I see 'ole Barry, the oil Baron, looking back and forth between an enormous pile of money and the watery eyes of future generations, weighing his options.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Printable View
I see 'ole Barry, the oil Baron, looking back and forth between an enormous pile of money and the watery eyes of future generations, weighing his options.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
ol barry's billions are responsible for heightened living standards of future generations. what would make that not the case? well, i guess if you burned it.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
By inheriting his oil empire from his father Tyler, the oil tycoon, just last week? I'm not seeing it.
savings = future consumption. you'd have to burn the money or something for it to not eventually get dispersed throughout the entire economy.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
also the money has no inherent value, it represents production. so even if scrooge mcduck sits on his pile of cash, his acquisition of that cash represents increased production in the economy, which is equivalent to increased wealth in the economy.
Tyler was only a late in life oil baron. His wealth came from his life as a financier specializing in corporate takeovers, LIBOR interbank investments, and a nicely timed get in early get out early position on ENRON (and his inheritance, of course).
perfect response. possibly the main reason people started hating the wealthy is because they no longer equate them with producers of products like henry ford or whatever, but now equate them with "do-nothings" like hedge fund managers. still, the idea that financial markets and high end corporate stuff is making money for nothing is a myth. even the stuff the populace hates is productive work. i can't explain it nearly as well as i would like though, so i'll leave it at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
the fun thing about supply and demand is that even when it looks like something is coming from nothing, it's not.
Tyler's brother very cleverly understood supply and demand. He showed it when he once deflated the supply and inflated the demand for aluminum by buying up huge orders of them and putting them in storage.
It's a neat fantasy, but it doesn't actually work. Consumers (and producers) move to alternatives. The long run supply of aluminum is higher than otherwise while the long run supply of alternatives is lower (not accounting for growth of both from innovation). Engagement diamonds are the closest real world example we have to your illustration, but it isn't analogous since the high cost is the allure. Besides, the greater the "natural" demand for aluminum, the more your supply restrictor loses when he doesn't sell. It's just like how the best way to punish racists is to keep it legal for them to hurt themselves by not hiring or servicing productive/paying black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Your tycoon sounds like more of a bad businessman who needs a good market to kick his ass.
Sowell's stuff talks about this a lot. Money-changers have been a hated group since time immemorial. Middle-men as well. But it turns out that middle-men are extremely valuable to the economy, and there's a reason why the first high rise building in any 10%+ annual GDP growth city is almost always a bank.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It should be added that restricting supply for profit is absolutely terrible business practice. It does not work. Profits grow so much better by expanding and innovating abundance. This myth of the nefarious billionaire keeping deliciousness from people is just, well, a myth.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertle...um-production/Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
edit dammit, I remembered it differently!
That doesn't make your point. There's more to the story (as always) and lots more to the economics of it than I understand.
To put it simply, the logic that it's wrong to store a good for benefit means we should also say it's wrong to save or invest. So yeah, if you have any equity in anything and if you don't spend your entire paycheck each week, you're hurting people. The truth is the opposite. Competition of "selfish" behaviors is fantastic for people because it results in more abundance and variety than otherwise.
I'm glad we could derail this conversation on global warming so far. Thanks for proselytizing.
How are regulations blocking the free market from fixing the climate?
There isn't anything to fix. The projected effects are either unknown or not as bad as many say. The doom of climate change loses its appeal when you try to figure out exactly what would happen. Even if government regulators were the answer, they wouldn't be able to fix anything since nobody knows what there is to fix or what would fix that.
The broad answer for how regulators stifle "fixing the climate" is in reducing economic growth. Invention and innovation are the only solutions in the long run. The more economic freedom we have, the more of those we get. As usual, the food industry is a good example. Crops are continually becoming more resilient, more nutritious, and with higher yields because of innovation by companies. In the context of global warming, where arable land would likely decrease, farm innovation is what would keep the denominator growing, as it has been.
Additionally, the wealthier a society, the more resilient and capable of bouncing back from tragedies it is.
