Nonsense piled on nonsense. Markets are central to this solution. A pigovian tax allows the market to reach an efficient outcome by bridging the gap between the marginal social costs and marginal private costs. It is a solution that allows the markets to efficiently solve the problem.
The solutions that are currently being enacted in the U.S. all involve regulation. This is not an efficient solution. I am hopeful that the republican party will step up to the table with more efficient market based solutions. The current strategy seems to be to bury their heads in the sand and allow the Democrats to drive. That's not working so well for us.
Unfortunately none of them speak to the scientific consensus on climate change XD. It seems very unlikely that you even understand what a scientific consensus is, though you protest the idea vehemently.
You're talking about "externalities," which are called that because they are EXTERNAL to economic considerations
Uhhh no. They are fundamental to economics. Please read James M. Buchanan and Wm. Craig Stubblebine Economica New Series, Vol. 29, No. 116 (Nov., 1962), pp. 371-384
What kind of response did you expect to an unreferenced assertion? Again, if you believe that there was ever a consensus that New York would be under water in 2015 then you may be confused about the term "consensus." I would expect that you would not be able to find even a single peer reviewed paper making that claim.
If you believe that there was ever a consensus that New York would be under water in 2015 then you may be confused about the term "consensus." I would expect that you would not be able to find even a single peer reviewed paper making that claim.
You have failed to demonstrate that. In fact, you have provided strong evidence that the consensus is of greater value than hanging your hopes on the recollection of a journalist, or the testimony of any one particular scientists.
The atmosphere is currently gaining only about half of what we pump into it. How do we account for the missing CO2? We find some of that missing CO2 in the oceans. Measurements indicate that oceans are acidifying. That means the oceans are currently absorbing CO2. You are right that this may not continue to be the case in the future. Oceans could become a net source of CO2 rather than a net sync. - http://ocean.si.edu/sites/defa...
Agreed. At best they could say that "Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more extreme weather situations, and this may be a peek at the future to come.", not that this is evidence that this has already occurred. It may be the case that a trend is already emergin, but we would need much more data to establish a trend.
Again, I'm glad we at least agree that there is a scientific consensus. Your post here demonstrates why it is valuable. It allows us to ignore the outliers and focus on what is credible. I'm glad we also agree that the IPCC is a great resource for cutting through the BS, and that it allows us to understand what is really known, what is conjecture, and what is merely a misrepresentation of the science.
Economists disagree with you. A revenue neutral tax promotes market efficiencies that are lost when costs are absorbed by third parties (as is the case now). A revenue neutral carbon tax is actually a great way to let the market pick the winners and losers that will move us to the new energy economy.
there's no such thing as a revenue neutral tax
British Columbia has a revenue neutral carbon tax that is working quite well and enjoys popular support because the fees are in fact returned as dividends.
I'm glad we at least agree that there is a scientific consensus. Your post here demonstrates why it is valuable. It allows us to ignore the outliers and focus on what is credible. I'm glad we also agree that the IPCC is a great resource for cutting through the BS, and that it allows us to understand what is really known, what is conjecture, and what is merely a misrepresentation of the science.
Reducing barriers to business (nuclear or otherwise) is something I agree with. I still believe that a market driven approach would be more efficient, but perhaps there is some room for government investment.
I'm not sure that a recollection by a journalist of a conversation that took place decades earlier really represents a prediction. Failed or otherwise. Regarding hurricanes, the consensus view is that changes should not yet be evident. I'm not sure how that can be considered a failed prediction unless changes are in fact already evident.
I'm glad we agree. The IPCC represents the best scientific knowledge of our time, but there are uncertainties. That's why the climate sensitivity is given by the IPCC as a range rather than a specific value. "global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2 (to a concentration of 560 ppmv), or equilibrium climate sensitivity, very likely is greater than 1.5 C (2.7 F) and likely to lie in the range 2 to 4.5 C (4 to 8.1 F), with a most likely value of about 3 C (5 F)."
