More Experts Dismiss Global Warming - Page 11

aquapub · 07-24-08, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

"In the absence of a clearly articulated “green conservatism,” the left wing machine will win."
The Case for Green Conservatism > Newt.org > Newt News and Opinion DB

And it looks like they will win, because of the conservative talk that offers no real direction. Like why didn't Newt run? I voted for Newt before, and would love to vote for him again.

The free market is stupid at times, and is only now laying off workers to retool for building more fuel efficient cars. And the reason why GM and Ford are reacting now is because of a catastrophic increase in gas prices everyone knew was coming. The chart of the China and India fuel needs, that looks like a ramp for launching a rocket at the end of the world, is right there in the 2001 National Energy Policy.

*****

"...the Bush Administration is carrying out a comprehensive, innovative
program of domestic and international initiatives to (1) improve our understanding of the science of climate change, (2) encourage near-term voluntary and cost-effective emissions reductions, (3) develop transformational energy technologies, such as hydrogen-powered vehicles, safer and more proliferation-resistant nuclear power plants, and zero-emission coal power plants, to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the longer-term,..." http://www.doe.gov/media/NEP_Implementation_Report.pdf

"Look at other market-based approaches to increasing the national average fuel economy of new motor vehicles."
http://www.doe.gov/media/NEP_Implementation_Report.pdf

Voluntary emission reductions and market-based approaches fit high gas prices, high gas prices that they knew were coming.

"The macroeconomic effects of a substantial rise in energy prices take two forms. First, to the extent that energy resources are imported, more U.S. dollars must be sent abroad to finance energy consumption, thus reducing funds available for investing in our own country. Second, higher prices cause dislocations among certain sectors of the economy, which could ultimately feed through to lower GDP growth and higher inflation."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/Chapter2.pdf

They told us a market-based approach would have less funds available for investment in a time of substantially higher energy prices, higher prices they knew were coming.

The problem is the conservative waits for the market to react to a problem, he knows is coming, and then tells exactly how the market will react, the market will react poorly lengthening the recovery.

One does not have to get an "A" in an environmental science class, like I did, to see how easy it is for a socialist teacher today to make conservative solutions look stupid.

This post is incoherent as hell...?

Bodhisattva · 07-25-08, 03:19 AM

... at least he isn't lying. How long until you bail on this thread, I wonder?

What a disingenuous title. LOL! I doubt that there is any real scientist that "dismisses" global warming entirely. Most assuredly, they accept that the earth is in a warming period, even if a naturally occuring one, and what they "dismiss" is the severity of global warming and the doom that many predict.

Scucca · 07-25-08, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

This post is incoherent as hell...?

Conservative environmentalism is dominated by the Coase Theorem. It therefore suggests that the market can solve all climate change issues. Unfortunately they do not factor in the consequences of asymmetric information and bargaining costs. This will ensure their irrelevance to the green movement, given its moved on to 'sustainable development' complexity.

UtahBill · 07-25-08, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Conservative environmentalism is dominated by the Coase Theorem. It therefore suggests that the market can solve all climate change issues. Unfortunately they do not factor in the consequences of asymmetric information and bargaining costs. This will ensure their irrelevance to the green movement, given its moved on to 'sustainable development' complexity.

Yes, if the "market" is people naively thinking that we mere humans can solve climate problems that are planetary in size and cyclical in nature.
All we can actually do is stop making the messes that we really don't need to make.

I know you think you are speaking english, perhaps you could just speak American? for the benefit of those here, me included, who haven't wasted half our lives studying the dismal science?
My next door neighbor is a retired economics professor, maybe I could get him to sign on and translate.

Scucca · 07-25-08, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBill

All we can actually do is stop making the messes that we really don't need to make.

Crass in its emptyness.

Quote:

I know you think you are speaking english, perhaps you could just speak American?

Nope.

Quote:

for the benefit of those here, me included, who haven't wasted half our lives studying the dismal science?
My next door neighbor is a retired economics professor, maybe I could get him to sign on and translate.

There was nothing complex in what I wrote. Indeed, the only excuse for not knowing the Coase Theorem in an environmental discussion is if you reject the whole notion of market failure and pollution disaster. So only aquapub is excused!

The beauty of the analysis is that, whilst it has been generated by free marketeers, it provides an orthodox view of the market that makes attacks on libertarianism rather straightforward. The Conservative approach to environmentalism is demolished by two simple constraints on mutually beneficial exchange: hidden action (thats the asymmetric information problem for you, where pollutors have a 'moral hazard' interest to profiteer and fib about their polluting behaviour) and imperfect property rights (thats the bargaining costs, where the textbook Coasian world of "two economic agents, one pollutor" is rejected as we have a multitude of pollutors and billions of economic agents)

UtahBill · 07-25-08, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Crass in its emptyness.
Nope.

There was nothing complex in what I wrote. Indeed, the only excuse for not knowing the Coase Theorem in an environmental discussion is if you reject the whole notion of market failure and pollution disaster. So only aquapub is excused!
)

Crass? That was your response to my comment as follows....
Yes, if the "market" is people naively thinking that we mere humans can solve climate problems that are planetary in size and cyclical in nature.
All we can actually do is stop making the messes that we really don't need to make.
I stand by the underlined part....we do a lot of things that are not really necessary.

So what is your answer to the dilemma? and please put it in terms that even aquapub can understand....

Scucca · 07-25-08, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBill

I stand by the underlined part....we do a lot of things that are not really necessary.

What criteria are you using to determine "not really necessary"?

UtahBill · 07-25-08, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

What criteria are you using to determine "not really necessary"?

Short trip driving, when you could have walked.
Driving a 3 ton behemoth SUV as a commuter vehicle, alone of course.
Over cooling our homes in the summer, overheating in the winter.
Building huge homes that are monuments to our success, instead of building to use energy efficiently.

You get the idea...Most of us in first world countries are living extravagantly and wasting energy in multiple ways every day.

Scucca · 07-25-08, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UtahBill

Most of us in first world countries are living extravagantly and wasting energy in multiple ways every day.

You're still not there. So far you've only referred to consumptions that certain folk find personally disagreeable. However, where's the switch? When does a person's personal utility/satisfaction become extravagant? The vocab so far is meaningless

Hatuey · 07-25-08, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquapub

This post is incoherent as hell...?

For once we agree. Holy Jebus.