Climate Change Thread

[Husar]

It will, in the end, go back to planning. If one is averse to planning, one can used government regulated capitalism that will ultimately amount to the same thing. Big tax breaks for pioneers to develop eco-friendly services. Then make these services available and attractive via tax breaks and thus cheaper prices. Then tax the hell out of those who don't switch to the new eco-friendly services.

When you say planned economy, I think of the kind where the government decides to produce a million green shoes next year and so on, not the kind where someone plans what to do beyond instant self-richification. The first usually leads to even more waste of resources, the second should probably be applauded.

[Pannonian]

When you say planned economy, I think of the kind where the government decides to produce a million green shoes next year and so on, not the kind where someone plans what to do beyond instant self-richification. The first usually leads to even more waste of resources, the second should probably be applauded.

I think of planned economy as the government deciding what to do with its human resources, a la the two world wars (particularly the second one). In particular its management of agriculture, which was based on a study of what an individual needs for sustenance, regearing the land to farm, and its effectiveness to the extent that, uniquely among Europe's warring countries, there were zero deaths in Britain from starvation over the course of the war. Much of that was due to continuing imports thanks to the merchant navies of the UK and allies, but agriculture was also made punishingly efficient by planning. Before anyone points out rationing, that's another aspect of a planned economy as well, but it was also one made possible by the planned agricultural economy (which drastically cut back on meat production, turning the land over instead to producing plant crops, which produced consumable calories far more efficiently).

[Montmorency]

And of course it would have to be possible to stop people from using their share and then selling it.

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.

[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.