My question assumes that ACC is absolutely catastrophic. So given that, how can the an-cap society combat it?
I'm in favour of raping and pillaging the planet. Floods? Buy a boat. Weather change? Grow lemons instead of turnips. Just don't curtail industrial production with one thing, such taxes, on the basis that industrial production will be curtailed by one other thing, such as climate change. Self-defeating idea is self-defeating.
Guys I don't doubt that ACC does not require mitigation. I only ask how do you suggest an an-cap society can deal with issues which negative effect everyone and which are hard to prove. I gave my version of ACC then, one that is a lot more major that we really have. I'd like a theoretical framework for dealing with these sort of things in an-cap society. Do we really need a state if such things happen? Or is there a more libertarian method at disposal?
Eugene:Guys I don't doubt that ACC does not require mitigation. I only ask how do you suggest an an-cap society can deal with issues which negative effect everyone and which are hard to prove. I gave my version of ACC then, one that is a lot more major that we really have. I'd like a theoretical framework for dealing with these sort of things in an-cap society. Do we really need a state if such things happen? Or is there a more libertarian method at disposal?
Mitigation is nonsense. Even if we can predict how the atmosphere will react to changes in emissions (and nobody can), it will require like 10.000 years for changes to effect. The atmosphere isn't some predictable mechanism that you can micromanage with minor changes in emissions, and then see the effects show a decade later. Also, the amount of reduction that we could achieve, even if everybody was on board (and developing countries certainly aren't) can't do a squat of good. It would require shutting down the entire world economy - zero emissions - for 30 years to mitigate one degree of warming by the UN's own numbers. Of course they made that up, in reality climate change is controlled by the sun, manmade emissions have no effect. There are numerous other logical contradictions within the notion that you could mitigate global warming. The whole theory was made up precisely for the purpose of requiring state intervention.
Even if you invented some hitherto impossible device that reduced emissions from all chemical reactions by 90% you would just get global warming again when the population has increased 10 times. The only real solution in terms of stopping that is to execute a billion people here and there. But, that is still self-defeating if the issue of the negative impact to begin with is that, let's say, a billion people around coasts have their homes flooded.
Non/anti-libertarians can croon about "solutions" to the sunset. Truth is, they don't have any of their own. Never did and never will.
This is a little off topic, but I thought of another objection. Does anybody ever claim that humans were responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere? It's always "humans emit a lot of CO2" and "CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by 100 ppm". But do they ever claim that there is a causal relationship? I think that CO2 concentrations have gone up for natural reasons due to more warming from the sun, not because humans blew it there with factories. As such not even the increase in CO2 concentrations is manmade.
Basically its to late to mitigate man made global warming, the market should have acted 25 years ago [1] and now its up to government but thats not to say that they will act. EmperorNero is right that the market itself cannot act in a way that would move us from a CO2 based economy to a steady state (low growth or zero growth) green economy that would have mitigated global warming. The whole problem cannot be solved by a free market because there is more profit in remaining with the current system which has caused the problem. Every other means of producing energy other than coal, oil or gas is more expensive, and requires government to tax or regulate so that other energy production methods can be profitable. Also there is alot of money invested in the current system as well, transport etc would have to be completely switched over to a new system if oil use was capped or taxed to much. The market has been actively fighting any changes away from coal, oil or gas. Sustainable energy is still way too expensive.
Countries like china which export goods to countries like the USA, who pollute producing the goods we buy would find their goods facing the negative sides of regulations, caps, taxes or research cost that any change would bring. This would likely start a trade war or worse. Climate Change cannot be solved by the governments of the world, as agreement is impossible because of economic hurdles.
We have to change the whole world over to zero emissions or we may in future hit a tipping point [2] and a rapid climate shift will occur. We know in the past such events have occured but it is still very difficult to predict future ones. [3] It could be to late to do anything if we do see the passing of any critical thresholds. If a shift in climate did occur it would be impossible to change the climate back afterwards. With World population forecast to be 9.2 billion people in the world of 2050 and staggering 11.4 billion, by the mid 2060s. Can we risk a large drop in carrying capacity, with biodiversity reduction in future?
