Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

thorn wrote: ieatfood wrote: I think a bit of balance is needed. The truth is, hardcore left-wing environmentalists are insane. If we gave them everything they wanted, the country would be bankrupt. But, in their insanity, comes a bit of sanity. The govt listened to part of what they said, and decided to implement some of their policies but not others.

Thus, I am glad that they won part of the day. But I am even more glad that they didn't win all of it. That is true with almost any special interest group. All special interest groups make some reasonable demands. But when you look at all the demands of any given group as a whole, they are seldom reasonable.
That's what I wanted to explain to John but what he seems incapable of understanding. Balance, compromise, whatever you call it is the key.


No, I understand comprimise very well. And there is a time and a place for it. Here is not the time and here is not the place.

Comprimisng food with poison results in death. There can be no comprimise with these people. Not only do they demand more after such a "comprimise" is reached, but what they are trying to get us to swallow is poison. They stand against everything that makes man great.

[thorn]

John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: ieatfood wrote: I think a bit of balance is needed. The truth is, hardcore left-wing environmentalists are insane. If we gave them everything they wanted, the country would be bankrupt. But, in their insanity, comes a bit of sanity. The govt listened to part of what they said, and decided to implement some of their policies but not others.

Thus, I am glad that they won part of the day. But I am even more glad that they didn't win all of it. That is true with almost any special interest group. All special interest groups make some reasonable demands. But when you look at all the demands of any given group as a whole, they are seldom reasonable.
That's what I wanted to explain to John but what he seems incapable of understanding. Balance, compromise, whatever you call it is the key.


No, I understand comprimise very well. And there is a time and a place for it. Here is not the time and here is not the place.

Comprimisng food with poison results in death. There can be no comprimise with these people. Not only do they demand more after such a "comprimise" is reached, but what they are trying to get us to swallow is poison. They stand against everything that makes man great.

Mate, stop frothing, you are not a beer.

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: ieatfood wrote: I think a bit of balance is needed. The truth is, hardcore left-wing environmentalists are insane. If we gave them everything they wanted, the country would be bankrupt. But, in their insanity, comes a bit of sanity. The govt listened to part of what they said, and decided to implement some of their policies but not others.

Thus, I am glad that they won part of the day. But I am even more glad that they didn't win all of it. That is true with almost any special interest group. All special interest groups make some reasonable demands. But when you look at all the demands of any given group as a whole, they are seldom reasonable.
That's what I wanted to explain to John but what he seems incapable of understanding. Balance, compromise, whatever you call it is the key.


No, I understand comprimise very well. And there is a time and a place for it. Here is not the time and here is not the place.

Comprimisng food with poison results in death. There can be no comprimise with these people. Not only do they demand more after such a "comprimise" is reached, but what they are trying to get us to swallow is poison. They stand against everything that makes man great.

Mate, stop frothing, you are not a beer. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ieatfood]

thorn wrote:
Sure thing, we achieved a lot. Looking around my home country I can very well see how much we achieved, and I can very well see the prices our society pays for these achievements. Considering the loss of biodiversity, the remodelling of nature, and the use of resources as well as the backlash on the people living here I'd say our practices in the past were borderline unsustainable, and we were quite close to paying even more.
Living in a country as densely populated and as extensively and intensively used as Germany I can tell you from my own experience that sustainability is not half as naive or idealistic a concept as you wish it were.


looking at the progress in my country (US) and the amount of wealth generated by the loss of biodiversity, i must say it was well worth it

you can't eat biodiversity. biodiversity will not clothe or shelter you and it will not provide you with medical care.

I'd say it was a fair price to pay for the incredible standard of living that we enjoy.






thorn wrote:
aha. so i.e. a wolf hunting prey to the point where there is no prey left is not a big deal for the wolf, because he is constantly evolving. Of course he cannot sustain the practise of hunting prey when he has evolved into a starving or dead wolf. But from our assessing the nature of the wolf we know that this is gonna happen to the wolf if he hunts more than what nature supplies. Reasoning made us understand the wolf's mistakes.
Reasoning also enables us to assess the outcome of our activity, we can assess if it's gonna be good or bad. So, what's it gonna be, we gonna look for an alternative if the outcome is bad? Or are we gonna go on and ignore our natural ability to reason and probably harm ourself?

