UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[Metsfanmax]

Those are two mutually exclusive options. By asking government to not get involved, you're no longer avoiding government, but becoming involved in the political process. If you have enough influence to get them to stop listening to lobbyists, you also have enough influence to get them to make better energy policy.

Well, one can never muster enough influence to block politicians and bureaucrats from incentives which are conducive to their self-interests. It's not a matter of influencing politicians, but rather it's about influencing people's opinions about government and curtailing the scope of the national government so that (a) the worst people in government can do the least harm and (b) people's expectations of government are updated with proper parameters.

Of course not. Instead, one should focus on convincing politicians that their self-interests include listening to their constituents, or else they won't be around next term. So I agree that it's about influencing people's opinions, but mostly because that's the way to convince a politician that they should act a certain way.

Yeah, that won't work. If you don't change the incentive structure, then you won't resolve the problem. Appealing to a politician's moral goals fails in the face of tangible and more profitable opportunities.

It has nothing to do with their moral goals. It has to do with their self-interested goal of staying in office. If they believe their constituents are passionate about climate change, they're likely to do something about it. If they don't, they'll do what lobbyists tell them to do.

And even if you get them to do what their constituents want, that doesn't mean the outcomes will be favorable as well because you're still working within a process which essentially takes other people's wealth and autonomy and then distributes it. And since that'll happen, then groups will want to lobby politicians so that they can concentrate benefits and disperse the costs onto all other taxpayers. It's a game where everyone's hands are in their neighbor's pockets; nothing changes that when it comes to government.

Yes, they will try to do that. And maybe they'll get something out of it. But I have no reason to believe that they'll destroy the main effects of the legislation. Look at the acid rain trading scheme developed in the 1980s and 1990s -- it was incredibly successful in driving down the acid rain problem, despite special interest groups lobbying for permits, etc. I don't demand perfection from government; I do demand action. In other words,

The general theme I get from your position is that you have this idea of the political process which does not hold up to reality. Public policy ideally follows your second post, but when it's cranked through the system, it's far from ideal. That's the pattern.

The general theme I get from your position is that we shouldn't do anything with government because public policy is never perfect. Sorry, that doesn't work for me. And it shouldn't work for anyone who cares about their surroundings and wants to make a difference. Aim for the stars, and you might land on the moon.

That's a fair stance, but there are more serious problems than global warming.

Are there? I'm not very familiar with them.

We need to fix the political process--or rather at least agree on the actual framework that describes the political system, before we hammer on public policies; otherwise, as I said, we won't get a more efficient means of governance and planning.

I am trying to fix the political process, by informing people that they can have a personal impact on their lawmakers -- when most people currently don't believe they can (yourself included, seemingly).

Come on BBS. I have it on good authority (Mets) that writing letters to one's politicians is the best thing a constituent can do to effect change.

As an individual, the best thing you can do is to actually meet with your representative and establish a personal relationship with them. Barring that, writing letters (to them and to your local media) is a good substitute.

[Neoteny]

Is it more or less difficult to influence and update people's opinions about government than it is to influence and update their perspective on incentives? At what point in the transition from person to politician do we stop being influenced by BBS?

If the choice is ecological collapse or government collapse, I'm probably rooting more for the latter anyhow. It's the American Way.

[thegreekdog]

I'm with you on local media being influential. Not the other stuff though. I've worked for politicians (local and not); the best thing you can do is contribute money or valuable time. The more of each you have, the more influence.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm with you on local media being influential. Not the other stuff though. I've worked for politicians (local and not); the best thing you can do is contribute money or valuable time. The more of each you have, the more influence.

I think you undervalue the effectiveness of a well-placed personal relationship. Here's an example. I meet with Republican Representative Smith (say) a few times on behalf of my organization (Citizens Climate Lobby). Rep. Smith doesn't really believe in the science of global warming, and his staff is kind of skeptical too. But they know I'm a scientist and am well-versed in the subject. So when a news article is published by their local paper on the latest IPCC findings, they call me to get more info. I displace the person they might ordinarily have called (Joe the Plumber over at the Heartland Institute), and they gradually get more reasonable information on the subject. They're still not convinced, but they have less radical views than before.

