Actually, Prop 87 only taxes California oil production. The same taxes do not apply to oil purchased from out of state sources.
I thought it was in conjunction with taxes on imported energy of all sorts, but I've not read all the information as I'm not a Californian. If you're right, it's a shame.
It's very easy to be generous with other people's money. Prop 87 is backed by a group of already-wealthy "green" venture capitalists who know just how risky it is to invest in alternative energy and would rather not risk their own money.
I'd expect any such program to be horribly inefficient at redistributing the collected funds, but that is only half the benefit in any case. In general I was talking about how such a program is justified and could be beneficial. Please to not take my comments as endorsement of any particular legislation, especially legislation I've not read through. I don't expect Californians to get this one right, but they've surprised me before.
That's not true. It does harm me, because I am paying for the Medicare for the poor Coke-fatties who need diabetes and other expensive medical treatments on the taxpayer's dime. It also harms me indirectly, in terms of increased medical costs brought on by the increased demand on the medical system from the Coke-fatties.
That is a somewhat different argument, because it only harms you in conjunction with socialist health care costs, so stopping either would equally prevent it from harming you. As for increased health care costs in general, that is beyond the scope of government interference at all unless you want to move further away from capitalism.
In the case of oil burning, it directly contributes to lung cancer and other damage to people who don't burn any gas. In the case of coke, it harms only the drinker, but socialism spreads a small amount of the cost to all of society.
And you don't think that the Federal Government won't step in and strike this law down? I'll bet even the Dems will join in....then there's no way in hell the citizens of the other 49 states are going to pay higher gas prices so that Californians can have their clean air...
I don't know about that. This is simply taxing and price regulation. Didn't Hawaii cap gas prices without interference from the feds? That cost was passed on just the same, no? Or did the feds step in and take action. If so I never heard about it.
Or, if they can't get away with raising them in California, they'll just raise them for the rest of the country so we can all subsidize your green living?
Probably, except I don't live there so it is subsidizing their green living, not mine.
Why should the citizens of other states have to pay for California's environmental laws?
You're asking the wrong question. Since only Californians are voting on this, the question is: why shouldn't Californians vote to subsidize 90% of their alternative energy funding with income from other states?
Actually, the whole thing is very capitalist. Rely upon everyone to act in their own best interest. This one law can simultaneously pay back those who don't use fossil fuels for their decreased living conditions and increased risks and provide incentive for everyone in the US to both use less fossil fuels and pass laws like this that stop them from being one of the states subsidizing others and making them one of the states being subsidized. If done properly it could be a brilliant win for the environment. Too bad it will probably executed poorly and instead be a mediocre mess.
Sure. They will just have a price increase anyway and say it was for something else unrelated to the tax.
And what exactly, will they claim they need to raise prices in California to cover, but don't need to raise prices in Arizona?
Businesses never pay taxes. They just pass them on to consumers.
In this case, 90% of those consumers will be in other states. And all of those consumers will be the ones using gas, thus appropriately charging them for the damage they do to all of society and providing them with financial incentive to stop doing so as much as possible.
Wow, what a bullshit analogy. Exactly what purpose does shooting in the air in populous areas serve? How does it fuel our economy?
The analogy is apt for the aspect we were discussing, differing only by the degree of benefit and harm, not the principal. As for fueling our economy, it fuels bullet and firearm sales as well as the health care industry.
It's a criminal activity, and anyone doing it should be locked up in prison to rot.
So in principal if we passed a law banning burning fossil fuels, then it would be the same? Whether or not something is criminal is just a matter of how much society as a whole is against it and the legislature responds.
I ride my bike to work whenever I can. I'd love it if gas prices were $10 a gallon so that people were forced to change their lives and seek alternatives. But not if it's done at gunpoint by the government.
Capitalism cannot redress costs that are not charged to those who use the product. How much does the use of gasoline, that you do not use cost you in quality of living and risk? You don't think you should be compensated for that? What if you develop lung cancer and it is 100% proven it is due to smog from cars? Should you have to pay your healthcare costs or should those who poisoned you?
This proposition earmarks money for alternatives. So who gets to decide what projects get money, and how much they get? The government?
Yup, that half of this type of redress will be very inefficient, just like socialist programs. That does not mean that inefficiency should be an excuse to do nothing.
Do you want that sort of agency deciding where your dollars go?
If the alternative is my dollars stay in the pockets of those who burn fossil fuels, providing them incentive to keep doing so at my expense, yes.
I don't. I want to choose where my money goes. I feel that I can be a much better judge of what projects may be worthwhile.
That is not an option. This money either will be taken from those doing damage and inefficiently given to those trying to stop it, or it will remain in the hands of those doing the damage. Unless you can come up with a better solution or you honestly believe everyone who buys gas will contribute additional money to paying to clean it up, while those who don't use gas won't.
I want the freedom to give to the organizations I that I trust will do the best job.
Most of the benefit of this is simply taking money from those that use gas, and counting on them to act in their own best interest and try to use less. Your solution does not do that at all, and thus fails to achieve the same goals.
Why stop at oil? Why not tax all the car manufacturers, trucking companies, aviation industry, and each and every one of those people that uses oil everyday? That's right, it's not cool to hate 'Big Car', 'Big Truck', 'Big Plane'... just 'Big Oil'.
Actually, we do charge taxes differently depending upon the pollution output of each auto manufacturer's fleet. It is actually slightly more effective than just charging for gas used, since different vehicles have better or worse filtering and removal of greenhouse gasses per gallon of gas used.
You're dreaming if you think this law will work that way and no cost will be passed on. One way or another it will happen. As for being a 'smart move', that only applies if you think socialism is the smartest form of economical governance.
I just said, it is likely to be passed on, but not to just to gas users in CA, but throughout the country. As such, CA residents will actually pay about one tenth of this tax while the rest is pulled in from other states... unless those other states follow suit.
As for socialism, this is actually sort of the opposite of traditional socialism. Traditionally, socialism takes from all and provides for all, disproportionately. It basically counters wealth condensation to some degree. This actually charges the responsible parties for their behaviors, that are currently subsidized by all of society. In fact, I would like to coin a new term and call it reverse-socialism. It is not governed by self interest and lacks the efficiency of capitalism, but it also places costs on individual for their actions, rather than all of society.
