Climate Change Thread

[Husar]

Why? We could give cap and trade another serious go, and it is in fact the closest thing available to a decentralized capitalist instrument. Even some libertarians recognize that this is the "free market" solution that they need, even if it's not the one they think they deserve right now.

Of course, then we get firms speculating off of derivatives of carbon shares, but that's a separate issue.

I meant that, when you sell, say, papers for the use of a billion tons of CO2 because that is the most that we can use without ruining the climate, and then someone buys a thousand, uses a thousand tons of CO2 in half a year and sells his paper to someone else, who then uses a thousand tons as well, and there are no checks or controls, then we may end up using two billion tons a year because the same papers are reused. Which is obviously not the idea I had in mind. The idea was just to create a market and artificially limit the "resource" 'CO2 output' so that people can't use it willy nilly and think about how much of it they want to use/can afford. The invisible hand of the market will then make sure putting CO2 into the air has the right price. The limit would obviously be based on the natural law of how much CO2 output nature can handle, so if companies plant lots of trees, they can buy more CO2 output in the future. You could also tax the living whatever out of fossil fuels, but that would be evil government interference and still not necessarily limit use to a level the planet can handle.

[Gilrandir]

The idea was just to create a market and artificially limit the "resource" 'CO2 output' so that people can't use it willy nilly and think about how much of it they want to use/can afford.

You could also tax the living whatever out of fossil fuels, but that would be evil government interference and still not necessarily limit use to a level the planet can handle.

Government(s) interfered enough forbidding incandescents and depriving consumers of choice. What about freedom of choice?

[Husar]

Government(s) interfered enough forbidding incandescents and depriving consumers of choice. What about freedom of choice?

Because the market always knows best?
This is exactly what I meant when I said long-term strategies instead of short-term profit are needed. A consumer who buys an incandescent because the market price is lower is not even necessarily helping his own financial interests in the long term. That's because the homo oeconomicus, who is the basis of the idea that the market always knows best, doesn't really exist...

Or to take another angle if you want, why should people be allowed to ruin the path of the country or continent?
Are you also in favor of complete legalization of guns and drugs to defend consumer choice? Why is Heroin banned?

A choice for an incandescent represents an energy consumption that is avoidable and could harm everyone, much like the choice to dump plastic in the ocean. In fact I think more should be done to prevent the latter, such as controlling the plastic load of ships when they leave and enter port and big fines if the difference is beyond a margin of error.

Is the strict adherence to capitalist doctrine worth the potential ruination of the planet?
My answer is if the market incentivizes behavior that leads to a destruction of the resources we require to live on this planet, someone has to step in. To say this will self-regulate is like saying Ebola will self-regulate before the host dies, you can see how well that works.

[Montmorency]

Are you also in favor of complete legalization of guns and drugs to defend consumer choice?

I am. But not to defend "consumer choice".

It's not the Soviet era. No one is going to be stealing incandescents to push on the black market.

[Gilrandir]

Because the market always knows best?
This is exactly what I meant when I said long-term strategies instead of short-term profit are needed. A consumer who buys an incandescent because the market price is lower is not even necessarily helping his own financial interests in the long term. That's because the homo oeconomicus, who is the basis of the idea that the market always knows best, doesn't really exist...

My reason to adhere to incandescents is not economic - I just don't like the twinkling kind of light ESLs emit. It feels uncomfortable and hospital-like.

Or to take another angle if you want, why should people be allowed to ruin the path of the country or continent?
Are you also in favor of complete legalization of guns and drugs to defend consumer choice? Why is Heroin banned?

Is using incandescents as harmful for human health as heroin and causes similar addiction?
Can you kill someone when you use incandescents like you can with a gun?
Your comparisons are invalid.

A choice for an incandescent represents an energy consumption that is avoidable and could harm everyone, much like the choice to dump plastic in the ocean. In fact I think more should be done to prevent the latter, such as controlling the plastic load of ships when they leave and enter port and big fines if the difference is beyond a margin of error.

There are many other things which harm nature even more and they are not banned. Why aren't plastic, gasoline, nuclear power plants banned?

My solution is apply economic factors to oust something which you consider harmful (make it more expensive) - but not outright ban it. Especially in case of incandescents whose perilous influence upon nature is waaaaaay smaller than oil extraction or exhaust gas pollution. And ESLs, btw, which contain mercury.

[Husar]

I am. But not to defend "consumer choice".

It's not the Soviet era. No one is going to be stealing incandescents to push on the black market.

Exactly, because they are not produced or imported anymore.
As for the legalization, what if the consumer makes a stupid choice?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2732004/
Is drug abuse to combat stress a choice a homo oeconomicus would make?
The "ultimate freedom" is anarchy, but only few people want it.

My reason to adhere to incandescents is not economic - I just don't like the twinkling kind of light ESLs emit. It feels uncomfortable and hospital-like.

