Ok, if this doesn't bring back Seedy nothing will.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33182065 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33182065)
QuotePope Francis blames 'human selfishness' for global warming
Pope Francis has blamed human selfishness for global warming in his long-awaited encyclical calling for action on climate change.
In the letter, he urges the rich to change their lifestyles to avert the destruction of the ecosystem.
Environmentalists hope the message will spur on nations ahead of the UN climate conference in Paris in December.
But parts of the document, leaked earlier this week, have already been criticised by some US conservatives.
It has been dismissed by two Republican presidential candidates.
Humans to blame
The encyclical, named "Laudato Si (Be Praised), On the Care of Our Common Home", aims to inspire everyone - not just Roman Catholics - to protect the Earth.
The 192-page letter, which is the highest level teaching document a pope can issue, lays much of the blame for global warming on human activities.
Pope Francis writes that: "We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will.
"The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life."
He criticises what he calls a "collective selfishness", but says that there is still time to stop the damage, calling for an end to consumerism and greed.
'Moral approach'
Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi launched the pontiff's second encyclical at a news conference on Thursday.
The teaching is more evidence of a pontiff determined to act as a catalyst for change, and a powerful diplomatic player on the world stage, says the BBC's religious affairs correspondent Caroline Wyatt.
The release comes six months before international leaders gather in Paris to try to seal a deal to reduce carbon emissions.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the document, saying climate change was a "moral issue requiring respectful dialogue with all parts of society".
It has also been widely praised by environmental groups, with WWF president Yolanda Kakabadse saying it "adds a much-needed moral approach'' to the debate on climate change.
Greenpeace leader Kumi Naidoo highlighted passages calling for policies that reduce carbon emissions, including by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.
But a leak of the document, published by Italy's L'Espresso magazine on Tuesday, had a frosty response from sceptical conservatives in America, including two Roman Catholic presidential candidates.
Jeb Bush said he did not get his economic policy from his bishops, cardinals or pope - so why his policy on the environment?
Meanwhile Rick Santorum questioned whether the Pope was credible on the issue of climate science.
US Senator, Jim Inhofe, chairman of the US Senate Environment Committee, said he disagreed with the Pope's "philosophy" on global warming.
"I am concerned that his encyclical will be used by global warming alarmists to advocate for policies that will equate to the largest, most regressive tax increase in our nation's history."
However, many academics have welcomed the pontiff's input.
Prof Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science at the University of Oxford in the UK, said: "If Pope Francis can't speak up for our unborn grandchildren, then God help us all."
QuoteWill Pope sway Americans? - Roger Harrabin, BBC News environment analyst
The UN's climate change chief Christiana Figueres says the Pope's message will influence talks in Paris this year on a deal to tackle global warming.
Developing countries are demanding firmer promises of financial help from rich countries so they can adapt to inevitable changes in the climate and get clean energy to avoid contributing to further warming.
Ms Figueres said their position would be strengthened by the Pope's insistence that this was the clear moral responsibility of the rich.
The encyclical will be welcomed by poor countries in Africa and Latin America.
The big question is how it will play in the USA, where it has already been dismissed by a Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who is a Catholic.
Leading Republicans have warned the UN that they will undo President Barack Obama's climate policies - so if the encyclical sways any of the conservative Catholics in Congress that could prove significant.
The Rich have no morals.
Catholics :rolleyes:
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 19, 2015, 10:30:16 AM
The Rich have no morals.
the poor as soooo much better :)
When the poor ask for free money it's not greed.
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
When the rich use their superior organization, it's market efficiency.
It's disgusting how the welfare of the fucking planet is a partisan issue. We clearly either live too short to think about the future properly, or live too long to keep the damage minimal.
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:22:30 AM
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
Why, you think we were gonna vote for Francis for world president?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 19, 2015, 11:25:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:22:30 AM
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
Why, you think we were gonna vote for Francis for world president?
No.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/18/a-child-born-today-may-live-to-see-humanitys-end-unless/
QuoteA child born today may live to see humanity's end, unless...
Humans will be extinct in 100 years because the planet will be uninhabitable, according to Australian microbiologist Frank Fenner, one of the leaders of the effort to eradicate smallpox in the 1970s. He blames overcrowding, denuded resources and climate change.
