"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:22

[HoreTore]

/facepalm/

It's an honest question, not an accusation or anything like that, IA.

The aim and (debatable) effect of a tax, in this case a carbon tax, is to reduce consumption in the market economy and usually increase consumption in government.

Given Myth's previous posts, I had the impression that he considers consumption in the market economy as bad, thus I would think a tax reducing that kind of consumption to be right up his alley. This works the same whether or not climate change is true, since the tax will lower consumption anyway.

[Fragony]

That's where the emission-trade comes in. The big guns can buy it off if they hand over protection-money, nothing happens in the end, they can pump as much CO2 as they want and the consumer gets the bill. Emission-rights speculations and outright fraud is very lucrative. It's one of the most refined pyramide-games ever.

[HoreTore]

That's where the emission-trade comes in. The big guns can buy it off if they hand over protection-money, nothing happens in the end, they can pump as much CO2 as they want and the consumer gets the bill. Emission-rights speculations and outright fraud is very lucrative. It's one of the most refined pyramide-games ever.

Hence the reason why the greens are far from happy with Kyoto.

We need to change our way of consumption, and Kyoto doesn't do that.

[Fragony]

Hence the reason why the greens are far from happy with Kyoto.

We need to change our way of consumption, and Kyoto doesn't do that.

They may not be happy but they are very happy with the global-warming hoax, scaring naive people is also very lucrative. A lot of the money from the immesion-rights rolls straight into their bankaccounts to lobby for useless windmills. Such a mignificant pie. Lying about the climate is a multi-billion business

[Husar]

Yeah, the emission trade is not a failure of the environmental protection groups but of the political and economic implementation.
What it should do though is redistribute money to industries which reduce their emissions, thus making their product cheaper than those from industries which have to pay for their high emission levels. Whether that is actually noticeable or relevant I don't know though.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, the emission trade is not a failure of the environmental protection groups but of the political and economic implementation.
What it should do though is redistribute money to industries which reduce their emissions, thus making their product cheaper than those from industries which have to pay for their high emission levels. Whether that is actually noticeable or relevant I don't know though.

For us westerners, production costs in China are pretty irrelevant. You as a consumer won't notice it if the Chinese factory increases or decreases its production costs by, say, 20%.

I don't see product price as the problem. What's more of a problem is that we buy one, and then buy a new one a year later because the first one stops working. We've stopped producing durable items, that needs to be changed. Furniture is a good example here. Compare the furniture you've bought with the furniture your grand-parents bought. The drop in quality is extreme. If I buy a table now, it'll get wobbly within a few years. My fathers dinner table, inherited from the 20's, is as sturey as it was when it was made.

Capitalism encourages mass-producing low quality products, and that's the major problem IMO. Furniture, iPhones, cars, etc. All of it is crap, and intended as crap.

[Husar]

What's more of a problem is that we buy one, and then buy a new one a year later because the first one stops working. We've stopped producing durable items, that needs to be changed. Furniture is a good example here. Compare the furniture you've bought with the furniture your grand-parents bought. The drop in quality is extreme. If I buy a table now, it'll get wobbly within a few years. My fathers dinner table, inherited from the 20's, is as sturey as it was when it was made.

Capitalism encourages mass-producing low quality products, and that's the major problem IMO. Furniture, iPhones, cars, etc. All of it is crap, and intended as crap.

I wanted to bring that up at first but was afraid to derail the topic. I agree with all of this. My dad just lost a drilling machine that was about as old as me, most of the stuff you can buy nowadays wouldn't last anywhere near as long. A lot of the parts are even intended to fail by adding low quality parts on purpose.
What I do like in this regard are services which buy old electronics and either resell them after some refurbishing or recycle them so the rare materials in them can be used again.

And Fragony, I don't care as much about whether global warming is manmade or not, I care about cars and their emissions being harmful to pretty much everything and the same is true for many factory exhaust gases. Not everything we pollute the air with is actually completely harmless and if we can find better alternatives, why not use/encourage them?

[Montmorency]

And Fragony, I don't care as much about whether global warming is manmade or not, I care about cars and their emissions being harmful to pretty much everything and the same is true for many factory exhaust gases. Not everything we pollute the air with is actually completely harmless and if we can find better alternatives, why not use/encourage them?

Gutmensch socialist ferret international apocalypse windmills!

Furthermore: Eurabia quality intellectualoco media!

[Fragony]

Yeah, the emission trade is not a failure of the environmental protection groups but of the political and economic implementation.
What it should do though is redistribute money to industries which reduce their emissions, thus making their product cheaper than those from industries which have to pay for their high emission levels. Whether that is actually noticeable or relevant I don't know though.

By placing windmills that are not only harmfull for the enviroment, and run on tax rather than wind? For something that doesn't exist? There is no (manmade) global warming it's a hoax. There is no real rise in temperature (0.2 I believe in a century, now it's cooling down) there are no melting icecaps, there no rising sealevels. There are only people who get really rich from it, and pass the bill.