Another answer is in the tragedy of the commons like discussed in ocean life. "Common" property is nearly impossible to protect because of how incompatible the "common" interests are. But private property is easy to protect. If we let people just own things, then we'd see far less ecological destruction.
If global warming really is doomsday, the only way we fix it is with technology far beyond what we have today. This means that the goal should be to empower the engine that invents and innovates and creates wealth. Also, I'm not horribly against the government spending on research. However, its role should be exclusively in untapped areas, perhaps like basic research at CERN. But once the market wants to get its hands on a technology and manipulate it for consumer goods, the government needs to let it happen.
^The issue is ending fossil fuel use. We know fairly well what will happen, just not how fast and severe the effects are. We totally have the technology and means to avoid worst case scenarios and make it all manageable, all that's lacking is will.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-here-20150805
I think its more like the state itself makes its harder for the free market to address climate change. For example, most world energy is produced by the public sector, and it is a well-known fact that public sector jobs have a lot of inertia. Yes, governments do a lot to subsidize alternate forms of energy but that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of energy production is fossil-based and produced by governments. Privatize energy and expect it to get cleaner and more efficient. There's just no reason not to. The private sector is doing a fine job producing all the food we eat, there's no reason it couldn't provide our energy as well. It would be one thing if the state was giving away electricity for free to the poor, but last I checked everybody had to pay his electric bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
All that said, I think the bigger factor is just the idea of land as a common good. So much of the land on earth is owned by no one in particular. A huge percentage of the oceans is owned by no one in particular. It is very difficult to protect an environment that no one has a vested interest in, particularly when there can be such a profit in trashing it. Obviously the governments of the world could simply start doing a better job curbing pollution, but, to put it scientifically, generally people care better for their own shit than they care for someone else's shit.
The claim that we have the capacity to go green within, say, just a few decades, is not factually accurate. The amount of damage we would do to peoples' lives by instituting fully green policies within, say, two decades, would be far greater than the amount of damage from even the worst current projections.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
One day we will no longer use fossil fuels. That day will only come after technology is far greater than today. Markets are the only friend to those who think AGW is the most important issue to tackle. I just hope one day they'll realize it.
^You got me, what's more important?
There's a lot of middle ground between fully green in 20y and not doing anything. Cutting emissions by a third in 20y instead of increasing them by the same amount, which is the current rate, might be a nice start.
There are big reasons why green energy isn't as green as we'd like to think.
E.g.
The manufacturing of solar panels, from the mining of the ores all the way to distribution of final product, leaves a huge ecological imprint that is hard to reconcile as a net positive. Much more efficient solar panels could offset this cost to the point of an acceptable compromise, but it's not really on the technological horizon, yet.
I'm not studied in wind turbine technology, but I imagine there are similar problems with manufacturing costs offsetting the "green" advantage of the operating turbine.
Both of these suffer from the cost of scaling. The amount of effort and dedicated land to create enough power to match current demands (much less projected demands) is many times the current system's footprint. The man-hours to maintain the facilities would be much greater, though. There goes the argument about jobs.*
***
I'd wager that it's in the economic interest of energy producers to do so as efficiently as economically possible. I know that Ameren UE (the local electric company in St Louis) has a physics research lab. It is a much sought after job in the field as they are doing real, practical work in pushing the frontier of green energy.
I believe that the people who care about solving the problem are replacing the baby boomers at a rapid rate. The notion that people act without cognizance of the ecological consequences is diminishing.
*I never put much faith in the argument about jobs. It seems to imply that the jobs today are the same jobs there have always been and ever will be. Societies change and the jobs they need change to suit. The transition can be rough on individuals as a society changes, but that is part of progress.
I think you may have misread me. I said that to environmentalists who think AGW is the most important issue, markets are the most effective tool to fix that issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Markets are how it would happen. No amount of trying to ignore costs will keep fossil fuels in the ground. If some fossil fuels will remain in the ground that would be otherwise cost-effective to extract, it would come only by such incredible innovative production and distribution that a different energy source beats out fossil. So far it's a pipedream to see a world like this in even 50 years. The technology and innovation really is that hard.Quote:
There's a lot of middle ground between fully green in 20y and not doing anything. Cutting emissions by a third in 20y instead of increasing them by the same amount, which is the current rate, might be a nice start.