What way do you see the free market fixing this problem without the government acting, regulations (voluntary ones have failed already), caps or taxes? Remember this is not a trick question, there is alot of evidence that the market is unsustainable in the long run and that the change to a sustainable economic system must take place at some point. Not everyone thinks we can fix the problem see [4].
[1] Page 3 - The IPCC notes that there are cost-effective solutions, such as retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency, but says they must be implemented in short order to stem further damage. "We are 25 years too late," Schneider says. "If the object is to avoid dangerous change, we've already had it. The object now is to avoid really dangerous change."
Source - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=state-of-the-science-beyond-the-worst-climate-change-case&page=3
[2] Page 1 - Therefore, our results imply independent empirical evidence for the idea that past abrupt shifts were associated with the passing of critical thresholds.
Source - http://www.indiana.edu/~halllab/L577/Topic3/Dakosetal_2008_PNAS.pdf
[3] Page 1 - tipping points in eco-systems and other complex systems are notoriously hard to predict.
[4] page 1 - Can We Fix It? perhaps we should start to consider No, we can't!
source - http://hubpages.com/hub/Can-We-Fix-It-No-we-Cant-Innovation-gets-Harder-and-Costly
We have to change the whole world over to zero emissions or we may in future hit a tipping point [2].
This is the one accurate statement in the above post. It's never 25 years too late to get out the zyklon B.
"This is the one accurate statement in the above post. It's never 25 years too late to get out the zyklon B."
It is more or less the academic position and the real world position we are in with most free market thinkers denying climate change is any problem and the science saying in a massive problem. Nothing will ever be done about climate change until its to late, there is no reason for there to be change under the economic system as it is a negative externality. If the negative externality of climate change collectively costs us greatly collectively then it could have the potential of making the whole economic system self-defeating.
Eugene:Again, you ignore my initial assumption, which is that ACC is absolutely catastrophic and will cause massive earthquakes
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
zx128k:If the negative externality of climate change collectively costs us greatly collectively then it could have the potential of making the whole economic system self-defeating.
Yes, human extinction would make the economic system self-defeating. Why aren't you this concerned about nuclear war?
"Yes, human extinction would make the economic system self-defeating. Why aren't you this concerned about nuclear war?"
Do people deny the negative impact of that of nuclear war, do they fail to reduce the number of warheads? Remember the US has eliminated over 13,000 nuclear weapons and thats over 80% of its deployed strategic warheads and 90% of non-strategic warheads.
I think the concern about nuclear weapons is being addressed, why not the same with climate change? Next to nothing has been done, there have been lots of talk, even very limited agreement, but no real action on reducing CO2. CO2 ppm continues to increase, how is a free market going to fix this?
" Eugene: Again, you ignore my initial assumption, which is that ACC is absolutely catastrophic and will cause massive earthquakes
please cite a scientific paper on this for me...."
I doubt that there will be massive earthquakes due to climate change. lol
Welcome zx128k. You espouse the usual environmental socialist litany that the state is teaching in schools these days. I'm going to set the record straight because I think you probably never heard these arguments before. If you want to discuss this, I'll be happy to elaborate on any of this. Just don't post your "sources" and expect me to believe them.
zx128k:Basically its to late to mitigate man made global warming, the market should have acted 25 years ago [1] and now its up to government but thats not to say that they will act. EmperorNero is right that the market itself cannot act in a way that would move us from a CO2 based economy to a steady state (low growth or zero growth) green economy that would have mitigated global warming.
I said no such thing. My point was that mitigation is scientific nonsense and physically impossible. Not just that market liberalism can't do it, but that the state especially can't do it, because the state is worse at doing everything. My argument was that a environmental problem that has to be mitigated can't exist and was manufactured precisely for the purpose that it can't be fixed by the market and requires statism.
zx128k:The whole problem cannot be solved by a free market because there is more profit in remaining with the current system which has caused the problem.
Actually the market has caused a change towards less "CO2 based" fuel sources for hundreds of years. Humanity wen't from burning hay to burning lumber to burning coal to burning petroleum, and now solar and nuclear. That has been happening because of free markets, not because of environmentalist busybodies. A green economy will happen because of free markets, socialism impedes that progress. The reason India and China are using more coal than the west is that they were socialist until recently. Looking at the empirical evidence would lead you to conclude that environmental socialism is counter-productive.
