I'm for some "government funded stuff", namely when it makes economic sense. That's either because it produces a public good, or because it accounts for some externality, or because it compensates for other government interference (like, for example, patents and subsidies on fossil fuels) that politically can't be eliminated by other means.
Why do you care about global CO2 certification trade or emission limits? It costs you nothing. You should not care at all. But you believe it is somehow bad?
First, until low-GHG energy is as cheap as oil and coal, imposing emission limits must necessarily cause prices to go up, and that makes me poorer. Once low-GHG energy is as cheap as oil and coal, you don't need emission limits because producers and consumers will switch voluntarily.
Second, in order for trading or emission limits to be meaningful, they would have to be global and uniform. They can't be based on population or historical usage, they'd have to be structured like a global auction for a limited number of carbon credits. If you don't do it that way, GHG-intensive production will simply move to countries outside the regime. But China isn't going to agree to that, and it would be economic suicide for lots of other nations. So, certificates and carbon trading as proposed by all the protocols to date amount to nothing more than corporate welfare and international financial aid, but often to corporations and nations that don't even need it.
People in Country A don't get an increased risk for lung cancer because Country B has a lot of smokers.
It's not my analogy, it's someone else's analogy. And the analogy was about risk taking, not responsibility and harm to others.
You mean like the Montreal Protocol? That 'ineffective' and abusive regime?
That's a false analogy. The Montreal Protocol was quite limited in its economic effects because there were good substitutes for CFCs.
Cooperation has to bring competitiveness to heel on this issue, so that anyone taking an 'If they don't do it, we will' attitude to high-GHG modes of production will be made to feel the pressure.
And that is precisely why many people reject more aggressive international action on AGW. If it came down to it, many of us would much rather live in a world of 4C higher temperatures than in a world in which any organization is able to bring that kind of pressure on any country.
But I don't think that's even necessary. Just because AGW activists like you are not convinced of the competitiveness of low-GHG energy and are speaking out of both sides of their mouth about it doesn't mean that that everybody is. I think R&D investments in renewable energies, elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, as well as government efforts to promote nuclear energy, would get GHG emissions to fall naturally and quickly, and countries will do it voluntarily. But I also predict that's the best compromise AGW activists are going to get.
Yes, societies need to change, renew, and transform themselves. Look at the kinds of crooks that promised a thousand years of stability, appealing to a fear of change and progress in their people.
It's not up to peope to self assess and choose a position they are comfortable with - if I were more comfortable with believing there is no link between lung cancer and smoking, would my position make me less likely to get lung cancer?
Let's stick with that example. You are implying that because smoking causes cancer, everybody must come to the conclusion that they don't want to smoke. But that is obviously not the case: lots of people smoke despite knowing about the substantial (and it is substantial) increase in risk. It's the same for many other risky activities: investing, emigrating, motorcycle riding, etc. Many people engage in those activities because they think the potential rewards justify the risk. You are free to disagree with them, but there is no objectively right choice about the level of risk people are willing to accept. (A second point is that a link at the population level does not imply that a link exists for any individual; I may have information that makes it rational for me to smoke even if it wouldn't be rational for you.)
So, continuing to emit CO2 without any kinds of imposed limits has some risks, and they are well documented. Many people have looked at those risks and said they can live with them, because they consider the alternatives of not taking those risks are far worse.
Your risk preferences may be different, but your preferences don't imply that there is a single, objectively correct policy vis-a-vis AGW.
Personally, I'd like to see government investment in research in renewable energies, increased taxation of oil and coal, and investment in nuclear power plants. But I strongly object to multi-national carbon trading schemes or global emission limits, because I think they would be ineffective and subject to massive abuse.
First, "rare exceptions" is all you need; these corals could take over the niches left by other corals.
Second, earth's oceans have become more acidic before. It's a different ocean, but not necessarily a worse one. And we know that corals come back eventually.