If they are taxing the oil itself then you would be correct. I haven't dug into it but if they are taxing the oil companies' 'presence' in the state (like corporate headquarters, state-declared income, etc) then it might just happen that they move resources to areas of lower tax burden.
I'm pretty sure they're doing the former, as the latter could not control whether or not prices given to the consumers are increased.
Oil harms no-one, it sits in the earth and is drilled out.
Oil production and burning harms everyone, and that is what this tax addresses.
...you are collectively blaming on oil companies.
I'm not blaming oil companies for anything. I'm blaming oil use for the results of oil use. Using oil causes problems and presents the risk of other problems. This tax simply places a burden upon the chain of oil use, companies and through them users to provide reparations for those who don't use it. It will probably do a poor job of it, either imposing too high or too low a cost, but since banning polluting with oil is not practical, I'm not sure I see a better solution that does not impose costs inequitably.
Tax a business, their costs increase, they pass that charge onto their customers. If you are going to tax it, tax it at the pump so everyone knows about it.
So here's the deal. Right now Bob smith rides a bike to work instead of driving a car. His chances of developing health problems due to smog are not reduced by this. His chances of dying in a horrible disaster caused in part by global warming from greenhouse gasses are not reduced by this. He still has to put up with the unpleasant odor and unsightly pollution. Why is he paying the costs of gas user's bad habit? What if, instead of a bike, he drives an eco-friendly vehicle. It costs more but does not contribute to this problem. Why does he still have to pay for the problem then?
The answer is, using gas has costs to all of society, not just gas users. As such, it is appropriate in many people's minds to charge gas users a tax to repay that cost to society and particularly to those who do not contribute to the problem, like Bob. Labeling at as a tax, makes people think this money goes to the government, but in truth it indirectly goes to Bob and those like him and those developing solutions for those like him, repayment for not contributing to the problem, but putting up with it.
Know why gas went to $3/gal in the US?? Because PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO PAY IT.
True, the market is not subject to normal free market pressures due to certain parties ability to adjust the rate of production.
As for those 'cheaper alternatives', where are they. Ethonal?? I've read mixed reviews, some claiming it's the answer to everything, some claiming that the resulting agribusiness pollution might be worse than what comes out of our tailpipes now. Hybrid cars?? First, they cost more. Maybe their effective MPG makes up for some of it, but the anlysis I've seen says they are still more expensive in the long run once you start swapping out batteries. Biodiesel?? There is only so much french fry oil in the country.
The truth is, when gas becomes too expensive alternatives will be implemented. There is an initial barrier and infrastructure cost, but it can be overcome. This law helps overcome it while charging those who contribute to a societal problem and rewarding those who don't. It makes sense in principal, but may be unworkable in practice.
My fellow citizens of the USA have it easy -- just look at the price of gas around the world. This is one of the cheapest places to by it.
Yup. And one of the most expensive places if you don't buy it, because you still pay with increased risks and decreased cost of living, for the problems caused by others.
Increased costs are always passed on to consumers.
This is not completely true. Some products, including oil sell more often at the price people will pay than at what the market demands since someone (OPEC) can raise or lower the rate at which they pump it out of the ground to fine tune the price.
If oil production becomes less profitable, supply is reduced, and, guess what, the price goes up.
The price will probably go up if this passes, but nationally, or globally, not just in CA. Effectively all US gas consumers will be subsiding CA.
Anyone here remember gasoline rationing?
With Alaska, S. America, Russia, and US occupied Iraq in the picture, that just isn't going to happen mate.
While I definitely like the idea of strongly encouraging less oil consumption and less driving, the Libertarian in me says the government should stay out of it. If there's a profit to be made in alternative energy, someone will do it.
What does the libertarian in you say about people randomly shooting firearms in the air in populous areas, resulting in random deaths amidst all of society? Who should bear this cost, the people shooting or all of society?
Using gasoline is like shooting in the air. It pollutes the environment causing health and likely climate problems for all of society, not just those using it. It is not practical to ban it. It is not practical to tax everyone who uses gasoline, except by taxing gasoline itself. Right now if a person rides a bike every day, they are still forced to deal with the problems to their health and environment people using gasoline have caused. In effect, they are subsiding those who use it.
By earmarking this money for alternatives, you're paying back the users of alternatives for the detrimental effects of gasoline use that they are not contributing to and at the same time, passing that cost on to those who do use it. It is not ideal, because the level of subsidy is never going to be the exact same as the cost (which is already subjective). Still, it is a step in the right direction, IMHO.
It hardly seems logical to put the burden of this on the oil companies. While it is in their interests to eventually carry over into alternative fuel markets, taxing the crap out of them to force it defeats the free market and ultimately ends up punishing the consumer.
Actually, it does make sense in a way. Oil based fuels contribute to detrimental factors in our society that are not reflected in the cost of the product. For example, those selling and those burning fossil fuels do not pay for cleaning up the smog or for all the related health problems likely contributed to by oil. So while some person may ride a bike every day, or buy an expensive alternative vehicle, they are still also dealing with smog they did not create. Thus, they are actually subsidizing the oil companies and users. By taxing products that are detrimental to everyone, not just those that use them, some of those costs are brought back to the oil companies and oil users. The problem is finding the right balance.
As with many of these types of programs, it will drive California even higher into 'expensive to live in' status.
Nope. The law forbids them from raising the prices in California to make up for said cost, so in reality the cost will be borne by oil users in all the US, not just CA. This actually subsidizes the cost for CA residents at the expense of everyone else, a smart move on their part.
That is, if the oil companies don't just jump ship altogether for a more friendly state.
BT says to Shell, "Yeah we're going to stop selling into the multibillion dollar CA market, we'll pull out right after you do." Not going to happen.
This is just an attempt at the 'blame game' to punish oil companies and help California seem more 'progressive'. While they're at it why don't they tax Coca Cola so that we can find soda-alternative drinks!
