1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

'Climate Panel Says Emissions Are Nearing Upper Limit'

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Sep 27, 2013.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Big report out today by leading scientists.

    I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

  2. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    We don't have a carbon tax at this point because, as much as it might make us feel good, India and China ain't gonna quit burning fossil fuels anytime soon. That's Free Rider Economics 101. Unless you wanna go to war with China and India to make 'em pony up.
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    "We" includes India and China.

    In fact, I think that other countries should subsidize U.S. climate change laws.
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Towards what end? What would it seek to accomplish? Are the goals achievable? Is the cost worth it, especially if the rest of the globe doesn't join in?

    Meanwhile, scientists can't explain the "pause" in global warming, and admit that some of the dire warnings were false:

  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    You're a denier? I guess I didn't realize that. You're not typically a total idealogue.

    Toward what end? Pollution is an externality. Hence, pollution should be taxed, so that polluters have to internalize their costs. Hence, the market is truly reflective of market conditions.

    One. Oh. One.
  6. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    So what? You've studied some economics ... why is it that cartels are so hard to maintain? The incentive to cheat is too strong, and it's hard to detect (and dicey to punish) said cheating. Again, if you're willing, in the extreme, to go to war with India and/or China to enforce carbon restrictions -- and also to overlook the reduction to their standards of living such restrictions would entail -- we'll talk.
  7. trifectarich

    trifectarich Well-Known Member

    As with so many other problems, we'll realize we'd better do something when the or-else deadline is a week away. Either this or when the ocean overruns Miami.
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    So the alternative is ... let it ride?

    China has already recognized its pollution problem, and is starting to take steps to clean it up. They aren't a lost cause. The solution to global warming is a free market one, just as the solution to food scarcity was a free market one that was solved by the industrial revolution. But in order for a free market to function, you need an actual market, where entities pay their freight. If I could start a business tomorrow in which I did not have to pay for my merchandise, even whole sale, I would make a fortune. As you know, this is what industry gets to do. Good work if you can get it.

    Go to war with China over it? Maybe we can get the majority party in our own House of Representatives to admit that pollution is a thing first. Then we'll start dickering over policy details.
  9. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    OK, so it's "One. Oh. One." that the pollution should be taxed. I agree. The optimal rate is somewhere between $0.000000001 per ton and $1 billion per ton. That's "One. Oh. One," too. The Pigovian tax is a wonderful idea, but translating that idea into practice* is ridiculously difficult, perhaps impossible.

    I'm not arguing the alternative is to let it ride. I'm arguing that: 1) doing something just to be doing something ain't the answer; and 2) a carbon tax is probably little more than doing something to be doing something.

    *And that's within a given polity ... among polities would be an even more difficult proposition.
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    What have I denied?

    The Earth, over time, has gotten a little bit warmer, but not over the last 15 years.

    The climate models created by the experts have not proven true, and some evidence, like the "hockey stick" they knew to be false.

    If the models for the last 15 years have been wrong, why should we expect the current models to be correct?

    I'm also not convinced the "cure" won't be worse than the disease. Every solution will put a drag on the global economy, leaving millions in poverty. And, there's no guaranty -- or real expectation -- that it will reverse global warming.

    I'm not even convinced that the most dire predictions greatly outweigh the global benefits of a modest increase in global temperatures:

  11. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    And in other news use of personal electronics on a plane in takeoff or landing
    will crash it.
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Without a carbon tax, we are subsidizing certain industries.

    Picking winners.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page