Jump to content

The Climate thread

Laxtonto

By Laxtonto
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

bolverk
bolverk

Now apply that way of thinking to other topics: You want me to stop treating minorities like shit when people in other countries can treat their minorities like shit? You want me to pay

CooterBrown
CooterBrown
mop
mop

what a thread.   the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.  this didn't happen. in fact, while 2012

Posted Images

berlinerbaer

berlinerbaer 670

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Massive new federal study:  Climate change is real and it's going to be devastating:


https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/


 



 

On the other hand, some guy named "Vein" produced two photos of a bridge and proved that it's all a hoax, so I haven't made up my mind. 

 

This is a big deal. It is the first climate report to be released solely within the time of Trump's administration.

That it was released on Black Friday should tell you that Cheeto and company were worried about too much publicity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
On 11/25/2018 at 11:52 AM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Massive new federal study:  Climate change is real and it's going to be devastating:


https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
 

 

Chapter 23 is all about the Southern Great Plains, which includes Texas. In summary: We're fucked.

Projected Increase in Number of Days Above 100ºF

figure23_4.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I am willing to consider any and all climate change solutions, under the sole condition those solutions are not predicated by the creation of a massive unassigned revenue source such as a “carbon tax”.

What if it were assigned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I am willing to consider any and all climate change solutions, under the sole condition those solutions are not predicated by the creation of a massive unassigned revenue source such as a “carbon tax”.

The main purpose of a carbon tax isn't revenue generation, but rather price internationalization. Climate change causes costs that, due to their nature, are external to any actor and thus do not get accounted for in the supply/demand curve. Economists like the idea of a carbon tax because it forces market participants to recognize these costs, allowing the market to properly price the goods and/or services. 

Personally, I'd assign all the revenue to either social services, NASA, or cancer research. But it doesn't really matter where you send the money; the goal of the tax is achieved by it simply existing.

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29397

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Feel free to share solutions tangible in scope and budget.

You're going to be disappointed in the amount of detail I'm willing to go into over the next minute or so.

I'd "assign" the carbon tax revenue to investments in: 

  1. non-carbon based energy production systems,
  2. energy and water conservation efforts, and
  3. our built environment to adapt to a hotter climate and an increased number of flood events.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3755

Posted
Posted

I just pray that one day the GOP as a party will embrace more factual information rather than nearly always believing the least likely, lowest percentage possiblity that aligns politically.  Sadly I think the GOP has given up long ago on fact based decision making.  It's all about division, blame and misinformation and promotion of outright lies.

The good news is it's gonna cost a fucking fortune!  Think of the USA as currently run by the GOP as a shitty HOA that doesn't plan for any cost in the future.  You know the complex is going to need painting but you insist that despite the paint fading substantially it's "still in perfect shape." The plan is ALWAYS the same, do nothing when in power but borrow, and do nothing but blame those that inherit the mess.  

Sadly politics have become a substitute for facts for the vast majority of the GOP.  It's gonna expensive when we start realizing we are about 6 inches too low in nearly all the older beachfront communities in the South and Southeast. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  The good news is... well about President is going to have to deal with Trump's many messes in two more years.  Won't help anyone really and history will be very unkind to continual disregarding fo facts by the GOP on this issue simply for political gain and no other reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11559

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The main purpose of a carbon tax isn't revenue generation, but rather price internationalization. Climate change causes costs that, due to their nature, are external to any actor and thus do not get accounted for in the supply/demand curve. Economists like the idea of a carbon tax because it forces market participants to recognize these costs, allowing the market to properly price the goods and/or services. 

Personally, I'd assign all the revenue to either social services, NASA, or cancer research. But it doesn't really matter where you send the money; the goal of the tax is achieved by it simply existing.

 

It absolutely does matter where you send the money.  Because guess what?  It’s never going to be enough.

Hard to believe anyone without a vested interest in the expansion of government bureaucracies could think it’s a solid idea to start this kind of nebulous revenue expansion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11559

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I just pray that one day the GOP as a party will embrace more factual information rather than nearly always believing the least likely, lowest percentage possiblity that aligns politically.  Sadly I think the GOP has given up long ago on fact based decision making.  It's all about division, blame and misinformation and promotion of outright lies.

The good news is it's gonna cost a fucking fortune!  Think of the USA as currently run by the GOP as a shitty HOA that doesn't plan for any cost in the future.  You know the complex is going to need painting but you insist that despite the paint fading substantially it's "still in perfect shape." The plan is ALWAYS the same, do nothing when in power but borrow, and do nothing but blame those that inherit the mess.  