So here's where this differs from a traditional "sin" tax. Usually, harmful products like alcohol primarily harm the user. Coca-Cola, for example, does not harm anyone who does not buy it. Oil harms everyone regardless of whether or not they buy it.
When a scientist lies, they get about a year or two before they're caught. At which point they lose all standing among fellow scientists, get barred from all reputable journals, and often lose their university/institute jobs.
I'm not sure this is at all accurate. For studies in very popular areas that do not move into new ground, maybe you're right. If you publish bogus data in the area of global warming, likely someone will catch you. What happens after that, however is by no means certain. You might get appointed to a cushy job in the executive branch of our government.
Anecdotally, my girlfriend was a biochemist. She studied neuromuscular diseases, cancer, and a variety of other subjects relating to genetics. In the course of her employment on various projects at two very well respected universities and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, she was asked to lie or falsify data at almost every one. Much of the time this was simply use a methodology that was obviously designed to skew the results and then sign off on a paper that failed to mention the nonstandard methodology and implied a more normal one. In other cases it was, increase all these numbers by 10% to make it seem more dramatic.
She reported several instances of this to the project heads (who usually had no actual involvement in the projects other than signing them). The result was a lot more concern about the possibility of her telling anyone than about stopping the falsification. None of the scientists involved lost their jobs and none of the papers were redacted. This includes studies in some very prestigious journals. Eventually my girlfriend left the field entirely in disgust. They hired on a young chinese woman to replace her at her last job who, one former coworker noted, was quiet and submissive and needed a sponsor to stay in the country.
The problem with the scientific community in the US is that so much of it is influenced by a single organization, the US government. They collect disproportionately high taxes and then attach stings to it to influence research before giving it back. Those that lie to get supposedly spectacular results get more money. Those that don't, don't get more grants. Doing research without grants is nearly impossible.
That does not mean that all scientific studies are lies, but it does make me more skeptical than you seem to be. In this particular case, I'd say there has been enough studies from around the world and reproduction of results to warrant treating many of them as established facts. In other cases, however, I'm not nearly as certain.
Yeah, because wikipedia is never wrong. That very article used to say PDF was an open standard, which it is.
Do tell me any way in which PDF is closed. It is completely documented. The trademark and patents are licensed for free to anyone following and version of the spec. There have been multiple GPL and closed proprietary implementations from numerous companies for years. The only possible argument I can think of is you can't make a new standard based upon PDF and be guaranteed protection from trademark infringement (same as Linux) or patent violations (same as Linux).
Actually, no. The iPod name came after the word podcasting was already floating around. The iPod is indeed the reason podcast became a household term, but Apple did not invent the usage. (Look the words up in Wikipedia, for a short history.)
According to wikipedia the term "podcast" was first used in early 2004, about 3 years after the iPod was released.
Here's an example study. As an artist and a member of a very large professional association of artists I can certainly vouch for the opinions I've heard expressed.
So is control over what you make.
No it is not. Speaking only in terms of natural rights, if you write a song and sing it, you have no natural right to stop anyone else who heard you from singing it as well. It is part of freedom of speech. The only justification for censoring that speech is practical incentives for the greater good. If laws censoring that speech do not serve the greater good, they have no purpose or justification.
How can we evaluate data which is probably at least partially false. Several times studies like this have been caught ignoring data that didn't fit the viewpoint they were trying to advance. Several times studies have been discounted because big oil/tobacco backed them (even tho facts are facts, right?).
Ahh, but this data and the methodologies are presented and they are supported by hundreds of other studies that found the same.
Long term- science works- facts are facts. Short term- it is subject to group thinking, politics and even basically religious belief that certain concepts are right.
It has been several decades now that we've been looking at this issue and the community and studies do a good job of showing certain reliable facts, especially once studies that have been discredited when their results were refuted by dozens of people who tried to reproduce them are taken out. I think if you simply look at the studies and ignore all the press articles, it is pretty easy to see what is going on.
In the US they were convicted of antitrust bundling. In the EU they were convicted of antitrust bundling. Both cases focused on different instances of bundling, but it was the same crime.
Niether case was black-and-white and the two can not be compared. For example, the EU is particular about some details that are simply unreasonable (i.e. crippling the user experience by not allowing the packaging of a media player with a modern OS).
That is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. MS should no more be handed dominance in the Media player market because they have dominance in the desktop OS space than the electric company should be handed a monopoly on cookies because they have on one electrical distribution.
As for "crippling the user experience" MS sells product primarily to OEMs like Sony, Dell, Lenovo, HP, and Gateway. They are the ones mostly hurt by MS's bundling. They are the ones who should choose what media player to bundle and it would enhance the user experience not cripple it. The OEMs are motivated to pick the best player or combination of players because otherwise their customers might move to another company. MS is not motivated to pick or develop the best player if they are given the choice. They are motivated to pick the one that makes them the most money.
In particular, most consumers rip their CDs to DRM-constrained Windows media format, because of MS's bundling action. This results in loads of consumer frustration since it means a significant number have to re-rip their music when they find out they can't move it to another computer or onto their portable player (not supported by the iPod which has 70% or so of the market). If the OEMs had been given an equal choice as to which player(s) to include consumers would have not only gotten a better player, but MS would have been motivated to make a better player to influence their decision. There is a good chance it would rip files to MP3 or at least non-DRMed Windows media format.
I think you need to revisit this issue and read up on the effects and laws surrounding monopolies and anti-competative bundling.
Man- you are implicitly trusting that the evidence you see is complete and unaltered. All a corporation has to do is buy enough scientists (or back those who naturally believe in and do research supporting their causes) and you will buy it.
Nope. You see they have to publish numbers and methodologies. Even if a corporation sponsors multiple groups to secretly produce false numbers and pretend to have done so independently, pretty soon someone else with credibility will try to reproduce those results as per the scientific method. When they publish differing results, even more people will try. So if the corporations can hire the majority of scientists to lie on an issue and completely hide their connection to them from all those who might be investigating, then they can trick me for a while, but that is pretty unlikely to last.
If you look at the preponderance of studies and data on the global warming issue you see the majority has a pretty clear indication of what is happening and strong evidence for why. If you disregard studies you strongly suspect are biased, from oil companies and done by people who have been caught lying in the past, the evidence becomes even stronger.