ah, but you ignore one fact--because the wolf is constantly evolving, he never depends on a single type of prey for too long an amount of time (just like throughout human history, we have depended on many different types of energy--oil is just the latest, but not the last iteration in this constantly evolving story)



thorn wrote: Sure, and the fact that the Earth's population is growing and everyone tries to achieve the same standard of living (possibly the Western one with its incredibly extensive and intensive use of nature) is surely not gonna have an effect. Sorry, it'd better happen that we evolve into a species that finally learns to use reason in order to think ahead and avoid too high a price.
I have absolutely nothing against technological progress, but I think after seeing what kinds of effects our current behaviour and activity has on our biosphere I'd suggest we first try to assess if the outcome of the use of this technology is really worth it or if we could do it cheaper. Just think of this analogy: you want to buy a good and of course you have to pay a price to get it. So, I think you will want as cheap a price as possible. That's what I would do. And now exchange the "price" for "impact on the natural environment".

the population of the earth will soon plateau, according to most experts

by increasing efficiency, we can increase the income of the world without consuming more resources--that is what productivity is all about--getting more output from the same amount of input--that is why globalization and economic liberalization is so important--we need to squeeze out all the efficincies we can through global trade and economic reform.

but its not a zero sum gain, like many seem to think

you're right about price--we always want to get things at their cheapest price. sometimes the cheapest price involves helping the environment. sometimes it involves polluting it. The important thing is to know which is which.

[John Galt]

thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: ieatfood wrote: I think a bit of balance is needed. The truth is, hardcore left-wing environmentalists are insane. If we gave them everything they wanted, the country would be bankrupt. But, in their insanity, comes a bit of sanity. The govt listened to part of what they said, and decided to implement some of their policies but not others.

Thus, I am glad that they won part of the day. But I am even more glad that they didn't win all of it. That is true with almost any special interest group. All special interest groups make some reasonable demands. But when you look at all the demands of any given group as a whole, they are seldom reasonable.
That's what I wanted to explain to John but what he seems incapable of understanding. Balance, compromise, whatever you call it is the key.


No, I understand comprimise very well. And there is a time and a place for it. Here is not the time and here is not the place.

Comprimisng food with poison results in death. There can be no comprimise with these people. Not only do they demand more after such a "comprimise" is reached, but what they are trying to get us to swallow is poison. They stand against everything that makes man great.

Mate, stop frothing, you are not a beer.

Again comprimise is great, sometimes. It has it's place.

Would you comprimise on your right to life? Your right to property? Would it be okay for the government to take away part of your computer -- as a comprimise?

There are just some things that you should not comprimise on. This is one of them.

[ieatfood]

i dont think we should compromise just for the hell of compromising

what we need to do is be smart

we need to evaluate the costs and the benefits--do some economic analysis and see if our policies are worth it from that basis
its a really simple principle--do only those things where the costs are less than the benefits. Common sense.

no doubt, some environmental policies will be worth it (such as tradeable SO2 permits). Other policies might not be (such as Kyoto). It's important that we get it right--not that we compromise just so we can say we did something.

[thorn]

ieatfood wrote: thorn wrote:
Sure thing, we achieved a lot. Looking around my home country I can very well see how much we achieved, and I can very well see the prices our society pays for these achievements. Considering the loss of biodiversity, the remodelling of nature, and the use of resources as well as the backlash on the people living here I'd say our practices in the past were borderline unsustainable, and we were quite close to paying even more.
Living in a country as densely populated and as extensively and intensively used as Germany I can tell you from my own experience that sustainability is not half as naive or idealistic a concept as you wish it were.


looking at the progress in my country (US) and the amount of wealth generated by the loss of biodiversity, i must say it was well worth it

you can't eat biodiversity. biodiversity will not clothe or shelter you and it will not provide you with medical care.

I'd say it was a fair price to pay for the incredible standard of living that we enjoy.
Wealth is just a means to get food, shelter, clothes, medical care. Keeping an environment "biodiverse" is keeping up the supply for everything needed to get food, clothes, shelter, and medication. Plus, having a certain biodiversity also keeps us from having to use i.e. lots of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and what not, because nature provides for the remedies.
Wealth is nothing without biodiversity. Just an example: maybe you like hunting, but in the end there might only be rats left to hunt instead of stags. Maybe you eat what you hunt, do you like rat?