Good point. the consensus has been measured many times using different methods ranging from literature reviews to polls of scientists. The results generally range from 90-100%. Even Richard Tol agrees: “Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role.”
If it's being argued before congress it's being driven by money.
Possibly. That would explain why the consensus represented to congress is weaker than the scientific consensus measured in the literature. Contrary testimonies are selected specifically because they counter the scientific consensus.
The win-win scenario is vastly increased investment into nuclear electric generation. Nuclear is already the safest form of baseline power generation, and is 100% carbon free. Next-gen technologies offer the possibility of less than 5 per KWH electricity, and no possibility of meltdowns. The world needs plentiful, non-stop power going forward. The ONLY carbon-free way of achieving that is nuclear power, and this can be done with no sacrifice, and no penalty to the poor via increased energy prices.
You could be right. My preferred option would be to let the markets pick the winners and losers. The key is to apply a revenue neutral carbon tax that ensures that any fees collected are spent in reducing income tax and sales tax. That way we are taxing behaviours that we want to discourage, and lowering taxes on things we ought to be encouraging.
You can read the individual statements of the science academies. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) They go much further than simply stating that radiative physics is a real thing. Most state that the IPCC represents the consensus view and that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
I wouldn't expect a science academy to make judgments on the economic impact. For that you could go to economists: "There is a strong consensus among the top economic experts that, in fact, climate change represents a real danger to important sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Moreover, most believe that the significant benefits from curbing greenhouse gas emissions would justify the costs of action." - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs...
Or you could go to Wall Street: "because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action (to slow CO2 emissions) scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario. Coupled with the fact the total spend is similar under both action and inaction, yet the potential liabilities of inaction are enormous, it is hard to argue against a path of action." - http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense piled on nonsense. Markets are central to this solution. A pigovian tax allows the market to reach an efficient outcome by bridging the gap between the marginal social costs and marginal private costs. It is a solution that allows the markets to efficiently solve the problem.
The solutions that are currently being enacted in the U.S. all involve regulation. This is not an efficient solution. I am hopeful that the republican party will step up to the table with more efficient market based solutions. The current strategy seems to be to bury their heads in the sand and allow the Democrats to drive. That's not working so well for us.
Yes. It's a big flaw, but a solvable one.
Unfortunately none of them speak to the scientific consensus on climate change XD. It seems very unlikely that you even understand what a scientific consensus is, though you protest the idea vehemently.
You're talking about "externalities," which are called that because they are EXTERNAL to economic considerations
Uhhh no. They are fundamental to economics. Please read James M. Buchanan and Wm. Craig Stubblebine Economica New Series, Vol. 29, No. 116 (Nov., 1962), pp. 371-384
What kind of response did you expect to an unreferenced assertion? Again, if you believe that there was ever a consensus that New York would be under water in 2015 then you may be confused about the term "consensus." I would expect that you would not be able to find even a single peer reviewed paper making that claim.
If you believe that there was ever a consensus that New York would be under water in 2015 then you may be confused about the term "consensus." I would expect that you would not be able to find even a single peer reviewed paper making that claim.
Nope.
Here's how it is working in British Columbia: http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/t...
On the contrary, you have demonstrated the value of a consensus by pointing out where non-consensus predictions have failed.
You have failed to demonstrate that. In fact, you have provided strong evidence that the consensus is of greater value than hanging your hopes on the recollection of a journalist, or the testimony of any one particular scientists.
The atmosphere is currently gaining only about half of what we pump into it. How do we account for the missing CO2? We find some of that missing CO2 in the oceans. Measurements indicate that oceans are acidifying. That means the oceans are currently absorbing CO2. You are right that this may not continue to be the case in the future. Oceans could become a net source of CO2 rather than a net sync. - http://ocean.si.edu/sites/defa...