Doesn't it bother you that the news is starting to look like the introduction to Sunshine or similarly apocalyptic movies? That there are very serious issues with our entire food chain? That there are very serious issues with the ability to sustain our current standards of living if we go on like this?
No, it doesn't bother me in the least. People have predicted mass starvation and the collapse of civilization for a long time (cf Malthus), and technological progress has always prevented that. In fact, it was the challenge caused by hitting resource limits that forced humanity to make progress and improve its living standards, and it has done so every time. I do not want to live in a sustainable society, and I have confidence that human ingenuity is up to the task of solving whatever problems global warming may cause.
If Deutsche Telekom bought Yahoo, Yahoo would be a US branch of Deutsche Telekom. You're suggesting that Yahoo then wouldn't have to comply with US laws anymore. That's crazy.
A "US branch" is a US corporation, like any other US corporation. The fact that some foreign entity owns the shares makes no difference. If US law enforcement makes a lawful request for information, they have to comply or face the consequences. And that works no differently anywhere else.
We keep hearing about how banks, firms, etc. that were "too big to fail" have...failed.
You misinterpreted that. People weren't saying that these banks "couldn't" fail, they were saying that they "shouldn't" because they were so big that if they failed, a lot of people would actually have to face the consequences of their stupid decisions. "Too big to fail" was mostly an excuse for Bush and Obama to shove vast amounts of tax dollars into the greedy hands of bank managers.
The interest in Mars seems less about exploration and more about looking for another planet to inhabit. Taken as a whole, this one may be about done, or rather, the human civilizations on it appear to be teetering over the precipice of internal disaster.
Humanity is doing better than ever before in its history, no teetering and no looming disaster. Even the naysayers and Luddites are actually going down in numbers (much to the chagrin of religious nuts of both the Christian and the global warming persuasion).
Sorry, but no other country tries to extend their laws outside their borders as US does. US seems to think that their laws trump any local laws of any other country whenever they see fit.
US law applies exactly when the US is in a position to enforce it, just like German law, French law, Russian law, and North Korean law.
That is a delusion of grandeur that may still prove to be its downfall.
1. Enforcing judgements is not the same as knocking on some business' door in Brussels and saying give us your data, or else.
Actually, the set of laws you can meaningfully pass is the same as the set of laws you can meaningfully enforce.
2. Yes, exactly like that. It was bad then, it's just as bad now.
Nonsense. Europeans forced other nations to comply with their self-serving laws at the barrel of a gun. The US is engaged in law enforcement and anti-terrorism activity, and any company that doesn't want to comply simply has to close its US subsidiary.
What makes you think the EU doesn't do this? Nations like France and Germany probably don't bother with such niceties as legal orders to reveal this data, they just put government operatives into German subsidiaries and have them take whatever they want.
Or, to use a car analogy, how would you like it if the government of Saudi Arabia could stop your car from working, in case a woman drove it, because that was the price for allowing the car company to also sell cars there?
If the Saudis want to impose this condition on Ford, Ford has a clear choice: sell cars in Saudi Arabia and comply with their laws, or sell cars in the US and comply with US laws. It can't to both. Where's the problem?
And I certainly intent to blame America for that.
You can join everybody from Hitler to Putin in blaming America for everything; Americans don't give a damn.
Do US laws apply to EU companies, IN the EU, just because they have a US branch?
Yes, they do, because if they have a US branch, the US can enforce judgments against those companies. That's how laws and jurisdictions work. It works the other way around too.
Just in case you're unclear, try switching the US and the EU, see how that feels.
You mean, the kind of self-serving arrogance with which Europeans have been imposing their cultures, languages, laws, and businesses on the rest world since the 15th century? I don't need to imagine, it's in the history books.
Basically, the Americans are saying their laws trumps everybody else, and the cost of doing "systematic business in the United States" is that their laws trump everybody else. Sadly, the US has decided that, the laws of other countries be damned, if you do enough business here you have to do what we say.