Quote: Quote:
aha. so i.e. a wolf hunting prey to the point where there is no prey left is not a big deal for the wolf, because he is constantly evolving. Of course he cannot sustain the practise of hunting prey when he has evolved into a starving or dead wolf. But from our assessing the nature of the wolf we know that this is gonna happen to the wolf if he hunts more than what nature supplies. Reasoning made us understand the wolf's mistakes.
Reasoning also enables us to assess the outcome of our activity, we can assess if it's gonna be good or bad. So, what's it gonna be, we gonna look for an alternative if the outcome is bad? Or are we gonna go on and ignore our natural ability to reason and probably harm ourself?
ah, but you ignore one fact--because the wolf is constantly evolving, he never depends on a single type of prey for too long an amount of time (just like throughout human history, we have depended on many different types of energy--oil is just the latest, but not the last iteration in this constantly evolving story)
mhm, and how many of the wolf's population die or are harmed in the process until a new source is found? Why shouldn't we as homo sapiens (oh, the irony) diversify from the beginning to reduce our risk? Why shouldn't we evolve into something forward-thinking?

Quote: Quote: Sure, and the fact that the Earth's population is growing and everyone tries to achieve the same standard of living (possibly the Western one with its incredibly extensive and intensive use of nature) is surely not gonna have an effect. Sorry, it'd better happen that we evolve into a species that finally learns to use reason in order to think ahead and avoid too high a price.
I have absolutely nothing against technological progress, but I think after seeing what kinds of effects our current behaviour and activity has on our biosphere I'd suggest we first try to assess if the outcome of the use of this technology is really worth it or if we could do it cheaper. Just think of this analogy: you want to buy a good and of course you have to pay a price to get it. So, I think you will want as cheap a price as possible. That's what I would do. And now exchange the "price" for "impact on the natural environment".

the population of the earth will soon plateau, according to most experts
I wouldn't mind at all.

Quote: by increasing efficiency, we can increase the income of the world without consuming more resources--that is what productivity is all about--getting more output from the same amount of input--that is why globalization and economic liberalization is so important--we need to squeeze out all the efficincies we can through global trade and economic reform.

but its not a zero sum gain, like many seem to think
yes, exactly, efficiency, productivity, liberalization. Absolutely. Squeezing out every single shred of efficiency. :clap: my words exactly.
But how efficient is it not to think and assess alternatives? Sure, retrofitting old machinery can be nice and dandy, but what if you ignore a more efficient way of production? Why does one need a vehicle consuming 30 liters on 100 km, when you can have the same vehicle with a different engine using 15 liters (just build in a Diesel with a proper catalytic converter and you even reduce carcinogens)? Why do you have to put on your heating when wearing a sweater is equally efficient (plus you save money for heating and resources)?

Quote: you're right about price--we always want to get things at their cheapest price. sometimes the cheapest price involves helping the environment. sometimes it involves polluting it. The important thing is to know which is which.
Yes, absolutely. The important thing is to assess, which alternative is gonna be cheaper. Why not assess the following: yes, not cleaning the exhaust of my factory is gonna be cheaper (those catalytic washers are f***ing expensive). But what if people get sick and sue me? What happens? the company owner runs to the government, lobbies for not having to build the washing unit by amending the laws in question, and by doing this strengthens the grip of government on the people. So, what's it gonna be? Personal responsibility or government?

[thorn]

John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: ieatfood wrote: I think a bit of balance is needed. The truth is, hardcore left-wing environmentalists are insane. If we gave them everything they wanted, the country would be bankrupt. But, in their insanity, comes a bit of sanity. The govt listened to part of what they said, and decided to implement some of their policies but not others.

Thus, I am glad that they won part of the day. But I am even more glad that they didn't win all of it. That is true with almost any special interest group. All special interest groups make some reasonable demands. But when you look at all the demands of any given group as a whole, they are seldom reasonable.
That's what I wanted to explain to John but what he seems incapable of understanding. Balance, compromise, whatever you call it is the key.


No, I understand comprimise very well. And there is a time and a place for it. Here is not the time and here is not the place.

Comprimisng food with poison results in death. There can be no comprimise with these people. Not only do they demand more after such a "comprimise" is reached, but what they are trying to get us to swallow is poison. They stand against everything that makes man great.

Mate, stop frothing, you are not a beer.

Again comprimise is great, sometimes. It has it's place.

Would you comprimise on your right to life? Your right to property? Would it be okay for the government to take away part of your computer -- as a comprimise?

