Global Warming

[HLMencken]

I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Incidentally, I am not advocating that we increase regulation. I am merely disagreeing with your assessment that any attempt to regulate greenhouse gases will bring the world to its knees with hundreds of millions dead. You can easily pick and choose when it comes to conjectures like this. One could just as easily say that advances in technology and economic progress result in far more dead through wars and conflicts, as the twentieth century gives plenty of evidence for. I am not making this argument, just disputing the implicit claim that anything that causes an increase in GDP is always good for the world.

[timotheeeee]

I think his point is that anything that is less economical is by definition bad for the world, which doesn't conflict with denying that "anything that causes an increase in GDP is always good for the world."

But don't listen to me. I've never dabbled in 'supercomputing.'

Edit: I guess I should've used "worse" instead of "bad" above.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
I think his point is that anything that is less economical is by definition bad for the world, which doesn't conflict with denying that "anything that causes an increase in GDP is always good for the world."

But don't listen to me. I've never dabbled in 'supercomputing.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I still dispute the claim. Let's take an extreme extension of global warming (again, I am not advocating any regulation)...

Say a ginat meteor is heading for earth and is going to wipe out the planet. Is it bad for the world if resources were utilized to develop a solution to knock the meteor off path--even if it hurt the world's economy a bit?

[timotheeeee]

It would obviously be more economical in the long run to stop the meteor.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
It would obviously be more economical in the long run to stop the meteor.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if the global warming crowd were right, it would be more economical to not cause untold catastrophes due to global climactic change.

[Il_Mostro]

"I think what you're talking about is cost externalities."
Yes, I belive I am

"But the solution is not less capitalism, i.e. more government regulations, interventions, and restriction. The solution is more capitalism"
Perhaps you AC could cope with all this, perhaps some subset of it, perhaps none, I am not interested enough to to all the studying. My point is that I don't see the world going that road, we are not getting more and more capitalism, we are getting more and more interventionalism and more and more tolls and what not. I don't belive that's going to change in a hurry. As you have stated yourself, neither you nor me see any way to go from where we are today to where you want us to be.

This is the "Natedogg argument", the free market can cope and therefor it'll be ok (ok, I'm not doing him justice, but anyway). Even if that is true it is only true if the free market is allowed to solve the problems. And I don't see that happening. I guess we share the same worry, but I am not at all convinced your solution would work. But let's not argue that.

Plus I remain unconvinced because of what wacki says, as it is today I don't see many companys investing in things that will bring revenue 20-30-40 years down the road, or not at all because patents don't last long enough. If it's not going to produce results soon it will be rationalized away as soon as there is a mild downswing in revenue.

"That isn't how "value" is determined."
The fact that I'm not an economist usually means I use economical terms the wrong way...

"How much work or energy went into the creation of a good is completely irrelevent. The only thing that's relevent is how useful it is in satisfying future needs or wants, and how much competition for that good exists in the market. "
What I mean is that the price we pay for many things does not reflect the real cost of it. It comes back to extrnalities again, the price we pay for a flight ticket does not reflect the cost on the environment for that flight. Or the price we pay for fish does not reflect the fact that fisheries are used highly unsustainably. We only pay the price for catching the fish. And to make a stab at you "more capitalism", I'm not at all sure that such problems would be solved by having an owner. I belive that in many cases that owner would seek to enrich himself and don't care about overfishing, since it wouldn't affect him, he'll be rich by the time the waters are empty.

"There's simply no way that humanity working with the available intellectual capital and the technological base that we have now could not solve the "energy problem.""
Well, perhaps you are correct, this would be the "Hirsch argument". There is enough tech. to get us through peak oil, but only if we start implement it in a crash-program style 20 years ahead of time. And if we are actually seeing PO now, as there are some indications we are, we are a bit late at it. If we don't, he argues that we'll basically see depression and a very bumby ride for at least a few decades.

And the combination of that with record levels of debt all over the western world and especially the US, does not look good to me.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would obviously be more economical in the long run to stop the meteor.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if the global warming crowd were right, it would be more economical to not cause untold catastrophes due to global climactic change.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I don't dispute global warming, and I don't dispute that we should do something about it. But there's a big difference between "we know there's an asteroid coming towards us" and "we think there's an asteroid coming towards us." Boro's point (I think <----here's a disclaimer, okay? I'm not endorsing anything by saying this. For those of you who don't understand why I'm saying this, look at the abortion thread) is that it would be so uneconomical to prepare for hypothesized asteroids as to not be worth it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We (meaning including me) have not been over this before, so either stop with the insults and produce something useful,

[/ QUOTE ]

When I mentioned the $1/gallon tax I did mix you up with natedogg. I apologize for that. But we have been over capitalism and research/pollution concepts before. I am willing to bet you any amount of money I can prove it.

If you want to bet $10,000 or more I'd be more than happy to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Produce a thread where you explained how to reduce world greenhouse emissions by half (preferably an order of magnitude) without crippling the world economically, which is what I asked for when you flipped out (again).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you willing to put money where your mouth is that we've been over the concepts I quoted and said you were full of [censored] on? Things you denied we've never been over?

This is the thread you replied to, and the quote you denied.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

The other thread I called you crap on is here
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1


I will wager any amount of money.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree. I don't dispute global warming, and I don't dispute that we should do something about it. But there's a big difference between "we know there's an asteroid coming towards us" and "we think there's an asteroid coming towards us." Boro's point (I think <----here's a disclaimer, okay? I'm not endorsing anything by saying this. For those of you who don't understand why I'm saying this, look at the abortion thread) is that it would be so uneconomical to prepare for hypothesized asteroids as to not be worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Borodog has more than likely never ran the numbers. The cost of the research could be insignificant (and in comparison to the energy industry it is) and borodog wouldn't allow it due to his ideology. Borodog is not a pragmatic person and is an anarcho-capitalist.

[wacki]

You yelled at me when you thought I made assumptions about the ghetto kids that schooled big auto with their ultra hybdrid. At the same time you dismiss very well documented peer review scientific research because a comic has to be pasted on the same site?



[ QUOTE ]

I use this idea as my guide: Assume the future of humanity depends upon raising global temperature 2 deg. C. in 40 years. Could we do it? Could we even develop a consesus plan? I betting 'don't pass' here.

[/ QUOTE ]


Odd, I have a feeling it would be a piece of cake.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/5/2154#SEC4

care to recant your statement?