Yes, if you do business in the US (any business) you need to comply with US law. It works the same for Europe and other places. The only difference is that the US market is so important that companies can't ignore it, but that's not America's fault, and the US is under no obligation to weaken its laws just because Europeans can't get their act together on competitiveness.
The US can do whatever they feel like doing because Fuck You
Well, Europe dropped the ball in the 20th century, so it got stuck taking care of all these problems. If Europe doesn't like the way the US handles it, all it has to do is get its shit together.
Get used to it... its gonna be a long and twisted road before this crap is over.
Well, it sure beats the "crap" that was going on before. And the way things are going, this will be "over" when the US decides its over, given that Europe and Asia are far more aggressive in restricting the liberty and privacy of their citizens.
European authorities can get personal data on Americans under Europe's (rather bad) laws when that data is hosted on European servers.It's not America's fault that Europeans have, for the most part, failed to create online services that are attractive to people.
Unfortunately, it's not just online trolls; the myth of "runaway greenhouse effects" is strong among global warming activists, including people like Hansen:
There used to be a very simple mechanism for protecting works to become orphaned: authors registered them with the Library of Congress. This also ensured that the work eventually could enter the public domain.
It was greedy European publishers that killed this, and then forced the US to comply. And now they are using orphan works legislation to enrich themselves; if you look at the European proposals for orphan works, they want to charge for the reproduction of such works and then redistribute the money to current publishers and authors. That is not how orphan works are supposed to work.
We should bring back mandatory copyright registration; it's the only sensible way of dealing with orphan works and the public domain.
There's nothing technically new in Apple's patent. What the patent is about is using a well-known wireless charging technique to charge a wireless powered local computing environment (as opposed to some other kind of device).
Apple basically missed the boat on wireless power, and now they are trying to grab whatever ridiculous patent they can to have a little bit of leverage.
Hopefully, the rest of the industry will tell them to go take a hike on making compliant products, and then sue Apple into oblivion for violating existing patents.
Of course, they won't "curb Internet freedoms". They'll simply "outlaw dangerous speech", "protect the faithful from being offended by blasphemers", "create taxes to compensate creative organizations like newspapers", and "track online use to protect children". But no Internet freedoms will be harmed. Right.
So let me say this first: If you've met an Aspie and dismissed the condition because that person "seemed fine", then please consider that what you didn't see was the countless hours of practice and stress and anxiety of being able to pretend to be that way; the habitual exhaustion from the effort of doing so; the depression and abysmal self-esteem from never, never understanding the people around you or being able to tell whether people actually like you or not.
That's not a psychological condition, it's the human condition. And if, as an "Aspie", you deal with it by trying to figure it out intellectually instead of succumbing to alcohol, drugs, obesity, wild sex, or other self-destructive behavior, you're ahead of most other humans on this planet.
Unfortunately, decreasing the number of people said to have a condition is a good way to decrease its funding chances in the government subsidies to researchers.
When it comes to "curing" harmless behavioral differences, I consider that a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Germany's energy sector is extensively subsidized, directly, through tax breaks, and through price controls. I think those subsidies are bad policy:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-addresses-problems-with-renewable-energy-subsidy-system-a-852549.html
I'm for some "government funded stuff", namely when it makes economic sense. That's either because it produces a public good, or because it accounts for some externality, or because it compensates for other government interference (like, for example, patents and subsidies on fossil fuels) that politically can't be eliminated by other means.
First, until low-GHG energy is as cheap as oil and coal, imposing emission limits must necessarily cause prices to go up, and that makes me poorer. Once low-GHG energy is as cheap as oil and coal, you don't need emission limits because producers and consumers will switch voluntarily.
