Global Warming

[pbleighton]

"For the purpose of this discussion, I think it makes sense to assume that any solution (whether using taxes or other instruments) should be tax-pressure neutral. So a carbon tax would be offset by a decrease in other taxes (VAT, income taxes, whatever). Of course one could be in favor of higher government revenues, or less government revenues, or a more (or less) prrogressive revenue collection, or a bigger (or smaller) public sector etc. But those are different issues."

 

Agreed.

 

Peter

[helene_t]

Why are taxes always the first item up for discussion.. and not the last? sigh....

because a certain segment always wants to be in charge of spending money collected from other segments... the ones who know, who are smarter, who are better able to spend your money than you are...

Nope. It's about altering the tax structure, not about altering the amount of tax. If "higher taxes on poluting activities" make you nervous, we can call it "lower taxes on non-poluting activities" instead. Same thing.

[joshs]

This is getting funny.

First as to taxation:

there are multiple types of taxes.

There are taxes that primary purpose is to raise revenue.

There are taxes whose primary purpose is to effect behavior (large tarrifs on chinese imports, for instance). These when effective raise no money.

There are taxes that directly charge for a service rendered

There are taxes that collect money to pay for something AFTER the fact (Think tolls for crossing a bridge.)

etc.

 

Further who pays, is at question. Let me give an example.

 

Lets say my town has a beach. At my beach I have lifeguards. It also costs money to keep the beach clean, and keep the water clean and safe to swim in.

 

We can charge everyone in the town money for the beach. This tax can be per head or progressive.

We can charge a use fee for the beach.

We can charge a use fee for the beach and a large fine for littering (enough to also pay for sufficiently many enforcement officials).

We can have the town pay for the lifeguard costs but not for the littering costs.

We can levy a supplimental tax on the town for cleanup only after the beach gets polluted (if we didn't have anyone responsable that we can fine) or we can collect steady money all along.

etc.

(Keep in mind that someone can polute the beach without even going on the beach.)

 

What should I do?

This depends on the optimization problem you want to solve. And this in turn depends on the values of the community. There is nothing insrinsic that says you should:

 

a. min total cost to townspeople given no pollution

b. min total cost given no pollution and kids use free

c. min total cost given no pollution and free for all people under a certain income level

d. min pollution given a fixed total cost and no one has to pay more than 0.1% of their income

e. maximize revenue to town given no pollution (town can turn a profit if possible)

f. minimize maximum cost to townspeople given no pollution

g. maximize number of beach users (both pollution and costs are something that keep people away)

etc.

 

These are all Legitamate public goals, and from each goal you get different taxation policy.

[luke warm]

because a certain segment always wants to be in charge of spending money collected from other segments... the ones who know, who are smarter, who are better able to spend your money than you are...

Bullshit

we were discussing taxes designed to lessen the use of carbon fuels, i thought... the debate is still ongoing re: the amount of pollution caused by man... this being so, if such a tax was levied, why couldn't it be said that "the ones who know, who are smarter, who ... " were the ones responsible for this tax?

 

you think you know, he thinks he knows, she thinks she knows.. someone has to take credit for getting such a tax passed, and whoever it is will think they know better than the others... hell, al gore already does think that... he should have worked on a solution while he was inventing the internet

 

as far as josh's beach analogy, i don't think it's quite the same thing...

 

If "higher taxes on poluting activities" make you nervous, we can call it "lower taxes on non-poluting activities" instead. Same thing.

i don't think so... for example, tax breaks could (and probably should) be given to a company that designed or invented a process by which we can power an automobile without relying on refined oil... that isn't the same as raising taxes on refineries

[hrothgar]

we were discussing taxes designed to lessen the use of carbon fuels, i thought... the debate is still ongoing re: the amount of pollution caused by man... this being so, if such a tax was levied, why couldn't it be said that "the ones who know, who are smarter, who ... " were the ones responsible for this tax?

