in particular if you ignore most of the energy that is actually going into your hypothetical products.
Oh, I forgot to address this gem. For a measly sub-50c part, 1-4 kWh (3.6-14.4 MJ) is actually a pretty large amount of energy. For instance, if we take an average cell phone and sum together raw material extraction and processing, component manufacturing, assembly, packaging and transportation, we end up in the 175 MJ ball park. If you set its price at $50 and break that down into 42-cent-parts (from my example) you're at 1.5 MJ per 42-cent-part, less than half of my lowest number. It you're talking about a $200 phone, that becomes 0.37 MJ per part, or about a tenth of my lowest number. For most types of products (not all), I've been inflating the energy rather than "ignoring most of [it]". What is that, you misspoke? You really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, do you?
Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of falsification. You brought up a theoretical argument. I falsified it with a counterexample. Your blinders prevented you form noticing that I opened with "using very simple numbers for the sake of argument"; no deceit was attempted so you don't get to use the adjective "fake" (and please go look up "cherry-picking" while you're at it). Anyhow, back to the concept of falsification: it doesn't matter where my numbers come from; all they do is prove that your theoretical argument is rubbish, and you're pretty much conceding that by rather blatantly moving the goalposts to "repeat the exercise with actual carbon intensity numbers".
BTW, those goalposts are now standing squarely in the territory of economists, and even they are divided over the issue. So, nice try, but I already shot down your argument; now you go "repeat the exercise with actual carbon intensity numbers for the US economy" yourself. And good luck with that; for every study that supports your viewpoint, I'll find one that supports mine.
Right on cue, pointing out how both parties are corrupt is the next part of the apologist playbook. Again, sticking to the facts: the US joined the Paris agreement and took some measures (however weak) to curb CO2 emissions under Obama. Trump appointed a climate change denier for EPA president and is boasting how he is going to pull out of the Paris agreement. Also, gee, I haven't seen any "Clinton/Obama/Sanders/Warren/... digs coal" slogans of late...
Apart from that, you can stick your 2-party system with your interest-group-fueled mud-slinging political campaigns where the sun doesn't shine.
Of course, there is always a risk that fascists/socialists like Sanders get into power, usually based on the kinds of economic stupidity people like you keep spreading. My family has been through that a few times, and you can bet that I'm prepared for it.
And yet you haven't even done the effort to get yourself educated on the difference between fascism and socialism (and, let me guess, communism is also the same thing?) I wonder what your forefathers would think of that...
Let's say the government raises the carbon tax by 10% and gets a reduction in carbon usage by 50%. That means that half of users decide that compliance is cheaper than 10% and their costs will go up by the difference.
No, and no. I don't think it will ever get into that thick head of yours, but there are two huge fallacies in that one last sentence:
(1) There's no such thing as compliance vs. non-compliance. Mathematically, it's a half-open continuum between producing infinite and zero CO2 (practically, both extremes are unrealistic, but it's still a continuum). In computational terms, if your input is an incorrect two-state model, your output is bound to be garbage. Sure, there exist cases where one can get away with this, but generally, no.
(2) Their costs will go up by an amount that is necessarily smaller than the difference, else there's no point in complying at all. You're seriously talking economy without even having considered that?
And no, you can't use the argument that stuff is already optimized so tightly that it can't be much smaller than the difference. You've made a vague allusion to that earlier, so allow me to falsify it with a counter-example (using very simple numbers for the sake of argument). Suppose part A of your finished product can be made through two wholly different processes using different materials. Process X requires 22 cent worth of materials + 4 kWh worth of energy. Process Y requires 38 cent worth of materials + 1 kWh worth of energy. Now suppose a 20% carbon tax increases the cost of energy from 5 cent/kWh to 6 cent/kWh. Before the carbon tax, process X costs 42 cent and process Y 43 cent, so you'll use X, and part A costs 42 cent. After the carbon tax, process X costs 46 cent and process Y 44 cent, so you'll use Y, and part A costs 44 cent. Total cost increase for part A: 5%...