Eventually, the House holds a vote on the carbon tax bill. Rep. Smith doesn't want to risk voting for the bill, but he's heard enough from us that he's not going to vote against it when it comes to the floor.

Repeat that in enough districts, and you've got yourself a policy. That's what we're doing.

[thegreekdog]

I'm with you on local media being influential. Not the other stuff though. I've worked for politicians (local and not); the best thing you can do is contribute money or valuable time. The more of each you have, the more influence.

I think you undervalue the effectiveness of a well-placed personal relationship. Here's an example. I meet with Republican Representative Smith (say) a few times on behalf of my organization (Citizens Climate Lobby). Rep. Smith doesn't really believe in the science of global warming, and his staff is kind of skeptical too. But they know I'm a scientist and am well-versed in the subject. So when a news article is published by their local paper on the latest IPCC findings, they call me to get more info. I displace the person they might ordinarily have called (Joe the Plumber over at the Heartland Institute), and they gradually get more reasonable information on the subject. They're still not convinced, but they have less radical views than before.

Eventually, the House holds a vote on the carbon tax bill. Rep. Smith doesn't want to risk voting for the bill, but he's heard enough from us that he's not going to vote against it when it comes to the floor.

Repeat that in enough districts, and you've got yourself a policy. That's what we're doing.

If that's what you're doing and it's working, who am I to argue? That being said, I can only assume Representative Smith doesn't have more affluent constituents (say, a large company) that would be able to provide more money/support than the Citizens Climate Lobby. That being said (squared), if Citizens Climate Lobby (which sounds to me like an organization, something that is far different than one individual, by the way... and I love organizing, so I would be supportive) is a big enough lobby, it can provide more money/support than the large company.

I do believe politicians have personal views that influence decisions so they are not entirely swayed by public opinion (or rent-seeking). But I also think that politicians are selected based upon how they line up with the influencers/rent-seekers in their particular jurisdictions. If Representative Smith isn't cutting it as far as Large Company is concerned, someone else could come along to take Rep. Smith's spot.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm with you on local media being influential. Not the other stuff though. I've worked for politicians (local and not); the best thing you can do is contribute money or valuable time. The more of each you have, the more influence.

I think you undervalue the effectiveness of a well-placed personal relationship. Here's an example. I meet with Republican Representative Smith (say) a few times on behalf of my organization (Citizens Climate Lobby). Rep. Smith doesn't really believe in the science of global warming, and his staff is kind of skeptical too. But they know I'm a scientist and am well-versed in the subject. So when a news article is published by their local paper on the latest IPCC findings, they call me to get more info. I displace the person they might ordinarily have called (Joe the Plumber over at the Heartland Institute), and they gradually get more reasonable information on the subject. They're still not convinced, but they have less radical views than before.

Eventually, the House holds a vote on the carbon tax bill. Rep. Smith doesn't want to risk voting for the bill, but he's heard enough from us that he's not going to vote against it when it comes to the floor.

Repeat that in enough districts, and you've got yourself a policy. That's what we're doing.

If that's what you're doing and it's working, who am I to argue? That being said, I can only assume Representative Smith doesn't have more affluent constituents (say, a large company) that would be able to provide more money/support than the Citizens Climate Lobby.

CCL provides no money and no political support for individual candidates. We work with whoever is in office at the time.

That being said (squared), if Citizens Climate Lobby (which sounds to me like an organization, something that is far different than one individual, by the way... and I love organizing, so I would be supportive) is a big enough lobby, it can provide more money/support than the large company.

CCL is of course an organization, but the core of the organization is fostering individual relationships between citizens and their lawmakers. Our core strategy is to get people to realize the effect they can have on the people they represent them. By doing this at the grassroots level with all of their volunteers, we do get a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts.

I do believe politicians have personal views that influence decisions so they are not entirely swayed by public opinion (or rent-seeking).

Right. In my Rep. Smith example, you'll note that I didn't expect to get him to change his mind that humans don't cause global warming. All we need is for him to stop caucusing with the politicians who will actually open their mouths and say that.

But I also think that politicians are selected based upon how they line up with the influencers/rent-seekers in their particular jurisdictions. If Representative Smith isn't cutting it as far as Large Company is concerned, someone else could come along to take Rep. Smith's spot.