There are just some things that you should not comprimise on. This is one of them.
No, John, I do never compromise on my right to life (can you read by the way? I could swear I already wrote this once), that is why I try to work on saving the environment. That is why I try to tell you folks with words (you are not in arms reach so I cannot pound it into your cerebral gland), my life is worth a lot more to me than yours is. My life includes my happiness, and for happiness I need a clean and healthy environment to fish in, hike in and live in, and happy and healthy family and friends. And I don't give a single flying s**t if my happiness is taken away from me by the government or a fellow man like you. The outcome is the same. Do you understand that?

Sorry John, I understand and respect what you say, but I will not tolerate it where it interferes with my life. we will never agree on the means. I can live with that - for now. ;)

[thorn]

ieatfood wrote: no doubt, some environmental policies will be worth it (such as tradeable SO2 permits). Other policies might not be (such as Kyoto)
I could have sworn that tradeable permits for CO2 and SO4 were among the measures suggested in the Kyoto protocol. ;)

[John Galt]

thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: thorn wrote: ieatfood wrote: I think a bit of balance is needed. The truth is, hardcore left-wing environmentalists are insane. If we gave them everything they wanted, the country would be bankrupt. But, in their insanity, comes a bit of sanity. The govt listened to part of what they said, and decided to implement some of their policies but not others.

Thus, I am glad that they won part of the day. But I am even more glad that they didn't win all of it. That is true with almost any special interest group. All special interest groups make some reasonable demands. But when you look at all the demands of any given group as a whole, they are seldom reasonable.
That's what I wanted to explain to John but what he seems incapable of understanding. Balance, compromise, whatever you call it is the key.


No, I understand comprimise very well. And there is a time and a place for it. Here is not the time and here is not the place.

Comprimisng food with poison results in death. There can be no comprimise with these people. Not only do they demand more after such a "comprimise" is reached, but what they are trying to get us to swallow is poison. They stand against everything that makes man great.

Mate, stop frothing, you are not a beer.

Again comprimise is great, sometimes. It has it's place.

Would you comprimise on your right to life? Your right to property? Would it be okay for the government to take away part of your computer -- as a comprimise?

There are just some things that you should not comprimise on. This is one of them.
No, John, I do never compromise on my right to life (can you read by the way? I could swear I already wrote this once), that is why I try to work on saving the environment. That is why I try to tell you folks with words (you are not in arms reach so I cannot pound it into your cerebral gland), my life is worth a lot more to me than yours is. My life includes my happiness, and for happiness I need a clean and healthy environment to fish in, hike in and live in, and happy and healthy family and friends. And I don't give a single flying s**t if my happiness is taken away from me by the government or a fellow man like you. The outcome is the same. Do you understand that?

Of course I do Thorn, of course I do. My position has always been this. I don't care about your happiness like I care about mine. You're just the same. The difference is that I have enough respect for other people's search for their own happiness that I expect nothing of them other than to expect the same of me. It's your life, do what brings you happiness. Donate to Greenpeace if it makes you feel better. But don't use a big bully to do what you want for you. That ain't right.

Quote: Sorry John, I understand and respect what you say, but I will not tolerate it where it interferes with my life. we will never agree on the means. I can live with that - for now. ;)

Thing is, what I say does not affect you, ever. If my position was held by governments -- it would not affect you. That's the point. It doesn't affect you. Your position affects me negativley, and I can't be having that.

[John Galt]

thorn wrote: ieatfood wrote: no doubt, some environmental policies will be worth it (such as tradeable SO2 permits). Other policies might not be (such as Kyoto)
I could have sworn that tradeable permits for CO2 and SO4 were among the measures suggested in the Kyoto protocol. ;)

Yes, they were. CO2 doesn't matter to me. I understand that sulfur and other emissions from buring of fossil fuels are harmful, but can't comprise food with poison. The tradeable stuff is silly anyway:

We care so much about the enviornment we'll pay other people not to pollute.