Fenner's prediction is not a sure bet, but he is correct that there is no way emissions reductions will be enough to save us from our trend toward doom. And there doesn't seem to be any big global rush to reduce emissions, anyway. When the G7 called on Monday for all countries to reduce carbon emissions to zero in the next 85 years, the scientific reaction was unanimous: That's far too late.
And no possible treaty that emerges from the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany, in preparation for November's United Nations climate conference in Paris, will be sufficient. At this point, lowering emissions is just half the story — the easy half. The harder half will be an aggressive effort to find the technologies needed to reverse the climate apocalypse that has already begun.
For years now, we have heard that we are at a tipping point. Al Gore warned us in An Inconvenient Truth that immediate action was required if we were to prevent global warming. In 2007, Sir David King, former chief scientific advisor to the British government, declared, "Avoiding dangerous climate change is impossible – dangerous climate change is already here. The question is, can we avoid catastrophic climate change?" In the years since, emissions have risen, as have global temperatures. Only two conclusions can be drawn: Either these old warnings were alarmist, or we are already in far bigger trouble than the U.N. claims. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case.
Lowering emissions and moving to cleaner energy sources is a necessary step to prevent catastrophic temperature rises. The general target is to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius. Higher increases — like the 5C increase currently projected by 2100 — run the risk of widespread flooding, famine, drought, sea-level rise, mass extinction and, worse, the potential of passing a tipping point (frequently set at 6C) that could render much of the planet uninhabitable and wipe out most species. Even the 2C figure predicts more than a meter's rise in sea levels by 2100, enough to displace millions. It is no wonder that the Pentagon calls climate change a serious "threat multiplier" and is considering its potential disruptive impact across all its planning.
This is where the U.N. talks fall short — by a mile. The targets proffered by the United States (a 26 percent to 28 percent decrease from 2005 levels by 2025), the European Union (a 40 percent decrease from 1990 levels by 2030) and China (an unspecified emissions peak by 2030) are nowhere near enough to keep us under the 2C target. In 2012, journalist Bill McKibben, in a feature for Rolling Stone, explained much of the math behind the current thinking on global warming. He concluded that the United Nations' figures were definitely on the rosy side. In particular, McKibben noted that the temperature has already increased 0.8C, and even if we were to stop all carbon-dioxide emissions today, it would increase another 0.8C simply due to the existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That leaves only a 0.4C buffer before hitting 2C. Even assuming the Paris conference implements everything that's promised, we will be on track to use up the remaining "carbon budget" — the amount of carbon we can emit without blowing past the 2C threshold — within two to three decades, not even at mid-century.
These emissions-reduction frameworks, it is safe to say, are simply insufficient. By themselves, they only offer a small chance of preventing the earth from becoming mostly uninhabitable – for humans at least — over the next few centuries. For the talks to be more than just a placebo, they need to encompass aggressive plans for climate mitigation, with the assumption that current wishful targets won't be met.
Apart from coordination to cope with climate-driven crises and associated instability, climate-change leadership needs to encourage and fund the development of technologies to reverse what we are unable to stop doing to our planet. Many of these technologies fall under the rubric of "carbon sequestration" — safely storing carbon rather than emitting it. Riskier strategies, like injecting sulfates into the air to reflect more of the sun's heat into space and ocean iron fertilization to grow algae to suck in carbon, run a high risk of unintended consequences. Better and safer solutions to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere don't yet exist; we need to discover them and regulate them, to avoid the chaos of what economists Gernot Wagner and Martin L. Weitzman term "rogue geoengineering" in their book Climate Shock.
None of these approaches are substitutes for emissions reductions. Achieving a carbon-neutral society is a necessary long-term goal regardless of other technological fixes. Technology could buy us the time to get there without our planet burning up. Ultimately, we need a Cold War-level of investment in research into new technologies to mitigate the coming effects of global warming. Without it, the U.N.'s work is a nice gesture, but hardly a meaningful one.
Then why shouldn't we be pleased that an ideological rival has moved leftward on a vital issue? Incidentally, if you want to start supporting a higher minimum wage, I'm happy about that even if you still wanted union organizers shot or something...
Quote from: Ideologue on June 19, 2015, 11:24:31 AM
When the rich use their superior organization, it's market efficiency.
My bumper sticker is more comprehensible than yours.
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:22:30 AM
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
And if people on the right continue to ignore climate change we are not going to have to worry about whether a fetus has the right to life for much longer.