Besides, the truth is that we will need geoengineering to fully solve the problem. It's probably a good idea to get started now, to grow as quickly as we can so that when if there ever is a doomsday, we'll actually have the ability to beat it. Half-assed (even full-assed) regulatory attempts to stymie fossil fuel use will just make it harder to fix the problem by decreasing growth in technology, all the while the globe would just get warmer and warmer.
There's a plentiful carbon-free energy source we have available right now, nuclear. Waste management is a bit of an issue but nothing that couldn't be fixed. Too bad it's in the same category as other poorly understood dangerous sounding technologies like GMOs and vaccines. Chernobyl's current death toll estimate is around 35 people (25 plant personnel from the explosion and direct radiation, around 10 due to thyroid cancer). Fukushima's death toll is 0, which if anything is a testament to how safe nuclear is. Huge earthquake and a tsunami hit a poorly managed reactor using antiquated 70s technology, and basically nothing happens.
I agree we could expand nuclear a lot. The dent into AGW it would do is relatively small though. It could only beat coal on cost in some parts of the world, it would do nothing to oil (which is the most important fossil fuel), and it would do nothing to livestock.
Probably the biggest dent over this century will be Tesla-style battery/coal/solar for cars and continuing greater efficiency in every industry.
Nuclear is hands down the cleanest and safest solution, when measured in potential impact on the environment per kWh produced.
The notion that no one died after Fukushima is misunderstanding the severely long-term effects of radiation poisoning. Increased risk of cancer is the most common result of low to moderate exposure. This is impossible to detect on an individual basis. It's usually found by looking at history and seeing that there were 100 cases of cancer when only 80 were expected. So we can surmise that 20 of the cancers were due to radiation exposure, but we're not sure which of the 100 were the 20.
It is true that the Chernobyl disaster released much more radiological material, and almost entirely into the atmosphere, which carried it across the landscape. The Fukushima disaster released 1/10 as much and mostly into the ground and sea. This isn't great, but much less dangerous than the air.
Even still, my opening statement holds. There are deaths and risks in all power production. The Exxon and BP oil spills have had a huge ecological impact that is hard to compare to radiation exposure. The amount of CO2 spewed into the air as a daily operating procedure by coal plants can't be ignored.
Nuclear is the best power. Nuclear is [insert nationality]! Nuclear is how to win all the things! Go nuclear!
Governments virtually ensure that nuclear innovation will be as slow as possible, if not non-existent. AFAIK the only country making any meaningful progress for nuclear is China, probably because they have a billion fucking people who will all be middle class energy users within a generation or two. The stakes are high for them. In America, researchers can't touch nuclear. There's loads of potential in thorium-based fission power, but the work on that was shelved like 70 years ago because it wasn't useful for creating weapons.
TED talked about ways to rapidly control the Climate by filling the upper atmosphere with sulphur dioxide. Some volcanic explosion distributed a massive amount of sulphur dioxide droplets in the upper atmosphere which assuredly and rapidly decreased the temperature of the planet. So we've managed to pencil and paper a hack to get us out of yet another mess.
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...global-warming
In other news:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Quote: "I won’t let anyone take us backward, deny our economy the benefits of harnessing a clean energy future, or force our children to endure the catastrophe that would result from unchecked climate change.”
Senator Ted Cruz
Quote: “According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years.”
Senator Bernie Sanders
Quote: “It’s time for a political revolution that takes on the fossil fuel billionaires, accelerates our transition to clean energy.”
Donald Trump
Quote: “I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change.”