Thank you for your most valuable and on-topic essay on how you wish for the English language to have a similar degree of internal consistency as some other languages. As a token of appreciation, you get to choose: gunship or gunboat? In the latter category, we have the real antique USS Asheville (PG-21) in store. Or perhaps the gentleman would prefer something heavier - or was it lighter, I always forget - like the USS Wickes (DD-75) destroyer from the same year? Or maybe you'd rather like to be put into some kind of sloop - a sloop-of-war perhaps?
I'm not making an "all or nothing" argument. My statement obviously also holds for partial allocations between the two extremes, as should have been obvious.
No, it does not. Since you appear to be a bit short of memory (see further down) your statement was:
if they succeed, you don't collect the revenue, if they fail, they are simply a tax increase on businesses unrelated to carbon
How about "where they succeed, carbon usage goes down, and where they fail, some revenue is collected". In a realistic world, you'll have a bit of both at the same time - even applied to a single business/sector. Compared to that, you were presenting a crystal-clear false dichotomy by suggesting it will either fail to yield money or fail to decrease carbon usage. Your argument is like: "There are too many wolves in the coutryside.(*) Some people suggested to put out poison bait, but that's just bad economic policy. If the wolves take the bait, we will have exterminated a valuable species, which is unacceptable, while if they don't, we'll have wasted a lot of money on all these baits."
Whereas the real-world outcome is of course that some but not all wolves will take the bait, decreasing the population as intended, and making the investment worthwile. It's been used to great success. As have government interventions to decrease e.g. sulfur emmissions. But feel free to disregard all evidence and cling to your flawed theoretical arguments.
We're not having a "debate"; you're trying to convince me to change my position and you're failing.
Didn't I just literally say that you can keep on believing in your fairy tales AFAICS? You and I may not be the only once reading this conversation (now or in the future). Hence, it's a "debate". In which you're presenting blatantly dishonest arguments (see above) and I'm calling you out on it to prevent you from infecting other gullible people.
No, you merely said that "the assumption that carbon tax will necessarily make it worse is very much unproven."
Holy selective reading, batman? I said the following. Which is more that what your brought to the table:
there is a trade-off between amount of money spent on energy and on other things. If you make energy a bit more expensive, the balance will shift to a new optimum, in which less energy is spent. (Just like if you make carbon more expensive, more energy will come from non-carbon sources.) (...) Yes, the product will get slightly more expensive. This price difference partially goes to the sectors that provide the aforementioned "other things" and partially to the government. Which could use the extra income to e.g. increase the buying power of those who don't have much of it, or to decrease taxes for everyone, or to invest into the economy (which might include one of the above depending on your political stance).
(*) Where the analogy breaks down is that, when called out on your fallacy, you will shift to denying there are too many wolves in the countryside, as you started doing in your last post, and probably will keep doing until a wolf is gnawing at your childrens' throats.
You're double-counting the taxes; if they succeed, you don't collect the revenue, if they fail, they are simply a tax increase on businesses unrelated to carbon.
Nope, I'm not double-counting. I clearly said the price difference PARTIALLY goes to the sectors that provide the aforementioned "other things" and PARTIALLY to the government. Clearly my attempt to pull you out of your imaginary all-or-nothing world has completely failed. I'm really at my wits end in finding ways to combat your obtuseness. Fine, have it your way and continue believe in your fairy tales and your false dichotomies. You don't seem to be mentally prepared to consider anything else, and I'm not going to waste more time on debating with someone who's plugging their ears and singing la-la-la.
Oh, the economy is very complex, but that complexity won't turn bad economic policy into good one, it merely means that we don't know how bad a carbon tax is, but it is inevitable that it has a negative effect on the economy.
In other words, your statement is the equivalent of "medicine and the human body are very complex, so eating like a pig might actually be good for me!" It's the typical self-serving justification for bad decisions.
Excuse me. I gave an EXPLANATION on why I think it won't be bad. All you bring to the table in your response is handwaving.(*) Now who is employing "typical self-serving justification for bad decisions" here?!
(*) That is to say, dropping the term "bad economic policy" without any explanation may be a reference to Anarcho-capitalist dogma, but to someone who grew up in one of the successful welfare states of western Europe, Anarcho-capitalist dogma is not an inch better than handwaving.