That we are relying on coal so much is the fault of the last generation of misguided environmental activists; the anti-nuclear energy movement. Without them we would already have a pretty low carbon energy economy.
zx128k:Every other means of producing energy other than coal, oil or gas is more expensive, and requires government to tax or regulate so that other energy production methods can be profitable.
Business doesn't care what energy source we use. It doesn't save them any money, all costs would be passed on to the consumer. This is basic supply and demand economics. If anything, business likes the environmental movement because there's a lot of profit in selling people more expensive "green" products. The oil and coal lobby love (and fund) the global warming movement, because it helps to cartelize their industry with cap and trade. All the big global warming people come from the oil lobby, including Al Gore.
zx128k:Also there is alot of money invested in the current system as well, transport etc would have to be completely switched over to a new system if oil use was capped or taxed to much. The market has been actively fighting any changes away from coal, oil or gas. Sustainable energy is still way too expensive.
If something is too expensive, that means it requires resources that humanity doesn't have. The problem isn't coming up with enough money, humanity doesn't have the resources for a green energy economy. The state can't create resources out of thin air, only the free market creates resources. (And it has been the market that produced changes away from less clean fuel sources.) If the state expropriates resources to subsidize green energy, it merely impoverishes humanity to buy something that people don't want and can't afford yet. Some people rather have food on the table than feel-good green energy. That's a luxury for the rich.
zx128k:We have to change the whole world over to zero emissions or we may in future hit a tipping point [2] and a rapid climate shift will occur. We know in the past such events have occured but it is still very difficult to predict future ones. [3] It could be to late to do anything if we do see the passing of any critical thresholds. If a shift in climate did occur it would be impossible to change the climate back afterwards.
There's no such thing as a environmental tipping point. The environment isn't in some balance that we could 'tip over'. Carbon dioxide levels have always been changing and were 18 times as high before. That didn't seems to tip the balance. If such events have occurred, they were natural, so why wouldn't this one be? If it's natural it can't be mitigated.
zx128k: With World population forecast to be 9.2 billion people in the world of 2050 and staggering 11.4 billion, by the mid 2060s.
It was just a matter of time until you bring up world populations. Uhh, big numbers are scary. But so what? Big numbers just sound scary, humans have a hard time grasping them, they don't do anything. Standards of living are going up for pretty much everyone. Make no mistake about it, the only thing that changed about population is that the numbers happened to reach a point where they sound scary. That's just an artifact of the base ten numeral system.
zx128k:Can we risk a large drop in carrying capacity, with biodiversity reduction in future?
I'll risk that before I risk more statism, which was the leading cause of unnatural death in the last century.
zx128k:What way do you see the free market fixing this problem without the government acting, regulations (voluntary ones have failed already), caps or taxes? Remember this is not a trick question, there is alot of evidence that the market is unsustainable in the long run and that the change to a sustainable economic system must take place at some point. Not everyone thinks we can fix the problem see [4].
Sustainability is a myth. There's no such thing. All energy sources require human action to be replenished. Even solar panels have to be repaired.
zx128k:It is more or less the academic position and the real world position we are in with most free market thinkers denying climate change is any problem and the science saying in a massive problem.
I was waiting for it... but you finally appealed to consensus. I shouldn't have to tell you that science isn't about consensus. "The science" does not say that climate change is manmade. A few scientists do, and they are controlled by politicians and oil lobbyists. The core of the climate change science is only produced and understood by a dozen or so people. Everybody else is put on a list that they agree with global warming. They have to sue to get off it, which most scientists don't dare for fear of their jobs. That's your consensus, a political fabrication.
Also, climate change is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable and verifiable. Climate change is neither.
zx128k:Do people deny the negative impact of that of nuclear war, do they fail to reduce the number of warheads? Remember the US has eliminated over 13,000 nuclear weapons and thats over 80% of its deployed strategic warheads and 90% of non-strategic warheads.