Given the stakes of most Congressional races today, Large Company doesn't have the ability to single-handedly determine the outcome of an election. To some extent, I have to imagine that all those campaign dollars wash out against each other.

[_sabotage_]

Rep Smith is voting on a bill written by lobbyists of major corporations and the only thing you calling him up has done is annoy him. If the moneys right and his party is behind it he'll toe the line. And if the money isn't right and the party isn't with it, he'll not matter anyways.

So you just want the deniers to close their mouths as you have so successfully managed in media, academia, and internationally.

I mean, the debate is over is the I,age you want to convey, but if just a few people point out your lack of evidence, you are wiped out like heat absorbed by your CO2.

[Metsfanmax]

Rep Smith is voting on a bill written by lobbyists of major corporations and the only thing you calling him up has done is annoy him. If the moneys right and his party is behind it he'll toe the line. And if the money isn't right and the party isn't with it, he'll not matter anyways.

Have you actually ever communicated with your federal elected official?

[_sabotage_]

Does a consul count? He asked the prison director to have me transferred to the security section which is under 24 hr lockdown, aka solitary confinement to protect me against terrorism for eight months following 9/11. I tried to denounce my citizenship, but my lawyer advised against it (I didn't have my Canadian yet).

I was then moved at his behest to maximum security for 2 1/2 years against my wishes.

They misreported that I had been arrested for heroin, hash heroin who can tell them apart. And they upped the amount.

If he counts, the yes I have communicated with my federal representative. Mainly begging him to let me into general population for the sake of my sanity, and him smiling and six weeks later a letter coming saying, due to security concerns...

[Metsfanmax]

Does a consul count? He asked the prison director to have me transferred to the security section which is under 24 hr lockdown, aka solitary confinement to protect me against terrorism for eight months following 9/11. I tried to denounce my citizenship, but my lawyer advised against it (I didn't have my Canadian yet).

I was then moved at his behest to maximum security for 2 1/2 years against my wishes.

They misreported that I had been arrested for heroin, hash heroin who can tell them apart. And they upped the amount.

If he counts, the yes I have communicated with my federal representative. Mainly begging him to let me into general population for the sake of my sanity, and him smiling and six weeks later a letter coming saying, due to security concerns...

I'm just wondering why you're so confident that you can't influence a legislator to change the law if you haven't even tried.

[_sabotage_]

I couldn't even get my representative to let me into general population, what good is going to do to call them up and say,

Currently several specialists are being employed to put together shitty houses with short life spans and poor qualities. I have a prefab hemp mold technique which can other qualify the house to code whereas the three traditional methods of hempcrete fail to. Can you discontinue the regulation on hemp saying it is a single use plant? Can you recognize the research that says the $6million decortirizer nor the patent held by a Canadian professors are necessary to process the hemp done by respected universities in Australia, where they build all of their hemp houses without either,

France and Sweden?

I know it could quickly have a massive impact on GDP and these green jobs, but hey its a design that anyone can do extremely cheaply and safely and I'm happy to give away.

[Metsfanmax]

I couldn't even get my representative to let me into general population, what good is going to do to call them up and say,

Currently several specialists are being employed to put together shitty houses with short life spans and poor qualities. I have a prefab hemp mold technique which can other qualify the house to code whereas the three traditional methods of hempcrete fail to. Can you discontinue the regulation on hemp saying it is a single use plant? Can you recognize the research that says the $6million decortirizer nor the patent held by a Canadian professors are necessary to process the hemp done by respected universities in Australia, where they build all of their hemp houses without either,

France and Sweden?

I know it could quickly have a massive impact on GDP and these green jobs, but hey its a design that anyone can do extremely cheaply and safely and I'm happy to give away.

That could make a lot of impact, if you framed it the right way. So many of these laws are written by unelected bureaucrats, and politicians are simply unaware of the issues. You probably know way more than your elected official does about the industrial uses of hemp. So educate them! Tell them why you think the current law is harmful to individuals and the economy. They might just do something about it.

[nietzsche]

Quick question, will farts be taxed?

[_sabotage_]

Nah, i would rather not spend ten years of my life and millions of dollars trying to convince the USG what their research in 1917 already told them, that hemp is 4 times more sustainable than trees.