People used to be constrained by morality more.
This is probably true at different times, but morality is subjective. They have not been constrained as to ethics. The number of murders and rapes and child abuse has been steadily dropping and as near as we can tell is much lower than historical levels. Sorry, the good ole days, were old, but not very good unless you're looking at things with some serious rose tinting.
Even if they did something bad, most felt guilty about it. Today, many non-sociopaths seem to have less and less guilt because they don't agree with or share a common moral code- it's not that they can't distinguish right and wrong- it's that they have their own private morality of "whatever is good for me- is good."
So. It was commonly believed that murdering blacks was not a bad thing, in common ethical belief systems. It was right and proper to enslave people and subjugate women. Murder was commendable when the priest was the one telling you to do it. Just because a lot of people agreed to this, does not mean it was better.
I (and the parent poster) have lost the ability to trust or identify any "real credible" sources.
This is an excuse. You have to evaluate incoming information to the best of your ability using logical criteria. Neither you nor I will always be right, but we can't just give up and believe whatever or refuse to take any action on the basis that we are helpless. It is called personal responsibility. We have to do the best we can and accept the consequences when we're wrong. If you claim ignorance and ignore the issue of global warming, you're still responsible for the consequences of your actions in that regard. If we all die in the resulting cataclysm when no action is taken, you are in no way absolved of responsibility by your claims of ignorance.
How can we evaluate all the data if it is not present in the article?
If no data is given for a study we can't evaluate the data and you can ignore it if you're following the scientific method.
A list of broad, sweeping, generalizations about the way the planet is changing is not data.
The article linked to the study, which does contain the numbers including error and sources.
I really disapprove of the way the article talks about how the seas are heating up and then segeways into OH MY GOD GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD, then back into how the world is changing followed by more OH MY GOD GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD.
That is why I usually spend no more than a minute reading the article before moving on to the actual study, which is often much more informative and less sensational than the "news" articles derived from it.
By the way, did you know that Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction?
This is actually a very good example. All these claims were made without providing any data to back them up. Thus, we can dismiss them as probably untrue. The actual reports from intelligence agencies that have been released and which these claims were supposedly founded upon turned out to show that the evidence pointed to the opposite conclusion. Also, reports from other nations in the UN that were published indicated the opposite. Look for the data and evaluate it. Then look at other studies and their data to see if it has been independently confirmed. That is science.
How do scientists determine the temperatures from millions of years ago and what range of error do these readings fall within?
After a quick perusal of the actual study, and a look at the replies to your post, I thought maybe I'd give you a quick and dirty answer. The temperatures were determined historically via ice core sampling and correlated with land and sea temperature readings from around the globe. The range of error is approximately a 94% chance of being correct within 1 degree Celsius according to the numbers given in the study and some quick math on my part.
A business could fund unbiased research in the hope of being able to gain some insight into the most profitable direction for them to go. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have that much forsight these days.
Are you kidding? A lot of businesses fund unbiased research. The thing is, knowledge is power, so they rarely make these studies public.
That's the fundamental problem when trust breaks down isn't it.
I don't think so. The fundamental problem is when you base your beliefs on anything but evidence, verified by multiple parties.
It is why christian societies used to have an edge- a man's word was his bond. Even if he was evil- you could trust him to not break certain parameters.
You must not have read the same history books I did. I'd argue that small communities used to promote more accurate evaluation of data sources, since there were fewer people with who an individual interacted.
So many companies and governments have lied now- that we just can't trust them.
This has always been the case. The solution is a methodology that does not rely upon trusting any given party and which rewards truth. The scientific method combined with academia used to do just that. Now, it has been corrupted by government funding tied to political ambitions.
But since the fundamental research is selected with an agenda- we can trust the fundamental research less with each passing year.
I don't trust fundamental research unless it is verified not just by multiple independent sources, but multiple independent sources with real credibility. This particular study, for example, was conducted by NASA which has a good track record of findings that refute or are unbiased despite government pressure. By itself, that would not be sufficient, but it is just the same findings as has been reported by hundreds of other studies and is one more piece of pseudo-reliable evidence to consider.
His remark was not aimed at showing a given study wrong. His remark was aimed at showing that people on both sides of the issue are arguing opinion, not science.
Nope. He claimed the methodology could be determined by the funding source, but the methodology was given in the study. Thus he was advocating an unscientific method for evaluating a scientific study. Thus he was claiming something was not science without using the scientific or any logical method to determine that.
Q.E.D. Ironic, innit?
This is a very valid response to a post that claims a study is unscientific without any support for that assertion.
No it isn't. Showing a logical reason why a given study is wrong is science. Claiming all studies are wrong regardless of whether or not you can or bother to find fault with the actual data or methodology is simply FUD.
Yeah! Because, you know, artists shouldn't have the rights to control distribution of their own works!
Do you think in the US and the current copyright system most artists have that right now? Because most artists don't feel that way.
They should make stuff, and everyone else should be able just take it, because...well, because (alsoidon'tlikepayingformusic).
You're trying to be sarcastic, but it is funny because you're more or less right. The ability for me to copy or repeat anything I see and hear is a natural right. The right to restrict others from copying what I say or make is an artificial right, justified only by the practical advantages it brings to society. Copyright law is supposed to be a trade off where the natural rights of society are given up for a limited time in order to reward artists that bring benefits to society. Very few people who objectively view the issue believe that is the case right now. The Supreme Court, in fact, ruled that they do not believe that is the case, but due to a technicality in the wording of the amendment, are unable to rule the current laws unconstitutional even though they are harming society more than they are helping it in the opinion of that court.
Our current copyright system is doing irreparable harm to our society and stifling the arts and destroying our artistic heritage for the mild profit of a few. It is the duty of every citizen to motivate the reform of that system before more important works of art are destroyed forever. Our current laws are akin to standing outside the Smithsonian and slowly tossing items into a furnace outside that generates electricity for private companies and people like you who think those companies somehow have a right to the profit it brings them simply because they bought the laws they wanted; and people like you are part of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Prop 87 only taxes California oil production. The same taxes do not apply to oil purchased from out of state sources.
