Russ Roberts(Austrian), and Tyler Cowen. Even Robert Murphy said once that if human made global warming is indeed confirmed to be true and we will reach a tipping point then he sees Pigovian taxation as a sensible solution to mitigate it. Of course they have they have their own reservations about it in regards to it being handle minor externalities. If you go over to the EPA website you can look into information regarding things like CO2 levels and research done on it from them and other independent organizations to see how certain iniatives impacted them. If you’re interested.
I won’t be able to respond back immediately since I’m swamped with work this week.
The notion of Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) based on co2 is completely flawed to begin with and the only reason that it has widespread recognition is because the government gives credibility to corrupt scientists. As well as corrupting the centralised academic syllabus with incorrect information. We cannot say “if it is proven satisfactory” because it is not proven satisfactory.
In an an cap society air pollution would be handled just like ground pollution. If someone could prove damage to his property from air pollution in some way, then the person doing the pollution could be liable.
Why AGW is flawed:
What is absolutely insane about the global warming hysteria is mr al gore and the rest of the corrupt scientists have managed to not only convince everyone that you get co2 from burning fossil fuels but that co2 increases temperature due to the greenhouse effect.
Firstly you do not get co2 from burning fossil fuels.
Carbon dioxide Definition: a heavy odorless colorless gas formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances; absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)
What you do get is carbon monoxide and depending on the type of fossil fuel various other lethal and unhealthy gases. There is a lot of false scientific information on the internet and there is even government agencies and departments called “act on co2” and “combat co2” etc. Amazingly no one has seemed to notice. The actual basic scientific principle behind combustion that everyone was taught in school, pre 10 years ago; was that C + O2 = CO not C + O2 = CO2. You see oxygen cannot exist as a single molecule that is why it is O2 and not O always. But when combustion occurs it requires oxygen and that is why we are left with CO. Think about catalytic converters in cars, why would they be converting the fumes to carbon dioxide if, one if there was already co2 fumes coming out the exhaust and two if it was a bad pollutant. Plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen if it was not for the apparent correlation with temperature levels it would be a non-issue.
As much as the scientific dictatorship and circle jerk peer reviewed papers like to think that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature levels they have no scientific proof. Take a look at the greenhouse effect and how they take the readings of the level of co2 in the atmosphere. PPM readings taken by individuals around the world in varied environments and climates, is not a good way to come to take an accurate calculation of the current co2 levels in the entire atmosphere. But the greenhouse effect is not that great either, it is an old theory and they apparently say that the radioactive reflectiveness of the gases is what causes the effect. But i have yet to find any proof of the method used in calculating the radioactive reflectiveness of the gases.
Real problems with pollution do exist however and that is the pollution by the planes in the air the chemtrails or con trails or petrol trail, whatever you like to call them. As well as pollution from the five official pollutants and of course the water pollution from dumping and leaks.
Yes, you do get CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
EmperorNero is right that the market itself cannot act in a way that would move us from a CO2 based economy to a steady state (low growth or zero growth) green economy that would have mitigated global warming. The whole problem cannot be solved by a free market because there is more profit in remaining with the current system which has caused the problem.
Considering the government both subsidised and enabled the current configuration of energy consumption, how about we place blame where it is due? That the “problem” (assuming CC is anthropogenic, and does violate individuals’ property rights be they in person or other objects) cannot be “solved” by the free market (assuming the solution is to “go green”) simply indicates that these technologies are, for the most part, uneconomic as of yet. Those that most likely are not (e.g. nuclear power) tend to be enveloped in unprecedented levels of hysteria.
Wouldn’t that just be cap and trade? Why not just make the atmosphere private property. Let the owner sue those who transgress on his property.