Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

"Cap and Trade"

Page 2 of 4 [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jun 2009, 10:17 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
And, in terms of policy, a carbon tax is genius for many reasons:

1) America's in a bloody collosal deficit. If a budget surplus means a tax excess (as far-right ultraconservative anti-tax demagoges love to proclaim) than a budget deficit must mean a tax deficit. It's stupid to go into a depression with a structural deficit.

What do you mean by "structural deficit"? After all, under a Keynesian assumption of macroeconomics, it is a terrible idea to go into a recession or depression with a tax. During recessions, budget deficits aren't a bad idea according to such ideas. Now, you might not be a Keynesian, and I can understand if you aren't, but most left-wingers are either Keynesians or have relatively fringe economic theories.(I think the relatively respectable post-Keynesians promote deficit spending as well)



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

30 Jun 2009, 10:22 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
What was the revenue also used for? Green technology R&D.

So, by instituting a carbon tax an Obama administration could (if he had the proper progressive priorities) initate a Green Job strategy transforming the economy and developing alternative infastructure. He could also invest in social welfare, which creates demand, which gets us out of a depression.

Umm... under Keynesian views, putting money anywhere creates demand so long as there is deficit spending. Keynes (somewhat rhetorically) promoted absurd make-work projects. Obviously, actual work projects are better though.

In any case, the major thing about depression fighting is that any actions done have to be done quickly enough to actually make an impact. This is problematic in actual infrastructure building because the planning stages usually take awhile to complete, and so often deficit spending will actually take impact AFTER the bad times are over.



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

30 Jun 2009, 10:46 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
And can we please stop with the "global warming is false" conspirarcy nonesense? It's about time that such climate change denialism be placed in a dust heap with creationism, flat earthism, geocentrism, anti-vaccine propropoganda, and other such harmful anti-science.


I know you'd like to put it on the same level as flat-earth, geocentrism, etc. but isn't the number of skeptics, particularly in the sciences, actually growing?


I have seen no report of increase in scientists who are skeptics of climate change. Perhaps anthropogenic climate change skeptics are getting more media attention (especially on Faux News), but each successive Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change report is becomming more stern in its predictions.

There are plenty of scientists who think this "man-made global warming" business is a load of crap. The earth has fluctuated a lot in temperature over the course of history. When dinosaurs roamed the earth, it was a lot warmer than it is now. Then there've been a couple ice ages, and afterwards the earth warms up again. Temperatures rising on earth isn't a new thing at all. So unless dinosaurs drove SUVs...



Bataar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,919
Location: Post Falls, ID

30 Jun 2009, 10:51 pm

So this cap and trade tax will force more businesses to move to China to continue to be profitable, thus crippling America's economy and encouraging China to pollute more. Great plan.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

30 Jun 2009, 10:59 pm

Cyanide wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
And can we please stop with the "global warming is false" conspirarcy nonesense? It's about time that such climate change denialism be placed in a dust heap with creationism, flat earthism, geocentrism, anti-vaccine propropoganda, and other such harmful anti-science.


I know you'd like to put it on the same level as flat-earth, geocentrism, etc. but isn't the number of skeptics, particularly in the sciences, actually growing?


I have seen no report of increase in scientists who are skeptics of climate change. Perhaps anthropogenic climate change skeptics are getting more media attention (especially on Faux News), but each successive Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change report is becomming more stern in its predictions.

There are plenty of scientists who think this "man-made global warming" business is a load of crap. The earth has fluctuated a lot in temperature over the course of history. When dinosaurs roamed the earth, it was a lot warmer than it is now. Then there've been a couple ice ages, and afterwards the earth warms up again. Temperatures rising on earth isn't a new thing at all. So unless dinosaurs drove SUVs...

*Cough*, I think you'd have to back up that 'plenty of scientists' bit.

97% of climatologists global warming is occurring and caused by humans. I'm sorry, but that's A LOT.

Quote:
Doran said wide support among climatologists does not come as a surprise.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."


I don't think a layman like you has much weight when it comes to very complex issues such as these.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

30 Jun 2009, 11:08 pm

Cyanide wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
And can we please stop with the "global warming is false" conspirarcy nonesense? It's about time that such climate change denialism be placed in a dust heap with creationism, flat earthism, geocentrism, anti-vaccine propropoganda, and other such harmful anti-science.