This is a pretty good article, and it has excellent linksQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
If I can break this down into "your side" and the "other side," I think your side is fighting for a Pyrrhic victory and the other side is fighting for a real victory even though it loses them the Pyrrhic victory. Let me explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Why does it matter if people acknowledge anthropogenic global warming? What good will it do? The answer is that it won't do any good, yet it will make people feel good. The proposed solutions in so-called green and renewable energy are not solutions. In fact, they make things worse, sometimes by being uneconomical (and creating more waste that way) or having hidden carbon footprints higher than the traditional alternatives.
The other side sees giving an inch on this Pyrrhic victory as only making things worse since it would increase the amount of problems caused by these uneconomical alternatives by getting more people behind them. Furthermore, the problems that can be solved, both in humanity and with regards to AGW, are more likely to be solved through traditional methods because of their economical nature.
Something to keep in mind: there are conservationists and environmentalists. They have a great deal of overlap in what they care about. On those issues, the former are typically successful at preserving what they intend and the latter are not. The different techniques they use are similar to the different techniques proposed in the climate change debate.
^Well, I see it differently. "My side" acknowledges a problem that needs addressing, the "other side" does not. What should be done and what would be viable are a subject for an entirely different discussion, first we must decide to act.
What we could do, right now, for example:
- Replace coal and natural gas with nuclear, solar, geothermal, wind etc.
- Carbon taxes
- Emission and fuel economy regulations
- Stop deforestation
- Carbon harvesting and storage
What you're in essence saying, is that not all of those methods are viable or economical, so we shouldn't do anything. I might be in agreement that it's starting to be too late avoid a shitty outcome, but I don't have any stock options to lose on fossil fuels, and I do actually give a damn, so I'm all for at least trying.
This isn't my point. I think doing what you propose is not economical and taking a handful of measures that the typical environmentalist doesn't like are the economical ones and would have positive benefit on the AGW issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
It isn't too late. The "outcome" hasn't been assessed by those who claim it's coming. Additionally, it's important to weigh both outcomes. As far as I can tell, the outcomes that would come from the proposed solutions would be a far greater disaster than what it seems could possibly happen in a worst-case scenario.Quote:
I might be in agreement that it's starting to be too late avoid a shitty outcome
The proposals by your side don't address the problem. This is why I call it Pyrrhic. The other side tends to not think there is a problem that needs addressing. Some of this comes from ignorance and some comes from not wanting to fan the flames of your side's fervor in addressing the problem wrongly. Where the other side is largely ignorant on the existence of climate change, your side is largely ignorant on effective measures to deal with it.Quote:
Well, I see it differently. "My side" acknowledges a problem that needs addressing, the "other side" does not.
This can work in only small ways. At this point, it would make the economies and a large number of people in the West significantly worse off and it would make billions in developing countries so much worse than that that westerns would have a hard time fathoming it.Quote:
Replace coal and natural gas with nuclear, solar, geothermal, wind etc.
Cap and trade has benefit here, but carbon taxes do not. Cap and trade can provide incentive to economize on energy in ways that could put a minor dent (but a dent nonetheless) in global emissions. A carbon tax would result in a reduction of living standards for the average person and a transfer of wealth and power to those whose behavior is not cost prohibitive from the tax.Quote:
Carbon taxes
These tend to result in higher indirect emissions and many unintended consequences. Here is a video claiming that electric cars create a greater negative externality than gas cars. This is only one small aspect of the topic you mentioned.Quote:
Emission and fuel economy regulations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17xh_VRrnMU
This would be great, but environmentalists would cringe at what it would take to actually get this done. Sadly, they probably wouldn't cringe at how much worse off their proposed methods would make people in developing countries. In developed countries, reforestation can be a thing, but it's not on the environmentalism radar. If you would like my opinion on why, I can give it, but I'm not giving it now because it involves insulting the typical environmentalist for their ignorance.Quote:
Stop deforestation
This is ungodly expensive. It's not hyperbole to say that doing this to any effective level would throw the modern world into chaos and living standards would plunge to depths not know for a long, long time.Quote:
Carbon harvesting and storage
The only real hope regarding sequestration would be an economy so robust and advanced that it develops the technology to do so. Creating an unending crisis in the economy won't do that.