I thought it was in conjunction with taxes on imported energy of all sorts, but I've not read all the information as I'm not a Californian. If you're right, it's a shame.
It's very easy to be generous with other people's money. Prop 87 is backed by a group of already-wealthy "green" venture capitalists who know just how risky it is to invest in alternative energy and would rather not risk their own money.
I'd expect any such program to be horribly inefficient at redistributing the collected funds, but that is only half the benefit in any case. In general I was talking about how such a program is justified and could be beneficial. Please to not take my comments as endorsement of any particular legislation, especially legislation I've not read through. I don't expect Californians to get this one right, but they've surprised me before.
That's not true. It does harm me, because I am paying for the Medicare for the poor Coke-fatties who need diabetes and other expensive medical treatments on the taxpayer's dime. It also harms me indirectly, in terms of increased medical costs brought on by the increased demand on the medical system from the Coke-fatties.
That is a somewhat different argument, because it only harms you in conjunction with socialist health care costs, so stopping either would equally prevent it from harming you. As for increased health care costs in general, that is beyond the scope of government interference at all unless you want to move further away from capitalism.
In the case of oil burning, it directly contributes to lung cancer and other damage to people who don't burn any gas. In the case of coke, it harms only the drinker, but socialism spreads a small amount of the cost to all of society.
And you don't think that the Federal Government won't step in and strike this law down? I'll bet even the Dems will join in. ...then there's no way in hell the citizens of the other 49 states are going to pay higher gas prices so that Californians can have their clean air...
I don't know about that. This is simply taxing and price regulation. Didn't Hawaii cap gas prices without interference from the feds? That cost was passed on just the same, no? Or did the feds step in and take action. If so I never heard about it.
Or, if they can't get away with raising them in California, they'll just raise them for the rest of the country so we can all subsidize your green living?
Probably, except I don't live there so it is subsidizing their green living, not mine.
Why should the citizens of other states have to pay for California's environmental laws?
You're asking the wrong question. Since only Californians are voting on this, the question is: why shouldn't Californians vote to subsidize 90% of their alternative energy funding with income from other states?
Actually, the whole thing is very capitalist. Rely upon everyone to act in their own best interest. This one law can simultaneously pay back those who don't use fossil fuels for their decreased living conditions and increased risks and provide incentive for everyone in the US to both use less fossil fuels and pass laws like this that stop them from being one of the states subsidizing others and making them one of the states being subsidized. If done properly it could be a brilliant win for the environment. Too bad it will probably executed poorly and instead be a mediocre mess.
Sure. They will just have a price increase anyway and say it was for something else unrelated to the tax.
And what exactly, will they claim they need to raise prices in California to cover, but don't need to raise prices in Arizona?
Businesses never pay taxes. They just pass them on to consumers.
In this case, 90% of those consumers will be in other states. And all of those consumers will be the ones using gas, thus appropriately charging them for the damage they do to all of society and providing them with financial incentive to stop doing so as much as possible.
Wow, what a bullshit analogy. Exactly what purpose does shooting in the air in populous areas serve? How does it fuel our economy?
The analogy is apt for the aspect we were discussing, differing only by the degree of benefit and harm, not the principal. As for fueling our economy, it fuels bullet and firearm sales as well as the health care industry.
It's a criminal activity, and anyone doing it should be locked up in prison to rot.
So in principal if we passed a law banning burning fossil fuels, then it would be the same? Whether or not something is criminal is just a matter of how much society as a whole is against it and the legislature responds.
I ride my bike to work whenever I can. I'd love it if gas prices were $10 a gallon so that people were forced to change their lives and seek alternatives. But not if it's done at gunpoint by the government.
Capitalism cannot redress costs that are not charged to those who use the product. How much does the use of gasoline, that you do not use cost you in quality of living and risk? You don't think you should be compensated for that? What if you develop lung cancer and it is 100% proven it is due to smog from cars? Should you have to pay your healthcare costs or should those who poisoned you?
This proposition earmarks money for alternatives. So who gets to decide what projects get money, and how much they get? The government?
Yup, that half of this type of redress will be very inefficient, just like socialist programs. That does not mean that inefficiency should be an excuse to do nothing.
Do you want that sort of agency deciding where your dollars go?
If the alternative is my dollars stay in the pockets of those who burn fossil fuels, providing them incentive to keep doing so at my expense, yes.
I don't. I want to choose where my money goes. I feel that I can be a much better judge of what projects may be worthwhile.
That is not an option. This money either will be taken from those doing damage and inefficiently given to those trying to stop it, or it will remain in the hands of those doing the damage. Unless you can come up with a better solution or you honestly believe everyone who buys gas will contribute additional money to paying to clean it up, while those who don't use gas won't.
I want the freedom to give to the organizations I that I trust will do the best job.
Most of the benefit of this is simply taking money from those that use gas, and counting on them to act in their own best interest and try to use less. Your solution does not do that at all, and thus fails to achieve the same goals.
Why stop at oil? Why not tax all the car manufacturers, trucking companies, aviation industry, and each and every one of those people that uses oil everyday? That's right, it's not cool to hate 'Big Car', 'Big Truck', 'Big Plane'... just 'Big Oil'.
Actually, we do charge taxes differently depending upon the pollution output of each auto manufacturer's fleet. It is actually slightly more effective than just charging for gas used, since different vehicles have better or worse filtering and removal of greenhouse gasses per gallon of gas used.
You're dreaming if you think this law will work that way and no cost will be passed on. One way or another it will happen. As for being a 'smart move', that only applies if you think socialism is the smartest form of economical governance.
I just said, it is likely to be passed on, but not to just to gas users in CA, but throughout the country. As such, CA residents will actually pay about one tenth of this tax while the rest is pulled in from other states... unless those other states follow suit.
As for socialism, this is actually sort of the opposite of traditional socialism. Traditionally, socialism takes from all and provides for all, disproportionately. It basically counters wealth condensation to some degree. This actually charges the responsible parties for their behaviors, that are currently subsidized by all of society. In fact, I would like to coin a new term and call it reverse-socialism. It is not governed by self interest and lacks the efficiency of capitalism, but it also places costs on individual for their actions, rather than all of society.