There is a very big difference between the following two statements:

 

1. Pollution is a well known example of a negative externality. This type of market failure can not be easily addressed by individual decision making. Government intervention is often required to solve this type of problem

 

2. You're too stupid to be trusted to spend your own money

 

Then again, if you can't recognize the difference, maybe you are that dumb...

[luke warm]

1.  Pollution is a well known example of a negative externality.  This type of market failure can not be easily addressed by individual decision making.  Government intervention is often required to solve this type of problem

 

2.  You're too stupid to be trusted to spend your own money

 

Then again, if you can't recognize the difference, maybe you are that dumb...

polution when caused by man's activities, resulting in global warming, and market failure as a result of those activities, is a given in your world and that of those who agree with you... but this quote, "What makes this debate so interesting is that there is valid scientific data to prove either side..." and this one "Global warming has been proven and disproven using computer climate models." show that the issue is far from settled... (from http://weathereye.kgan.com/expert/warming/explain.html)

 

perhaps i am too dumb to spend my own money, but i'm smart enough to know that a conclusion can't be used in a premise (as in your #1 above), or at least not if a person attempting to convince others is to be taken seriously... of course some people might not notice that, but others will...

 

luckily you don't have to acknowledge the arguments of those who disagree with you... the very fact that they disagree proves their lack of intelligence and how much better off they'd be by letting you decide for them

[helene_t]

If "higher taxes on poluting activities" make you nervous, we can call it "lower taxes on non-poluting activities" instead. Same thing.

i don't think so... for example, tax breaks could (and probably should) be given to a company that designed or invented a process by which we can power an automobile without relying on refined oil... that isn't the same as raising taxes on refineries

You're right that the two measures you mention are different. The important difference is between stimulating non-usage of gasoline (which can be achieved in many ways) versus stimulating only one particular way to non-usage of gasoline.

 

Another issue is whether taxes should be used as an instrument and, if so, it should be tax rebates for non-polution or extra taxes for poluition. My point is that there is, in principle, no difference between the two latter. Consider this scenario:

 

Taxpayer A and B are identical except that A does something in a poluting way, which B does in a less poluting way. Both pay $100 in taxes. In order to encourage A to decrease his poluting activity, you could opt for either:

1) Let A pay an additional tax,of $10, on the basis of his poluting activity.

2) Give B a tax rebate of $10, as a premium for his non-poluting.

 

If we opt for 1) we will have to decrease the baseline tax to $95 in order to keep the total revenue constant, so A will end up paying $105 and B $95.

 

If we opt for 2) we will have to increase the baseline tax to $105. Again, A will pay $105 and B $95.

 

The reason I prefer to talk about extra taxes instead of tax rebates is that there are more activities that don't polute than there are activies that do polute. Suppose we want to encourage people to use less gasoline by means of tax rebates. You say we should give rebates to those who develop more efficient engines. But that's only one way of reducing gas use, and I see no reason to prefer that one to other alternatives. Here in the Netherlands, you can get tax rebates for using public transit, and you can get tax rebates for using a bicycle. In times there were tax rebates or other subsidies for companies who moved to areas with workforce surplus, thereby reducing the need to comute. There are also subsidies for winmills, and maybe nuclear power.

 

This jungle of tax rebates and other subsidies gets very bureacratic. It's much easier just to impose a single tax on carbon emmisons, instead of subsidising hundreds of different projects that may contribute to emmision reductions.

[hrothgar]

1.  Pollution is a well known example of a negative externality.  This type of market failure can not be easily addressed by individual decision making.  Government intervention is often required to solve this type of problem

 

perhaps i am too dumb to spend my own money, but i'm smart enough to know that a conclusion can't be used in a premise (as in your #1 above), or at least not if a person attempting to convince others is to be taken seriously... of course some people might not notice that, but others will...

It might be useful to differentiate between two different concepts

 

First: The general theory surround externalities

 

Second: The claim that carbon dioxide emission is an example of an externality

 

I'm not quite sure which part you're disputing...