Can I get a Rolex with this https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&s...IWcL20XiulM%3A

Lotsa industrial periods, or it is of course perfectly normal that it occasionally warms up or cools down. For the historians among is, medieval warmth rings a bell? What what was that, an industrial period, cow-farts perhaps

[Myth]

It's an honest question, not an accusation or anything like that, IA.

The aim and (debatable) effect of a tax, in this case a carbon tax, is to reduce consumption in the market economy and usually increase consumption in government.

Given Myth's previous posts, I had the impression that he considers consumption in the market economy as bad, thus I would think a tax reducing that kind of consumption to be right up his alley. This works the same whether or not climate change is true, since the tax will lower consumption anyway.

I don't view consumption as bad or good, I view it as necessary. What I want is for our needs to be met with manufacturing and energy that are clean and go hand-in-hand with our beautiful planet.

However this tax will do none of those things. The money will go somewhere, and it will mostly condition people that being taxed on externally imposed guilt is OK. Next thing you know, there will be "fat tax" because people feel guilty that they are fat.

The big polluters - petroleum based chemical industry, hevy MFG and resource excavation and treatment, power plants will all keep on truckn' and making money. That tax will do jack to stop them or make them consider alternative ways of doing their thing.

Seriously, the only way for alterntive energy and manufacturing to be developed is for us to run out of oil and coal reserves.

[HoreTore]

Human behaviour is determined in a large part by economic realities. If you want to change human behaviour, you cannot avoid economic incentitives.

In addition to supporting taxes on pollution, I also support taxes on stuff like sugar products. Raise the tax on the bad stuff, and we'll choose the good stuff.

[Visor]

Human behaviour is determined in a large part by economic realities. If you want to change human behaviour, you cannot avoid economic incentitives.

In addition to supporting taxes on pollution, I also support taxes on stuff like sugar products. Raise the tax on the bad stuff, and we'll choose the good stuff.

Surprisingly enough I agree with Horetore's principle. If they make less money off fossil fuels and more off sustainable sources, they'll choose that. Image is important as well and companies will do anything to get ahead, even taking a loss to ensure future profits.

[HoreTore]

Surprisingly enough I agree with Horetore's principle. If they make less money off fossil fuels and more off sustainable sources, they'll choose that. Image is important as well and companies will do anything to get ahead, even taking a loss to ensure future profits.

Transportation is an obvious example on this. The cheaper my train is and the more costly my car is, the more likely it is that I will take the train to work instead of driving.

Of course there are exceptions to this as well, economic incentitives don't always work as intended(morals also play a part, for example). And of course, I sold my car in 2010. I didn't do it on economic grounds, I did it for moral reasons... Been a happy pedestrian ever since!

[Visor]

Transportation is an obvious example on this. The cheaper my train is and the more costly my car is, the more likely it is that I will take the train to work instead of driving.

Of course there are exceptions to this as well, economic incentitives don't always work as intended(morals also play a part, for example). And of course, I sold my car in 2010. I didn't do it on economic grounds, I did it for moral reasons... Been a happy pedestrian ever since!

Certainly. Public transportation is a great alternative. I just wish they introduced more of it.

[Visor]

I have no idea if any of this is relevant, I've barely skimmed the thread, but here is my opinion.

A carbon tax is designed to tax big polluters with the idea that they will want to lessen emissions by finding better, more sustainable ways of fueling their work, and that the money from the tax will be put into environmental research and aid to help ensure that that the system is cycle of benefit.

The end goal of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions, and I believe if enforced it should have the effect it wants. More reward for sustainable design should be introduced as incentive possibly. Maybe limits as well, where if they pass a certain threshold for a set amount of time, they pay less for the next year or so. I don't know how exactly to solve the issue, but it is a right step towards getting funding and also reducing the harm we do.

[HoreTore]

I have no idea if any of this is relevant, I've barely skimmed the thread, but here is my opinion.

A carbon tax is designed to tax big polluters with the idea that they will want to lessen emissions by finding better, more sustainable ways of fueling their work, and that the money from the tax will be put into environmental research and aid to help ensure that that the system is cycle of benefit.

The end goal of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions, and I believe if enforced it should have the effect it wants. More reward for sustainable design should be introduced as incentive possibly. Maybe limits as well, where if they pass a certain threshold for a set amount of time, they pay less for the next year or so. I don't know how exactly to solve the issue, but it is a right step towards getting funding and also reducing the harm we do.

The main problem with it, as I see it, is that it relies on market mechanisms to solve the issue.

The free market doesn't work, bring back the good ol' government sledgehammer to hammer through change.

[Visor]

The main problem with it, as I see it, is that it relies on market mechanisms to solve the issue.

The free market doesn't work, bring back the good ol' government sledgehammer to hammer through change.

Yeah, I agree with you there. Free market is useless for these kinds of things.