*** Official Global Warming Thread ***

[CoccoBill]

Well, I guess overpopulation is the underlying issue here, all the other ones derive from it. And wuf, again, I (and certainly not "my side", whatever that is) didn't propose a plan of action. I proposed _something_ must be done, which 50% of the candidates do not. If you have better alternatives than the ones I listed, I'd be happy to hear them.

[wufwugy]

Well, I guess overpopulation is the underlying issue here, all the other ones derive from it. And wuf, again, I (and certainly not "my side", whatever that is) didn't propose a plan of action. I proposed _something_ must be done, which 50% of the candidates do not. If you have better alternatives than the ones I listed, I'd be happy to hear them.

The only solution I think to be realistic enough is to deregulate markets on the margins. Eventually the cost of AGW effects will be higher than some other costs, and then people will throw money and intentions at them. Deregulation of markets allow this to happen more effectively and also allows for greater expansion of technology, which would make handling the problem easier.

As for the "pie in the sky" solutions (read: ones that won't happen in practice but are great in theory):

Privatize virtually everything. Fisheries and rain forests are getting stripped bare all the while governments yield autonomy over them. The regulations that governments tend to place on these are ineffective. One example for why this is the case is that the government of Brazil has deep incentive for its citizens to become wealthier and to not riot. This undermines its desire and ability to protect the rain forest. But private entities would not have the same incentive. Theirs would fall heavily on protecting the property. Privatization wouldn't halt all destruction of environments, but would produce better results than the current situation. Fisheries are an example of something privatization would help immensely. Rain forests are a tougher nut to crack, but they can still be cracked. It would involve tons of money from wealthy people in US and Europe buying up the property just to keep it safe, and some would involve making it easier for companies across the world to reforest and log, thereby reducing the price of lumber and disincentivizing logging the rain forest.

As for specific government policies, there really aren't that many that can address this. What we want is stuff that incentivizes growth of environmental-friendly energy yet doesn't deter market innovation within industry and doesn't increase costs. Cap and trade can do a small bit. Deregulation of nuclear can probably do a noticeable chunk. What we want to avoid are policies like Obama's famous "cash for clunkers." That wasn't specifically about energy savings, but the logic of it is used for energy stuff. The policies cost more energy even though they appear to be saving energy. They appear to save energy since people use more efficient products, but they cost more energy since the marginal benefit of continual use of the old product is much more energy efficient, yet that benefit is not realized because the product is replaced before it becomes uneconomical.

It seems counter-intuitive, but economic growth is a solution. The world needs inventors and innovators. The energy savings from ecommerce is incredible. It is but one example of innovations that come at a faster rate with more people engaging in the modern economy.

[CoccoBill]

So you do think there are things that could be done but you support a candidate that won't. Why?

[wufwugy]

So you do think there are things that could be done but you support a candidate that won't. Why?

The candidate I support falls significantly on the side of supporting policies that solve this and similar problems. What did I say that suggested otherwise?