Way to stick with your convictions. Maybe we should all try to pay someone off every time we want to do something that might inconvenience us. I was going to go on a diet, but it's too hard, so I'm going to pay someone else to diet for me. I was going to do a show about community service, but doing the actual work was too inconvenient, so I'm going to pay someone to do it for me. Elitist hypocrits... :D

[ieatfood]

thorn wrote:
Keeping an environment "biodiverse" is keeping up the supply for everything needed to get food, clothes, shelter, and medication. Plus, having a certain biodiversity also keeps us from having to use i.e. lots of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and what not, because nature provides for the remedies.
Wealth is nothing without biodiversity. Just an example: maybe you like hunting, but in the end there might only be rats left to hunt instead of stags. Maybe you eat what you hunt, do you like rat?

food, clothing, and shelter come from either farming or manufacturing (we farm food, cotton, and wood)
that mean's we're not gonna "run out of prey" like you suggest--we will never run out of corn or cows
most medication comes from pharm company research, not the tropical rain forest
And I never said that we should not protect biodiversity.
Biodiversity certainly plays a role in farming and drugs. But that doesn't mean that all biodiversity must be saved all the time. We must be smart about which things we save and which things we don't.

i don't see how maintaining biodiversity by not drilling in alaska affects farmers in iowa. please explain that one to me.

And I don't hunt--McDonalds doesn't get its meat from hunting, i assure you. What age are you living in? No one hunts for food anymore. We hunt for sport. Food is farmed. There's an endless supply of chickens and cows. I don't need to eat rat (though I live in nyc so if i ever needed to eat one, there would be no short supply :wink:)


thorn wrote:
mhm, and how many of the wolf's population die or are harmed in the process until a new source is found? Why shouldn't we as homo sapiens (oh, the irony) diversify from the beginning to reduce our risk? Why shouldn't we evolve into something forward-thinking?

we are evolving--hydrogen car research is coming along
but you have to realize--there's no such thing as a free lunch
oil may have harmful effects on humans but so would accelerating research in hydrogen--it would decrease total income. That means more hydrogen cars equals less food, shelter, clothing, medicine, etc. The question you must answer is, what is the most efficient way to do things. Trying to shove expensive hydrogen technology down the pipeline may not be the most efficient way to go.



thorn wrote:
But how efficient is it not to think and assess alternatives? Sure, retrofitting old machinery can be nice and dandy, but what if you ignore a more efficient way of production? Why does one need a vehicle consuming 30 liters on 100 km, when you can have the same vehicle with a different engine using 15 liters (just build in a Diesel with a proper catalytic converter and you even reduce carcinogens)? Why do you have to put on your heating when wearing a sweater is equally efficient (plus you save money for heating and resources)?

I have nothing against those things, although I must admit, I'm not really well versed on how easy it would be to implement such technologies and how cost effective it is. If the costs are less than the benefits, the govt should mandate it (just like seatbelt laws). The important thing is that the economic cost-benefit analysis must be done--we should not willy-nilly invest all our money into just any technology just on principle.

thorn wrote:
Yes, absolutely. The important thing is to assess, which alternative is gonna be cheaper. Why not assess the following: yes, not cleaning the exhaust of my factory is gonna be cheaper (those catalytic washers are f***ing expensive). But what if people get sick and sue me? What happens? the company owner runs to the government, lobbies for not having to build the washing unit by amending the laws in question, and by doing this strengthens the grip of government on the people. So, what's it gonna be? Personal responsibility or government?

well, either way, as long as the scrubbers get built, i dont care if its through lawsuits or govt. As long as things are done in most efficienct way possible. I would tend to lean toward govt since lawsuits often results in money being siphoned to lawyers more than helping anyone else.

but the fundamental question is not all or none. its not pollution=bad or pollution=good. It is what level of pollution is optimal such that the marginal cost of pollution abatement is equal to the marginal benefit. That is the amount of pollution that we should tolerate. Not always an easy question though. That's why we have a debate. But the debate should be among economists, not between environmentalists and big business.

[ieatfood]

John Galt wrote: The tradeable stuff is silly anyway:

We care so much about the enviornment we'll pay other people not to pollute.

Way to stick with your convictions. Maybe we should all try to pay someone off every time we want to do something that might inconvenience us. I was going to go on a diet, but it's too hard, so I'm going to pay someone else to diet for me. I was going to do a show about community service, but doing the actual work was too inconvenient, so I'm going to pay someone to do it for me. Elitist hypocrits... :D

wrong--tradeable permits are the ONLY way to go.
improving the environment is not about silly moral principles or convictions
it is about economics--its about money
environmentalism is 100% economics--plain and simple
its about how we can have a certain amount of CO2 abatement for the least amount of money.
if country A can abate CO2 at a price of 100 dollars per ton and country B can abate it at $1000 per ton, and we wanna abate 10 tons, we have two options:

Option 1:
Each country can abate 5 tons each, costing country A $500 and country B $5000, or

Option 2:
Country A can abate 10 tons at a cost of $1000 and country B can pay country A $2750. Each country saves $2250 with the exact same reduction in global warming impact. Now that's smart.

