Global warming and financial positioning

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR fascist (can I use that again?)-

I believe the preferred usage among the far right brethren is "Islamofascist."

[mykidslovedogs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaHa Why does lack of demand for Ferraris lead to high prices, and lack of demand for Skodas lead to low prices? Ha

Not sure what a Skoda is, but I guess there is a little more to it than what I explained....If the demand is high, but the producer does not want demand to be so high, they will adjust the price higher so demand will be lower. (As in the case with Ferrari's...otherwise, everyone would have one, right). I have no idea what a Skoda is, but if the supply is currently exceeding demand, then the price will come down in order to help increase demand....that's economics 101.

So...with SUVs....obviously there is enough demand out there for producers to sell as many as they do. Everyone is happy. They are priced affordably for the people who need and want them. By artificially inflating the price either by imposing a penalty or taxing people more who drive them, you will reduce demand, but also take people's freedom's away in the process. If the market could convince SUV drivers that they could get a better product for a lower price, then people would naturally gravitate towards the better and more efficient products.
But right now, there isn't necessarily any better products available. As fossil fuels become more scarce, gas prices will naturally go up, thus creating a need for more efficient fuels. As this happens, products will arise to utilize the new forms of energy, and people will purchase those products...Its a natural process.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs Well, I'm not quite sure how the free market will end up hitting a brick wall.

Maybe 'brick wall' was not a good choice of words. But, what I meant is that the free market can be painful. Usually, that pain is 'tough love' and we should just let it ride its course. I'm just saying that increased fuel taxes (esp a progressive usage tax) would more fairly create demand for those alternatives you mentioned. It would spread the cost over time, which *might* be a good thing, overall.

In today's world, a sudden cut in oil/refinery production, like Katrina, causes a sudden spike in prices. I think the poor are hurt the most by this. Fuel taxes, over time could reduce our dependency on a single energy source, and smooth out those free market supply/demand bumps.

I am starting to worry less and less about this lately, though I find it a fascinating topic. Solar panels are marginally cost effective today, and electric cars are getting closer to being a reality. A 50% increase in oil, along with maybe a 25% decrease in $/KW of solar or other renewables, and I think we will have our answer. Who knows, energy 30 years from now may be cleaner and cost less, adjusted for inflation. There just may be a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow.

Hey, isn't that what the OP asked about - where's that pot of gold?

-ERD50

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs that's economics 101.

See also: "Tragedy of the Commons."

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs By artificially inflating the price either by imposing a penalty or taxing people more who drive them [SUVs], you will reduce demand, but also take people's freedom's away in the process.

SUV prices are already artificially deflated from the lack of a carbon tax. Adding a carbon tax would price them fairly according to how they pollute.

As far as people's "freedom" to purchase an SUV, this isn't a Socialist Paradise. You're not a commie, are you?

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs My neighbor has 7 kids. They HAVE to have an SUV (Suburban to be exact). Why should they be penalized for that?

They should pay a penalty. Those seven kids are producing two families worth of methane contributing a disproportionate share to GW

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs As fossil fuels become more scarce, gas prices will naturally go up, thus creating a need for more efficient fuels. As this happens, products will arise to utilize the new forms of energy, and people will purchase those products...Its a natural process.

Per other threads, I am a techo-optimist so I agree with this statement. But the change could be bumpy or even traumatic. The second most dangerous aspect of the situation we are in today is the security threat from dependence on the mid-east. If we had imposed substantial gas taxes after the 1970s oil shock we could be energy independent today and could be spending the Iraq funds on universal health care improving all of our ERs.

The first most dangerous aspect of today's situation is, of course, GW. But as said before, the evidence shows it is to late to stop the effects of that juggernaut so we should be investing to find ways to live with it - another good reason to tax us SUV drivers.