Sadly politics have become a substitute for facts for the vast majority of the GOP.  It's gonna expensive when we start realizing we are about 6 inches too low in nearly all the older beachfront communities in the South and Southeast. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  The good news is... well about President is going to have to deal with Trump's many messes in two more years.  Won't help anyone really and history will be very unkind to continual disregarding fo facts by the GOP on this issue simply for political gain and no other reason.

Alright, you want to levee the entire southern US shoreline that’s tangible.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

It absolutely does matter where you send the money.  Because guess what?  It’s never going to be enough.

Hard to believe anyone without a vested interest in the expansion of government bureaucracies could think it’s a solid idea to start this kind of nebulous revenue expansion.

Did you not read my post? The revenue doesn't matter. You could spend it on whatever you want or even burn it, it doesn't matter. The point of the tax isn't to generate revenue to combat climate change, the point of the tax is to allow the market to naturally handle climate change by internalizing the costs to market participants. It isn't about the money generated being "enough." It is about the tax forcing market participants to account for negative costs associated with climate change. The market gets to decide whether we really need the good/service despite the environmental impact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11559

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Did you not read my post? The revenue doesn't matter. You could spend it on whatever you want or even burn it, it doesn't matter. The point of the tax isn't to generate revenue to combat climate change, the point of the tax is to allow the market to naturally handle climate change by internalizing the costs to market participants. It isn't about the money generated being "enough." It is about the tax forcing market participants to account for negative costs associated with climate change. The market gets to decide whether we really need the good/service despite the environmental impact. 

If only it was as simple as that.

Beyond my disdain for a gigantic stream of money to fund untold layers of crony capitalism there is the entire carbon pricing scheme to be concerned about.  By what metrics do supply chains account for carbon? For example; Does the fuel used by a company to deliver a raw material get assigned to the seller or buyer?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

If only it was as simple as that.

Beyond my disdain for a gigantic stream of money to fund untold layers of crony capitalism there is the entire carbon pricing scheme to be concerned about.  By what metrics do supply chains account for carbon? For example; Does the fuel used by a company to deliver a raw material get assigned to the seller or buyer?

 

Economically, it doesn't matter who it is assigned to, it just needs to be assigned. The market takes care of the rest once the rule is in place. Here is some reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

The metrics that determine the tax are a more interesting and complicated question, and not one I am able to analyze without doing a lot more research. Big picture I would expect an agency to be responsible l for developing a methodology. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11559

Posted
Posted

Yes, it does matter and Coase said  that.

Coase expressed frustration that his theorem was often misunderstood. Although some have used Coase's analysis to argue that because transaction costs are never zero it is always appropriate for a government to intervene and regulate, Coase believed that economists and politicians "tended to over-estimate the advantages which come from governmental regulation."[1] Some mistakenly understood the theorem to mean that markets would always achieve efficient results when transaction costs were low, when in reality his point was almost the exact opposite: because transaction costs are never zero, it cannot be assumed that any institutional arrangement will necessarily be efficient. Therefore, Coase argued that it is important to always compare alternative institutional arrangements to see which would come closest to "the unattainable ideal of the (mythical) world of zero transaction costs."[2]

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Yes, it does matter and Coase said  that.

Coase expressed frustration that his theorem was often misunderstood. Although some have used Coase's analysis to argue that because transaction costs are never zero it is always appropriate for a government to intervene and regulate, Coase believed that economists and politicians "tended to over-estimate the advantages which come from governmental regulation."[1] Some mistakenly understood the theorem to mean that markets would always achieve efficient results when transaction costs were low, when in reality his point was almost the exact opposite: because transaction costs are never zero, it cannot be assumed that any institutional arrangement will necessarily be efficient. Therefore, Coase argued that it is important to always compare alternative institutional arrangements to see which would come closest to "the unattainable ideal of the (mythical) world of zero transaction costs."[2]

That doesn't deal with which participant is taxed. Under his theorem, it doesn't matter.

There is a separate question of whether intervention is desirable , and how that intervention should be handled. And Coase was saying that it depends on the particular circumstances. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

“How” is exactly what we are discussing 

It absolutely DOES matter how, because transaction costs are never zero.

I dont disagree. I think a carbon tax in this instance is beneficial. If you wanted to talk how best to implement one, we could do that. I was simply making 2 points: one, the purpose of the tax isn't revenue generation, and 2 that it doesn't matter which market participant is taxed. That is it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

“How” is exactly what we are discussing 

It absolutely DOES matter how, because transaction costs are never zero.

