Cap and Trade and Yes and No

[-1=e^ipi]

Or it might be a white dwarf.

Nope, that would be 6 billion years.

[nerve]

But no such thing exists. There is no sudden tipping point or point where damages go from 0 to very large. Net cost is a continuous function of emissions.

You are very wrong.

You do it per capita as a portion of global population (about half a percent of safe emissions for Canadians) or by "how much the country "sinks"

Then the gov can auction off what is left from personal consumption to industry to the highest bidders.

Sold by the ton. Say 500,000 of these up for sale. Each year. Anyone emitting without using up their ton credits would be finned say 1 million per ton in excess prorated of course.

Lets face it though greedy capitalist canadians don't give a damn how bad the world gets, they want their money, their luxury and their affluence.

They are bastards and that is all there is too it. People want money for self gratification and experiencing life at a higher level. They would piss in someones cup if it got them 100,000 dollars a year. Hell some people would force the drink down someone else's throat for less than that.

Its just a game of RAPE what you can rape from other people for your own personal profit. The way of unethical business practice - "THE PUBLIC" who the hell cares about the public, we have shareholders and bonuses to satisfy. This is business not the publics future well being.

Is it a crime to give people cancer and destroy the world. Hell no, we are ruining the poors life over an extended time frame within a veiled process of systemic violence. We are not hurting people fast enough for it to matter. We will be dead and gone by the time this stuff rolls around let our kids and grandkids or someone else's kids and grandkids worry about it. The more money we get them now, the better chance of outliving some poor loser they have. Plus we want our vacation, and our new vehicle, and premium TV, and some toys, and other crap we don't need. What will we do without our sense of self importance and meeting the threshold of success within our greed driven contemporary society?

That is what this is about, just taking someone else's RAPE money, by getting enough support or a majority.

Sick people should just admit it instead of providing a song and dance and wasting peoples time.

-----

The world needs to take Carbon out of the world, not "stop putting more into the atmosphere."

This whole thing is just a "pollution debt". Government cannot get rid of debts. That is why this entire process is a waste of time. Government is totally incompetent to protect the public interest or resources or stakes, they are morons who manage things based upon shirking responsibility, extorting other people to do their bidding, and shoving off responsibility to the next losers, after enough people wake up to realize how much they suck, but have no choice but to vote for the next bunch of losers because the entire process is rigged and backed by people willing to kill anyone who opposes the self destruction, slavery, and debase immorality of the ruling class. The only hope is the rich realizing they will die too. It may take some time but regardless of being corrupt selfish putzes, they will at some point have that point of no return feeling and start pressuring their puppets in office to insure they don't die or get put under socialist military rule where their wealth is confiscated en masse. The clock is ticking.

There are no "costs" you can't pay to stop environmental damage. It is idiocy to think that printing money without it being money made of carbon - like paper (even money isn't paper anymore), you aren't going to get rid of carbon. Carbon does not take bribes. Sorry try again.

Edited April 17, 2015 by nerve

[-1=e^ipi]

What do you mean when you say 'Texas will be wetter'

The North American Cordillera, which lies between California and Texas acts as a barrier to moisture transfer. My understanding is that global warming may shift the jetstreams poleward, which should make wind more Easterly and less Westerly, is the reason why California may become drier. California has the Pacific Ocean to the west, where as Texas has the Atlantic Ocean to the East (with the Cordillera between them); so more Easterly winds should make California drier and Texas wetter.

Why will a wetter Texas be any better than a dry one

For similar reasons why a drier California is often considered a negative. Both California and Texas are at similar latitudes, receive plenty of sunlight and are warm. However, both states are relatively dry and a slight increase in soil moisture should be beneficial both for agriculture and for the state biosphere.

when will it be better, next year, decade, century, kilo-year, kilo-century?

This is a difficult question to answer. How does one judge something to be better? What emission scenario will we expect? How sensitive is the climate to increases in greenhouse gasses? Etc. I don't know.