[rigel]

So after 12 pages of talk we get to the real issue. There are some people (socialists) think it is there business to use the tax code to manipulate other people to behave just like the socialists want. The socialists are immoral. The GW business is just the latest trick to steal more money and force people to behave a certain way, to cut their standard of living because it is just not fair for them to consume so much. Socialism = Tyranny - but then it is only the elite that are suppose to get to consume whatever they want - not us normal people, us cattle.

For anyone who still thinks this discuss has anything to do with science instead of just another way for socialists to steal money from us and lower our standard of living. Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zürich have reconstructed sunspot activity, which is known to boost the sun's output. And surprise! Sunspot activity is at a 1000 year high, and has been steadily increasing since the little ice age. But, of course, the debate is over, the sun's output is not a variable and it is only man causing the climate to get warmer. I just hope that whatever man did to end the last warming spell and cause the last ice age, well, I hope we don't do it again.

[HFWR]

Fair enough, but where do we draw the line between "capitalistic" tax code and "socialistic" tax code?

[2B]

I'm still waiting for the global temperatures to change naturally. Unfortunately, that could take a century or more based on history. If I'm still around, I'm wondering whether the GW fanatics will declare "victory" and demand even more oppressive measures or flip-flop again to global cooling.

I just hate to see what appears to be empty, non-scientific rhetoric turned into a political cause that has gained traction.

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rigel <blah blah socialists blah blah Red Scare blah blah steal my money! blah blah> Scientists based at the Institute for Astronomy in Zürich have reconstructed sunspot activity, which is known to boost the sun's output. And surprise! Sunspot activity is at a 1000 year high, and has been steadily increasing since the little ice age.

Read the entire study, not the talking points from the Fox News press release.

[Zipper]

We've got the oil, the water, and an ever increasing supply of arable land.

How long until you make us an offer we can't refuse?

[bosco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zipper We've got the oil, the water, and an ever increasing supply of arable land. How long until you make us an offer we can't refuse?

don't be riling up the mean dog. when the big water shortage arrives, Canada will be declared to harbour terrorists and WMDs. Then the basis for another "justifiable" war will be declared. Until then, enjoy the Trailer Park Boys and hockey night

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs Not sure what a Skoda is, but I guess there is a little more to it than what I explained....If the demand is high, but the producer does not want demand to be so high, they will adjust the price higher so demand will be lower. (As in the case with Ferrari's...otherwise, everyone would have one, right). I have no idea what a Skoda is, but if the supply is currently exceeding demand, then the price will come down in order to help increase demand....that's economics 101.

Boy are we getting off the subject (not like we have been off for a long time)..

You have a bit wrong on the eco 101... the demand curve is a function of how many based on a certain price... it has NOTHING to do with supply...

Now, the supply curve is based on the number produced at a certain price...

There is a point where these two cross and is where most businesses try to get..

The cost to build a Ferrari is a LOT... there is not busines that would lower the price just to sell cars all the time (yes, if the demand curve changes because people don't want as many SUVs with high gas prices, they lower prices to get those people who are willing to buy at a lower price... until they can adjust the supply line)..

I guess another way to put it is there is a HIGH demand for Ferraris, but not many people can pay the price... different than what you had said..

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eridanus SUV prices are already artificially deflated from the lack of a carbon tax. Adding a carbon tax would price them fairly according to how they pollute. As far as people's "freedom" to purchase an SUV, this isn't a Socialist Paradise. You're not a commie, are you?

Yes... most people don't think of the 'total cost' of different things.... SUVs pollute a lot more which cost 'society' more money... we buy more foreign oil which means more military which costs society more money... we must spend billion for homeland security because the wackos where the oil is located want to blow us up (and would just be backward society that we would not care one lick if there was not oil)... which costs society more money....

It is those other costs that the SUV driver is not paying... and in fact all of us are not paying....

BUT, don't try and make more toll roads!!! I have a right to drive on a FREE road (and I am not being sarcastic.... I hate toll roads)...