If you like being stupid and wasting money, i'd go with option one. If you like being rational and saving money so we can increase our standard of living, option 2 is your choice.

btw, this is the principle on which global trade is based. It is the mechanism which has helped to take millions out of poverty. It is truly a life-saving principle.

[John Galt]

The problem is that it rests on the premise that we need to have lower CO2 i nthe atmosphere. It is a premise I, and science, disagrees with. Now scientists worshipping at the altar of the Theory of Human-Induced Global Warming may disagree with me and the facts, but that's just because it's not to their taste. Just today an astronomer annoucned the world will, starting in 7 years, begin it's decent into a mini ice age, as the sun cycle, which has been shown multiple times to be the cause of much of this 'global warming,' cycles down from it's peak (which happens to be right now). Instead of critiquing their theory, these theory worshippers try to find excuses for why the data does not add up (in regards to satilite temp records and the local warming humans cause, as well as the impact of the sun... the fact that antartica is getting colder and increasing ice... reversing a 5,000 year trend of metling...).

So there is no reason to trade the dang things.

Furthermore how is it right for the government to be telling the people how much they can drive and what not? You'd have to if you were buying and selling these things.

[ieatfood]

John Galt wrote: The problem is that it rests on the premise that we need to have lower CO2 i nthe atmosphere. It is a premise I, and science, disagrees with. Now scientists worshipping at the altar of the Theory of Human-Induced Global Warming may disagree with me and the facts, but that's just because it's not to their taste. Just today an astronomer annoucned the world will, starting in 7 years, begin it's decent into a mini ice age, as the sun cycle, which has been shown multiple times to be the cause of much of this 'global warming,' cycles down from it's peak (which happens to be right now). Instead of critiquing their theory, these theory worshippers try to find excuses for why the data does not add up (in regards to satilite temp records and the local warming humans cause, as well as the impact of the sun... the fact that antartica is getting colder and increasing ice... reversing a 5,000 year trend of metling...).

So there is no reason to trade the dang things.

Furthermore how is it right for the government to be telling the people how much they can drive and what not? You'd have to if you were buying and selling these things.

well I'm not saying we should necessarily have CO2 tradeable permits
I'm saying that, hypothetically, if we wanted to try and decrease CO2, or SO2 or any other chemical, tradeable permits would be the only way to go
Persoanlly, I think global warming occurs and the theory is largely correct (albeit immature), but the costs of CO2 abatement, even with tradeable permits, is higher than the benefits.
That is what the economists at the copenhagen consensus (google it) found.


On your second point, the govt doesnt have to tell ppl how much to drive. The govt can simply tax gasoline like it taxes ciagarettes or cell phones. People can then make up their own minds how much they want to drive. Alternatively, the govt can mandate more stringent fuel efficiency standards, although those often lead to great inefficiencies in terms of bureaucratic mess (as is seen with current policy).

As for your own personal theory on global warming, I would caution you against it. We have experts for a reason. They are called experts because they know more about a subject than you. So whatever conclusion you come up with, it is guaranteed to be a naiive and ignorant conclusion since you are not an expert. You may think it is logical and reasonable, but if you were to spend an additional 10 years dedicated to studying the topic in greater detail (like these experts have), you may find other lines of reasoning that you have not considered. So if a large group of experts believe something, I would not take it lightly. Are experts correct all the time? Of course not. But they certainly have a higher chance of being correct than you do.

[John Galt]

ieatfood wrote: John Galt wrote: The problem is that it rests on the premise that we need to have lower CO2 i nthe atmosphere. It is a premise I, and science, disagrees with. Now scientists worshipping at the altar of the Theory of Human-Induced Global Warming may disagree with me and the facts, but that's just because it's not to their taste. Just today an astronomer annoucned the world will, starting in 7 years, begin it's decent into a mini ice age, as the sun cycle, which has been shown multiple times to be the cause of much of this 'global warming,' cycles down from it's peak (which happens to be right now). Instead of critiquing their theory, these theory worshippers try to find excuses for why the data does not add up (in regards to satilite temp records and the local warming humans cause, as well as the impact of the sun... the fact that antartica is getting colder and increasing ice... reversing a 5,000 year trend of metling...).