That they understood it is better in production is then evinced in the Hemp for War campaign, but that they have no intention of making it available has been seen in its decades long criminalization, and the new legislation calling for farmers to receive a license prior to growing, the only agricultural product to need one, and list its single use and the buyer on the application. Further evidence of their education is seen in the USG's patent on medical marijuana.

I think they are informed and have been acting accordingly. That is protecting existing industries such as your own. Climate scientists spend so much time discussing how it can't be done on an individual level, there must be coordination (with, guess who, as coordinators), an individual approach which could be easily adopted would be a nail in your coffin, and more than LEAP, you would voice your opposition. It would afterall threaten an industry larger than oil who provides lobbyists funds to strengthen their position.

[2dimes]

Sab why are you out East, family ties?

British Columbia would be a much better place for your natural farming plans. I would look into the Sunshine Coast if I were you. Texada Island might be perfect. They have very strict codes and septic tank laws but you should have no problem building out of hemp. I would be surprised if there were not already some hemp structures there. The Okanogan is a good growing area also but the prices for parcels of land there are much higher.

[thegreekdog]

Given the stakes of most Congressional races today, Large Company doesn't have the ability to single-handedly determine the outcome of an election. To some extent, I have to imagine that all those campaign dollars wash out against each other.

Obviously I disagree. I think recent history has given enough proof that campaign dollars do not wash out against each other.

[Metsfanmax]

Given the stakes of most Congressional races today, Large Company doesn't have the ability to single-handedly determine the outcome of an election. To some extent, I have to imagine that all those campaign dollars wash out against each other.

Obviously I disagree. I think recent history has given enough proof that campaign dollars do not wash out against each other.

For a contrary perspective, see Freakonomics:

The misperception that political spending drives electoral outcomes is reinforced every campaign season by sensational media coverage, post-election debriefs from losing candidates and the exaggerated rhetoric of professional reform advocates. And this first presidential election cycle post-Citizens United promises to bolster that errant view as sanctimonious posturing by pundits on the evils of money in politics will likely crescendo to a spectacle rivaling only a North Korean grief orgy.

It is true that winning candidates typically spend more on their campaigns than do their opponents, but it is also true that successful candidates possess attributes that are useful for both raising money and winning votes (e.g., charisma, popular policy positions, etc.). This “reverse causality” means that campaign spending is potentially as much a symptom of electoral success as its cause.

In order to identify the treatment effect of campaign spending on electoral success, researchers exploit natural experiments. For example, imagine re-running a race between two candidates but varying the campaign spending of each; repeat that exercise enough times and you have an experiment that will allow you to observe the causal effect of campaign spending, all else constant. That’s basically the approach taken by Steve Levitt in his seminal study of repeat meetings of the same Congressional candidates over time.

Levitt finds that changes in campaign spending produce negligible changes in electoral outcomes when candidate characteristics are held constant. Now that doesn’t mean that candidates don’t need to get their message out to voters. We’re talking about marginal changes in campaign spending. Given you are already spending a million dollars running for a House seat, another hundred grand or so won’t make any appreciable difference.

[_sabotage_]

Yes, and my wife got enrolled in school here. I tried to do a tour of some places in BC when I went out there this summer. I planned on hitting up a lot of places on the way back, but my wife and kid arrived in Van and she flipped the f*ck out at the first place I took her, Tofino.

They doing farming, I spent last 20 years trying to not be a farmer, why you show me this? I hate you. You want your son live in a grass house, you stupid. I heard this at every stop I had tried to make over 6500 kms from Victoria to Halifax, which was planned to take 5 weeks, and ended up taking 5 days.

Of course, after a half year here, she wants to move out west and regrets not having looked around more.

But Nova Scotia is in one of the best positions to profit off of innovations, and the last place to let it happen. The only hemp product being sold is by a lady who open a retail outlet, bought in bulk from out west, had it repackaged, all of which triples her cost and turns her hemp oil into a niche high end product instead of a competitive widely available product. Were she trying to generate volume locally she could find a wide range of markets, ranging from being sold as a natural wood preserver which is three times better than the top product on the market, a food product since it contains all the essential amino acids in a perfect balance for humans, or as a cosmetic/medical product. Her low volume and high cost means it is only being sold as a cosmetic product.

