Global warming and financial positioning

[mykidslovedogs]

Compromising freedoms? No one is compromising freedoms. A gas or carbon tax is more economically fair than our current system.

So making it nearly impossible for someone to afford an SUV is not compromising their freedoms, even if they might need it?

 

[brewer12345]

Do you have a test in mind for when it will have been "absolutely proven"?

When the Flying Spaghetti Monster tells us to stop spewing carbon into the air. Only then will the Pastafarians like MKLD listen. In the meantime, she can regale us with tales of how wonderful it is that she can choose to burn a refinery's worth of gasoline every year because she can choose to do so liek a good Merkin.

 

[eridanus]

So making it nearly impossible for someone to afford an SUV is not compromising their freedoms, even if they might need it?

Does Ferrari compromise my freedoms by not pricing their cars so I can afford them? Why can't I have a bowling alley in my house? Where's the ACLU on this?

Your definition of "freedom" is odd.

 

[wabmester]

Sounds like a tall order, and one guaranteed to forestall proactive response. Which come to think of it may be the goal.

I'm starting to love this issue because it touches a lot of interesting (to me) philosophical questions.

We're talking about a globally shared resource and potentially global burden of proactive response. So, the response only works if everybody on the planet buys in. Otherwise, those who don't buy into the proactive response get a bigger piece of the shared resource and a lower economic cost burden. We know how that'll play out.

But this really draws attention to questions about the nature of man. We know biological organisms are an integral part of climatic evolution, but man is different. We understand our potential impact. Some people feel guilty about that.

When man figured out physics and chemistry, we were given enough rope to hang ourselves. I think it's guaranteed that we will hang ourselves at some point, and somebody will always be asking "is now the time?"

 

[ERD50]

<bla,bla,bla> global warming. <bla,bla,bla>

If you believe so strongly that HUMANS are definately the cause, ..... <bla,bla,bla> ... Why do certain people feel the need to IMPOSE their unproven beliefs on other people?

Ummmm, did you read the line right above the one you quoted from me? I set it out as it's own paragraph for emphasis. Here it is again:

I am saying this from an oil conservation point - it is not a comment on global warming.

I did say, "Assuming that we, as a society, want to encourage conservation...." and then went on with my suggestion for a progressive fuel tax. And that would actually *support* some of your arguments - use the gas guzzler when needed, but use a more efficient car when you can.

As long as we choose to remain members of society we will be 'forced' to do things. Obey the speed limit, not murder people, pay taxes, etc, etc etc. I'm not sure why you want to single out this specific tax as 'forcing' you to do anything?

We could let free markets totally deal with the issue, but I think this is one of those areas where government regulations *could* help smooth the future bumps in the roads for consumers. That would fulfill the constitutional requirement of 'providing for the common good'. If the govt raises taxes on fuel, slowly and surely, it will encourage people to consider more efficient vehicles, it will create demand for them. That demand will allow car makers to invest more in those cars which will lower costs over time. People take into consider their commute more when they move or change jobs, localities put more into public trans, etc, etc, etc. This could help us to slowly and more easily conserve energy. The free market way *could* end up hitting a fairly tall brick wall, and it could be very painful to adjust in short order. And, it will probably be more painful for the poor.

-ERD50

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Does Ferrari compromise my freedoms by not pricing their cars so I can afford them? Why can't I have a bowling alley in my house? Where's the ACLU on this?

Your definition of "freedom" is odd.

You must have failed economics 101. There is not nearly as high a demand right now for Ferraris as there is for SUVs, therefore, Ferrari's are more expensive. People buy SUVs either because they want them or they need them, and the price to purchase one is in alignment with the demand that needs to be met.

When you imposing a penalty on someone, thereby purposefully making it difficult for them to afford a product they might need, then you are taking away someone's freedoms.

 

[haha]

Being pro-active is fine, as long as you don't take away people's freedoms to do it. Especially if you are being proactive about something that may not even exist. OK...how about this one... I want all of you to go to HEAVEN. I am being PROACTIVE ABOUT IT.. therefore, I am going to force you to go to church, and if you don't, then you have to pay me $2500.00, so I can give it to other people in order to encourage them to want to go to church....

I agree with you- I just don't agree with "my kids" that it might be a reasonable requirement to prove absolutely that global warming exists, is human caused, and is harmful to mankind before doing anything.

Anyway, I am just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Ha

 

[haha]

You must have failed economics 101. There is not nearly as high a demand right now for Ferraris as there is for SUVs, therefore, Ferrari's are more expensive.

Why does lack of demand for Ferraris lead to high prices, and lack of demand for Skodas lead to low prices?

Ha

 

[mykidslovedogs]

The free market way *could* end up hitting a fairly tall brick wall, and it could be very painful to adjust in short order. And, it will probably be more painful for the poor.
-ERD50

Well, I'm not quite sure how the free market will end up hitting a brick wall. The sooner we run out or begin to run out of fossil fuels, the sooner new, and probably more affordable products, will become available to replace them. I'm not saying we shouldn't all do our parts to conserve....turn our heat down, turn our air conditioners off when not using them...ride share, etc...I just don't think it needs to be forced on anyone.

A fuel tax MIGHT make sense, but definately, not a $2500 penalty for purchasing certain kinds of cards. We can also try education about conservation and the real effects of pollution (not scare tactics that the world is coming to an end based on unproven theories) to encourage conservation.

 

[HFWR]

In this corner, we have the "enviro-whacko-fascist-tree-hugging-liberal-socialists", who seem to think that humankind is a virus that should be wiped from the face of the Earth(tm). Reminds me of the good, ol' days(tm), when all of us hippies would sit around stoned, and pontificate about a simpler life; i.e. getting back to the land. Relatively few of us ever did, since living off the land requires a lot of HARD WORK, which would interfere with free love and getting stoned...

In the other corner, we have the "manifest destiny-Gawd-given-right-to-drive-an-SUV-capitalist-fascist (can I use that again?)-oil-swilling-baby-whale-killers(tm)"...
These are the folks who love to fish, hunt, and dump their used motor oil "out back". What the heck? It's MY PROPERTY!! The free market will take care of it, you know, because DuPont, Exxon, et al REALLY care about us!!

Btw, this is parody/sarcasm...

I generally try to tread lightly on Mom Earth, 'cause it's what Jesus would do, plus I learnt it in the Boy Scouts. Not to mention, using less energy and resources fits into my "cheap bastard" philosophy. Somehow, "conservatives" have forgotten that "conservative" and "conservation" are, ahem, similar concepts. As for the the other "end" of the spectrum, I say you better get busy. You've got cotton to pick, butter to churn, cows to milk, wood to chop, weeds to hoe, etc.

Now, back to my model...

 

[brewer12345]

fascist (can I use that again?)-

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

 

[mykidslovedogs]

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]

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]

that's economics 101.

See also: "Tragedy of the Commons."

 

[eridanus]

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]

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]

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]

<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]

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]

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]

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)...