Oh wonderful, yet another post with a generous grab from the top-50 long-debunked climate myths. A bit like a Gish gallop by the looks of things, so I'm not going to give you a lot of my time. I'll just respond to a few of the more egregious talking points you bring up, and people can look up the rest at http://wikipedia.org/ and http://skepticalscience.com/.
If you look at the graphs of atmospheric CO2 vs global temperature (whatever that may be) there is not much correlation
Let me guess, you've looked at carefully cherry-picked time windows in order to ignore the blatantly obvious fact that both are steadily going up. Sure, there's no year-to-year correlation; the temperature data is so (inherently) noisy that only an idiot would expect to see that. But over a relevant time span, yes, yes, it's going up.
Pure bullshit. It's figured out how to do the minimum required of it by law.
No, what greedy capitalists have done is figured out the most profitable way of producing beer (and other products). That means, among other things, minimizing the amount of money spent on energy.
Nope, there is a trade-off between amount of money spent on energy and on other things. If you make energy a bit more expensive, the balance will shift to a new optimum, in which less energy is spent. (Just like if you make carbon more expensive, more energy will come from non-carbon sources.) But energy consumption will still not be "minimal" - at least as long as we're talking about a reasonable carbon tax rate. The nonchalance with which society consumes energy clearly demonstrates that there is still a lot of room for carbon to get more expensive before things really starts to bite.(*) Yes, the product will get slightly more expensive. This price difference partially goes to the sectors that provide the aforementioned "other things" and partially to the government. Which could use the extra income to e.g. increase the buying power of those who don't have much of it, or to decrease taxes for everyone, or to invest into the economy (which might include one of the above depending on your political stance). Bottom line: the economy is not as simple as you might imagine, and your assumption that carbon tax will necessarily make it worse is very much unproven.
(*) Excluding certain sectors that really don't have a technologically viable alternative and therefore would be eligible for a carbon tax break. Aviation comes to mind.
Why would it matter so much what country anyone resides in?
To me, it shouldn't, but I'm currently in a mood of aggravating those who think otherwise. Taste of their own medicine and all that. (I was going to write "give them some food for thought", but I've recently come to suspect they're incapable of that.)
Caucher Birkar was an Iranian Kurd who entered the UK as a refugee. You know, exactly the kind of person the xenophobes that gave us Brexit (and are ironically also dominating EU politics) would rather not let in.
Akshay Venkatesh was born in Delhi 2 years before his parents migrated to Australia, that other Commonwealth nation presently dominated by rabid anti-immigration policies. Gee, I wonder if he would still be let in today...
Looks like we need to expect a surge in scientific advancements in a decade or so coming from Canada, being the largest of the countries in the Western World that still have a welcoming attitude toward immigrants.
And don't give me "those are not the kind of immigrants we want to hold back". That falls in the same category as "I'm not a racist, why, I even have friends who are not white." To give just one counter-argument, there's no way anyone could have known that the 2-years-old Venkatesh would grow up to be a prodigy.
So why isn't the response "fix these abusive practices, or be denied access to our market"?
OK, genius, suppose for a moment that has been said several months ago. Further suppose that Google merrily kept operating in the EU market without fixing said abusive practices. What would the EU then be supposed to do?
Als, GP should probably read up on the resource curse. Norway is possibly the first country to entirely avoid it; how they did it makes for an interestingstudy.
Slashdot Mirror
"That's a nice ad you have there. It'd be a shame if anything were to... happen to it."
in particular if you ignore most of the energy that is actually going into your hypothetical products.
Oh, I forgot to address this gem. For a measly sub-50c part, 1-4 kWh (3.6-14.4 MJ) is actually a pretty large amount of energy. For instance, if we take an average cell phone and sum together raw material extraction and processing, component manufacturing, assembly, packaging and transportation, we end up in the 175 MJ ball park. If you set its price at $50 and break that down into 42-cent-parts (from my example) you're at 1.5 MJ per 42-cent-part, less than half of my lowest number. It you're talking about a $200 phone, that becomes 0.37 MJ per part, or about a tenth of my lowest number. For most types of products (not all), I've been inflating the energy rather than "ignoring most of [it]". What is that, you misspoke? You really don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, do you?
Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of falsification. You brought up a theoretical argument. I falsified it with a counterexample. Your blinders prevented you form noticing that I opened with "using very simple numbers for the sake of argument"; no deceit was attempted so you don't get to use the adjective "fake" (and please go look up "cherry-picking" while you're at it). Anyhow, back to the concept of falsification: it doesn't matter where my numbers come from; all they do is prove that your theoretical argument is rubbish, and you're pretty much conceding that by rather blatantly moving the goalposts to "repeat the exercise with actual carbon intensity numbers".
BTW, those goalposts are now standing squarely in the territory of economists, and even they are divided over the issue. So, nice try, but I already shot down your argument; now you go "repeat the exercise with actual carbon intensity numbers for the US economy" yourself. And good luck with that; for every study that supports your viewpoint, I'll find one that supports mine.
Right on cue, pointing out how both parties are corrupt is the next part of the apologist playbook. Again, sticking to the facts: the US joined the Paris agreement and took some measures (however weak) to curb CO2 emissions under Obama. Trump appointed a climate change denier for EPA president and is boasting how he is going to pull out of the Paris agreement. Also, gee, I haven't seen any "Clinton/Obama/Sanders/Warren/... digs coal" slogans of late...
Apart from that, you can stick your 2-party system with your interest-group-fueled mud-slinging political campaigns where the sun doesn't shine.
Of course, there is always a risk that fascists/socialists like Sanders get into power, usually based on the kinds of economic stupidity people like you keep spreading. My family has been through that a few times, and you can bet that I'm prepared for it.
And yet you haven't even done the effort to get yourself educated on the difference between fascism and socialism (and, let me guess, communism is also the same thing?) I wonder what your forefathers would think of that...
And the kicker: total decrease in energy consumption for part A: 75%
And... and then those gunboats go WHOOSH through the sky!!!1!
Let's say the government raises the carbon tax by 10% and gets a reduction in carbon usage by 50%. That means that half of users decide that compliance is cheaper than 10% and their costs will go up by the difference.
No, and no. I don't think it will ever get into that thick head of yours, but there are two huge fallacies in that one last sentence:
(1) There's no such thing as compliance vs. non-compliance. Mathematically, it's a half-open continuum between producing infinite and zero CO2 (practically, both extremes are unrealistic, but it's still a continuum). In computational terms, if your input is an incorrect two-state model, your output is bound to be garbage. Sure, there exist cases where one can get away with this, but generally, no.
(2) Their costs will go up by an amount that is necessarily smaller than the difference, else there's no point in complying at all. You're seriously talking economy without even having considered that?
And no, you can't use the argument that stuff is already optimized so tightly that it can't be much smaller than the difference. You've made a vague allusion to that earlier, so allow me to falsify it with a counter-example (using very simple numbers for the sake of argument).
Suppose part A of your finished product can be made through two wholly different processes using different materials. Process X requires 22 cent worth of materials + 4 kWh worth of energy. Process Y requires 38 cent worth of materials + 1 kWh worth of energy. Now suppose a 20% carbon tax increases the cost of energy from 5 cent/kWh to 6 cent/kWh. Before the carbon tax, process X costs 42 cent and process Y 43 cent, so you'll use X, and part A costs 42 cent. After the carbon tax, process X costs 46 cent and process Y 44 cent, so you'll use Y, and part A costs 44 cent. Total cost increase for part A: 5%...
Watch out for the swing of the political pendulum, tovarish.
Thank you for your most valuable and on-topic essay on how you wish for the English language to have a similar degree of internal consistency as some other languages. As a token of appreciation, you get to choose: gunship or gunboat? In the latter category, we have the real antique USS Asheville (PG-21) in store. Or perhaps the gentleman would prefer something heavier - or was it lighter, I always forget - like the USS Wickes (DD-75) destroyer from the same year? Or maybe you'd rather like to be put into some kind of sloop - a sloop-of-war perhaps?
</tongue-in-cheek>
Well played sir!