Yet nuclear weapons would never have been developed if it wasn't for 20th century statism. If we had a free market there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
It is more or less the academic position and the real world position we are in with most free market thinkers denying climate change is any problem and the science saying in a massive problem.
If you are going to post here you should know that invoking the respectable name of "science" as if we are all base morons that automatically drop to our knees in hail of the favourite avatar of interdisciplinary crankery does not work around here. Just trying to save the thread getting polluted with ye olde sophistry.
If the negative externality of climate change collectively costs us greatly collectively then it could have the potential of making the whole economic system self-defeating.
Let's just lay out the options. Which sounds more appealing: 1. Entire world population sitting in fields eating grass and meditating 24/7 like buddhist monks to bring emissions to zero. 2. Spending some resources on revamping infrastructure. I'm going with 2. Anyone going with 1?
yah zx128k!!! Caley has been studying climate science for like 2 weekends now. So keep your namby-pamby IPCC conclusions to yourself!!! We can interpret the evidence for ourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't need no "scientist" telling me nothing!!!
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
"Welcome zx128k. You espouse the usual environmental socialist litany that the state is teaching in schools these days. I'm going to set the record straight because I think you probably never heard these arguments before. If you want to discuss this, I'll be happy to elaborate on any of this. Just don't post your "sources" and expect me to believe them."
I am trying to stick to the science, funny how you a labeling me like religious people do. I guess socialists are your version of what satan worshipers are to christains. I will link to alot of websites, check any links if you want.
"I said no such thing. My point was that mitigation is scientific nonsense and physically impossible. Not just that market liberalism can't do it, but that the state especially can't do it, because the state is worse at doing everything. My argument was that a environmental problem that has to be mitigated can't exist and was manufactured precisely for the purpose that it can't be fixed by the market and requires statism."
Mitigation his problems now in that it is to late to stop the warming we have already caused, an additional cost most also be paid by the market to adapt and address the problems this warming may bring. [1] Cost or extent of the required adaptation is unknown. [2]
Likely impacts of increased warming can be seen at [3], but even so we have reached the point where we must act to stop dangerous climate change. [4]
"There's no such thing as a environmental tipping point".
Please take a look at this paper, it covers the issue [5] and looks at slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change.
"It was just a matter of time until you bring up world populations. Uhh, big numbers are scary. But so what? Big numbers just sound scary, humans have a hard time grasping them, they don't do anything. Standards of living are going up for pretty much everyone. Make no mistake about it, the only thing that changed about population is that the numbers happened to reach a point where they sound scary. That's just an artifact of the base ten numeral system."
Your opinion but this website covers the issue. [6]
"I'll risk that before I risk more statism, which was the leading cause of unnatural death in the last century."
Then hopefully your opinion will kill only you.
"Sustainability is a myth. There's no such thing. All energy sources require human action to be replenished. Even solar panels have to be repaired."
Sustainability is the capacity to "endure", if sustainability is a myth then then this economic system cannot endure and must be replaced or it will fail. If this system fails there will not be a future for "free market" thinking. Sustainability is a requirement of any system, all systems fail without it.
"All energy sources require human action to be replenished." This is factually wrong. Renewable sources can be readily replaced or replenished, either by the earth's natural processes or by human action. The heat you feel from the sun each day is a renewable energy source but it does not take human action for the sun to come up every day, its a natural process. In contrast, fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas are non-renewable. Once a deposit of these fuels is depleted it cannot be replenished – a replacement deposit must be found instead.
"I was waiting for it... but you finally appealed to consensus. I shouldn't have to tell you that science isn't about consensus. "The science" does not say that climate change is manmade."
See [7] page 3.
"Yet nuclear weapons would never have been developed if it wasn't for 20th century statism. If we had a free market there wouldn't be a problem in the first place."
Nuclear power is a well established low carbon source of electricity and a posible way to reduce CO2 without significantly add to the cost of electricity. See [7]. Nuclear power will most likely be part of the solution to reducing CO2 but is likely to be used with renewable sources.
[1] source - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-d.html
"Adaptation will be necessary to address impacts resulting from the warming which is already unavoidable due to past emissions."