You adaptionists

Why do you think I am an 'adaptionist'? I don't know what the optimal policy response with respect to global warming is. For all I know, it might be a combination of mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering.

What evidence do you have that adapting will be the pleasant benign experience your disdain for alarmists and lack of concern implies?

My 'disdain' for alarmism is due to many things including the willingness to jump to conclusions, the dogmatic approach to the issue of climate change, the constant strawmaning of differing positions in order to fit a false dichotomy, the usage of overly simplistic methodologies such as the precautionary principle to determine the optimal response to climate change, and the frequent lack of respect of the scientific method.

[-1=e^ipi]

You are very wrong.

You simply claim that I am wrong in my claim that there is no sudden tipping point and that this is an oversimplification of the impacts of climate change vs greenhouse gas emissions. But you do not explain why it is that I am wrong and proceed to go off on an unrelated tangent.

Perhaps you simply do not understand the claim I am making, so I'll try to reword things. Basically, I think many people are treating the impact of climate change as a step function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_function), where as really the impact of climate change is a continuous function of greenhouse gas emissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function). The politics of the 2C target are a good example of people treating the impact of climate change as a step function.

They would piss in someones cup if it got them 100,000 dollars a year.

Maybe you are super privileged and $100,000 isn't much money to you. As a person on the verge of homelessness, a person who doesn't drive but rather walks or takes public transportation, I would certainly do that for $100,000. Heck, I would let someone piss in my mouth for $100,000 (provided they don't have aids or something).

We will be dead and gone by the time this stuff rolls around let our kids and grandkids or someone else's kids and grandkids worry about it.

So you either have or expect to have kids and grandkids. Talk about privileged. Actually, this is a good reflection at how privileged our society has become (that people assume having kids and grandkids is a given).

What will we do without our sense of self importance

And deluding yourself into thinking that you are a righteous advocate of mother gaia fighting the hordes of evil greedy capitalists doesn't give you any sense of self importance?

That is what this is about, just taking someone else's RAPE money

Yes, it's not like well intentioned people could have different opinions based upon the evidence available to them! They only disagree with us righteous gaia protectors because they are selfish and greedy! Therefore, we can dismiss any argument they ever make! *sarcasm*

The world needs to take Carbon out of the world... Carbon does not take bribes. Sorry try again.

You are mixing Carbon up with Carbon Dioxide. But people not understanding basic chemistry is to be expected.

There are no "costs" you can't pay to stop environmental damage.

We clearly have different definitions of 'costs'.

Cost - cost is a metric that is totaling up as a result of a process or as a differential for the result of a decision. (from wikipedia)

[eyeball]

This is a difficult question to answer. How does one judge something to be better?

It shouldn't be hard to make a good educated guess, anyone can easily judge when something was better when they no longer have it. Go ask the fishermen of the Aral Sea for example.

What emission scenario will we expect? How sensitive is the climate to increases in greenhouse gasses? Etc. I don't know.

Neither do I, meaning I have to rely on people who do should these be critically important factors that need to be considered at a policy making level.

Why do you think I am an 'adaptionist'?

Unless I'm mistaken you're suggesting we'll be able to adapt to the loss of productivity in a drier California because Texas will be wetter, correct? My question when, still stands. In plenty of time to save the US economy and a good portion of it's population from hunger or just in the nick of time? I bet policy makers might really like to know the answer to that.

I don't know what the optimal policy response with respect to global warming is. For all I know, it might be a combination of mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering.

If you have no idea what the optimal policy response with respect to global warming should be then you should probably defer to experts who do. Doing this isn't committing some fallacy in fact it's simply tapping into the scientific method in the way juries and judges do when they consult scientists and other experts to advise them on matters that require trained educated expertise.

My 'disdain' for alarmism is due to many things including the willingness to jump to conclusions, the dogmatic approach to the issue of climate change,

the constant strawmaning of differing positions in order to fit a false dichotomy,

I just don't know. It sounds to me like your disdain might have more to do with deeper issues you have...you seem to be obsessed with straw for example.

the usage of overly simplistic methodologies such as the precautionary principle to determine the optimal response to climate change, and the frequent lack of respect of the scientific method.