I contacted her saying that we could join forces and offer farmers nearly a 100% revenue increase per acre if we shared the product. This would decrease her purchasing cost of the seeds by 20%, eliminating shipping and two middle-men. She asked to me to contact the lobby group, become a junior member and work my way up.

Nova Scotia was the first place hemp was cultivated by the colonizers of the Americas in 1609. So far their lobby group has gotten none grown in Nova Scotia since its inception. For farmers, it allows them to eliminate chemical use on their land, make use of fallow seasons can be grown without additional irrigation, aerates the soil and decompresses compressed soil saving plowing. Most farmers would be willing to grow it, but the application process adds to their cost and only guaranteeing a dual market would overcome the barrier the application imposes. This is true all across Canada, but Ontario and BC have been more lenient on allowing foreign material testing to satisfy local building code using that foreign material.

On the onset of criminalizing industrial hemp growth in Canada, the government took the fact that hemp fibre plants produce sub-par seeds as they are grown more densely and a few weeks shorter, and that seed plants produce sub-par fibre to label industrial hemp as a single use plant which must be stipulated on the application. You must also say who you will be selling to. They made a big hubbub about a $6m dollar decortirizer so that the fibre plants could have a marketable product. The government promised to put up half if private industry came through with the rest. Private industry came through and government balked. They then used the fact to say that the stalk is unuseable as a building material since in England the studies were based on decortirizers, ignoring the fact that in Australia, where the hemp house is in more common use than England (probably because their isn't a guy who paid for a $6m dollar machine to be a middle-man) theirs are all made without the machine. A Canadian scientist then created a enzymic decortirizing process which he patented. As such, economically speaking, keeping the production of hemp down and the seed plant for just the seeds stifles the small scale farmer and local entrepreneur while maintaining higher GDP through energy revenue, green jobs, import taxes, transport revenue, construction revenue, retail revenue.

What does this mean?

I can provide a design that enables existing structural wooden framed houses, and existing construction methods to adopt the material at almost zero cost and zero deviation in traditional building. That is, a few molds could be easily constructed by general laborers who then use local and cheap materials to eliminating 70% of building their homes and 50% of the cost of operating it. This eliminates all existing problems with hempcrete.

The contractor can eliminate costs on labor and material, making higher standard of living available at a much cheaper price in both start up and operation. That cheaper price, reflects money not being injected into the market. Let's say that a the design then incorporates passive solar collectors, orientates the house to solar gain and recycles heat passively. Then the entire heating cost of several thousand dollars a year is gone. From an economics standpoint, it would provide a massive incentive for people to get off the current housing and heating market. In Nova Scotia the heating cost represents a multi-billion dollar industry with a government sanctioned growth of more than 20% in the coming years. Most energy is under mandated profit of 12%. That is 88% has to go towards salaries and goods and services all of which are taxed by the government. That is, eliminating the need for residential heating would lose the government $1b annually, the energy company employees and the service and goods providers their income. It would transfer funds from businesses importing materials to farmers and it would bring down the value of most existing housing losing landlord income... The list goes on.

It messes with the status quo. Any upstart farmer in Africa could then use the design with an acre of land, incorporate his own version of it with a drip water air conditioning system appropriated from elsewhere, incorporate some permaculture and be living much better than the average Canadian does at the cost of one African year of labor and 100 bucks in various seeds. And the global hierarchy collapses. Government has lost funding and things over which to preside, security would take away the fear of government and they would lose power. The global warming agenda and the green jobs it creates would disappear. And we would have attained a higher standard of living than the system provides.

But we have reached a level of technology that the government must withhold in order to maintain the demand on their services. Just as one cell thick tv screens invented a decade ago will not see market until we have sated the electronics company with our offerings for their defunct products, government will only allow products to hit the market which maintain the status quo, Mets lobbying will do the same, the housing minister is there for the interest groups that they represent, the drywallers union, and the largest market shareholders: property owners with banks being no 1 among them.

They don't care about the environment, the number of houses that burn each year, the energy poverty except in the other marketable services the problems create.

Anyways, I am simply saying, that the system must be challenged. Solutions must be brought to light so consumers do have a choice, but the climate change people and government will only do their best to cover it up, conflate it, or embed the concept with fear. We have too much invested in our system (at least those who run it) to change it.