[2] At present we do not have a clear picture of the limits to adaptation, or the cost, partly because effective adaptation measures are highly dependent on specific, geographical and climate risk factors as well as institutional, political and financial constraints.
source - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-d.html
[3] Key impacts as a function of increasing global average temperature change
source - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/figure-spm-2.html
[4] The stated goal of the UNFCCC – avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate – is in fact unattainable, because today we are already experiencing dangerous anthropogenic interference. The real question now is whether we can still avoid catastrophic anthro-pogenic interference in climate.
source - http://wacsf.vportal.net/launchpad/Client_00057/2007/SF%20Conference/Holdren_presentation.pdf
[5] Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change.
source - http://www.indiana.edu/~halllab/L577/Topic3/Dakosetal_2008_PNAS.pdf
[6] Another Inconvenient Truth: The World's Growing Population Poses a Malthusian Dilemma
source - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=growing-population-poses-malthusian-dilemma
[7] The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2.
source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_02_07_climatereport.pdf page 3.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers.
[7] CHAPTER 2: RENEWABLES AND THE UK ENERGY SYSTEM see part 19 and 23.
source - http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/195/19505.htm
Student: yah zx128k!!! Caley has been studying climate science for like 2 weekends now. So keep your namby-pamby IPCC conclusions to yourself!!! We can interpret the evidence for ourselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't need no "scientist" telling me nothing!!!
The irony is most environmentalists I cross paths with have studied a climate related science, like meteorology, for less then 2 weekends. Most information available regarding the environment nowdays is mostly political propoganda. Very few publications outside of academia are actually science based.
Sadly that includes alot of information that filters through the IPCC which I have a hard time now distinguishing as just another political organization. But what can you expect from a bureaucracy.
Are those citations you offered worth reading if the very premise of many of them are logical fallacies? It must be embarassing for a scientific community to let such a nasty habbit run rampent.
Student, enough with the trolling.
"
Sadly that includes alot of information that filters through the IPCC which I have a hard time now distinguishing as just another political organization. But what can you expect from a bureaucracy."
Sounds like you use the same arguments religion uses against science, in the debate over evolution. If you are all illogical, irrational, science denying nut jobs I would rather spend my time elsewhere to be honest.
zx128k:Sounds like you use the same arguments religion uses against science, in the debate over evolution.
Scientism and religion have a lot in common. It's all about core belief systems.
zx128k:If you are all illogical, irrational, science denying nut jobs I would rather spend my time elsewhere to be honest.
I can understand your frustration that people disagree with you, but if you don't address the basis of their disagreement, then you're not really interested in a discussion anyway, and a discussion forum is probably the wrong place for you.
Namecalling (illogical, irrational, nut jobs) isn't conducive to an exchange of information. Surely you can make your argument without such petty theatrics.
More precisely, we don't need no tie-dye shirt and sandals wearing liberal arts infiltrator professors working for an organization founded by Alger Hiss, using roughly the same coat of arms as the Soviet Union telling us nothing, especially about economics. Of course, all of that is redundant in light of what else I've said...
Caley McKibbin: I don’t. But if the arbitration industry would come to accept proof that, say, our atmosphere can disperse 5 million tons of CO2 per year, than any emission above that would be aggression. Now, in order not to punish anyone more heavily that others, we’d distribute quotas for 5 million tons of emission evenly ( say quaotas for 0.7 gramns of emision for every earthling) and then let the market decide how those rights would be distributed. So I don’t see this as a particularly arbitrary solution. Its actually as voluntary as it gets, under the assumed circumstances. This is why I was talking about marginal factoring of climate change. This does not follow from first-come libertarian law theory, nor de facto law theory for that matter. The people on the critical margin are the only ones that can be justly held. The only theory that says that everyone is equally responsible for anything is the communist one. When you switch from the idea of injunction against everyone to permission quotas, the matter is changing from stopping transgression to doling privilege. A pollution quota is a privilege to pollute. It's like license to kill rather than stopping killers. That has nothing to do with libertarianism. Anyway... the first step to reducing air pollution would be abolishing zoning.