@CoccoBill: Your first paragraph is right on the money.
All those other methods are a drop in the bucket. The only real, clean, safe solution is nuclear.
The problem is that it's really hard to convince people that the constantly spewing smokestacks are more dangerous to everyone's health than isolated incidents of nuclear disasters.
World leaders love to over leverage their resources. Why cut back on the raw productive labor of fossil fuels when you can leverage its wealth surplus to counter-act its rot?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
See?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Leaders of the world know how to bounce from bigger and bigger sources of power until they summit. If the only solution to climate change is to slow down, it's never going to be accepted across the world's leadership.
Even today, Putin reaffirmed that he's going to see his country suffer economically for this year and the next, and for as far as I can tell, it's because he knows how to hold power and it has nothing to do with suring up the economics of Russia.
edit I would like to add, I do admire their ability to leap from power to bigger power and can't say with any sense that there isn't a solution to be had - just that that's the gamble we're in and all I've got is to find a sense of our luck.
It wouldn't be accepted by anybody, including you and me. The people, including every non-ultra-hippie-homeless, would revolt, even the ones who today think AGW is the worst thing the world has ever seen. If the people were serious about combating AGW like they say, they'd have to do things like give up their iphones. Fat chance that would happen, and not just because they would have abandoned the crusade long before it came to that since they'd be getting damn hungry and damn tired of having such huge costs for things they today take for granted.
I think I would, if it came to that. I'm adaptable, just resistant to forfeiture. I'll admit I've become mindful of eating less meat on the back of common media talking about meat being a great vector of attack for cutting emissions.
I'm thrilled to see that you're cognizant of how it relates on a personal level. I'll add that I think cutting back on meat represents <0.01% of the amount of cutbacks it would take.
There would be comedic irony at least. Can you imagine how great the protest from the "health foods" crowd would be once organic farming is abolished due to its cost-ineffectiveness and carbon footprint? Combine this with about million other equal-to-greater problems, and you get some sense as to why the problem just will not be solved by economic cutbacks.
Nature will force people to cut back. And human nature has us on a course of over-leveraging ourselves as far as we can go. Will we make it to the stars? Will we filter the atmosphere? Will we move cities and adapt to an ever changing planet?
Who knows!
I do. No, maybe, yes.
It could. I don't think it would though. Markets are a pseudo-natural phenomenon, and they have the nature to solve these sorts of problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
On the issue of AGW, does it? People talk about worst-case scenario problems like mass ice sheet melt as if they're unable to be mitigated and as if measures to stop them provide only net benefit. But really what we're looking at is the cost of turning the world into the Netherlands or the far greater cost of dropping economic activity enough that ice sheets won't melt.Quote:
And human nature has us on a course of over-leveraging ourselves as far as we can go.
Eventually, we're gonna see global carbon use on the decline because of technology. Maybe in 2100 there will be significantly less Antarctic ice and there will be some other great distortions like in seafood, but I'm sure people won't give a shit since they'll be rigged to virtual reality for virtually everything and carbon emissions will be dropping enough that some other disaster like toxic breathable levels of CO2 in the air will not be reached (if there's even enough carbon to burn to get to that ridiculously high PPM in the first place).
Over-fishing of the oceans is probably a larger long term extinction event risk than any carbon emissions. And it, unlike global warming, does not have any foreseeable imminent solutions. All that has to happen for global warming to slow down is for humans to become rich enough to be willing to pay for carbon sinks. The over-fishing problem is intrinsic to the concept of having a resource that is owned-by-nobody-in-particular.
I should like to know more.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
This article gets academically technical things (example: markets) remarkably wrong. It's as bad as if somebody wrote an article on how gravity is wrong and he egregiously mis-defines gravity to the point that the idea isn't coherent to physicists in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Pretty good site.
https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status...35525169930241
We gonna need that superconductor.
We're doing the Futurama Ice Cube solution... I cannot contain my excitement!
"We deserve a shot at rising to the occasion."Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Exactly.
Glad I stuck with it to the end. That line is set up nicely and so worth it.