So there is no reason to trade the dang things.

Furthermore how is it right for the government to be telling the people how much they can drive and what not? You'd have to if you were buying and selling these things.

well I'm not saying we should necessarily have CO2 tradeable permits
I'm saying that, hypothetically, if we wanted to try and decrease CO2, or SO2 or any other chemical, tradeable permits would be the only way to go
Persoanlly, I think global warming occurs and the theory is largely correct (albeit immature), but the costs of CO2 abatement, even with tradeable permits, is higher than the benefits.
That is what the economists at the copenhagen consensus (google it) found.


On your second point, the govt doesnt have to tell ppl how much to drive. The govt can simply tax gasoline like it taxes ciagarettes or cell phones. People can then make up their own minds how much they want to drive. Alternatively, the govt can mandate more stringent fuel efficiency standards, although those often lead to great inefficiencies in terms of bureaucratic mess (as is seen with current policy).

How is that not the government telling you what to do?

Quote: As for your own personal theory on global warming, I would caution you against it. We have experts for a reason. They are called experts because they know more about a subject than you. So whatever conclusion you come up with, it is guaranteed to be a naiive and ignorant conclusion since you are not an expert. You may think it is logical and reasonable, but if you were to spend an additional 10 years dedicated to studying the topic in greater detail (like these experts have), you may find other lines of reasoning that you have not considered. So if a large group of experts believe something, I would not take it lightly. Are experts correct all the time? Of course not. But they certainly have a higher chance of being correct than you do.

It's not my personal theory as thousands of scientists agree with the notion that global warming is an untested theory that has little, if much of any, evidence to support it. So your attack upon what I know to be true as being just my personal theory is a fallacy. Facts are stubborn things.

[ieatfood]

John Galt wrote:

How is that not the government telling you what to do?

Sometimes (actuall a lot of the time), people are stupid. Stupid people need to be told what to do to save them from themselves. I try to limit it whenever possible, but when the benefits are really great, a govt has to do what a govt has to do. For example, I am in favor of a law requiring everyone to goto the doctor at least once a year. I am also in favor of a law requiring ppl to purchase basic health insurance, if they can afford it. These are common sense things that only people who are really ignorant, don't do.

btw, the govt tells ppl what to do all the time. for example, the govt tells me that i cant drink and drive, even though i may want to
if you support that legislation, theres no reason why you can't support a fuel tax or fuel efficiency requirements (the latter is a mandate for corporations, not individuals).


John Galt wrote:
It's not my personal theory as thousands of scientists agree with the notion that global warming is an untested theory that has little, if much of any, evidence to support it. So your attack upon what I know to be true as being just my personal theory is a fallacy. Facts are stubborn things.

fine--but there are probably more and more well-respected scientists who think otherwise. I'd say that an objective observer would find that, on whole, the scientific community is weighted on the side of global warming although there is significant scientific doubt as to its validity.

As to whether we should do something about GW, that's a question for economists, not scientists.

[thorn]

John Galt wrote: Of course I do Thorn, of course I do. My position has always been this. I don't care about your happiness like I care about mine. You're just the same. The difference is that I have enough respect for other people's search for their own happiness that I expect nothing of them other than to expect the same of me. It's your life, do what brings you happiness. Donate to Greenpeace if it makes you feel better. But don't use a big bully to do what you want for you. That ain't right.
Exactly. Thing is, sometimes my way of life interferes with someone else's quest for happiness, so I have to compromise. I respect that. If the other person is not interested in compromise, I will not compromise on my own. And this also works the other way around.
See, I don't donate to Greenpeace. They had their successes and still have, but they have unfortunately started to become a self-serving bunch of holier-than-thou pricks. Why should I support that? Nobody supports me for being a p***k. :-)

Quote: Thing is, what I say does not affect you, ever. If my position was held by governments -- it would not affect you. That's the point. It doesn't affect you. Your position affects me negativley, and I can't be having that.
See, now the whole discussion could start again, because in my scientific opinion I'm very sure that we in fact are having a very negative effect on the environment, and that the dealings of most of the people in the world, if continued the way they are going on at the moment, are having a very negative effect on me, and probably vice versa.

But let's just leave it at that, I'm getting tired of saying the same thing all over.