I know you'd like to put it on the same level as flat-earth, geocentrism, etc. but isn't the number of skeptics, particularly in the sciences, actually growing?


I have seen no report of increase in scientists who are skeptics of climate change. Perhaps anthropogenic climate change skeptics are getting more media attention (especially on Faux News), but each successive Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change report is becomming more stern in its predictions.

There are plenty of scientists who think this "man-made global warming" business is a load of crap. The earth has fluctuated a lot in temperature over the course of history. When dinosaurs roamed the earth, it was a lot warmer than it is now. Then there've been a couple ice ages, and afterwards the earth warms up again. Temperatures rising on earth isn't a new thing at all. So unless dinosaurs drove SUVs...


Show me the numerous peer-reviewed journal articles these "plenty of scientists" are comming up with. Show me the serious scientific dissent fracturing what seems to be an overwhelming consensus among environmental scientists that anthropogenic climate change is a real threat.

Anacedotally showing me one scientist who claims anthropogenic climate change is a hoax is like saying because one dentist, who is a real quak, tells kids to eat mouthfuls of candy is somehow demonstrative that the candy is detrimental to healthy teeth is somehow "seriously challenged".

I can tell you that most dramatic natural climate changes do result in large scale extinction. Our anthropogenic climate change is rather excellerated and, because we have the technology to adapt, we may not go extinct. But it will cause tremendous economic discomfort, a lot more than a carbon tax will.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

30 Jun 2009, 11:32 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
And, in terms of policy, a carbon tax is genius for many reasons:

1) America's in a bloody collosal deficit. If a budget surplus means a tax excess (as far-right ultraconservative anti-tax demagoges love to proclaim) than a budget deficit must mean a tax deficit. It's stupid to go into a depression with a structural deficit.

What do you mean by "structural deficit"? After all, under a Keynesian assumption of macroeconomics, it is a terrible idea to go into a recession or depression with a tax. During recessions, budget deficits aren't a bad idea according to such ideas. Now, you might not be a Keynesian, and I can understand if you aren't, but most left-wingers are either Keynesians or have relatively fringe economic theories.(I think the relatively respectable post-Keynesians promote deficit spending as well)


I mean a massive, long term deficit, that exists a while before the economic downturn.

The US had such a deficit. It can only get worse as time goes on and it has to be alleviated or at least not increased exponentially for the time being.

Furthermore, there has to be a disincentive for carbon emissions. There just has to be. The economic discomfort caused by a drastic alteration of the plant's climate is a lot greater than any short term discomfort a new tax will cause. The new tax can be made revenue neutral if credits are given to offset it (as the British Columbian version does). Better yet, it can be made revenue positive for the low-income families, through credits, as well as green jobs programs while revenue negative for corporations/wealthy (already rather bloated and too big to fail, sheldom "trickling down" their profitis when they get tax reductions).

A Green Jobs plan would need to be speadily implemented. Fortunately, the foundations for some rather drastic plans are already on the table (just read this article in the Scientific American on a a new energy grid). Ideally, if Obama wasn't such an appeaser to the right, he would have started a Green Auto-Jobs plan immediately upon entering office.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

30 Jun 2009, 11:38 pm

Bataar wrote:
So this cap and trade tax will force more businesses to move to China to continue to be profitable, thus crippling America's economy and encouraging China to pollute more. Great plan.


Just like the mass exodus of buisnesses from British Columbia when their carbon tax was initated.

Oh, wait...



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jul 2009, 12:06 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
I mean a massive, long term deficit, that exists a while before the economic downturn.

The US had such a deficit. It can only get worse as time goes on and it has to be alleviated or at least not increased exponentially for the time being.

Ah, yes, long-term deficits are crap. Just a way for people to throw away investments.

Quote:
Furthermore, there has to be a disincentive for carbon emissions. There just has to be. The economic discomfort caused by a drastic alteration of the plant's climate is a lot greater than any short term discomfort a new tax will cause. The new tax can be made revenue neutral if credits are given to offset it (as the British Columbian version does). Better yet, it can be made revenue positive for the low-income families, through credits, as well as green jobs programs while revenue negative for corporations/wealthy (already rather bloated and too big to fail, sheldom "trickling down" their profitis when they get tax reductions).