I don’t. But if the arbitration industry would come to accept proof that, say, our atmosphere can disperse 5 million tons of CO2 per year, than any emission above that would be aggression. Now, in order not to punish anyone more heavily that others, we’d distribute quotas for 5 million tons of emission evenly ( say quaotas for 0.7 gramns of emision for every earthling) and then let the market decide how those rights would be distributed. So I don’t see this as a particularly arbitrary solution. Its actually as voluntary as it gets, under the assumed circumstances.
This is why I was talking about marginal factoring of climate change. This does not follow from first-come libertarian law theory, nor de facto law theory for that matter. The people on the critical margin are the only ones that can be justly held. The only theory that says that everyone is equally responsible for anything is the communist one. When you switch from the idea of injunction against everyone to permission quotas, the matter is changing from stopping transgression to doling privilege. A pollution quota is a privilege to pollute. It's like license to kill rather than stopping killers. That has nothing to do with libertarianism.
Anyway... the first step to reducing air pollution would be abolishing zoning.
Wow, the thread has exploded this weekend. Cool.
Caley, this is now what I’ve been saying. I’ve been saying very specifically that I’d favor quotas IF we knew that any emissions below some level would not constitute aggression, i.e. could be dispersed by the atmosphere.
So if , to continue my example, we knew that pour atmosphere could disperse with 5 million tons of CO2 per annum, why would it be donning privileges for people to emit that amount? Note that we’re not discussing CO2 as a pollutant itself, but merely as an alleged “greenhouse gas”. Why would quotas be privileges to commit murder? Why should we choose between either stopping CO2 entirely, while 5 million tons would be perfectly alright, or doing nothing? I don’t get your point.
krazy kaju: So to answer Merlin directly: IF emitting CO2 were considered aggression, then a quota would be the wrong way of dealing with it. If someone has a right not to live in an environment with CO2, then the proper way of dealing with it would be that the aggressors would have to compensate the victims for their emissions of CO2. The problem here is that EVERYONE is an aggressor, including the victims. Furthermore, being an aggressor in this case is necessary to live (if you never exhale, you'll die). Non-human beings and non-sentient beings are also aggressors. Even a Rothbardian natural rights system of ethics and justice cannot justify making emitting CO2 a crime - after all, a system of natural law is supposed to be the ethical system best suited for the survival of man, but no ethical system can be best suited for the survival of man if it holds the emission of CO2 to be immoral.
So to answer Merlin directly: IF emitting CO2 were considered aggression, then a quota would be the wrong way of dealing with it. If someone has a right not to live in an environment with CO2, then the proper way of dealing with it would be that the aggressors would have to compensate the victims for their emissions of CO2. The problem here is that EVERYONE is an aggressor, including the victims. Furthermore, being an aggressor in this case is necessary to live (if you never exhale, you'll die). Non-human beings and non-sentient beings are also aggressors. Even a Rothbardian natural rights system of ethics and justice cannot justify making emitting CO2 a crime - after all, a system of natural law is supposed to be the ethical system best suited for the survival of man, but no ethical system can be best suited for the survival of man if it holds the emission of CO2 to be immoral.
Again, I favor quotas only if we knew that emission below some point could be dispersed by the atmosphere, hence not causing global warming. It’s a very, very specific scenario.
What you discuss, is the scenario where all CO2 emissions would be considered aggression. But in that case the proper way to go about it is not for the aggressor to compensate, but for the aggressor to stop aggressing. So, if CO2 would be proven to be some sort of carcinogenic agent with global circulation (a totally stupid scenario but bear with me), than a total ban would be imposed. There would be no other way (of course, one could enter into contracts with every earthling whereby they’d forgive the damage done, probably for a fee; good luck with that!). If the carcinogenic agent would be some sort of indispensable agent, say if electricity itself caused the issue, than I agree that nothing could be done about it. But CO2 is not crucial to the modern world, but rather a byproduct of a given production system rather than of an other.
So if , to continue my example, we knew that pour atmosphere could disperse with 5 million tons of CO2 per annum, why would it be donning privileges for people to emit that amount?
Pertaining to libertarianism and first-come doctrine, only the most recent actions that push CO2 past the tipping point are the marginal cause of damage. Thus, allowing them to emit anything is a privilege and slapping quotas on everyone else is transgression. The former would have to be quotad.