[thegreekdog]

Given the stakes of most Congressional races today, Large Company doesn't have the ability to single-handedly determine the outcome of an election. To some extent, I have to imagine that all those campaign dollars wash out against each other.

Obviously I disagree. I think recent history has given enough proof that campaign dollars do not wash out against each other.

For a contrary perspective, see Freakonomics:

The misperception that political spending drives electoral outcomes is reinforced every campaign season by sensational media coverage, post-election debriefs from losing candidates and the exaggerated rhetoric of professional reform advocates. And this first presidential election cycle post-Citizens United promises to bolster that errant view as sanctimonious posturing by pundits on the evils of money in politics will likely crescendo to a spectacle rivaling only a North Korean grief orgy.

It is true that winning candidates typically spend more on their campaigns than do their opponents, but it is also true that successful candidates possess attributes that are useful for both raising money and winning votes (e.g., charisma, popular policy positions, etc.). This “reverse causality” means that campaign spending is potentially as much a symptom of electoral success as its cause.

In order to identify the treatment effect of campaign spending on electoral success, researchers exploit natural experiments. For example, imagine re-running a race between two candidates but varying the campaign spending of each; repeat that exercise enough times and you have an experiment that will allow you to observe the causal effect of campaign spending, all else constant. That’s basically the approach taken by Steve Levitt in his seminal study of repeat meetings of the same Congressional candidates over time.

Levitt finds that changes in campaign spending produce negligible changes in electoral outcomes when candidate characteristics are held constant. Now that doesn’t mean that candidates don’t need to get their message out to voters. We’re talking about marginal changes in campaign spending. Given you are already spending a million dollars running for a House seat, another hundred grand or so won’t make any appreciable difference.

You (and Freakonomics) are talking about something completely different than what I'm talking about. I don't know if someone who generates more campaign dollars will win an election over someone that generates less campaign dollars. I don't think President Obama won any election because he outspent someone else. That's not my position. My position is that a politician is more likely to listen to someone who donates money and/or someone who provides him/her with something he/she likes than to listen to someone who cannot.

I haven't read Freakonomics (I generally despise non-fiction with limited exceptions), but do they address why most large companies donate money to politicians across political spectrums?

[Metsfanmax]

You (and Freakonomics) are talking about something completely different than what I'm talking about. I don't know if someone who generates more campaign dollars will win an election over someone that generates less campaign dollars. I don't think President Obama won any election because he outspent someone else. That's not my position. My position is that a politician is more likely to listen to someone who donates money and/or someone who provides him/her with something he/she likes than to listen to someone who cannot.

I get that this is what you were originally talking about, but I was responding to the latest post you made about campaign dollars not washing out for the purposes of elections. Perhaps I misunderstood.

I haven't read Freakonomics (I generally despise non-fiction with limited exceptions), but do they address why most large companies donate money to politicians across political spectrums?

I haven't read it either. They have a podcast that I sometimes listen to. I don't really know much about that specific question. Naively, one might expect that a politician might listen strongly to Large Company because they're worried that passing laws Large Company doesn't like will result in a loss of campaign money in the next election (whereas I only have one vote, and the Congressman might think he can buy much more than one vote with Large Company's money). On the other hand, unless Large Company is really large, I doubt that the politician is strongly worried. There's plenty of sources of campaign donations out there. I also don't think that most politicians are completely self-serving. Large Company may have more influence than me, but my point will seem more authentic because I'm not blackmailing him.

[_sabotage_]

Naively someone might think that one group of people claiming to be right might use all the means at their disposal to disenfranchise those that were "wrong".

It is called history.

You are no different from the Church saying that Noah's son seeing him naked meant that Africans should be slaves, the North Americans should be given diseased ridden blankets, the Chinese hooked on opium, the South Americans tortured, the Aborigines displaced and the South Africans put in a caste system.

You stifle dissent, use mob mentality to prove you are right, base it around the economy, and finally will use force.

Someone might naively think that a large company is only funding one side and only one issue. That they don't work in concert. They don't believe "competition is sin". But they would not be justified by evidence.

Someone might naively think that politicians don't work in concert. That they have individual opinions and aren't following their leaders who have been in the game for generations, cooperating with their generation old family ties who are the heads of major interest groups.

