Two Articles On Climate Change

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
My thoughts exactly. End the wars, try to convert to electric cars, and support renewable energy when possible. Also, the advent of the driverless cars should severely decrease traffic which would also massively reduce C02 emissions.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
As the articles linked above show, even if we account for those damages the damages caused by regulation are greater. But of course, the corporations have an incentive to care for the environment if their consumers do.

Secondly, when it comes to regulation the worst case scenario are financial and economic damages. That perhaps certain regulations may hamper the productivity of business or impede corporate activity in the Americas. In my opinion when we evaluate the alternative, which is a hostile uninhabitable dystopian wasteland where survival is a struggle and everyday is a Hunger Games competition for drinkable water, I think that risking financial damages is worth it.

And lastly, the only customers who care about the environment when spending money are those with the luxury to do so. There may be some people who shop at Whole Foods, but a vast majority of people go for Walmart or McDonalds. Corporations are going to continue being entirely profit-motivated because it is their nature, and the customers are going to be too late in caring about the environment. Because we as humans don't spring into action until something directly impacts us and becomes a tangible reality.

By the time Global Warming becomes a tangible reality it's too late. So that's the flaw in your Capitalistic free market philosophy IMO

That is what causes Drought. Poor Bureaucratic Policies.

Whoodafunk!?

It seems pretty simple to me. Carbon emissions are a negative consequence of market activity that we don't like. Therefore, a pigovian carbon tax set at a high enough rate should spur on markets to find out solutions and make adjustments on their own, for the most part.

Now, both of the articles posted do indeed hammer home the point that such a tax will have profound economic implications. But I see little attention given to potential offsets. A carbon tax could be a weapon to massively cut payroll or corporate taxes, both of which have a negative impact on economic growth, particularly the latter.

Originally posted by lazybones
It seems pretty simple to me. Carbon emissions are a negative consequence of market activity that we don't like. Therefore, a pigovian carbon tax set at a high enough rate should spur on markets to find out solutions and make adjustments on their own, for the most part.

Now, both of the articles posted do indeed hammer home the point that such a tax will have profound economic implications. But I see little attention given to potential offsets. A carbon tax could be a weapon to massively cut payroll or corporate taxes, both of which have a negative impact on economic growth, particularly the latter.

Originally posted by lazybones
It seems pretty simple to me. Carbon emissions are a negative consequence of market activity that we don't like. Therefore, a pigovian carbon tax set at a high enough rate should spur on markets to find out solutions and make adjustments on their own, for the most part.

Now, both of the articles posted do indeed hammer home the point that such a tax will have profound economic implications. But I see little attention given to potential offsets. A carbon tax could be a weapon to massively cut payroll or corporate taxes, both of which have a negative impact on economic growth, particularly the latter.

Well they would not cut payroll taxes as those go to Medicare Part D and Social Security. I honestly doubt the state would cut taxes to balance out the effects. If we assume a reshuffling in the tax code takes place we would have to gauge the effects of the new tax code on economic growth and compare to the effects of environmental damages. It is definitely an interesting idea. Luckily, Bob Murphy also conducted a study on the exact idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax. Finding,

There really is a “consensus” in this literature, and it is that carbon taxes cause more economic damage than generic taxes on labor or capital, so that in general even a revenue‐ neutral carbon tax swap will probably reduce conventional GDP growth. (The driver of this result is that carbon taxes fall on narrower segments of the economy, and thus to raise a given amount of revenue require a higher tax rate.) Furthermore, in the real world at least some of the new carbon tax receipts would probably be devoted to higher spending (on “green investments”) and lump‐sum transfers to poorer citizens to help offset the impact of higher energy prices. Thus in practice the economic drag of a new carbon tax could be far worse than the idealized revenue‐ neutral simulations depict.

Honestly, it doesn’t even need to be a tax. The Cap and Trade idea proposed in the 90s is still the best imo. Every operation has a carbon cap and if it falls short of that cap it can trade space to a more carbon heavy operation for financial incentives

Well, the IPCC study in question did not even refer to a carbon tax. They referred to any action in the form of trade caps, taxes, or regulations and performed an analysis of the economic damages.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Well, the IPCC study in question did not even refer to a carbon tax. They referred to any action in the form of trade caps, taxes, or regulations and performed an analysis of the economic damages.

Of course, there will be a switch to energy, but the question is whether economic compliance costs of a switch are greater then the environmental costs.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Of course, there will be a switch to energy, but the question is whether economic compliance costs of a switch are greater then the environmental costs.

No, because they both can be compared. In economics there is something known as social cost. We can compare the social costs to the economic ones to find cost/benefit.

Or if the Cost of an Abortion is more then Raising a Child!

Coat Hanger and a Bucket. Pretty Darn Cheap and Democrat Approved!

Because Science!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Or if the Cost of an Abortion is more then Raising a Child!

Coat Hanger and a Bucket. Pretty Darn Cheap and Democrat Approved!

Because Science! [/B]

You got a prob with dead babies all of a sudden?

Seems that SCIENCE could prove that Pollution could SAVE HUMANITY!!!!!!???

YouTube video

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]You got a prob with dead babies all of a sudden? [/B]

Just want to tell all you people that believe in man-made global warming..........

For 30 years or more these so called scientists have been making predictions about global warming and when none of them happen they just move the goal posts. Idiot Al Gore has made a fortune on a MYTH called global warming.

But but, that TV AINT PLUGGED IN!!!!!!!!