Caley McKibbin: So if , to continue my example, we knew that pour atmosphere could disperse with 5 million tons of CO2 per annum, why would it be donning privileges for people to emit that amount? Pertaining to libertarianism and first-come doctrine, only the most recent actions that push CO2 past the tipping point are the marginal cause of damage. Thus, allowing them to emit anything is a privilege and slapping quotas on everyone else is transgression. The former would have to be quotad.
Hm, now that I think of it, you’re perfectly right. The only problem would be a practical one, i.e. determining who was emitting before the threshold was reached. But otherwise you’re right: those who where emmiting prior to the breach have homesteaded the right to emmit the same amount, and others will have to buy such rights from them.
Why should they buy from them, why not from every earthling?
Eugene: Why should they buy from them, why not from every earthling?
Because they where the first to use that right, thus they have homesteaded it, while some guy in Bangladesh did nothing to earn it. It would be like partitioning all land equally among all, instead of giving it to the guy who actually put it to use.
I concur with Student and whoever mentioned using pigovian taxes.
And how did the heck did the free market bring us nuclear and solar energy when they were largely funded by government subsidies? And countries like India weren't producing large amounts of CO2 because they were socialists(they weren't ever). Developing countries usually have the problem of emitting large amounts of pollutants simply because they can't afford to mitigate it unlike developed nations which can(through regulation and taxes).
pentahedron:I concur with Student and whoever mentioned using pigovian taxes.
Why? The means don't match the end.
pentahedron:Developing countries usually have the problem of emitting large amounts of pollutants simply because they can't afford to mitigate it unlike developed nations which can(through regulation and taxes).
So you wouldn't apply the taxes based on CO2, but on ability to pay? How progressive!
Speaking of government subsidies, the USG is one of the biggest polluters in the world. How come the AGW folks never have a solution to clean up government CO2 emissions? How come no one even talks about the CO2 output of the US military?
Obviously you can't tax the government, and if the statist solution is to vote in change, why not just start praying? How does the state police the state?
As usual, warmists and pro-taxers are exposed for what they are. Anti-private sector, anti-market and pro-violence.
But the people from Bagladesh are those who suffer from the emissions. Their villages can be flooded for example.
I think he means just because you call it "science", it doesn't mean it actually is.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Eugene: Because they where the first to use that right, thus they have homesteaded it, while some guy in Bangladesh did nothing to earn it. It would be like partitioning all land equally among all, instead of giving it to the guy who actually put it to use. But the people from Bagladesh are those who suffer from the emissions. Their villages can be flooded for example.
No one will suffer because emission above the agreed level are still considered aggression. All that has changed, is who has the initial right to emit up to that point.
Eugene:Again, you ignore my initial assumption, which is that ACC is absolutely catastrophic and will cause massive earthquakes, tsunamies, floods that will kill hundreds of millions. What do we do in this case?
No, I did not ignore your initial assumption. The fact stands that if people believe that global warming is going to be catastrophic, they will move away from areas likely to be hit hard, partly of their own will, and partly because insurance companies would not insure property in areas likely to flood at the same premia as areas further inland and/or on higher ground.
Political Atheists Blog
The end is to curb emission levels by using the tax as an incentive to do so.
You misunderstood me. Developing countries would take a hit on their oveallr level of production if they had to start enacting enviromental legislation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Richer countries like the US can afford to do something like enact a carbon tax on companies emitting large amounts of it.
And supporting pigovian taxation does not make one a progressive. Most economist support pigovian taxation over other methods of dealing with some negative externalities including libertarian economist like Scott Sumner, Bryan Caplan, Arnold Kling(Austrian), Russ Roberts(Austrian), and Tyler Cowen. Even Robert Murphy said once that if human made global warming is indeed confirmed to be true and we will reach a tipping point then he sees Pigovian taxation as a sensible solution to mitigate it. Of course they have they have their own reservations about it in regards to it being handle minor externalities. If you go over to the EPA website you can look into information regarding things like CO2 levels and research done on it from them and other independent organizations to see how certain iniatives impacted them. If you're interested.
I won't be able to respond back immediately since I'm swamped with work this week.