I'm not saying that science can never be wrong, but it is certainly the best tool we have for understanding our universe.
Agreed. At best they could say that "Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more extreme weather situations, and this may be a peek at the future to come.", not that this is evidence that this has already occurred. It may be the case that a trend is already emergin, but we would need much more data to establish a trend.
I have trouble understanding how anyone in a technologically advanced culture can think science is decided by vote.
You have the causality exactly backwards.
Again, I'm glad we at least agree that there is a scientific consensus. Your post here demonstrates why it is valuable. It allows us to ignore the outliers and focus on what is credible. I'm glad we also agree that the IPCC is a great resource for cutting through the BS, and that it allows us to understand what is really known, what is conjecture, and what is merely a misrepresentation of the science.
there's no such thing as a revenue neutral tax
British Columbia has a revenue neutral carbon tax that is working quite well and enjoys popular support because the fees are in fact returned as dividends.
I'm glad we at least agree that there is a scientific consensus. Your post here demonstrates why it is valuable. It allows us to ignore the outliers and focus on what is credible. I'm glad we also agree that the IPCC is a great resource for cutting through the BS, and that it allows us to understand what is really known, what is conjecture, and what is merely a misrepresentation of the science.
Reducing barriers to business (nuclear or otherwise) is something I agree with. I still believe that a market driven approach would be more efficient, but perhaps there is some room for government investment.
I'm not sure that a recollection by a journalist of a conversation that took place decades earlier really represents a prediction. Failed or otherwise. Regarding hurricanes, the consensus view is that changes should not yet be evident. I'm not sure how that can be considered a failed prediction unless changes are in fact already evident.
I'm glad we agree. The IPCC represents the best scientific knowledge of our time, but there are uncertainties. That's why the climate sensitivity is given by the IPCC as a range rather than a specific value. "global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2 (to a concentration of 560 ppmv), or equilibrium climate sensitivity, very likely is greater than 1.5 C (2.7 F) and likely to lie in the range 2 to 4.5 C (4 to 8.1 F), with a most likely value of about 3 C (5 F)."
Which consensus ?
Good point. the consensus has been measured many times using different methods ranging from literature reviews to polls of scientists. The results generally range from 90-100%. Even Richard Tol agrees: “Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role.”
If it's being argued before congress it's being driven by money.
Possibly. That would explain why the consensus represented to congress is weaker than the scientific consensus measured in the literature. Contrary testimonies are selected specifically because they counter the scientific consensus.
The win-win scenario is vastly increased investment into nuclear electric generation. Nuclear is already the safest form of baseline power generation, and is 100% carbon free. Next-gen technologies offer the possibility of less than 5 per KWH electricity, and no possibility of meltdowns. The world needs plentiful, non-stop power going forward. The ONLY carbon-free way of achieving that is nuclear power, and this can be done with no sacrifice, and no penalty to the poor via increased energy prices.
You could be right. My preferred option would be to let the markets pick the winners and losers. The key is to apply a revenue neutral carbon tax that ensures that any fees collected are spent in reducing income tax and sales tax. That way we are taxing behaviours that we want to discourage, and lowering taxes on things we ought to be encouraging.
You can read the individual statements of the science academies. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) They go much further than simply stating that radiative physics is a real thing. Most state that the IPCC represents the consensus view and that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
I wouldn't expect a science academy to make judgments on the economic impact. For that you could go to economists: "There is a strong consensus among the top economic experts that, in fact, climate change represents a real danger to important sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Moreover, most believe that the significant benefits from curbing greenhouse gas emissions would justify the costs of action." - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs...
Or you could go to Wall Street: "because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action (to slow CO2 emissions) scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario. Coupled with the fact the total spend is similar under both action and inaction, yet the potential liabilities of inaction are enormous, it is hard to argue against a path of action." - http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Calculate deaths per megawatt generated
That is what was done in this case. See the text under the first graph? "Death rate per watts produced." Very safe indeed..