The Off Topic Topic

[Eddie Teach]

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.

Pollution regulations didn't come about because people were afraid of global warming. They came about to protect the local environment. This has worked, for instance London's infamous "pea-soup fog" has mostly disappeared. They have benefited us.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Pollution regulations didn't come about because people were afraid of global warming. They came about to protect the local environment. This has worked, for instance London's infamous "pea-soup fog" has mostly disappeared. They have benefited us.

Stop pretending that local improvements work.  You are only benefiting the Chinese.

[alfred russel]

Local improvements work for lots of types of pollution. Shifting horrible emissions from outside my city to outside Beijing moves the horrible smog over to them as well.

However, we are talking about greenhouse emissions. Shifting emissions across the globe does no good.

[DGuller]

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.

Pollution regulations didn't come about because people were afraid of global warming. They came about to protect the local environment. This has worked, for instance London's infamous "pea-soup fog" has mostly disappeared. They have benefited us.

I was specifically talking about planet-wide pollution.  Pollution can only be effectively tackled by the entity that contains the effects of pollution.  In case of CO2, that's going to be the world government, or whatever task-specific organization like WTO we can cobble together.

[crazy canuck]

Alfred, finally you are making some sense.

We are talking about global emissions.  The Chinese are going to produce as much as they want regardless of what North Americans do.  If North Americans reduce emissions that will necessarily be a net reduction of global emissions.  If you drive your car less there isnt some chap in China who is going to think they are going to have to drive more.  They are going to drive as much as they want regardless of what you do.

If everyone keeps thinking at the juvenile level of they wont do it until everyone has to nothing will get done.  But I have hope that most people have the intellectual abilities to transcend those of a sixth grader.  Although given what occurred on that one time popular TV show maybe I should not be so hopeful?

[DGuller]

Alfred, finally you are making some sense.

We are talking about global emissions.  The Chinese are going to produce as much as they want regardless of what North Americans do.  If North Americans reduce emissions that will necessarily be a net reduction of global emissions.  If you drive your car less there isnt some chap in China who is going to think they are going to have to drive more.  They are going to drive as much as they want regardless of what you do.

If everyone keeps thinking at the juvenile level of they wont do it until everyone has to nothing will get done.  But I have hope that most people have the intellectual abilities to transcend those of a sixth grader.  Although given what occurred on that one time popular TV show maybe I should not be so hopeful?

This has nothing to do with juvenile level of thinking, and everything to do with understanding the concept of economic externalities.

[alfred russel]

Alfred, finally you are making some sense.

We are talking about global emissions.  The Chinese are going to produce as much as they want regardless of what North Americans do.  If North Americans reduce emissions that will necessarily be a net reduction of global emissions.  If you drive your car less there isnt some chap in China who is going to think they are going to have to drive more.  They are going to drive as much as they want regardless of what you do.

If everyone keeps thinking at the juvenile level of they wont do it until everyone has to nothing will get done.  But I have hope that most people have the intellectual abilities to transcend those of a sixth grader.  Although given what occurred on that one time popular TV show maybe I should not be so hopeful?

Only they don't drive as much as they want to. Their ability to use energy is considerably constrained by their ability to pay for it. The third world doesn't produce so many fewer emissions than the first because they are more environmentally conscious.

[DGuller]

Alfred, finally you are making some sense.

We are talking about global emissions.  The Chinese are going to produce as much as they want regardless of what North Americans do.  If North Americans reduce emissions that will necessarily be a net reduction of global emissions.  If you drive your car less there isnt some chap in China who is going to think they are going to have to drive more.  They are going to drive as much as they want regardless of what you do.

If everyone keeps thinking at the juvenile level of they wont do it until everyone has to nothing will get done.  But I have hope that most people have the intellectual abilities to transcend those of a sixth grader.  Although given what occurred on that one time popular TV show maybe I should not be so hopeful?

Only they don't drive as much as they want to. Their ability to use energy is considerably constrained by their ability to pay for it. The third world doesn't produce so many fewer emissions than the first because they are more environmentally conscious.

Exactly.  I find it a little amusing that CC feels like he's in position to say something patronizing like "Alfred, finally you are making some sense.", while failing to grasp a number of rather basic economic concepts.

[crazy canuck]

I am convinced that Languish, and particularly our accountants, are not representative of the intellectual abilties of the public as a whole.  At least I hope not.

We have one who is convinced he is right even though he has never bothered to read any of the reports from the world's most able scientists researching the issue and we have another that hasnt quite recovered from his blueberry overdose.  So not all hope is lost.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Got a cortisone shot in my shoulder today for something called calcific tendonitis (aka my shoulder was all jacked up).  Damn shot hurts more than the thing it was supposed to fix. 

[LaCroix]

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.

this is just wrong

also, your argument assumes decreased US "domestic polluting producers" means china materially benefits over the united states. even if this were true, it's still backwards thinking. five hundred years from now, a hypothetical lost US dollar won't matter

[CountDeMoney]

I picked a primary care physician today.

Took the chick from Princeton and Dartmouth Med School over the Indian dude with the MBBS from Ganges University.  I regret nothing.

[LaCroix]

I picked a primary care physician today.

Took the chick from Princeton and Dartmouth Med School over the Indian dude with the MBBS from Ganges University.  I regret nothing.

at least the indian guy probably graduated from a university that had a law school

[DGuller]

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.

this is just wrong

Insightful counter-argument.

also, your argument assumes decreased US "domestic polluting producers" means china materially benefits over the united states. even if this were true, it's still backwards thinking. five hundred years from now, a hypothetical lost US dollar won't matter

Wealth matters, and has a tendency to persist for many generations unless it is actively pissed away.  And even if five hundred years from now it won't matter, it matters now.  Why should we handicap ourselves for the benefit of countries potentially hostile to us? 

I'm all for tighter environmental controls;  the difference is that I want good results rather than good intentions.  The pernicious nature of externalities is that they cannot be eliminated by unilateral actions.  Any attempts to do so just decreases the power of actors that understand best the need for a concerted action.

[Tonitrus]

I picked a primary care physician today.

Took the chick from Princeton and Dartmouth Med School over the Indian dude with the MBBS from Ganges University.  I regret nothing.

Wish I could choose mine.  Military health may be free, but it has to be the worst socialized medicine on the planet.