If they are taxing the oil itself then you would be correct. I haven't dug into it but if they are taxing the oil companies' 'presence' in the state (like corporate headquarters, state-declared income, etc) then it might just happen that they move resources to areas of lower tax burden.
I'm pretty sure they're doing the former, as the latter could not control whether or not prices given to the consumers are increased.
Oil harms no-one, it sits in the earth and is drilled out.
Oil production and burning harms everyone, and that is what this tax addresses.
I'm not blaming oil companies for anything. I'm blaming oil use for the results of oil use. Using oil causes problems and presents the risk of other problems. This tax simply places a burden upon the chain of oil use, companies and through them users to provide reparations for those who don't use it. It will probably do a poor job of it, either imposing too high or too low a cost, but since banning polluting with oil is not practical, I'm not sure I see a better solution that does not impose costs inequitably.
Tax a business, their costs increase, they pass that charge onto their customers. If you are going to tax it, tax it at the pump so everyone knows about it.
So here's the deal. Right now Bob smith rides a bike to work instead of driving a car. His chances of developing health problems due to smog are not reduced by this. His chances of dying in a horrible disaster caused in part by global warming from greenhouse gasses are not reduced by this. He still has to put up with the unpleasant odor and unsightly pollution. Why is he paying the costs of gas user's bad habit? What if, instead of a bike, he drives an eco-friendly vehicle. It costs more but does not contribute to this problem. Why does he still have to pay for the problem then?
The answer is, using gas has costs to all of society, not just gas users. As such, it is appropriate in many people's minds to charge gas users a tax to repay that cost to society and particularly to those who do not contribute to the problem, like Bob. Labeling at as a tax, makes people think this money goes to the government, but in truth it indirectly goes to Bob and those like him and those developing solutions for those like him, repayment for not contributing to the problem, but putting up with it.
Know why gas went to $3/gal in the US?? Because PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO PAY IT.
True, the market is not subject to normal free market pressures due to certain parties ability to adjust the rate of production.
As for those 'cheaper alternatives', where are they. Ethonal?? I've read mixed reviews, some claiming it's the answer to everything, some claiming that the resulting agribusiness pollution might be worse than what comes out of our tailpipes now. Hybrid cars?? First, they cost more. Maybe their effective MPG makes up for some of it, but the anlysis I've seen says they are still more expensive in the long run once you start swapping out batteries. Biodiesel?? There is only so much french fry oil in the country.
The truth is, when gas becomes too expensive alternatives will be implemented. There is an initial barrier and infrastructure cost, but it can be overcome. This law helps overcome it while charging those who contribute to a societal problem and rewarding those who don't. It makes sense in principal, but may be unworkable in practice.
My fellow citizens of the USA have it easy -- just look at the price of gas around the world. This is one of the cheapest places to by it.
Yup. And one of the most expensive places if you don't buy it, because you still pay with increased risks and decreased cost of living, for the problems caused by others.
Increased costs are always passed on to consumers.
This is not completely true. Some products, including oil sell more often at the price people will pay than at what the market demands since someone (OPEC) can raise or lower the rate at which they pump it out of the ground to fine tune the price.
If oil production becomes less profitable, supply is reduced, and, guess what, the price goes up.
The price will probably go up if this passes, but nationally, or globally, not just in CA. Effectively all US gas consumers will be subsiding CA.
Anyone here remember gasoline rationing?
With Alaska, S. America, Russia, and US occupied Iraq in the picture, that just isn't going to happen mate.
While I definitely like the idea of strongly encouraging less oil consumption and less driving, the Libertarian in me says the government should stay out of it. If there's a profit to be made in alternative energy, someone will do it.
What does the libertarian in you say about people randomly shooting firearms in the air in populous areas, resulting in random deaths amidst all of society? Who should bear this cost, the people shooting or all of society?
Using gasoline is like shooting in the air. It pollutes the environment causing health and likely climate problems for all of society, not just those using it. It is not practical to ban it. It is not practical to tax everyone who uses gasoline, except by taxing gasoline itself. Right now if a person rides a bike every day, they are still forced to deal with the problems to their health and environment people using gasoline have caused. In effect, they are subsiding those who use it.
By earmarking this money for alternatives, you're paying back the users of alternatives for the detrimental effects of gasoline use that they are not contributing to and at the same time, passing that cost on to those who do use it. It is not ideal, because the level of subsidy is never going to be the exact same as the cost (which is already subjective). Still, it is a step in the right direction, IMHO.
It hardly seems logical to put the burden of this on the oil companies. While it is in their interests to eventually carry over into alternative fuel markets, taxing the crap out of them to force it defeats the free market and ultimately ends up punishing the consumer.
Actually, it does make sense in a way. Oil based fuels contribute to detrimental factors in our society that are not reflected in the cost of the product. For example, those selling and those burning fossil fuels do not pay for cleaning up the smog or for all the related health problems likely contributed to by oil. So while some person may ride a bike every day, or buy an expensive alternative vehicle, they are still also dealing with smog they did not create. Thus, they are actually subsidizing the oil companies and users. By taxing products that are detrimental to everyone, not just those that use them, some of those costs are brought back to the oil companies and oil users. The problem is finding the right balance.
As with many of these types of programs, it will drive California even higher into 'expensive to live in' status.
Nope. The law forbids them from raising the prices in California to make up for said cost, so in reality the cost will be borne by oil users in all the US, not just CA. This actually subsidizes the cost for CA residents at the expense of everyone else, a smart move on their part.
That is, if the oil companies don't just jump ship altogether for a more friendly state.
BT says to Shell, "Yeah we're going to stop selling into the multibillion dollar CA market, we'll pull out right after you do." Not going to happen.
This is just an attempt at the 'blame game' to punish oil companies and help California seem more 'progressive'. While they're at it why don't they tax Coca Cola so that we can find soda-alternative drinks!
So here's where this differs from a traditional "sin" tax. Usually, harmful products like alcohol primarily harm the user. Coca-Cola, for example, does not harm anyone who does not buy it. Oil harms everyone regardless of whether or not they buy it.