[John Galt]

thorn wrote: John Galt wrote: Of course I do Thorn, of course I do. My position has always been this. I don't care about your happiness like I care about mine. You're just the same. The difference is that I have enough respect for other people's search for their own happiness that I expect nothing of them other than to expect the same of me. It's your life, do what brings you happiness. Donate to Greenpeace if it makes you feel better. But don't use a big bully to do what you want for you. That ain't right.
Exactly. Thing is, sometimes my way of life interferes with someone else's quest for happiness, so I have to compromise. I respect that. If the other person is not interested in compromise, I will not compromise on my own. And this also works the other way around.
See, I don't donate to Greenpeace. They had their successes and still have, but they have unfortunately started to become a self-serving bunch of holier-than-thou pricks. Why should I support that? Nobody supports me for being a p***k. :-)

Quote: Thing is, what I say does not affect you, ever. If my position was held by governments -- it would not affect you. That's the point. It doesn't affect you. Your position affects me negativley, and I can't be having that.
See, now the whole discussion could start again, because in my scientific opinion I'm very sure that we in fact are having a very negative effect on the environment, and that the dealings of most of the people in the world, if continued the way they are going on at the moment, are having a very negative effect on me, and probably vice versa.

Then sue Exxon, before government regulations prohibit it. If you can prove that they have affected your life a negative way then you deserve restitution. If you can't prove it, then you do not deserve restitution. Maybe you can also sue individually every driver of vehicles for some portion of restitution you believe you deserve for the harm they have caused. If you cannot prove the harm they caused then you cannot get restitution.

In any event, any government has no right to be involved in this issue because it violates my soverignty as an individual in a way that is intolerable. But I don't care if foreign governments abuse people's human's rights really. I just care abouit my own doing it to it's own citizens, expecially since this government has no Constitutional authority to do anything of this sort (and rightfully so, of course).

[thorn]

ieatfood wrote: food, clothing, and shelter come from either farming or manufacturing (we farm food, cotton, and wood)
that mean's we're not gonna "run out of prey" like you suggest--we will never run out of corn or cows
most medication comes from pharm company research, not the tropical rain forest
All true, but nature might still provide new things we don't have yet but might need some day. I want to keep the planet with the biodiversity it has much for the same reason that I have health insurance for. :-)

Quote: i don't see how maintaining biodiversity by not drilling in alaska affects farmers in iowa. please explain that one to me.
polluted effluent from the drilling site is washed into Alaskan waters, the pollution is moving up the food chain, concentrating in the one kind of fish that survived, this one is exclusively fished by company x who produces the frozen fish stew our farmer in Iowa likes best. ;)

Quote: What age are you living in?
In an age where people who don't need to, hunt for sport, and sometimes eat the animal they shot. ;)

Quote: oil may have harmful effects on humans but so would accelerating research in hydrogen--it would decrease total income.
[...]Trying to shove expensive hydrogen technology down the pipeline may not be the most efficient way to go.
it may decrease total income, but that can easily be generated later on when the technology has taken off. If people would only think the way you do we'd neither have cars nor trains, let alone planes. What do you think how the investments for these innovations decreased total income?

Quote: I have nothing against those things, although I must admit, I'm not really well versed on how easy it would be to implement such technologies and how cost effective it is. If the costs are less than the benefits, the govt should mandate it (just like seatbelt laws). The important thing is that the economic cost-benefit analysis must be done--we should not willy-nilly invest all our money into just any technology just on principle.
A sweater is no "technology" you'd have to invest lots of money in. ;)
And on the other count: yes, the cost-benefit analysis has to be done. Considering the introduction of mandatory effluent and exhaust cleaning, of catalytic converters and what not it seems as if it works economically anyways and had benefits in more than one way.

Quote: but the fundamental question is not all or none. its not pollution=bad or pollution=good. It is what level of pollution is optimal such that the marginal cost of pollution abatement is equal to the marginal benefit. That is the amount of pollution that we should tolerate. Not always an easy question though. That's why we have a debate.
What you just described is the amount of pollution that we should economically tolerate. But personally I am not so sure if this is equal to the pollution we should ecologically tolerate. Economics are so far not developed enough to answer that question sufficiently, IMHO.

Quote: But the debate should be among economists, not between environmentalists and big business.
What I just said, plus the fact that people sitting in the ivory tower of their trade sometimes lose touch with reality should be reason enough why we should never let a question be decided just by the "specialists".
If an engineer had his say for the optimization of a vehicle you bet your butt a human would not be included in the design phase, although it is gonna be designed for his use. :)