So you figure just blundering on in the face of ignorance when the vast vast majority of scientists and experts around the world are advising precaution is the best policy? Sorry but that's just plain nuts.

[TimG]

So you figure just blundering on in the face of ignorance when the vast vast majority of scientists and experts around the world are advising precaution is the best policy? Sorry but that's just plain nuts.

Who cares what climate scientists have to say about policy? They have zero qualifications would allow them to say anything useful on the topic. When it comes to the experts that actually have the expertise to talk about different policy options (e.g. engineers, economists, etc) there are considerable differences of opinions so your claims of consensus are self serving fictions. Edited April 17, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Who cares what climate scientists have to say about policy? They have zero qualifications would allow them to say anything useful on the topic. When it comes to the experts that actually have the expertise to talk about different policy options (e.g. engineers, economists, etc) there are considerable differences of opinions so your claims of consensus are self serving fictions.

Yep, scientists have zero qualifications. Give me that crystal ball anyday.

[-1=e^ipi]

It shouldn't be hard to make a good educated guess, anyone can easily judge when something was better when they no longer have it.

The effect of climate change will have both costs and benefits. How one weighs the different costs vs the different benefits is ambiguous. The pareto principle alone isn't sufficient to judge if something is better.

Neither do I, meaning I have to rely on people who do should these be critically important factors that need to be considered at a policy making level.

You are making two assumptions here. The first is that there exist people that actually do know the answers to these questions and the second is that the people claiming to know the answers to these questions actually know the answers to these questions. I do not believe that people that know what the optimal policy response to climate change exist (because I have yet to meet someone that has provided me with a satisfactory answer), and therefore I do not believe that the people claiming that they know the optimal policy response actually know the optimal policy response.

If an imam claims to know that a god exists and an atheist claims to not know if a god exists, does that mean society should believe the imam simply because the imam is in a position of authority and claims to know the answer to the question on does god exist?

Unless I'm mistaken you're suggesting we'll be able to adapt to the loss of productivity in a drier California because Texas will be wetter, correct?

There are costs and benefits to global warming. With respect to US agriculture production, I am unconvinced that lower production in California won't be offset by increased production elsewhere in the country.

My question when, still stands.

California + Texas != the entire world. Lower Californian agricultural production being offset elsewhere in the US does not imply that adaptation is the optimal policy response to climate change. One cannot exclude mitigation policy based on changes in US agricultural production.

If you have no idea what the optimal policy response with respect to global warming should be then you should probably defer to experts who do. Doing this isn't committing some fallacy in fact it's simply tapping into the scientific method in the way juries and judges do when they consult scientists and other experts to advise them on matters that require trained educated expertise.

I do not know != no idea. Again, as far as I am concerned, these experts who know the optimal policy response do not exist. And yes, blindly using appeal to authority is a fallacy and when large amounts of people do it in society it becomes dangerous. I can give you countless examples in history if you want. I suspect that you lack a decent appreciation or understanding of the scientific method if you think it is based on blindly believing in what an 'expert' concludes.

So you figure just blundering on in the face of ignorance when the vast vast majority of scientists and experts around the world are advising precaution is the best policy?

A group of people with the title 'scientist' making flawed arguments about what should be done with respect to climate change does not make their arguments somehow less flawed. Some 'scientists' do not follow the scientific method correctly, jump to conclusions, and make oversimplifications in their analysis. Furthermore, the scientific method alone does not tell people what to do. So it isn't possible to derive the optimal policy response from the scientific method + empirical method alone; you need additional premises.

Sorry but that's just plain nuts.

Again, my position isn't that we shouldn't do mitigation. Please do not misrepresent/strawman me.

Edited April 17, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

Who cares what climate scientists have to say about policy? They have zero qualifications would allow them to say anything useful on the topic. When it comes to the experts that actually have the expertise to talk about different policy options (e.g. engineers, economists, etc) there are considerable differences of opinions so your claims of consensus are self serving fictions.