[luke warm]

I'm not quite sure which part you're disputing...

assume for the sake of argument that carbon dioxide emissions which contribute to whatever global warming there is have as their source natural rather than man-made causes... iow, assume that man's acts are negligible when it comes to global warming (and there are at least as many studies showing this to be the case as there are ones that disagree)... taking that assumption as fact, upon whom or what do you envision the levying of taxes? volcanos? sand storms in the gobi?

 

my point is that you start with a presupposition, that man is a large part of the problem, and from that you devise a solution, i.e. taxing the ones "responsible" for the problem... and since you base your solution on what you preceive to be the facts of the matter, you seem to relegate opinons contrary to yours as belonging to those less informed or less intelligent...

 

This jungle of tax rebates and other subsidies gets very bureacratic. It's much easier just to impose a single tax on carbon emmisons, instead of subsidising hundreds of different projects that may contribute to emmision reductions.

i agree, it is much easier...

[hotShot]

The amont of manmade carbon dioxide emission is very easy to determine.

You just need the sum up the amout of oil and coal that were sold in a give amount of time.

It is easy to to measure the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Now if you compare measurments that are long enough apart, you know about the chance and how much of this is manmade.

Some interest groups try to create the impression that the groups of scientists that disagree about whats happening are of about the same size. While in fact the distribution is more like 95% to 5%.

 

The fact that I find most curious is, that reducing the carbon dioxide emission is in your best interest even if you don't believe that it causes global warming. Anybody who had a look on his latest electricity bill or refuelled his car should realise that reducing the energy consumption will save money.

We all know that oil is a limited resource, and that prices will go up even further.

[pbleighton]

"Some interest groups try to create the impression that the groups of scientists that disagree about whats happening are of about the same size. While in fact the distribution is more like 95% to 5%. "

 

Some people also deliberately misunderstand the meaning of "consensus". Here's the definition, from Encarta:

"general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group"

 

95% works for me. Here's a little more:

 

"After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation's preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that "is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

 

The report from the National Research Council also concluded that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.""

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/l...ack=1&cset=true

 

"The fact that I find most curious is, that reducing the carbon dioxide emission is in your best interest even if you don't believe that it causes global warming. Anybody who had a look on his latest electricity bill or refuelled his car should realise that reducing the energy consumption will save money.

We all know that oil is a limited resource, and that prices will go up even further."

 

FAR too rational. We can't permit this kind of thinking.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

quoting experts is interesting.. i don't know for sure, but i doubt if anyone posting in this thread has even close to the credentials and achievements of the *real* experts, regardless of which side of this issue they are on.. in any case, here are some interesting quotes

 

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

 

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)

(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

so according one advocate, at least, having an agenda outweighs honesty

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

 

Petr Chylek

(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)

Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.

(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

 

Dr. William Gray

(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )

(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)

"Science should be both compelling and widely accepted before Federal regulations are promulgated."

 

Dr. David L. Lewis

(27-year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

critic of the agency's departure from scientific rationale in favor of political agenda)

(in an interview for Nature Magazine, June 27, 1996)

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

 

Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.

After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

 

Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada

recent quote from the Calgary Herald

ahhhh, at last a breath of fresh air... a truthful socialist rather than one hiding behind what some see as hysterical "science"

 

in a section labeled "fun facts about co2" (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html) we find:

• Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. (or, for you mathmaticians, about .01075%)
  
• At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
  
• CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
  
• CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
  
• If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate
  

so when hotshot says, ""The fact that I find most curious is, that reducing the carbon dioxide emission is in your best interest even if you don't believe that it causes global warming..." he seems to be diametrically opposed to what others think and say... of course i don't know him, maybe he also is a doctor of physics or atmospheric science or whatever... as are the others who are so keen on taking from some to further their own agendas

[hotShot]

Well there is a problem with facts, without a context they say nothing.

 

100 mg Cyanid is enough to kill a 100kg man, this is 1 part per million. "A minor constituent" to the mans body, as one could say, but it is fatal.

 

Nature is about balance, und you don't need much to end balanced situation.

Vulcanos and biological activity have been arround all the time and the system could handle them. So it does not matter how much C02 vulcanos and other natural sources produce, unless you can call superman to cool them down.