I'm not making an "all or nothing" argument. My statement obviously also holds for partial allocations between the two extremes, as should have been obvious.
No, it does not. Since you appear to be a bit short of memory (see further down) your statement was:
if they succeed, you don't collect the revenue, if they fail, they are simply a tax increase on businesses unrelated to carbon
How about "where they succeed, carbon usage goes down, and where they fail, some revenue is collected". In a realistic world, you'll have a bit of both at the same time - even applied to a single business/sector. Compared to that, you were presenting a crystal-clear false dichotomy by suggesting it will either fail to yield money or fail to decrease carbon usage. Your argument is like: "There are too many wolves in the coutryside.(*) Some people suggested to put out poison bait, but that's just bad economic policy. If the wolves take the bait, we will have exterminated a valuable species, which is unacceptable, while if they don't, we'll have wasted a lot of money on all these baits."
Whereas the real-world outcome is of course that some but not all wolves will take the bait, decreasing the population as intended, and making the investment worthwile. It's been used to great success. As have government interventions to decrease e.g. sulfur emmissions. But feel free to disregard all evidence and cling to your flawed theoretical arguments.
We're not having a "debate"; you're trying to convince me to change my position and you're failing.
Didn't I just literally say that you can keep on believing in your fairy tales AFAICS? You and I may not be the only once reading this conversation (now or in the future). Hence, it's a "debate". In which you're presenting blatantly dishonest arguments (see above) and I'm calling you out on it to prevent you from infecting other gullible people.
No, you merely said that "the assumption that carbon tax will necessarily make it worse is very much unproven."
Holy selective reading, batman? I said the following. Which is more that what your brought to the table:
there is a trade-off between amount of money spent on energy and on other things. If you make energy a bit more expensive, the balance will shift to a new optimum, in which less energy is spent. (Just like if you make carbon more expensive, more energy will come from non-carbon sources.) (...) Yes, the product will get slightly more expensive. This price difference partially goes to the sectors that provide the aforementioned "other things" and partially to the government. Which could use the extra income to e.g. increase the buying power of those who don't have much of it, or to decrease taxes for everyone, or to invest into the economy (which might include one of the above depending on your political stance).
(*) Where the analogy breaks down is that, when called out on your fallacy, you will shift to denying there are too many wolves in the countryside, as you started doing in your last post, and probably will keep doing until a wolf is gnawing at your childrens' throats.
That does make it appropriate in this specific context :)
You're double-counting the taxes; if they succeed, you don't collect the revenue, if they fail, they are simply a tax increase on businesses unrelated to carbon.
Nope, I'm not double-counting. I clearly said the price difference PARTIALLY goes to the sectors that provide the aforementioned "other things" and PARTIALLY to the government. Clearly my attempt to pull you out of your imaginary all-or-nothing world has completely failed. I'm really at my wits end in finding ways to combat your obtuseness. Fine, have it your way and continue believe in your fairy tales and your false dichotomies. You don't seem to be mentally prepared to consider anything else, and I'm not going to waste more time on debating with someone who's plugging their ears and singing la-la-la.
Oh, the economy is very complex, but that complexity won't turn bad economic policy into good one, it merely means that we don't know how bad a carbon tax is, but it is inevitable that it has a negative effect on the economy.
In other words, your statement is the equivalent of "medicine and the human body are very complex, so eating like a pig might actually be good for me!" It's the typical self-serving justification for bad decisions.
Excuse me. I gave an EXPLANATION on why I think it won't be bad. All you bring to the table in your response is handwaving.(*) Now who is employing "typical self-serving justification for bad decisions" here?!
(*) That is to say, dropping the term "bad economic policy" without any explanation may be a reference to Anarcho-capitalist dogma, but to someone who grew up in one of the successful welfare states of western Europe, Anarcho-capitalist dogma is not an inch better than handwaving.
Heh, I LOLed.
Also, found the Skin Horse reader.
Oh wonderful, yet another post with a generous grab from the top-50 long-debunked climate myths. A bit like a Gish gallop by the looks of things, so I'm not going to give you a lot of my time. I'll just respond to a few of the more egregious talking points you bring up, and people can look up the rest at http://wikipedia.org/ and http://skepticalscience.com/ .
