The Off Topic Topic

[crazy canuck]

Case in point: the US puts a bunch of regulations on the burning of coal. The US reduces the amount of coal it burns. The US is now exporting a bunch of coal to China.

Are you suggesting that Chinese demand for coal is caused by US regulation of electric coal plants?

You didn't read my posts (or read them closely).

They may be (economic activity in the US may have relocated to some extent to China based on the changes in the relative cost of energy).

But to what extent that happened doesn't matter. US regulation reduced the demand for coal in the US, which made it available for world supply and decreased the cost in China. This increased the consumption there.

The point here is that regulations aimed at reducing emissions failed to the extent that coal simply got exported to China. What would have been successful is to make the mining of coal in the US illegal (or significantly less common). There seems to be less interest in that politically, but that is unfortunate because it seems to be the more effective mechanism.

So you think that coal use in the US would always equal supply.  Or more importantly that increased demand in China wouldnt spur increased supply in the US.  Interesting.

With logic like that I now understand why you think it is pointless to do anything.

[alfred russel]

So you think that coal use in the US would always equal supply.  Or more importantly that increased demand in China wouldnt spur increased supply in the US.  Interesting.

I don't think either of those two things.

With logic like that I now understand why you think it is pointless to do anything.

But that wasn't my logic.

[crazy canuck]

Then you are going to have to explain again to me why you think regulation of electric coal plants in the US had any effect on supply of coal to China.  If you accept the premise that that US coal suppliers could increase production to meet increased Chinese demand then it seems your link between US regulation and Chinese use makes no sense.  Indeed your proposition that US coal should be outlawed also makes no sense because Chinese demand is in no way linked to US supply.

You are avoiding the point that reductions by North America of its own emissions is meaningful by using the grade school argument "Im not going to do it unless he has to"

[Grey Fox]

No, he's saying it's meaningless exactly because "I'm not going to do it unless he has to"

[crazy canuck]

he's saying it's meaningless exactly because "I'm not going to do it unless he has to"

Yep.

[alfred russel]

Then you are going to have to explain again to me why you think regulation of electric coal plants in the US had any effect on supply of coal to China.  If you accept the premise that that US coal suppliers could increase production to meet increased Chinese demand then it seems your link between US regulation and Chinese use makes no sense.  Indeed your proposition that US coal should be outlawed also makes no sense because Chinese demand is in no way linked to US supply.

For an illustrative example. Assume the worldwide price of coal is roughly consistent at $150 / unit. A US mine is producing at a cost of $100 / unit. The cost to ship to China is $25 / unit.

All else being equal, the US mine would rather sell in the US to avoid the shipment costs to China, but will ship there if there isn't a US buyer.

I also don't accept the premise that US producers can simply increase production to meet Chinese demand. There are limited supplies of fossil fuels, and especially those that are easily economically exploitable.

You are avoiding the point that reductions by North America of its own emissions is meaningful by using the grade school argument "Im not going to do it unless he has to"

I'm using the argument that it isn't meaningful because:
1) the reductions will be partially offset by increases elsewhere, and
2) unilateral reductions won't fix the problem.

I'm all for increasing envirnomental protections, btw. I live in a city covered by haze most summer days, with regular smog alerts, sprawl that has swallowed a lot of the surrounding countryside, and significant water issues. It seems more likely those issues can be successfully addressed than a unilateral approach to global warming.

[alfred russel]

No, he's saying it's meaningless exactly because "I'm not going to do it unless he has to"

I'm actually saying its meaningless because the majority of the world isn't going to do anything anytime soon. I don't think that is a negotiating position to get worldwide action or pettiness--I think that is simply reality.

If the dire predictions regarding inaction and global warming are accurate, then they are going to come to pass.

[crazy canuck]

For an illustrative example. Assume the worldwide price of coal is roughly consistent at $150 / unit. A US mine is producing at a cost of $100 / unit. The cost to ship to China is $25 / unit.

All else being equal, the US mine would rather sell in the US to avoid the shipment costs to China, but will ship there if there isn't a US buyer.

I also don't accept the premise that US producers can simply increase production to meet Chinese demand. There are limited supplies of fossil fuels, and especially those that are easily economically exploitable.

There is no such thing as a static price for coal.  Everything else is not equal.  If a US producer of coal is able to sell their coal at a profit to China they will.  It may be more profitable to sell to other places within the US but that wouldnt stop them from selling coal to other places as well.  The only way your example makes any sense is if absent regulation in the US no US coal producer could sell coal to China at a profit.  That seems absurd given that Canadian coal producers have no difficulty selling their coal to China at a profit absent such regulation.

[DGuller]

Unilateral environmental controls make as much sense as unilateral disarmament.  It is a self-defeating effort.

[alfred russel]

There is no such thing as a static price for coal.  Everything else is not equal.  If a US producer of coal is able to sell their coal at a profit to China they will.  It may be more profitable to sell to other places within the US but that wouldnt stop them from selling coal to other places as well.  The only way your example makes any sense is if absent regulation in the US no US coal producer could sell coal to China at a profit.  That seems absurd given that Canadian coal producers have no difficulty selling their coal to China at a profit absent such regulation.

Reduced US demand for coal is going to result in increased exports and increased non US consumption. I don't think that is controversial or complex, though the extent to which it occurs vs. decreases global consumption is uncertain.

[mongers]

[crazy canuck]

Unilateral environmental controls make as much sense as unilateral disarmament.  It is a self-defeating effort.

Ah so we should all adapt the Chinese standards.

[DGuller]

Unilateral environmental controls make as much sense as unilateral disarmament.  It is a self-defeating effort.

Ah so we should all adapt the Chinese standards.

No, we should adopt worldwide standards to control pollution that affects the entire planet, along with credible enforcement mechanisms.

[crazy canuck]

Unilateral environmental controls make as much sense as unilateral disarmament.  It is a self-defeating effort.

Ah so we should all adapt the Chinese standards.

No, we should adopt worldwide standards to control pollution that affects the entire planet, along with credible enforcement mechanisms.

Ah, and until that day comes (dont hold your breath) we should do nothing that exceeds Chinese standards because after all unilaterally reducting emissions makes no sense - according to you.

Again, isnt the correct question the cost of doing nothing vs the cost of doing something.

[DGuller]

Ah, and until that day comes (dont hold your breath) we should do nothing that exceeds Chinese standards because after all unilaterally reducting emissions makes no sense - according to you.

Yes, putting domestic polluting producers out of business just so that China can pick up the supply slack while happily polluting will neither benefit us nor the planet.  It might make us feel better about ourselves, though, and for some people that's priceless.