Second, in order for trading or emission limits to be meaningful, they would have to be global and uniform. They can't be based on population or historical usage, they'd have to be structured like a global auction for a limited number of carbon credits. If you don't do it that way, GHG-intensive production will simply move to countries outside the regime. But China isn't going to agree to that, and it would be economic suicide for lots of other nations. So, certificates and carbon trading as proposed by all the protocols to date amount to nothing more than corporate welfare and international financial aid, but often to corporations and nations that don't even need it.
It's not my analogy, it's someone else's analogy. And the analogy was about risk taking, not responsibility and harm to others.
That's a false analogy. The Montreal Protocol was quite limited in its economic effects because there were good substitutes for CFCs.
And that is precisely why many people reject more aggressive international action on AGW. If it came down to it, many of us would much rather live in a world of 4C higher temperatures than in a world in which any organization is able to bring that kind of pressure on any country.
But I don't think that's even necessary. Just because AGW activists like you are not convinced of the competitiveness of low-GHG energy and are speaking out of both sides of their mouth about it doesn't mean that that everybody is. I think R&D investments in renewable energies, elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, as well as government efforts to promote nuclear energy, would get GHG emissions to fall naturally and quickly, and countries will do it voluntarily. But I also predict that's the best compromise AGW activists are going to get.
Yes, societies need to change, renew, and transform themselves. Look at the kinds of crooks that promised a thousand years of stability, appealing to a fear of change and progress in their people.
Let's stick with that example. You are implying that because smoking causes cancer, everybody must come to the conclusion that they don't want to smoke. But that is obviously not the case: lots of people smoke despite knowing about the substantial (and it is substantial) increase in risk. It's the same for many other risky activities: investing, emigrating, motorcycle riding, etc. Many people engage in those activities because they think the potential rewards justify the risk. You are free to disagree with them, but there is no objectively right choice about the level of risk people are willing to accept. (A second point is that a link at the population level does not imply that a link exists for any individual; I may have information that makes it rational for me to smoke even if it wouldn't be rational for you.)
So, continuing to emit CO2 without any kinds of imposed limits has some risks, and they are well documented. Many people have looked at those risks and said they can live with them, because they consider the alternatives of not taking those risks are far worse.
Your risk preferences may be different, but your preferences don't imply that there is a single, objectively correct policy vis-a-vis AGW.
Personally, I'd like to see government investment in research in renewable energies, increased taxation of oil and coal, and investment in nuclear power plants. But I strongly object to multi-national carbon trading schemes or global emission limits, because I think they would be ineffective and subject to massive abuse.
First, "rare exceptions" is all you need; these corals could take over the niches left by other corals.
Second, earth's oceans have become more acidic before. It's a different ocean, but not necessarily a worse one. And we know that corals come back eventually.
No, it doesn't bother me in the least. People have predicted mass starvation and the collapse of civilization for a long time (cf Malthus), and technological progress has always prevented that. In fact, it was the challenge caused by hitting resource limits that forced humanity to make progress and improve its living standards, and it has done so every time. I do not want to live in a sustainable society, and I have confidence that human ingenuity is up to the task of solving whatever problems global warming may cause.
If Deutsche Telekom bought Yahoo, Yahoo would be a US branch of Deutsche Telekom. You're suggesting that Yahoo then wouldn't have to comply with US laws anymore. That's crazy.
A "US branch" is a US corporation, like any other US corporation. The fact that some foreign entity owns the shares makes no difference. If US law enforcement makes a lawful request for information, they have to comply or face the consequences. And that works no differently anywhere else.
You misinterpreted that. People weren't saying that these banks "couldn't" fail, they were saying that they "shouldn't" because they were so big that if they failed, a lot of people would actually have to face the consequences of their stupid decisions. "Too big to fail" was mostly an excuse for Bush and Obama to shove vast amounts of tax dollars into the greedy hands of bank managers.
Humanity is doing better than ever before in its history, no teetering and no looming disaster. Even the naysayers and Luddites are actually going down in numbers (much to the chagrin of religious nuts of both the Christian and the global warming persuasion).