Not denying that at all. Yes, you are right, tax-neutrality is possible.

Quote:
A Green Jobs plan would need to be speadily implemented. Fortunately, the foundations for some rather drastic plans are already on the table (just read this article in the Scientific American on a a new energy grid). Ideally, if Obama wasn't such an appeaser to the right, he would have started a Green Auto-Jobs plan immediately upon entering office.

Umm.... unless these foundations include building plans drawn up, locations identified, contractors contacted, etc, then it probably won't be rapid enough. I mean, planning things out like this does take some time, and recessions are usually identified late, and boosting the economic recovery is not really of much benefit, so much as dampening the worst.

I doubt that he really could have ideally started a grand plan to do this. Politicians are often slow and try to wrangle their hands about these issues. And even then, until their wrangling is done, the actual planning cannot begin, and the actual stimulation cannot begin until the planning is over.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

01 Jul 2009, 12:21 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
I mean a massive, long term deficit, that exists a while before the economic downturn.

The US had such a deficit. It can only get worse as time goes on and it has to be alleviated or at least not increased exponentially for the time being.

Ah, yes, long-term deficits are crap. Just a way for people to throw away investments.

Quote:
Furthermore, there has to be a disincentive for carbon emissions. There just has to be. The economic discomfort caused by a drastic alteration of the plant's climate is a lot greater than any short term discomfort a new tax will cause. The new tax can be made revenue neutral if credits are given to offset it (as the British Columbian version does). Better yet, it can be made revenue positive for the low-income families, through credits, as well as green jobs programs while revenue negative for corporations/wealthy (already rather bloated and too big to fail, sheldom "trickling down" their profitis when they get tax reductions).

Not denying that at all. Yes, you are right, tax-neutrality is possible.

Quote:
A Green Jobs plan would need to be speadily implemented. Fortunately, the foundations for some rather drastic plans are already on the table (just read this article in the Scientific American on a a new energy grid). Ideally, if Obama wasn't such an appeaser to the right, he would have started a Green Auto-Jobs plan immediately upon entering office.

Umm.... unless these foundations include building plans drawn up, locations identified, contractors contacted, etc, then it probably won't be rapid enough. I mean, planning things out like this does take some time, and recessions are usually identified late, and boosting the economic recovery is not really of much benefit, so much as dampening the worst.

I doubt that he really could have ideally started a grand plan to do this. Politicians are often slow and try to wrangle their hands about these issues. And even then, until their wrangling is done, the actual planning cannot begin, and the actual stimulation cannot begin until the planning is over.


But the sooner the better. Even if the programs only have measurable effect by his mid term its better than no effects at all. The Republicans are close to a rump caucus right now, their party is utterly disorganized, yet they're still hounding Obama. This is his best chance to get any legislation with teeth in it through, he should be doing these things right away, steamrolling the Republicans.



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

01 Jul 2009, 1:47 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Show me the numerous peer-reviewed journal articles these "plenty of scientists" are comming up with. Show me the serious scientific dissent fracturing what seems to be an overwhelming consensus among environmental scientists that anthropogenic climate change is a real threat.

Anacedotally showing me one scientist who claims anthropogenic climate change is a hoax is like saying because one dentist, who is a real quak, tells kids to eat mouthfuls of candy is somehow demonstrative that the candy is detrimental to healthy teeth is somehow "seriously challenged".

I can tell you that most dramatic natural climate changes do result in large scale extinction. Our anthropogenic climate change is rather excellerated and, because we have the technology to adapt, we may not go extinct. But it will cause tremendous economic discomfort, a lot more than a carbon tax will.

How about at least 400 scientists? http://crnation.com/2007/12/20/consensu ... consensus/

And yes, if temperature increased that much, people would die. That's just common sense. If it wasn't caused by us though, there wouldn't be anything we could do about it.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

01 Jul 2009, 7:44 am

It's a scheme to do wealth redistribution. Everyone gets carbon credits, even poor nations with no industry. The standards are made very strict (with major polluters like China given a free pass) and those who can't meet the standards can "buy" the credits from nations with credit to spare.

