UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[john9blue]

I remember 'learning' in grade school (from a teacher who totally had zero influence on anyone btw) about how the United Kingdom would be a group of islands by the year 2000

edit: another thing that same teacher taught us one day, was about a product that would be coca cola mixed with milk, so that soda would be more healthy

she was right.

edit: i keep tabs open for too long.

[Phatscotty]

tiny islands - London being underwater

[Metsfanmax]

tiny islands - London being underwater

What does your grade school teacher's opinion on this matter have to do with anything anyway?

[Phatscotty]

here's the prediction, perhaps not the exact same one (that was 20 years ago) but it sounds right

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

It has to do with a long list of failed predictions, and why people have stopped listening to them. Global Warming, or whatever the name has had to be changed to....their credibility has suffered a lot of damage

I also remember 'studying' in 9th grade science class the reasons why large sections of Florida would be underwater (can't remember the prediction date)

[BigBallinStalin]

Has your grade school teacher indoctrinated you, PS?

[thegreekdog]

Has your grade school teacher indoctrinated you, PS?

She indoctrinated him into believing in the power of teachers unions.

[Night Strike]

Don't worry, government's solution to global warming is to make the environment worse.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131112/DAA11OTG2.html

[Metsfanmax]

Don't worry, government's solution to global warming is to make the environment worse.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131112/DAA11OTG2.html

We should be pushing the government to switch to a sensible market-based policy that corrects distortions, such as the carbon tax, rather than one that introduces distortions, such as subsidies for niche groups that don't need it to make a profit.

[_sabotage_]

Or just allow farmers to to use hemp in crop rotation.

[Night Strike]

Don't worry, government's solution to global warming is to make the environment worse.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131112/DAA11OTG2.html

We should be pushing the government to switch to a sensible market-based policy that corrects distortions, such as the carbon tax, rather than one that introduces distortions, such as subsidies for niche groups that don't need it to make a profit.

Excessive taxation is NOT a market-based policy. Even in your fantasy world of "revenue neutral" taxation.

[Metsfanmax]

Don't worry, government's solution to global warming is to make the environment worse.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131112/DAA11OTG2.html

We should be pushing the government to switch to a sensible market-based policy that corrects distortions, such as the carbon tax, rather than one that introduces distortions, such as subsidies for niche groups that don't need it to make a profit.

Excessive taxation is NOT a market-based policy. Even in your fantasy world of "revenue neutral" taxation.

Actually, taxation can be a market-based policy. It's a classical part of economic theory called Pigovian taxation. If an externality exists that distorts the price that people are paying for a product, it makes sense to correct that distortion and return the market to as close to optimality as possible. This is not some random idea that environmentalists came up with; it is supported as the most sensible approach to this problem by most of the economists who have seriously studied this market.

Greg Mankiw, the chairman of the Harvard economics department and former advisor to George Bush and Mitt Romney, has written quite a bit on how this is really the sense in which government can be used to correct markets instead of distorting them.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/ ... festo.html

Even David Friedman agrees that Pigovian taxation is the right strategy in the abstract. He opposes it not in principle but because, like TGD, he thinks the actual application of the principle will not work the way it's intended.

[Night Strike]

Don't worry, government's solution to global warming is to make the environment worse.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131112/DAA11OTG2.html

We should be pushing the government to switch to a sensible market-based policy that corrects distortions, such as the carbon tax, rather than one that introduces distortions, such as subsidies for niche groups that don't need it to make a profit.

Excessive taxation is NOT a market-based policy. Even in your fantasy world of "revenue neutral" taxation.

Actually, taxation can be a market-based policy. It's a classical part of economic theory called Pigovian taxation. If an externality exists that distorts the price that people are paying for a product, it makes sense to correct that distortion and return the market to as close to optimality as possible. This is not some random idea that environmentalists came up with; it is supported as the most sensible approach to this problem by most of the economists who have seriously studied this market.

Greg Mankiw, the chairman of the Harvard economics department and former advisor to George Bush and Mitt Romney, has written quite a bit on how this is really the sense in which government can be used to correct markets instead of distorting them.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/ ... festo.html

Even David Friedman agrees that Pigovian taxation is the right strategy in the abstract. He opposes it not in principle but because, like TGD, he thinks the actual application of the principle will not work the way it's intended.

That all sounds like a load of bunk. Since when is an unnatural correction to the market NOT a distortion of said market? Just because some people claim it's the "most sensible" solution doesn't make it such.

[mrswdk]

Because the taxation is correcting the effects of a market-distorting externality. Says so right there in Mets' post.

