ACism and global warming

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're asking what AC (or government) will do if you don't have the proof to form a case against some one. Uhhh...nothing I hope to god.


[/ QUOTE ] Yes. That nothing would be done was the answer I was looking for. AlexM says the companies won`t pollute because they know they will have to bear the consequences afterwards. If nothing will be done to compensate the farmer from Bangladesh, that doesn`t sound like a good answer to the global warming question. The companies will know they won`t have to pay.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
If nothing will be done to compensate the farmer from Bangladesh, that doesn`t sound like a good answer to the global warming question. The companies will know they won`t have to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is just saying that if someone commits the perfect crime (i.e. they can't be proved to have committed it) then they will escape punishment under AC. This is not a characteristic of AC.

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Okay then, lets say that everyone who is affected by a specific polluter has a successful day in court and they receive damages. That could mean millions of individuals all getting payout from one company. Could that not make any form of pollution heavily -EV. After all, you know how much people love their litigation. What effect would that have on industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're worried about limitations on industry, you should be equally worried about governments imposing anti-pollution rules on them. It's not like government officials have some special status that allows them to perfectly balance costs and benefits. In fact, many people agree that governments are substantially WORSE at this than the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not aware of current government regulations that would lead to such a destructive outcome. There is a a definite possibility that AC could. Even though it's only a possibility, I'd rather not play russian roulette on such an important outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're willing to allow government officials to make the call? Or have a referendum? Why is there this distrust of participants in the market but no such distrust of participants in a government or a vote?

[ QUOTE ]
I'm certain some people trust the markets more because they haven't been given enough power to really [censored] things up yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we've got a long history of watching governments blunder time after time so I sure as heck don't think putting your trust in them is any more rational. This has nothing to do with "belief" that the market will provide the solution in the form I want it. It's the belief, based on experience, that severe government intervention won't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

The market could decide that pollution should be at a level which the scientific consensus believes will cause long term, irreversible damage to the planet. Is this acceptable to you? Even if the majority of consumers want to save the planet, if the minority is not coerced into it as well then we could still be f***ed.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's unlikely that a single judge will effectively rule against all economic and ecological development, similar to how a government leader isn't going to be able to declare Jump of a Bridge Day and watch as everyone jumps of bridges. And there's no higher court to appeal to when you don't like the government's actions, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it unlikely? Unless legal precedents wouldn't exist in AC, but I don't see why not. And getting compensation for a reduced quality of life =/= jumping of a bridge.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're making it out to be so when you express fear of catostrophic decisions resulting from the decision made by one judge who is not acting rationally because his dog just died. But I can play that game, too. What if the President's spouse burns the toast one morning? He might order the army to wipe out the population. Are you saying this can't happen? I don't see why not. QED, we shouldn't have a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can play that game, but you fail. The judge here is making a very delicate decision. A few % points in either direction would lead to catastrophe for either business or the environment. The government, with a viewpoint that extends beyond punitive damages, vast reserves of researchers and advisers in different fields and on both sides and an incentive to get elected next term is far more qualified to make this close judgement call then Bobs Discount Disputes.

Just in case you missed it the first time round, a complex decision involving two parties with legitimate wants and grievances does not equal an irrational call for mass suicide or genocide.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not really sure how thing work in the US, but in the UK there's 3 tiers (local, national and European) plus the ability to appeal. Things can still get [censored] up, but at lest you have safety nets against recently bereaved arbiters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private courts could have an appeals process. I not sure how "escalating" the "levels" geographically somehow makes the appeals process any more valid. And you're still stuck at eventually reaching the level where there is no higher court. Are you saying the highest court of the state is infallible?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but the more individuals involved reduces the chance of a [censored] up. You must know about sample size, I thought this would be obvious.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't a new argument, we've been here before. I don't trust the power to group anywhere but in large companies, and in that situation, the ability to compete won't be enough. It won't matter. They'll buy whatever they want, this includes their own DROs etc. People will still shop there because "hey global warming isn't an issue to me and check it out $2 tube socks, hellllllo".

If think people will be the new masters, then I'm pulling for you and hope you're right, but again, you'll have to forgive my being skeptical.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent that the concentration of power in large companies subject to competition is bad, the concentration of power in a single state subject to very limited competitive forces is much worse.