If you look at the graphs of atmospheric CO2 vs global temperature (whatever that may be) there is not much correlation
Let me guess, you've looked at carefully cherry-picked time windows in order to ignore the blatantly obvious fact that both are steadily going up.
Sure, there's no year-to-year correlation; the temperature data is so (inherently) noisy that only an idiot would expect to see that. But over a relevant time span, yes, yes, it's going up.
let alone causation.
Helllo? The 1800s called. It's Tyndall and Arrhenius on the line. They want some words with you about the thing called 'greenhouse effect' they discovered. It really follows straightforwardly from basic physics.
Even coal industry shill Richard Lindzen called people who dispute that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas 'a bit nutty'.
So let's see, a recently created account by the name of "slazy Rio" that contributed little of value to this community starts executing a Gish gallop of complete bullshit denialist talking points. Are you even trying to not look like a shill/troll ?
No, what greedy capitalists have done is figured out the most profitable way of producing beer (and other products). That means, among other things, minimizing the amount of money spent on energy.
Nope, there is a trade-off between amount of money spent on energy and on other things. If you make energy a bit more expensive, the balance will shift to a new optimum, in which less energy is spent. (Just like if you make carbon more expensive, more energy will come from non-carbon sources.) But energy consumption will still not be "minimal" - at least as long as we're talking about a reasonable carbon tax rate. The nonchalance with which society consumes energy clearly demonstrates that there is still a lot of room for carbon to get more expensive before things really starts to bite.(*)
Yes, the product will get slightly more expensive. This price difference partially goes to the sectors that provide the aforementioned "other things" and partially to the government. Which could use the extra income to e.g. increase the buying power of those who don't have much of it, or to decrease taxes for everyone, or to invest into the economy (which might include one of the above depending on your political stance).
Bottom line: the economy is not as simple as you might imagine, and your assumption that carbon tax will necessarily make it worse is very much unproven.
(*) Excluding certain sectors that really don't have a technologically viable alternative and therefore would be eligible for a carbon tax break. Aviation comes to mind.
Why would it matter so much what country anyone resides in?
To me, it shouldn't, but I'm currently in a mood of aggravating those who think otherwise. Taste of their own medicine and all that. (I was going to write "give them some food for thought", but I've recently come to suspect they're incapable of that.)
Caucher Birkar was an Iranian Kurd who entered the UK as a refugee. You know, exactly the kind of person the xenophobes that gave us Brexit (and are ironically also dominating EU politics) would rather not let in.
Akshay Venkatesh was born in Delhi 2 years before his parents migrated to Australia, that other Commonwealth nation presently dominated by rabid anti-immigration policies. Gee, I wonder if he would still be let in today...
Looks like we need to expect a surge in scientific advancements in a decade or so coming from Canada, being the largest of the countries in the Western World that still have a welcoming attitude toward immigrants.
And don't give me "those are not the kind of immigrants we want to hold back". That falls in the same category as "I'm not a racist, why, I even have friends who are not white." To give just one counter-argument, there's no way anyone could have known that the 2-years-old Venkatesh would grow up to be a prodigy.
So why isn't the response "fix these abusive practices, or be denied access to our market"?
OK, genius, suppose for a moment that has been said several months ago. Further suppose that Google merrily kept operating in the EU market without fixing said abusive practices. What would the EU then be supposed to do?
I've always felt it unethical to use the products of a company that makes money from advertising https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So you're saying that I should refrain from clicking on that link? But then how am I supposed to know what you're actually talking about? *confused*
To expand upon this, Nigeria does have pretty substantial oil reserves that are actively being exploited, yet one of this weeks' headlines was that it surpassed India as the country with the most people living in poverty. Score one for the unregulated free market!
Als, GP should probably read up on the resource curse. Norway is possibly the first country to entirely avoid it; how they did it makes for an interesting study.
Never minder the penny finally dropped. Time to go do something else, I guess.
Huh? I must have missed a chapter somewhere...
A likely story.
{citation needed}