Also, if you absolutely need a use for the carbon tax revenue, here is an easy one: make it a tax credit that is divided per capita to individual filers. Again, it isn't important that the government get the revenue. All that is required is that the costs get internalized. So this solution does what is necessary to ensure a more efficient market, AND avoids your fear of government waste and expense. How does that sound?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11559

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, if you absolutely need a use for the carbon tax revenue, here is an easy one: make it a tax credit that is divided per capita to individual filers. Again, it isn't important that the government get the revenue. All that is required is that the costs get internalized. So this solution does what is necessary to ensure a more efficient market, AND avoids your fear of government waste and expense. How does that sound?

Better.

But, I still would be very concerned about the elegance of carbon pricing and those costs being wielded as a political tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTbear

LTbear 4159

Posted
Posted
On 11/25/2018 at 10:07 AM, Vein said:

Yeah, that website isn't biased at all and if you don't think scientists can't be biased then that's your problem. 

The Earth will do what it wants to do like it has for millions of years. 

You’d be a better off just admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about. That bridge photo is something the average middle schooler could tell you is an idiotic piece of “evidence” to consider, for half a dozen reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Theshining said:

Nobody debates "Global Warming" anymore. Boy I remember those Mop threads. 200+ pages of charts and graphs cut and pasted from "the blogosphere". Oh boy the pseudo science polemics of the avid arguer.

Now "I can haz great climate" vs "so ... how long does the human race have left?" is the sum total of the debate.

 

You remember the 200+ page Mop threads? You've been here since Sunday night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, elfenix said:

I don't know why you guys keep calling it a tax -- it's actually a user fee for disposing of greenhouses gasses into the commons. And user fees are definitely not a tax.

 

So how is paying the government money is going to solve the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Good thing the Sun is headed toward a minimum and their models have never been accurate, at all. 

Solar minimum has almost nothing to do with the temperature on Earth. It does affect the temperature in the upper atmosphere, impacting the radius of the atmosphere. This is mainly relevant because it can disrupt communications and keep space debris in orbit longer. Solar minimum and maximum are regular cycles of the sun and don't have any impact on our long-term climate.  See the posts above. 

Oh, and the models have been accurate, and most have actually underreported the change so far. 

19 minutes ago, Zavala said:

So how is paying the government money is going to solve the issue?

The point isn't to pay the government money. It is to cause market participants to internalize an external cost. Done correctly, a carbon tax (or rental fee) would increase the efficiency of the market and allow the supply/demand interaction to account for the negatives of climate change. Again, see my posts above. We could simply turn the revenue into a per capita deduction if you're concerned about the government wasting money. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Zavala is just a drive-by poster asking questions (but not interested in listening to answers).

not an answer

21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Solar minimum has almost nothing to do with the temperature on Earth. It does affect the temperature in the upper atmosphere, impacting the radius of the atmosphere. This is mainly relevant because it can disrupt communications and keep space debris in orbit longer. Solar minimum and maximum are regular cycles of the sun and don't have any impact on our long-term climate.  See the posts above. 

Oh, and the models have been accurate, and most have actually underreported the change so far. 

The point isn't to pay the government money. It is to cause market participants to internalize an external cost. Done correctly, a carbon tax (or rental fee) would increase the efficiency of the market and allow the supply/demand interaction to account for the negatives of climate change. Again, see my posts above. We could simply turn the revenue into a per capita deduction if you're concerned about the government wasting money. 

The cycles of the sun don't have anything to do with the temperature on Earth? What about other planets?

So corporations pay the government to rent carbon in the US, won't this just shift more companies overseas, where they are allowed to pollute like crazy? What are India and China doing about their massive amounts of pollution and cheating their own regulation standards? 

23 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Know how I know you haven't been reading the thread?

not an answer

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Zavala said:

not an answer

The cycles of the sun don't have anything to do with the temperature on Earth? What about other planets?

So corporations pay the government to rent carbon in the US, won't this just shift more companies overseas, where they are allowed to pollute like crazy? What are India and China doing about their massive amounts of pollution and cheating their own regulation standards? 

not an answer

sure is a lot of questions, flip flop

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Carbon "taxes" are frankly a very simple free market approach to limiting greenhouse gases.

The free market finds a way, all that fees and taxes and regulation in the US does is shift the production overseas where they have zero standards and end up polluting worse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/indias-pollution-refugees-people-are-fleeing-delhi-because-of-the-smoggy-air/2018/11/15/26dc1250-e1f1-11e8-a1c9-6afe99dddd92_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.06e184ff334d

Quote

India’s pollution refugees: People are fleeing Delhi because of the toxic air

https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/chinese-officials-dump-chemicals-in-river-to-mask-pollution-118112100890_1.html

Quote

Officials in Weifang city in China's eastern Shandong Province have been caught throwing USD 6.8 million worth of chemicals into a river ahead of a government inspection to mask pollution problem, according to a state-run media report.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...