The notion of Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) based on co2 is completely flawed to begin with and the only reason that it has widespread recognition is because the government gives credibility to corrupt scientists. As well as corrupting the centralised academic syllabus with incorrect information. We cannot say “if it is proven satisfactory” because it is not proven satisfactory.
In an an cap society air pollution would be handled just like ground pollution. If someone could prove damage to his property from air pollution in some way, then the person doing the pollution could be liable.
Why AGW is flawed:
What is absolutely insane about the global warming hysteria is mr al gore and the rest of the corrupt scientists have managed to not only convince everyone that you get co2 from burning fossil fuels but that co2 increases temperature due to the greenhouse effect. Firstly you do not get co2 from burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide Definition: a heavy odorless colorless gas formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances; absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) What you do get is carbon monoxide and depending on the type of fossil fuel various other lethal and unhealthy gases. There is a lot of false scientific information on the internet and there is even government agencies and departments called "act on co2" and "combat co2" etc. Amazingly no one has seemed to notice. The actual basic scientific principle behind combustion that everyone was taught in school, pre 10 years ago; was that C + O2 = CO not C + O2 = CO2. You see oxygen cannot exist as a single molecule that is why it is O2 and not O always. But when combustion occurs it requires oxygen and that is why we are left with CO. Think about catalytic converters in cars, why would they be converting the fumes to carbon dioxide if, one if there was already co2 fumes coming out the exhaust and two if it was a bad pollutant. Plants inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen if it was not for the apparent correlation with temperature levels it would be a non-issue. As much as the scientific dictatorship and circle jerk peer reviewed papers like to think that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature levels they have no scientific proof. Take a look at the greenhouse effect and how they take the readings of the level of co2 in the atmosphere. PPM readings taken by individuals around the world in varied environments and climates, is not a good way to come to take an accurate calculation of the current co2 levels in the entire atmosphere. But the greenhouse effect is not that great either, it is an old theory and they apparently say that the radioactive reflectiveness of the gases is what causes the effect. But i have yet to find any proof of the method used in calculating the radioactive reflectiveness of the gases. Real problems with pollution do exist however and that is the pollution by the planes in the air the chemtrails or con trails or petrol trail, whatever you like to call them. As well as pollution from the five official pollutants and of course the water pollution from dumping and leaks.
Yes, you do get CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
EmperorNero is right that the market itself cannot act in a way that would move us from a CO2 based economy to a steady state (low growth or zero growth) green economy that would have mitigated global warming. The whole problem cannot be solved by a free market because there is more profit in remaining with the current system which has caused the problem.
Considering the government both subsidised and enabled the current configuration of energy consumption, how about we place blame where it is due? That the "problem" (assuming CC is anthropogenic, and does violate individuals' property rights be they in person or other objects) cannot be "solved" by the free market (assuming the solution is to "go green") simply indicates that these technologies are, for the most part, uneconomic as of yet. Those that most likely are not (e.g. nuclear power) tend to be enveloped in unprecedented levels of hysteria.
Merlin: Caley McKibbin:So if , to continue my example, we knew that pour atmosphere could disperse with 5 million tons of CO2 per annum, why would it be donning privileges for people to emit that amount?Pertaining to libertarianism and first-come doctrine, only the most recent actions that push CO2 past the tipping point are the marginal cause of damage. Thus, allowing them to emit anything is a privilege and slapping quotas on everyone else is transgression. The former would have to be quotad.Hm, now that I think of it, you’re perfectly right. The only problem would be a practical one, i.e. determining who was emitting before the threshold was reached. But otherwise you’re right: those who where emmiting prior to the breach have homesteaded the right to emmit the same amount, and others will have to buy such rights from them.
Caley McKibbin:So if , to continue my example, we knew that pour atmosphere could disperse with 5 million tons of CO2 per annum, why would it be donning privileges for people to emit that amount?Pertaining to libertarianism and first-come doctrine, only the most recent actions that push CO2 past the tipping point are the marginal cause of damage. Thus, allowing them to emit anything is a privilege and slapping quotas on everyone else is transgression. The former would have to be quotad.
Wouldn't that just be cap and trade? Why not just make the atmosphere private property. Let the owner sue those who transgress on his property.