It has nothing to do with saving the environment. If it did, China would be as strictly regulated as everyone else. There would be no carbon credit market.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

01 Jul 2009, 12:05 pm

Cyanide wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
And can we please stop with the "global warming is false" conspirarcy nonesense? It's about time that such climate change denialism be placed in a dust heap with creationism, flat earthism, geocentrism, anti-vaccine propropoganda, and other such harmful anti-science.


I know you'd like to put it on the same level as flat-earth, geocentrism, etc. but isn't the number of skeptics, particularly in the sciences, actually growing?


I have seen no report of increase in scientists who are skeptics of climate change. Perhaps anthropogenic climate change skeptics are getting more media attention (especially on Faux News), but each successive Intergovernmental Pannel on Climate Change report is becomming more stern in its predictions.

There are plenty of scientists who think this "man-made global warming" business is a load of crap. The earth has fluctuated a lot in temperature over the course of history. When dinosaurs roamed the earth, it was a lot warmer than it is now. Then there've been a couple ice ages, and afterwards the earth warms up again. Temperatures rising on earth isn't a new thing at all. So unless dinosaurs drove SUVs...


It's a fallacy to think that because climate does change for natural reasons it cannot be changed by human activity. Climate change is no different than erosion in that regard.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

01 Jul 2009, 12:32 pm

Cyanide wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Show me the numerous peer-reviewed journal articles these "plenty of scientists" are comming up with. Show me the serious scientific dissent fracturing what seems to be an overwhelming consensus among environmental scientists that anthropogenic climate change is a real threat.

Anacedotally showing me one scientist who claims anthropogenic climate change is a hoax is like saying because one dentist, who is a real quak, tells kids to eat mouthfuls of candy is somehow demonstrative that the candy is detrimental to healthy teeth is somehow "seriously challenged".

I can tell you that most dramatic natural climate changes do result in large scale extinction. Our anthropogenic climate change is rather excellerated and, because we have the technology to adapt, we may not go extinct. But it will cause tremendous economic discomfort, a lot more than a carbon tax will.

How about at least 400 scientists? http://crnation.com/2007/12/20/consensu ... consensus/

And yes, if temperature increased that much, people would die. That's just common sense. If it wasn't caused by us though, there wouldn't be anything we could do about it.

I don't get it. It just seems to be a bunch of random scientists. It's very like the ID controversy in that regard, they have a few 'scientists with nothing to gain' on their side too.

The article didn't exactly elaborate on what the controversy really was, all there is are three quotes. I'll take a look at them.

Quote:
CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.


This seems a bit weird, since water vapour is said to be not of natural causes, but of the dumping of greenhous gases. Not of natural causes. I mean forest fires are pretty natural, but they are becoming more frequent as temperature rises, thus being self-perpetuating. Which means, CO2 by itself is perhaps not the largest contributor, but the dumpings of humans leads to increased water vapour, as well as the releases of CO2 from forests. Besides, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas caused by humans. 'At least 75%' seems heavily exaggerated as well.

Quote:
The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain’t so.


And here we have someone claiming that carbon dioxide isn't harmful to the climate, I'd like to see him support that claim.

Quote:
Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.


And this last one is pure rhetorics.

Also, it doesn't surprise me that this is from a Republican website.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

01 Jul 2009, 12:34 pm

Henriksson wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
I like it. It's about time the yanks take responsibility for what they do.


You think we're bad? Wait till the Chinese get into high gear. Right now they are completing a coal burning power generating plant every other month. By 2010 the Chinese will be the the greatest producers of CO2.

ruveyn

They already are, actually. But the per capita is way more higher for America than China...

Image
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita
[wide image replaced with thumbnail and link to article, by lau]


hahaha norway comes right behind usa

hahahahahaha why am i laughing :(


_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

01 Jul 2009, 1:11 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
But the sooner the better. Even if the programs only have measurable effect by his mid term its better than no effects at all. The Republicans are close to a rump caucus right now, their party is utterly disorganized, yet they're still hounding Obama. This is his best chance to get any legislation with teeth in it through, he should be doing these things right away, steamrolling the Republicans.

Well, ok, but that is a different agenda than anything about economic stimulus. That's all my point is.