Some people might not think that an economic threat is a cause for war. That if the president himself threatened the economy, that it would be OK. Some people didn't read very much.

You are a corporate fascist with corporate fascist ideas, methods of implementing those ideas and promoting them. You are the new Church with the same SOP on reaching a consensus and carrying out the verdict.

[thegreekdog]

You (and Freakonomics) are talking about something completely different than what I'm talking about. I don't know if someone who generates more campaign dollars will win an election over someone that generates less campaign dollars. I don't think President Obama won any election because he outspent someone else. That's not my position. My position is that a politician is more likely to listen to someone who donates money and/or someone who provides him/her with something he/she likes than to listen to someone who cannot.

I get that this is what you were originally talking about, but I was responding to the latest post you made about campaign dollars not washing out for the purposes of elections. Perhaps I misunderstood.

I haven't read Freakonomics (I generally despise non-fiction with limited exceptions), but do they address why most large companies donate money to politicians across political spectrums?

I haven't read it either. They have a podcast that I sometimes listen to. I don't really know much about that specific question. Naively, one might expect that a politician might listen strongly to Large Company because they're worried that passing laws Large Company doesn't like will result in a loss of campaign money in the next election (whereas I only have one vote, and the Congressman might think he can buy much more than one vote with Large Company's money). On the other hand, unless Large Company is really large, I doubt that the politician is strongly worried. There's plenty of sources of campaign donations out there. I also don't think that most politicians are completely self-serving. Large Company may have more influence than me, but my point will seem more authentic because I'm not blackmailing him.

I guess. I think a lot of rent-seeking occurs because most people don't care or are not individually highly negatively affected by the specific issue/law/regulation that ends up negatively affecting them. In other words, do I really care enough about a new regulation that costs me 12 cents a year so that it would cause me to take all kinds of action? Probably not. But the rent-seeker who wants that new regulation cares a lot more.

[mrswdk]

You are no different from the Church saying that Noah's son seeing him naked meant that Africans should be slaves, the North Americans should be given diseased ridden blankets, the Chinese hooked on opium, the South Americans tortured, the Aborigines displaced and the South Africans put in a caste system.

I don't think the Church said many of those things, to be fair.

[Neoteny]

I like how "evidence indicates we are disrupting the carbon cycle, and that's bad" becomes "corporate fascism."

Wears well.

[PLAYER57832]

Naively someone might think that one group of people claiming to be right might use all the means at their disposal to disenfranchise those that were "wrong".

It is called history.

Evdience. Science works on evidence. There is no belief in the results, only in the ideas individuals wish to pursue... but that is theory, not evidence.

Our climate IS changing. Denying it won't change anything, but will delay hopes of correctin it.

Per specific ideas.... You have persented nothing real, but make references to sustainability. When i responded that sustainability and climate change involved different goals and that the things you claimed were being ignored really were not, you ignored any evidence.. did not even ask for it, just declared me a "corporate stooge" and someone "duped by the government"

You, frankly know nothing of what you speak.

You are no different from the Church saying that Noah's son seeing him naked meant that Africans should be slaves, the North Americans should be given diseased ridden blankets, the Chinese hooked on opium, the South Americans tortured, the Aborigines displaced and the South Africans put in a caste system.

The church did not say those things. That is, I am sure you can find an individual clergy person that felt that way, but it was not the position of any of the larger churches and certainly was not in the Bible.

Someone might naively think that politicians don't work in concert. That they have individual opinions and aren't following their leaders who have been in the game for generations, cooperating with their generation old family ties who are the heads of major interest groups.

LOL-- you obviously don't know any real politicians. I do. You are just wrong. Try looking at the evidence instead of just ideas you believe are correct.

Some irony here. Politics is about COMPROMISE. In some periods, particularly recently, it become popular again to take the "my way or nothing" type stance..as if any kind of compromise were a "failure" . The result is a congress that has done absolutely nothing.

However, this becomes a pretty sad argument on your part when you try to claim that climate change is somehow the tool of politicians. Bush was in no way shape or form in agreement that climate change was real. He disdained much of science, though tried to claim otherwise. HIs administration was packed with young earth creationists,in fact.

Reagan was more nuanced, but then, the science was more iffy back then. It was put out on various news reports, but few really understood the full implication in the general public.