ESLs? You probably mean CFLs - Compact Fluorescent Lights.
That's also a strawman or whatever because there are LEDs.

Is using incandescents as harmful for human health as heroin and causes similar addiction?
Can you kill someone when you use incandescents like you can with a gun?
Your comparisons are invalid.

Yes.
Yes.
No.

You should see how fast people run to find some incandescents on batteries when the lights go out at night.
If you inhale the exhaust fumes produced while powering an incandescent with fossil fuels for a year, you'll probably not be able to aim your gun before you drop to the floor.
You just need to think a bit further than the immediate circumstances, electric energy does not just come out of nowhere.

There are many other things which harm nature even more and they are not banned. Why aren't plastic, gasoline, nuclear power plants banned?

But that's what I just said in the part you quoted, we shouldn't stop at light bulbs, it has to be a slippery slope where we ban plastics or at least plastic waste, nuclear energy, coal and gas power plants, cars running on fossil fuels, having babies, overfishing, and so on.
Note that I did not say we should do it right now and destroy everything we built up, see the lightbulbs as a first babystep.

Make the planet great again!

My solution is apply economic factors to oust something which you consider harmful (make it more expensive) - but not outright ban it. Especially in case of incandescents whose perilous influence upon nature is waaaaaay smaller than oil extraction or exhaust gas pollution. And ESLs, btw, which contain mercury.

Exactly, that's why I switched CFLs for LEDs as soon as I could...
I haven't bought a new CFL in a long time and don't plan to do so ever again.
CFLs are just a distraction argument for people who missed or omit the existence of LEDs.

[Gilrandir]

ESLs? You probably mean CFLs - Compact Fluorescent Lights.
That's also a strawman or whatever because there are LEDs.


Exactly, that's why I switched CFLs for LEDs as soon as I could...
I haven't bought a new CFL in a long time and don't plan to do so ever again.
CFLs are just a distraction argument for people who missed or omit the existence of LEDs.

http://recyclenation.com/2015/01/how...le-light-bulbs, where:

While LED light bulbs do not contain mercury, many do contain other hazardous substances such as lead and arsenic. Despite this, most communities do not require you to recycle LEDs.

A strawman?
The problem with Westerners is that they don't (as you put it) "think a bit further than the immediate circumstances". You base your conclusions on the framework you know (and consider it universal) and then try to apply that grid onto other countries/cultures/mentalities - and are very surprised it doesn't work the way it works with them.

The most crucial things about using LEDs and CFLs (I called them ESLs - energy saving lamps, because I didn't know the proper word, so thanks for a prompt) is their recycling (the same source):

When it comes time to dispose of CFL light bulbs for whatever reason, make sure you get them to a recycling facility.

If you want to recycle LED light bulbs and ensure those dangerous substances do not enter the waste stream, you may have to hunt for a proper recycling facility.

There are no programs available to recycle incandescent light bulbs, so you will need to put them in the trash.

In Ukraine there is a great problem with garbage disposal in general to say nothing of recycling it. So what do you think will harm nature more IN UKRAINE: a thrown away incandescent or a LED (to say nothing of CFL)?

You should see how fast people run to find some incandescents on batteries when the lights go out at night.
If you inhale the exhaust fumes produced while powering an incandescent with fossil fuels for a year, you'll probably not be able to aim your gun before you drop to the floor.
You just need to think a bit further than the immediate circumstances, electric energy does not just come out of nowhere.

I may come up with similar nonsensical stories:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...irish-hospital
Does it mean we have to ban using ambulances and opt for having surgeries at home?

ANYTHING around us may cause death. Guns and drugs are more likely to do that (are more lethal, if you remember that semantic argument of ours ) than bulbs. Moreover, some other things which are (allegedly) as much harmful for people as those metioned - I mean alcohol and tobacco - are not banned. Why is that? Inhaling bulbs is more dangerous than smoking?

But that's what I just said in the part you quoted, we shouldn't stop at light bulbs, it has to be a slippery slope where we ban plastics or at least plastic waste, nuclear energy, coal and gas power plants, cars running on fossil fuels, having babies, overfishing, and so on.
Note that I did not say we should do it right now and destroy everything we built up, see the lightbulbs as a first babystep.

Make the planet great again!

Speak for your part of the planet and don't you poke your nose into mine.

And you seem to have missed my point: I was against OUTRIGHT BANS on things whose harmful influence upon the environment (or human health) is not much greater than of those you want to replace them with. If you want people to stop using them - phase them out with taxes, financial incentives to buy their safe counterparts, propaganda and other economic/ethical methods. BUT: leave people a choice. That's how democracy works, doesn't it?

[Montmorency]

That's how democracy works, doesn't it?

Well, no, it's completely tangential.

And dump-disposed LED have far less impact on soil and water than either CFL or incandescent in any form.