US law applies exactly when the US is in a position to enforce it, just like German law, French law, Russian law, and North Korean law.
It's not a "delusion" if you can make it stick.
Actually, the set of laws you can meaningfully pass is the same as the set of laws you can meaningfully enforce.
Nonsense. Europeans forced other nations to comply with their self-serving laws at the barrel of a gun. The US is engaged in law enforcement and anti-terrorism activity, and any company that doesn't want to comply simply has to close its US subsidiary.
What makes you think the EU doesn't do this? Nations like France and Germany probably don't bother with such niceties as legal orders to reveal this data, they just put government operatives into German subsidiaries and have them take whatever they want.
If the Saudis want to impose this condition on Ford, Ford has a clear choice: sell cars in Saudi Arabia and comply with their laws, or sell cars in the US and comply with US laws. It can't to both. Where's the problem?
You can join everybody from Hitler to Putin in blaming America for everything; Americans don't give a damn.
There are no sea kittens involved, so that's OK with PETA.
Yes, they do, because if they have a US branch, the US can enforce judgments against those companies. That's how laws and jurisdictions work. It works the other way around too.
You mean, the kind of self-serving arrogance with which Europeans have been imposing their cultures, languages, laws, and businesses on the rest world since the 15th century? I don't need to imagine, it's in the history books.
Yes, if you do business in the US (any business) you need to comply with US law. It works the same for Europe and other places. The only difference is that the US market is so important that companies can't ignore it, but that's not America's fault, and the US is under no obligation to weaken its laws just because Europeans can't get their act together on competitiveness.
Well, Europe dropped the ball in the 20th century, so it got stuck taking care of all these problems. If Europe doesn't like the way the US handles it, all it has to do is get its shit together.
Well, it sure beats the "crap" that was going on before. And the way things are going, this will be "over" when the US decides its over, given that Europe and Asia are far more aggressive in restricting the liberty and privacy of their citizens.
European authorities can get personal data on Americans under Europe's (rather bad) laws when that data is hosted on European servers.It's not America's fault that Europeans have, for the most part, failed to create online services that are attractive to people.
And if you think the entire planet was a burning hellhole, you're also sadly misinformed.
On balance, the planet was probably somewhat nicer for mammals than it is now.
Unfortunately, it's not just online trolls; the myth of "runaway greenhouse effects" is strong among global warming activists, including people like Hansen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
There used to be a very simple mechanism for protecting works to become orphaned: authors registered them with the Library of Congress. This also ensured that the work eventually could enter the public domain.
It was greedy European publishers that killed this, and then forced the US to comply. And now they are using orphan works legislation to enrich themselves; if you look at the European proposals for orphan works, they want to charge for the reproduction of such works and then redistribute the money to current publishers and authors. That is not how orphan works are supposed to work.
We should bring back mandatory copyright registration; it's the only sensible way of dealing with orphan works and the public domain.
There's nothing technically new in Apple's patent. What the patent is about is using a well-known wireless charging technique to charge a wireless powered local computing environment (as opposed to some other kind of device).
Apple basically missed the boat on wireless power, and now they are trying to grab whatever ridiculous patent they can to have a little bit of leverage.
Hopefully, the rest of the industry will tell them to go take a hike on making compliant products, and then sue Apple into oblivion for violating existing patents.
Of course, they won't "curb Internet freedoms". They'll simply "outlaw dangerous speech", "protect the faithful from being offended by blasphemers", "create taxes to compensate creative organizations like newspapers", and "track online use to protect children". But no Internet freedoms will be harmed. Right.
Who knew! I thought Cadbury just made disgusting sugar laden junk food.
That's not a psychological condition, it's the human condition. And if, as an "Aspie", you deal with it by trying to figure it out intellectually instead of succumbing to alcohol, drugs, obesity, wild sex, or other self-destructive behavior, you're ahead of most other humans on this planet.
When it comes to "curing" harmless behavioral differences, I consider that a good thing.