The problem of climate change is one that will bear down particularly hard on the poor, not the rich, though.
If the poor want to become non-poor, they are going to be using energy - lots of it (as there are lots of poor people); they will also want that energy to be comparatively cheap. The rich can far more easily adapt to higher, cleaner energy prices.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 19, 2015, 11:29:14 AM
Then why shouldn't we be pleased that an ideological rival has moved leftward on a vital issue?
Just sayin' you (lefties) are using it as something to beat conservatives over the head with, but are cherry-picking when you do so.
For the most part I don't give a shit, either way. I'm not Catholic. If you want to go after Santorum or Jeb on this, feel free.
Unless you can get the Chinese and Indians to care, it doesn't really matter if the right or left in the US cares or not ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2015, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:22:30 AM
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
And if people on the right continue to ignore climate change we are not going to have to worry about whether a fetus has the right to life for much longer.
OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
Good luck trying to sleep tonight :contract:
:P
Quote from: Syt on June 19, 2015, 11:28:28 AM
Quote[hese emissions-reduction frameworks, it is safe to say, are simply insufficient. By themselves, they only offer a small chance of preventing the earth from becoming mostly uninhabitable
– for humans at least — over the next few centuries.
?
I don't think that kind of exaggeration is productive.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2015, 11:39:09 AM
Unless you can get the Chinese and Indians to care, it doesn't really matter if the right or left in the US cares or not ;)
luckily the Chinese are beginning to invest heavily in alternative forms of energy. And the US is a major player. Of course it matters what they do.
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:40:10 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2015, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:22:30 AM
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
And if people on the right continue to ignore climate change we are not going to have to worry about whether a fetus has the right to life for much longer.
OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
Good luck trying to sleep tonight :contract:
:P
:ultra:
But seriously, it is getting worse.
India is also going big into solar, for a lot of reasons it is a good fit for them.
I read the other day the US and Europe are slapping big tariffs on Chinese solar panels. That doesn't seem to make much sense.
Lots of vegetarians in India, which also helps.
In regards Malthus' point, it's less that the poor becoming rich, than the numbers. A middle class life is totally sustainable if only we'd die back more quickly. It's happening, but the whole world should've gone with a One Child policy by the time it became clear that 1)Earth can barely sustain our present numbers at our current on-average low rate of consumption and 2)that human labor was going to be capable of being massively replaced by automation. I.e., 1980. Unfortunately, there was freedom.
I also have some ideas about how to use sex-selective abortion to achieve a proper gender balance, around 3 to 1 female to male, but that's a different, hotter program. :)
So there's still a population bomb??
I would like to remind everyone of monger's elegantly simple, and emminently fair idea to impose a worldwide tax on carbon emissions.
If you're rich and consume a lot of power (like Al Gore), you can afford to pay more tax. If you're poor and don't consume much, you won't pay much. If the poor get richer, they will consume more and their ability to pay the tax will increase.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2015, 12:01:34 PM
I would like to remind everyone of monger's elegantly simple, and emminently fair idea to impose a worldwide tax on carbon emissions.
If you're rich and consume a lot of power (like Al Gore), you can afford to pay more tax. If you're poor and don't consume much, you won't pay much. If the poor get richer, they will consume more and their ability to pay the tax will increase.
I am not going to pay :P
Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2015, 12:04:55 PM
I am not going to pay :P
What does the HK electricity utility do when one of its customers doesn't pay his bills?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2015, 12:07:33 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2015, 12:04:55 PM
I am not going to pay :P
What does the HK electricity utility do when one of its customers doesn't pay his bills?
Why should the HK electricity companies help enforce such a tax? :P
Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2015, 12:08:42 PM
Why should the HK electricity companies help enforce such a tax? :P
Presumably because HK (or HK's boss) signed a treaty that required it to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2015, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2015, 12:08:42 PM
Why should the HK electricity companies help enforce such a tax? :P
Presumably because HK (or HK's boss) signed a treaty that required it to.
I have a hard time imagining that China or Hong Kong will agree to such a treaty. The Chinese invest in alternative forms of energy to combat smog, not global warming. Only a very small number of fringe environmentalists care.
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:39:02 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 19, 2015, 11:29:14 AM
Then why shouldn't we be pleased that an ideological rival has moved leftward on a vital issue?