Again, don't confuse the assertion that competition is good with the assertion that competition will make things work out exactly the way I want. I agree that for the most part people make stupid choices (on my own subjective basis) that impact me negatively. This is true in how they elect officials as surely as it is true in how they choose consumer products. As you like to say, people are bastard covered bastards in bastard sauce (paraphrased). I don't assert that market forces will turn them into angel convered angels in angel sauce.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the most open and honest response I've read on here in quite some time.

Cody

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
The market could decide that pollution should be at a level which the scientific consensus believes will cause long term, irreversible damage to the planet. Is this acceptable to you? Even if the majority of consumers want to save the planet, if the minority is not coerced into it as well then we could still be f***ed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no assurance that the majority of people will choose the "right" thing. Your argument seems to be "But what if the will of the majority is not imposed on everyone else?" Of course if you think that they only possible way to determine the "right" outcome is to poll the population and rule in favor of the majority, you won't agree with anything other than democracy. The whole point is that the opinion that the majority has regarding what other people should be forced to do has nothing to do with the "optimal" solution.

[ QUOTE ]
You can play that game, but you fail. The judge here is making a very delicate decision. A few % points in either direction would lead to catastrophe for either business or the environment. The government, with a viewpoint that extends beyond punitive damages, vast reserves of researchers and advisers in different fields and on both sides and an incentive to get elected next term is far more qualified to make this close judgement call then Bobs Discount Disputes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've assumed the government has qualifications that would exceed the market judge. If the qualifications are necessary, why wouldn't the market consumers demand them from the judge? Who's going to hire Discount Bob to be their judge when they know no one else will listen to Bob's unqualified rulings? You've assumed the market judge will be unqualified, and concluded that their decisions will be bad.

[ QUOTE ]
Just in case you missed it the first time round, a complex decision involving two parties with legitimate wants and grievances does not equal an irrational call for mass suicide or genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does when the objection to private courts is that a judge will order the collapse of mankind and we'll be screwed. The observation that they are not comparable emphasizes that the concern is unwarranted. When I make a reductio ad absurdum argument and you say "That's absurd!", you haven't won the argument.

[ QUOTE ]
No, but the more individuals involved reduces the chance of a [censored] up. You must know about sample size, I thought this would be obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point - this will be an obvious and unavoidable problem since of course the market can only provide services from a single judge who is acting irrationally because his dog died that morning. I forgot.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me that any state sponsored action to "combat" global warming is actually doing anything that has an iota of impact i.e. that if followed by all people, nations, whatever, will stop flooding Bangladesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty easy to do. The vast majority of the technology breakthroughs in energy are occurring at university and national labs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me what the national labs have done. BTW I worked at one for nine years. I have more than a little insight into them FWIW. I will say they're damn good at dismantlement activities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Solar cell efficiency have gone from 8% in the 1990s to 42.8%. Key players have been Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, NREL, Oak Ridge and University of Delaware.

I think this is the most recent record:
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307.html

There are many other stories like it in other fields. The commercial sector is helping but when they do they are almost always getting funded via the DoE.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]

But this is just saying that if someone commits the perfect crime (i.e. they can't be proved to have committed it) then they will escape punishment under AC. This is not a characteristic of AC.

[/ QUOTE ] They will escape punishment under statism too. But the state has better opportunities to do something to stop the problem before it gets that far. This, it seems to me, has to do with one of the main reasons you hate government so much. They can make the call to implement expensive measures to help the environment, because they can externalize the costs. The money does not come from the decision makers' pockets.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Solar cell efficiency have gone from 8% in the 1990s to 42.8%. Key players have been Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, NREL, Oak Ridge and University of Delaware.


[/ QUOTE ]

How much money do these programs recieve on a yearly basis?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Solar cell efficiency have gone from 8% in the 1990s to 42.8%. Key players have been Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, NREL, Oak Ridge and University of Delaware.


[/ QUOTE ]

How much money do these programs recieve on a yearly basis?

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, wacki doesn't like to discuss things like opportunity cost. According to his logic, if you spend $10,000 getting someone to mow your lawn, then it was worth it because you got something done, especially if it was someone else's money.

Since we have a bottomless pit of money, we probably need an Apollo Program for getting the grass cut! Don't worry about what it costs, just look at the RESULTS!

[wtfsvi]

Mowing the lawn is a bad anology. Saving the environment can't be replaced by something else that is equally nice but cheaper. If I had to spend $10.000 a month on medication to stay alive, would you say I was dumb for not considering the opportunity cost? Just think of how often I could go to the movies for that money.