All we can influence is the manmande part and it is big enough to make a balanced system fall over.

If you don't trust scientists ask the big insurace companies, about the costs they have because of storms and floods. Global warning does not mean, that everything stays like it is, just a little warmer. Global warming means more energy in the atmoshpere resulting in stronger storms.

And the global warming will not just raise the average, there will be hot spots like the caribian sea. A few years from now you won't get any insurance for house that is even close to the cost.

[pbleighton]

"Nature is about balance, und you don't need much to end balanced situation."

 

This is apparently a very difficult concept to grasp for those without any scientific understanding, or those whose understanding is overwhelmed by their ideological agendas.

 

This "trees cause a lot more pollution than people" nonsense has been around since (at least) that noted climatologist Ronald Reagan.

 

Peter

[mike777]

1) Our goal is not too save money, therefore saving energy is not our goal.

2) Let's assume our goal is to maximize NPV ( net present value) on an absolute basis.

3) Let's assume killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis.

4) Let's assume tax policy by definition cannot make energy as cheap and plentiful as possible. It may help or hurt.

4) Let's assume tax policy cannot by definition maximize NPV. It may help or hurt.

5) Let's assume making energy as cheap and plentiful as possible will maximize NPV.

6) ergo we have a plan towards our goal. Now we can all debate how to make energy cheap and plentiful without killing us off.

7) If your priority is to redistribute wealth please ignore all of the above.

[pbleighton]

"1) Our goal is not too save money, therefore saving energy is not our goal."

 

Why assume this?

 

"2) Let's assume our goal is to maximize NPV ( net present value) on an absolute basis."

 

This can hardly be our only goal.

 

"3) Let's assume killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis."

 

Well, OK ;)

 

"4) Let's assume tax policy by definition cannot make energy as cheap and plentiful as possible. It may help or hurt."

 

Why assume this?

 

"4) Let's assume tax policy cannot by definition maximize NPV. It may help or hurt."

 

Why assume this?

 

"5) Let's assume making energy as cheap and plentiful as possible will maximize NPV."

 

In the very short run, yes, but in the long run it depends on the type of energy consumed.

 

You have completely ignored the environmental consequences of different types and levels of energy consumption, and the associated economic (including health) and social costs.

 

Peter

[mike777]

"You have completely ignored the environmental consequences of different types and levels of energy consumption, and the associated economic (including health) and social costs."

 

Well not quite..I am assuming that killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis. Killing off or making deadly sick in any sense of the term.

 

You do not say this explicitly but my point is you assume taxation is the most or almost most important issue. I see taxation as the most evil issue. This may define conservaties and liberals in the USA.....Lord knows the definition can be confusing ;).

[luke warm]

This is apparently a very difficult concept to grasp for those without any scientific understanding, or those whose understanding is overwhelmed by their ideological agendas.

more mere assertions... i find this to be hilarious in its simplicity... i'll post 2 of the quotes above, one more time, to show just which side has the agenda here... i've yet to find (although there might be some) any quotes showing an agenda from the other side

 

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

 

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)

(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

this seems agenda-driven to me... be effective, it says, even at the cost of honesty... that's just another way of saying, lie if you have to

 

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

 

Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada

recent quote from the Calgary Herald

go christine, go... even if the science is phony, who the hell cares? at least your *agenda* can be furthered... using 'agenda' as a bludgeon against those who dare argue against a position is incredibly disingeniuos, especially when the other side so succintly spells out theirs

 

Vulcanos and biological activity have been arround all the time and the system could handle them.

yes, the system can supposedly handle the 99.90925% not attributed to man.. it's that pesky .01075% that's causing all the trouble

[pbleighton]

""You have completely ignored the environmental consequences of different types and levels of energy consumption, and the associated economic (including health) and social costs."

 

Well not quite..I am assuming that killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis. Killing off or making deadly sick in any sense of the term."

 

That's not the same thing, and I think you know it. You do not acknowledge environmental costs.

 

"You do not say this explicitly but my point is you assume taxation is the most or almost most important issue. I see taxation as the most evil issue."