Hyperbole. But I accept the idea that economists need to be heard more.

[TimG]

Hyperbole. But I accept the idea that economists need to be heard more.

I think you don't appreciate the expertise required to evaluate various at technology options and and prioritize based on cost and technological feasibility/risk. For example, economists can develop economic models based on the incremental cost of different power sources but you need an engineer to figure out the consequences of mixing different sources of power. When it comes to CO2 the main barrier for mitigation is mitigation at a scale large enough to be helpful is not technically feasible at any price which makes an economist's ramblings about carbon taxes moot. Edited April 17, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

Economists? Lol, if there was ever a class of scientists who are guilty of all the self serving, biased, politicised science deniers claim is produced by scientists, it's economists.

[TimG]

Economists? Lol, if there was ever a class of scientists who are guilty of all the self serving, biased, politicised science deniers claim is produced by scientists, it's economists.

Which, of course, simply proves my point. Climate scientists have no expertise that would allow them to decide on policy and economists who do that have some of the required expertise are divided and, as you say, politicized.

Also, the climate science field is not really any better when it comes to self-serving politicization. The only difference from economics is the powers that be in climate science are very good at punishing scientists who fail to conform to the party line on CO2 which means we have an exaggerated consensus.

Edited April 17, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I think you don't appreciate the expertise required to evaluate various at technology options and and prioritize based on cost and technological feasibility/risk. For example, economists can develop economic models based on the incremental cost of different power sources but you need an engineer to figure out the consequences of mixing different sources of power. When it comes to CO2 the main barrier for mitigation is mitigation at a scale large enough to be helpful is not technically feasible at any price which makes an economist's ramblings about carbon taxes moot.

And more hyperbole. The bank of Abu Dhabi is way ahead of you.

[jbg]

Not doing anything to bring down CO2 emissions will ultimately screw the large majority of the population over.

I cannot believe that alarmist propaganda could persuade such an apparently intelligent poster as yourself.

[ToadBrother]

I cannot believe that alarmist propaganda could persuade such an apparently intelligent poster as yourself.

You mean like the overwhelming majority of climatologists? Yes, I have this bad habit of listening to scientists in areas that they have expertise. It's a flaw that's lead me to accept biological evolution, Big Bang cosmology and the germ theory of disease. I know I should hang my head in shame and throw the majority of expert opinions in favor of a small minority, but you know, I guess I'm just intellectually lazy.

Edited April 23, 2015 by ToadBrother

[TimG]

You mean like the overwhelming majority of climatologists?

Spare us the bogus appeals to authority. Climatologists have NO expertise that would allow them to make such a claim because they do not have the background in the economics and engineering are necessary make such an assessment.

The only intellectually lazy people around hear are the ones that think they can find an "expert" that says they want to believe and blindly insist that every utterance these "experts" make must be treated as the word of god and not questioned even if the "experts" are making claims that have nothing to do with their expertise.

Edited April 23, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Spare us the bogus appeals to authority. Climatologists have NO expertise that would allow them to make such a claim because they do not have the background in the economics and engineering are necessary make such an assessment.

The only intellectually lazy people around hear are the ones that think they can find an "expert" that says they want to believe and blindly insist that every utterance these "experts" make must be treated as the word of god and not questioned even if the "experts" are making claims that have nothing to do with their expertise.

Appeals to authority are only fallacious when the authorities in question are not, in fact, authorities.

[TimG]

Appeals to authority are only fallacious when the authorities in question are not, in fact, authorities.

As I said:

Climatologists have NO expertise that would allow them to make claims about the best response to CO2 emissions. Such questions require knowledge of economics and engineering.

So in this case you are making an appeal to authorities that are NOT authorities in the area where you are making claims. So your argument is fallacious.

Edited April 23, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

And you're saying economists and engineers have a clue about the environment?

Most fricken economists don't even recognize it exists.