When a scientist lies, they get about a year or two before they're caught. At which point they lose all standing among fellow scientists, get barred from all reputable journals, and often lose their university/institute jobs.
I'm not sure this is at all accurate. For studies in very popular areas that do not move into new ground, maybe you're right. If you publish bogus data in the area of global warming, likely someone will catch you. What happens after that, however is by no means certain. You might get appointed to a cushy job in the executive branch of our government.
Anecdotally, my girlfriend was a biochemist. She studied neuromuscular diseases, cancer, and a variety of other subjects relating to genetics. In the course of her employment on various projects at two very well respected universities and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, she was asked to lie or falsify data at almost every one. Much of the time this was simply use a methodology that was obviously designed to skew the results and then sign off on a paper that failed to mention the nonstandard methodology and implied a more normal one. In other cases it was, increase all these numbers by 10% to make it seem more dramatic.
She reported several instances of this to the project heads (who usually had no actual involvement in the projects other than signing them). The result was a lot more concern about the possibility of her telling anyone than about stopping the falsification. None of the scientists involved lost their jobs and none of the papers were redacted. This includes studies in some very prestigious journals. Eventually my girlfriend left the field entirely in disgust. They hired on a young chinese woman to replace her at her last job who, one former coworker noted, was quiet and submissive and needed a sponsor to stay in the country.
The problem with the scientific community in the US is that so much of it is influenced by a single organization, the US government. They collect disproportionately high taxes and then attach stings to it to influence research before giving it back. Those that lie to get supposedly spectacular results get more money. Those that don't, don't get more grants. Doing research without grants is nearly impossible.
That does not mean that all scientific studies are lies, but it does make me more skeptical than you seem to be. In this particular case, I'd say there has been enough studies from around the world and reproduction of results to warrant treating many of them as established facts. In other cases, however, I'm not nearly as certain.
Yeah, because wikipedia is never wrong. That very article used to say PDF was an open standard, which it is.
Do tell me any way in which PDF is closed. It is completely documented. The trademark and patents are licensed for free to anyone following and version of the spec. There have been multiple GPL and closed proprietary implementations from numerous companies for years. The only possible argument I can think of is you can't make a new standard based upon PDF and be guaranteed protection from trademark infringement (same as Linux) or patent violations (same as Linux).
Actually, no. The iPod name came after the word podcasting was already floating around. The iPod is indeed the reason podcast became a household term, but Apple did not invent the usage. (Look the words up in Wikipedia, for a short history.)
According to wikipedia the term "podcast" was first used in early 2004, about 3 years after the iPod was released.
Citation, please.
Here's an example study. As an artist and a member of a very large professional association of artists I can certainly vouch for the opinions I've heard expressed.
So is control over what you make.
No it is not. Speaking only in terms of natural rights, if you write a song and sing it, you have no natural right to stop anyone else who heard you from singing it as well. It is part of freedom of speech. The only justification for censoring that speech is practical incentives for the greater good. If laws censoring that speech do not serve the greater good, they have no purpose or justification.
How can we evaluate data which is probably at least partially false. Several times studies like this have been caught ignoring data that didn't fit the viewpoint they were trying to advance. Several times studies have been discounted because big oil/tobacco backed them (even tho facts are facts, right?).
Ahh, but this data and the methodologies are presented and they are supported by hundreds of other studies that found the same.
Long term- science works- facts are facts. Short term- it is subject to group thinking, politics and even basically religious belief that certain concepts are right.
It has been several decades now that we've been looking at this issue and the community and studies do a good job of showing certain reliable facts, especially once studies that have been discredited when their results were refuted by dozens of people who tried to reproduce them are taken out. I think if you simply look at the studies and ignore all the press articles, it is pretty easy to see what is going on.
No, we didn't.
In the US they were convicted of antitrust bundling. In the EU they were convicted of antitrust bundling. Both cases focused on different instances of bundling, but it was the same crime.
Niether case was black-and-white and the two can not be compared. For example, the EU is particular about some details that are simply unreasonable (i.e. crippling the user experience by not allowing the packaging of a media player with a modern OS).
That is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. MS should no more be handed dominance in the Media player market because they have dominance in the desktop OS space than the electric company should be handed a monopoly on cookies because they have on one electrical distribution.
As for "crippling the user experience" MS sells product primarily to OEMs like Sony, Dell, Lenovo, HP, and Gateway. They are the ones mostly hurt by MS's bundling. They are the ones who should choose what media player to bundle and it would enhance the user experience not cripple it. The OEMs are motivated to pick the best player or combination of players because otherwise their customers might move to another company. MS is not motivated to pick or develop the best player if they are given the choice. They are motivated to pick the one that makes them the most money.
In particular, most consumers rip their CDs to DRM-constrained Windows media format, because of MS's bundling action. This results in loads of consumer frustration since it means a significant number have to re-rip their music when they find out they can't move it to another computer or onto their portable player (not supported by the iPod which has 70% or so of the market). If the OEMs had been given an equal choice as to which player(s) to include consumers would have not only gotten a better player, but MS would have been motivated to make a better player to influence their decision. There is a good chance it would rip files to MP3 or at least non-DRMed Windows media format.
I think you need to revisit this issue and read up on the effects and laws surrounding monopolies and anti-competative bundling.
Man- you are implicitly trusting that the evidence you see is complete and unaltered. All a corporation has to do is buy enough scientists (or back those who naturally believe in and do research supporting their causes) and you will buy it.
Nope. You see they have to publish numbers and methodologies. Even if a corporation sponsors multiple groups to secretly produce false numbers and pretend to have done so independently, pretty soon someone else with credibility will try to reproduce those results as per the scientific method. When they publish differing results, even more people will try. So if the corporations can hire the majority of scientists to lie on an issue and completely hide their connection to them from all those who might be investigating, then they can trick me for a while, but that is pretty unlikely to last.
If you look at the preponderance of studies and data on the global warming issue you see the majority has a pretty clear indication of what is happening and strong evidence for why. If you disregard studies you strongly suspect are biased, from oil companies and done by people who have been caught lying in the past, the evidence becomes even stronger.