[Metsfanmax]

Don't worry, government's solution to global warming is to make the environment worse.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131112/DAA11OTG2.html

We should be pushing the government to switch to a sensible market-based policy that corrects distortions, such as the carbon tax, rather than one that introduces distortions, such as subsidies for niche groups that don't need it to make a profit.

Excessive taxation is NOT a market-based policy. Even in your fantasy world of "revenue neutral" taxation.

Actually, taxation can be a market-based policy. It's a classical part of economic theory called Pigovian taxation. If an externality exists that distorts the price that people are paying for a product, it makes sense to correct that distortion and return the market to as close to optimality as possible. This is not some random idea that environmentalists came up with; it is supported as the most sensible approach to this problem by most of the economists who have seriously studied this market.

Greg Mankiw, the chairman of the Harvard economics department and former advisor to George Bush and Mitt Romney, has written quite a bit on how this is really the sense in which government can be used to correct markets instead of distorting them.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/ ... festo.html

Even David Friedman agrees that Pigovian taxation is the right strategy in the abstract. He opposes it not in principle but because, like TGD, he thinks the actual application of the principle will not work the way it's intended.

That all sounds like a load of bunk. Since when is an unnatural correction to the market NOT a distortion of said market? Just because some people claim it's the "most sensible" solution doesn't make it such.

It's the correction of a distortion. In an optimal market, people pay the true price of a product, considering all of the benefits and harms it brings. The cost of health concerns, global warming damage, and traffic congestion is not adequately represented in the price a person pays for, say, gasoline. As a result, the market does not work optimally here. Nor, in general, will it ever in the presence of a negative externality associated with the product. Taxation can, in principle, bring the price up to the level at which those external harms cost society (this is called internalizing the externality) so that demand is appropriately lessened for the product. The point here is that even a completely unregulated market cannot achieve optimality in the presence of an externality -- this is economics 101. If the government can successfully reach that higher price though taxation, and return the revenues to taxpayers so that they are not unduly hurt, it will unquestionably have improved the workings of the market, because people will now be paying the correct price for the product.

This is standard economic theory, and you're calling bunk the work of some pretty respected economists. A much more sensible route to go here, if you don't like the carbon tax, is to take the route of TGD and BBS and argue that we won't get the ideal performance out of government. At which point, we could then start a conversation about whether the inefficiency of using government is outweighed by the harms of global warming, and the likelihood that the market will correct this problem itself; this is the debate I was having with BBS.

[_sabotage_]

No internalizing is not allowing the company to pollute in the first place.

Give your money to the Rothschilds all you want, they ain't getting mine.

[Night Strike]

It's the correction of a distortion. In an optimal market, people pay the true price of a product, considering all of the benefits and harms it brings. The cost of health concerns, global warming damage, and traffic congestion is not adequately represented in the price a person pays for, say, gasoline. As a result, the market does not work optimally here. Nor, in general, will it ever in the presence of a negative externality associated with the product. Taxation can, in principle, bring the price up to the level at which those external harms cost society (this is called internalizing the externality) so that demand is appropriately lessened for the product. The point here is that even a completely unregulated market cannot achieve optimality in the presence of an externality -- this is economics 101. If the government can successfully reach that higher price though taxation, and return the revenues to taxpayers so that they are not unduly hurt, it will unquestionably have improved the workings of the market, because people will now be paying the correct price for the product.

This is standard economic theory, and you're calling bunk the work of some pretty respected economists. A much more sensible route to go here, if you don't like the carbon tax, is to take the route of TGD and BBS and argue that we won't get the ideal performance out of government. At which point, we could then start a conversation about whether the inefficiency of using government is outweighed by the harms of global warming, and the likelihood that the market will correct this problem itself; this is the debate I was having with BBS.

Keynesian economists are "pretty respected" (some like Krugman even win Nobels) yet their work is clearly bunk, so I don't see how that characterization is an issue.

So the answer to a perceived distortion in the market is a guaranteed distortion to the market? And if the government taxes one area then gives that money (minus government's waste) right back to the buyer, then what's the point of having the tax in the first place? Let people keep their own money.

[Dukasaur]

Keynesian economists are "pretty respected" (some like Krugman even win Nobels) yet their work is clearly bunk, so I don't see how that characterization is an issue.

That's not necessarily true. Usually economists are on solid ground as long as they stay within their descriptive range. Their work tends to become "bunk" when they overextend into normative areas. Often this normative extension is not even their own, but someone borrowing their work for political ends that the original author never intended.