[baetis]

"Read the entire study, not the talking points from the Fox News press release"

Man how I wish Fox News existed when I was in debate class *plugs ears* Fox News Fox News Fox News

[al_bundy]

funny how 30 years ago the so called enviromentalists were pushing catalytic converters to convert polluting gasses to harmless carbon dioxide and water. now they are calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. and the media only started that last year to get the sheeple used to that idea and make them believe it's true.

if you want to make money off the hysteria look at GE, Alcoa, Dow Chemical, Dupont, goldman sachs and a few other companies paying for the hysteria. they stand to make a killing on new products and have a financial interest in making people think global warming is caused by people. and track companies selling carbon offsets. if people are so naive as to buy them, you might as well make money on it

[al_bundy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I don't view it as a 'penalty'. Assuming that we, as a society, want to encourage conservation, it seems reasonable. It is basically an (very imperfect) attempt at a 'progressive' tax on fuel consumption. The more you use, the more you pay. And I imagine the tax is based on mpg ratings. So that should provide more incentive for families that need a 7 passenger vehicle to buy an efficient one and in turn, more incentive for manufacturers to fill that need. Overall, not a *bad* idea, IMO. I think it would be better to have a truly progressive tax on fuel itself (kind of hard to implement though - issue a 'tax debit' card for X gallons per year to every driver?). That would encourage people to drive less. But that one-time charge of $2500 probably has the psychological effect of people saying, 'hey - I paid for the privilege, so I'll drive as much as I want now'. Not really changing behaviors in the way we probably want. I am saying this from an oil conservation point - it is not a comment on global warming. So, make a suggestion. -ERD50

we already have a progressive tax on fuel. the more you use the more you pay. now we are at the point where the socialists don't like the current scheme and want something more progressive to punish people.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by al_bundy we already have a progressive tax on fuel. the more you use the more you pay. now we are at the point where the socialists don't like the current scheme and want something more progressive to punish people.

Check your dictionary, Al. A progressive tax is one where you pay a higher *rate* as you use more, not just a higher amount.

Example: No added 'conservation' tax on the first 20 gallons a month; $X.XX added to every gallon past that on some kind of increasing scale. Yes, implementation could be a nightmare (maybe not with today's technology), but I'm just throwing it out there as a concept.

I didn't put a value judgment on it. I simply said that if, as a nation, we wish to promote oil conservation, a true progressive tax on oil consumption would probably be the best motivation to conserve. More so than an increased flat tax on fuel.

As far as 'punishment' - I take a different view of that. IMO, I am the one being 'punished' by other people using a disproportionate share of a limited resource. Those other people using a large amount of oil cause the prices to go up for *everyone*, even those trying to conserve. That's why I kind of like the idea of a true progressive fuel tax.

It's pretty funny if you are lumping me in with socialists. Most of the left wing people I converse with think I'm a raging right wing lunatic. I take that as some degree of confirmation that my stance is based on logic and reason, rather than blind allegiance to any 'party line'. Thank you.

-ERD50

[samclem]

If we go down that road, we should probably be talking about a progressive tax on other enrgy sources, too. (cents per kwh, maybe tagged to the original source of the power. That would encourage people to switch power sources to those which are no based on fossil fuels). If we only tax vehicular fuels electric cars will get an unfair advantage and we'll end up transferring the problem--polluting more and burning more fuel at power stations rather than in the vehicles.

Maybe global warming is a problem, and maybe humans are responsibe for it. Maybe not. I'm personally more motivated by the competitive advantage the US may reap by getting off oil. If we can get ahead of this and wean ourselves to a lower level of dependency, it is possibe we'l have a competitive leg up on Europe and Asia when Chinese demand and other factors drive the price of oil up. I'm not a believer, yet, that market forces alone won't provide sufficient inducement t do this development, but we should at least look at the issue and see if a good business case can be made for taxing oil and using the proceeds for alternative energy development. I'm not optimstic: government has done a terrible job of picking winning technolgies in alternative energy development (oil shale, hydrogen power, and now ethanol. Not encouraging).