[TimG]

And you're saying economists and engineers have a clue about the environment?

No. I am saying that economists and engineers are the only people who are qualified to have an opinion on the best response to environmental change. Economists through their study of how the economy works and the limits on what can be accomplished with policy choices. Engineers though their study of energy production and their understanding of the limits to what can be done with energy production.

It is easy to say that we should reduce CO2 just like it is easy to say we should reduce the human population to 500 million. In practice both options are not really on the table and you can't make them happen just because a bunch of ivory tower academics declare that bad things will happen if we don't make the impossible happen. Solutions to hypothetical problems must be grounded in reality.

Edited April 24, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Most fricken economists don't even recognize it exists.

I disagree. Many people in the public may perceive that economists think this way, but public perception != reality. Based upon my own interaction with economists, as well as undergraduate and graduate studies in economics I assure you that the vast majority of economists (and by economists I mean real economists, not people like Stephen Harper) recognize the existence of the environment.

Edit: For example, it is standard to try to monetize the value of environmental impacts when performing a cost-benefit analysis.

Edited April 24, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

I am saying that economists and engineers are the only people who qualified to have an opinion on the best response to environmental change.

I'm not sure I agree with this. If these economists and engineers greatly misunderstand climate science and/or have a skewed perception about the impacts or magnitude of climate change then their policy suggestions will be based upon extremely flawed premises. Add on to this that there is no universally objective way (yet) to determine what is good or bad or how to deal with tradeoffs such as total economic output vs inequality of income (and the magnitude of climate change appears to be large enough such that the assumptions used to justify a traditional cost benefit analysis are greatly violated).

Edited April 24, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

No. I am saying that economists and engineers are the only people who are qualified to have an opinion on the best response to environmental change. Economists through their study of how the economy works and the limits on what can be accomplished with policy choices. Engineers though their study of energy production and their understanding of the limits to what can be done with energy production.

It is easy to say that we should reduce CO2 just like it is easy to say we should reduce the human population to 500 million. In practice both options are not really on the table and you can't make them happen just because a bunch of ivory tower academics declare that bad things will happen if we don't make the impossible happen. Solutions to hypothetical problems must be grounded in reality.

So you still think GW is hypothetical...Thankfully there are some real scientists who are working on real remedies for a real problem.

[TimG]

I'm not sure I agree with this. If these economists and engineers greatly misunderstand climate science and/or have a skewed perception about the impacts or magnitude of climate change then their policy suggestions will be based upon extremely flawed premises.

Please remember the context: I was responding to an alarmist insisting that the only opinion that mattered is that of climatologists.

If this was a rational discussion there would be an exchange of information between people with different expertise and the policy would be developed based on that varied input. For example, if you listen to experts in energy production/distribution the will tell you that non-dispatchable sources cannot practically provide much more than 10-15% of grid capacity and political barriers make large scale nuclear roll out implausible. Therefore, CO2 emissions will be a big part of the electrical generation system for a long time to come. This also means that even if electric cars were competitive with gasoline cars they would not have that much of an impact on emissions if new coal plants need to be built to power them.

These realities mean that policies based on setting reduction targets are quite idiotic and will never result in sustained progress.

Add on to this that there is no universally objective way (yet) to determine what is good or bad or how to deal with tradeoffs such as total economic output vs inequality of income (and the magnitude of climate change appears to be large enough such that the assumptions used to justify a traditional cost benefit analysis are greatly violated).

Social values are a huge input into any cost benefit analysis but the trouble is we have no common set of social values that would allow for a widely accepted response. So whether we like it or not the only "actions" on CO2 will happen on those that happen for reasons unrelated to government policy. For example, the discovery of natural gas fracking in the US has really helped reduce CO2 emissions but this revolution occurred in spite of government anti-CO2 policies - not because of them. Edited April 24, 2015 by TimG

[eyeball]

Please remember the context: I was responding to an alarmist insisting that the only opinion that mattered is that of climatologists.

So says the alarmist from the Church of Economic Doom.