 

No, it is not the most important issue. It is the most effective remedy for moving the economy away from a carbon based energy supply. The effectiveness of excise taxes is a well-known economic fact (though I'm sure Fox News could find someone to dispute this). See, for example, what the cigarette industry says about the effect of higher cigarette taxes on consumption. It is not the only thing which needs to be done by any means, but it makes the other things (development of non-carbon energy sources and conservation) far easier. It allows them to be done with a steady, persistent basis, with far less explicit action needed in the way of laws, regulations, and subsidies than would otherwise be the case. Drive a Hummer if you like - I would never want to stop you. I just want to make people, on average and over time, more likely to conserve, and to give a big impetus to alternative energy sources.

 

There are three reasons a carbon tax makes sense:

1) Global warming. In spite of all the anti-warming hoopla, the large scientific institutes and teams have lined up on the side of human behavior most likely being a substantial part of the established fact of global warming. The other side is reduced to quoting a few scientist who disagree - the 95%-5% split hotshot alluded to - with the inevitable ad hominem attacks on the scientists who are part of teh consensus. This is frequently hilarious.

2) Well-established environmental costs/health effects of carbon fuels apart from global warming (see acid rain and lung damage).

3) If we don't do something about oil consumption, we are headed for huge economic disruption. We are burning it twice as fast as we are discovering it, and third world consumption is growing rapidly. We are headed rapidly towards an oil cliff. We won't burn all of the oil, but it will become prohibitively expensive. If we have not as a species moved substantially away from oil when this happens, we will get the worldwide depression we deserve.

 

On another note, as a liberal, there is a good reason for me to dislike a big carbon tax - it is regressive. It would need to be offset by something like a big cut in the FICA tax.

 

Peter

[mike777]

"No, it is not the most important issue. It is the most effective remedy "

 

hmm lets see you say not the most important issue but the most effective remedy..good grief talk about splitting tiny words.

 

 

 

 

 

"That's not the same thing, and I think you know it. You do not acknowledge environmental costs."

 

Good grief, I did just the opposite. I did acknowledge those costs. We have a failure to communicate here.

 

Your entire response shows a failure of communication. If we cannot communicate I give up.

[pbleighton]

"hmm lets see you say not the most important issue but the most effective remedy..good grief talk about splitting tiny words."

 

Issue: environmental costs.

Remedy: A variety, the taxes the most effective.

 

Taxes are important only because of the problem (issue). I don't see why this is difficult to grasp.

 

"Good grief, I did just the opposite. I did acknowledge those costs."

 

Where? "Let's assume killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis."?

 

Good grief.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

Your entire response shows a failure of communication. If we cannot communicate I give up.

yeah, that old failure to communicate thing is a bitch... even so, it bothers me when certain remarks go either unnoticed or are not critiqued, such as "... with the inevitable ad hominem attacks on the scientists who are part of teh consensus"... what attacks? ... maybe i simply missed those inevitable ad hominem attacks, but i promise i checked...

 

and this one, "I just want to make people, on average and over time, more likely to conserve..." sorta proves my earlier point... "i just want to MAKE..." get it? i know what you need, by God... and even though i'm the only one to actually show *quotes* from those with agendas, we get the amazing "...or those whose understanding is overwhelmed by their ideological agendas."

 

just who has the ideological agenda, i wonder? i guess if you say a thing often enough, it makes it true

[hrothgar]

yes, the system can supposedly handle the 99.90925% not attributed to man.. it's that pesky .01075% that's causing all the trouble

This is the second time that I have seen your .01075% statistic...

 

Couple quick points. From what I can tell, you are deriving your figure from the following numbers

 

>Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from

>all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately

>90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another

>90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

>(or, for you mathmaticians, about .01075%)

 

Just for the record....

 

When you divide 6/186, the number that you end up with is .032258....

So, you're only off by a factor of 300 or so

[luke warm]

oops... i apologize for the error, and thanks for pointing it out

[hotShot]

Not to mention that 0.032258..... means 3.2258%.