People used to be constrained by morality more.
This is probably true at different times, but morality is subjective. They have not been constrained as to ethics. The number of murders and rapes and child abuse has been steadily dropping and as near as we can tell is much lower than historical levels. Sorry, the good ole days, were old, but not very good unless you're looking at things with some serious rose tinting.
Even if they did something bad, most felt guilty about it. Today, many non-sociopaths seem to have less and less guilt because they don't agree with or share a common moral code- it's not that they can't distinguish right and wrong- it's that they have their own private morality of "whatever is good for me- is good."
So. It was commonly believed that murdering blacks was not a bad thing, in common ethical belief systems. It was right and proper to enslave people and subjugate women. Murder was commendable when the priest was the one telling you to do it. Just because a lot of people agreed to this, does not mean it was better.
I (and the parent poster) have lost the ability to trust or identify any "real credible" sources.
This is an excuse. You have to evaluate incoming information to the best of your ability using logical criteria. Neither you nor I will always be right, but we can't just give up and believe whatever or refuse to take any action on the basis that we are helpless. It is called personal responsibility. We have to do the best we can and accept the consequences when we're wrong. If you claim ignorance and ignore the issue of global warming, you're still responsible for the consequences of your actions in that regard. If we all die in the resulting cataclysm when no action is taken, you are in no way absolved of responsibility by your claims of ignorance.
How can we evaluate all the data if it is not present in the article?
If no data is given for a study we can't evaluate the data and you can ignore it if you're following the scientific method.
A list of broad, sweeping, generalizations about the way the planet is changing is not data.
The article linked to the study, which does contain the numbers including error and sources.
I really disapprove of the way the article talks about how the seas are heating up and then segeways into OH MY GOD GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD, then back into how the world is changing followed by more OH MY GOD GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD.
That is why I usually spend no more than a minute reading the article before moving on to the actual study, which is often much more informative and less sensational than the "news" articles derived from it.
By the way, did you know that Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction?
This is actually a very good example. All these claims were made without providing any data to back them up. Thus, we can dismiss them as probably untrue. The actual reports from intelligence agencies that have been released and which these claims were supposedly founded upon turned out to show that the evidence pointed to the opposite conclusion. Also, reports from other nations in the UN that were published indicated the opposite. Look for the data and evaluate it. Then look at other studies and their data to see if it has been independently confirmed. That is science.
How do scientists determine the temperatures from millions of years ago and what range of error do these readings fall within?
After a quick perusal of the actual study, and a look at the replies to your post, I thought maybe I'd give you a quick and dirty answer. The temperatures were determined historically via ice core sampling and correlated with land and sea temperature readings from around the globe. The range of error is approximately a 94% chance of being correct within 1 degree Celsius according to the numbers given in the study and some quick math on my part.
A business could fund unbiased research in the hope of being able to gain some insight into the most profitable direction for them to go. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have that much forsight these days.
Are you kidding? A lot of businesses fund unbiased research. The thing is, knowledge is power, so they rarely make these studies public.
That's the fundamental problem when trust breaks down isn't it.
I don't think so. The fundamental problem is when you base your beliefs on anything but evidence, verified by multiple parties.
It is why christian societies used to have an edge- a man's word was his bond. Even if he was evil- you could trust him to not break certain parameters.
You must not have read the same history books I did. I'd argue that small communities used to promote more accurate evaluation of data sources, since there were fewer people with who an individual interacted.
So many companies and governments have lied now- that we just can't trust them.
This has always been the case. The solution is a methodology that does not rely upon trusting any given party and which rewards truth. The scientific method combined with academia used to do just that. Now, it has been corrupted by government funding tied to political ambitions.
But since the fundamental research is selected with an agenda- we can trust the fundamental research less with each passing year.
I don't trust fundamental research unless it is verified not just by multiple independent sources, but multiple independent sources with real credibility. This particular study, for example, was conducted by NASA which has a good track record of findings that refute or are unbiased despite government pressure. By itself, that would not be sufficient, but it is just the same findings as has been reported by hundreds of other studies and is one more piece of pseudo-reliable evidence to consider.
His remark was not aimed at showing a given study wrong. His remark was aimed at showing that people on both sides of the issue are arguing opinion, not science.
Nope. He claimed the methodology could be determined by the funding source, but the methodology was given in the study. Thus he was advocating an unscientific method for evaluating a scientific study. Thus he was claiming something was not science without using the scientific or any logical method to determine that.
Q.E.D. Ironic, innit?
This is a very valid response to a post that claims a study is unscientific without any support for that assertion.
Ironically, that's what he's fighting.
No it isn't. Showing a logical reason why a given study is wrong is science. Claiming all studies are wrong regardless of whether or not you can or bother to find fault with the actual data or methodology is simply FUD.
Yeah! Because, you know, artists shouldn't have the rights to control distribution of their own works!
Do you think in the US and the current copyright system most artists have that right now? Because most artists don't feel that way.
They should make stuff, and everyone else should be able just take it, because...well, because (alsoidon'tlikepayingformusic).
You're trying to be sarcastic, but it is funny because you're more or less right. The ability for me to copy or repeat anything I see and hear is a natural right. The right to restrict others from copying what I say or make is an artificial right, justified only by the practical advantages it brings to society. Copyright law is supposed to be a trade off where the natural rights of society are given up for a limited time in order to reward artists that bring benefits to society. Very few people who objectively view the issue believe that is the case right now. The Supreme Court, in fact, ruled that they do not believe that is the case, but due to a technicality in the wording of the amendment, are unable to rule the current laws unconstitutional even though they are harming society more than they are helping it in the opinion of that court.
Our current copyright system is doing irreparable harm to our society and stifling the arts and destroying our artistic heritage for the mild profit of a few. It is the duty of every citizen to motivate the reform of that system before more important works of art are destroyed forever. Our current laws are akin to standing outside the Smithsonian and slowly tossing items into a furnace outside that generates electricity for private companies and people like you who think those companies somehow have a right to the profit it brings them simply because they bought the laws they wanted; and people like you are part of the problem.