[Metsfanmax]

It's the correction of a distortion. In an optimal market, people pay the true price of a product, considering all of the benefits and harms it brings. The cost of health concerns, global warming damage, and traffic congestion is not adequately represented in the price a person pays for, say, gasoline. As a result, the market does not work optimally here. Nor, in general, will it ever in the presence of a negative externality associated with the product. Taxation can, in principle, bring the price up to the level at which those external harms cost society (this is called internalizing the externality) so that demand is appropriately lessened for the product. The point here is that even a completely unregulated market cannot achieve optimality in the presence of an externality -- this is economics 101. If the government can successfully reach that higher price though taxation, and return the revenues to taxpayers so that they are not unduly hurt, it will unquestionably have improved the workings of the market, because people will now be paying the correct price for the product.

This is standard economic theory, and you're calling bunk the work of some pretty respected economists. A much more sensible route to go here, if you don't like the carbon tax, is to take the route of TGD and BBS and argue that we won't get the ideal performance out of government. At which point, we could then start a conversation about whether the inefficiency of using government is outweighed by the harms of global warming, and the likelihood that the market will correct this problem itself; this is the debate I was having with BBS.

Keynesian economists are "pretty respected" (some like Krugman even win Nobels) yet their work is clearly bunk, so I don't see how that characterization is an issue.

Well then I'm at a loss. If you don't trust liberal economists and you don't trust conservative economists, where exactly are you getting your economic picture from?

So the answer to a perceived distortion in the market is a guaranteed distortion to the market?

It is not perceived, if by that you mean subjective. Objectively, the price people pay for fossil fuels (outside of taxes) cannot account for any harms it does to the environment or any harms it does to other people, because neither the seller nor the buyer is directly paying for those harms as a result of the transaction (only indirectly, through tax dollars for disaster relief, traffic regulation, etc.). So yes, it is most certainly the case that if you want a market to return to optimality (in the sense that the price paid for the product is equal the true price), then you need to meet the market distortion with a price change that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

And if the government taxes one area then gives that money (minus government's waste) right back to the buyer, then what's the point of having the tax in the first place? Let people keep their own money.

The point is that it encourages consumers to demand alternative energy sources. That is, one way to look at it is that everyone is getting a free check from the government under this law. If you choose to continue consuming fossil fuels, then you more or less break even. But, if you switch to solar power, then you're saving money, so more people will do it. The classical lesson of economics is that if the price rises on a product, less people will want it. You encourage people to change their consumption habits not by telling them what to do (cf. Prohibition), but by raising the price and letting them make the choice. Now, I could understand your objection if there was not an obvious externality involved. For example, increased soda taxes would definitely encourage people to drink less soda, which is a good thing for society, but it's on less firm ground because unless you appeal to indirect public health costs, you're appealing to a subjective social norm about whether we should be doing something about obesity. However, the externalities associated with increased fuel usage are clear. Besides the damage we're doing to our own cities and towns, more drivers means more traffic congestion, which results in increased health problems and increased number of traffic accidents. People lose productivity because they're late to work, etc. This is a cost that is borne by all of us, and other people are decreasing my quality of life when they purchase gasoline -- this is what an externality really means. So since all I'm really asking is that people pay the correct price for the product, incorporating all the negative harms they do to others when they purchase it. If people then still insist on paying the higher price for the fossil fuels, they are free to do so. But it also allows people the freedom to spend their money on competing energy sources that are not as harmful to society collectively, which they currently cannot do because the price for fossil fuels is artificially low (because of this externality, and also because of government subsidy directly to the oil, coal and natural gas industries).

[Metsfanmax]

Majority of red-state Americans believe climate change is real, study shows

A vast majority of red-state Americans believe climate change is real and at least two-thirds of those want the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions, new research revealed on Wednesday.

The research, by Stanford University social psychologist Jon Krosnick, confounds the conventional wisdom of climate denial as a central pillar of Republican politics, and practically an article of faith for Tea Party conservatives.

Instead, the findings suggest far-reaching acceptance that climate change is indeed occurring and is caused by human activities, even in such reliably red states as Texas and Oklahoma.

...

However, the research found 87% of Oklahomans and 84% of Texans accepted that climate change was occurring.

Seventy-six percent of Americans in both states also believed the government should step in to limit greenhouse gas emissions produced by industry.

In addition, the research indicated substantial support for Obama's decision to use the Environmental Protection Agency to cut emissions from power plants. The polling found at least 62% of Americans in favour of action cutting greenhouse gas emissions from plants.

...

Some 58% of Republicans in the current Congress deny the existence of climate change or oppose action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress.

[Phatscotty]

[Symmetry]

Does this mean that you find tic-tac-toe to be un-winnable now Scotty?

[Phatscotty]

Symm......sigh

Aussies buck environmentalists, fight to repeal global warming taxes
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/14/aussi ... z2kmkdCfqf

Japan's new CO2 goal dismays U.N. climate conference
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/japan-drastica ... iness.html

[Night Strike]

97% = 75 / 77

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/