Just sayin' you (lefties) are using it as something to beat conservatives over the head with, but are cherry-picking when you do so.
For the most part I don't give a shit, either way. I'm not Catholic. If you want to go after Santorum or Jeb on this, feel free.
I've been against abortion for a long time. It's a bit disingenuous to start complaining about cherry picking at this point isn't it? I mean, the Church was always against Communism, and everyone was happy when Pope John Paul II was agitating the Soviets, but conservatives conveniently ignored what he said about capitalism or the church's stance on the immigration.
Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2015, 12:12:55 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2015, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 19, 2015, 12:08:42 PM
Why should the HK electricity companies help enforce such a tax? :P
Presumably because HK (or HK's boss) signed a treaty that required it to.
I have a hard time imagining that China or Hong Kong will agree to such a treaty. The Chinese invest in alternative forms of energy to combat smog, not global warming. Only a very small number of fringe environmentalists care.
To bad you're not a democracy then.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 19, 2015, 11:24:31 AM
When the rich use their superior organization, it's market efficiency.
It's disgusting how the welfare of the fucking planet is a partisan issue. We clearly either live too short to think about the future properly, or live too long to keep the damage minimal.
the reason why climate change has remained unsolved is because it's a leftitst pet cause. Then reactionary right wing ensued face to ridiculous proposals of the left.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2015, 12:01:34 PM
I would like to remind everyone of monger's elegantly simple, and emminently fair idea to impose a worldwide tax on carbon emissions.
If you're rich and consume a lot of power (like Al Gore), you can afford to pay more tax. If you're poor and don't consume much, you won't pay much. If the poor get richer, they will consume more and their ability to pay the tax will increase.
I dislike the tax principle. It cannot be dodge, and no one profits from it. The only thing you can do is minimize it. There's no market, just a tax, that people will try to evade whenever they can, like sales tax or income tax.
A free market alternative as proposed by Kyoto would have been much more efficient. Some companies can profit from others, people (well companies) that try to improve their process to reduce excess waste (in this case, mainly CO2) get compensated for their efforts while those who adopt a conservative approach that everything is allright and any problem will fix itself by reading the Bible aloud will have to pay for the inefficiency.
Had we done that 20 years ago, we could have eventually rallied China and India to our standards. Right now, every one is pointing fingers.
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:22:30 AM
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
That part isn't getting very much media play...
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2015, 12:41:47 PM
I dislike the tax principle. It cannot be dodge, and no one profits from it. The only thing you can do is minimize it. There's no market, just a tax, that people will try to evade whenever they can, like sales tax or income tax.
A free market alternative as proposed by Kyoto would have been much more efficient. Some companies can profit from others, people (well companies) that try to improve their process to reduce excess waste (in this case, mainly CO2) get compensated for their efforts while those who adopt a conservative approach that everything is allright and any problem will fix itself by reading the Bible aloud will have to pay for the inefficiency.
Had we done that 20 years ago, we could have eventually rallied China and India to our standards. Right now, every one is pointing fingers.
Of course people profit from it. Anyone involved in renewable energy, for starters.
What I dislike most about Kyoto is that it created vested interests by handing out permits to existing polluters. Why should the fact that someone has been polluting already grant them the right to continue to pollute?
QuoteThe encyclical, named "Laudato Si (Be Praised), On the Care of Our Common Home", aims to inspire everyone - not just Roman Catholics - to protect the Earth.
Everyone? Stick to your followers, anti-Christ. <_<
TLDR
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2015, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:22:30 AM
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
That part isn't getting very much media play...
Probably because abortion has nothing to do with climate change. Or does Fox state otherwise?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2015, 01:29:05 PM
Probably because abortion has nothing to do with climate change. Or does Fox state otherwise?
It probably reduces the effects or the rate of change, due to fewer energy consumers.
Anyway, if global warming gets too bad, my kids can move to Alaska. :uffda:
I really like this Pope.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 19, 2015, 01:02:49 PM
Of course people profit from it. Anyone involved in renewable energy, for starters.
What I dislike most about Kyoto is that it created vested interests by handing out permits to existing polluters. Why should the fact that someone has been polluting already grant them the right to continue to pollute?
they don't have the right to pollute, they have to buy credits for their pollution, from people who pollute less. Overtime, there is a distinct advantage to any company that reduces its carbon dioxyde emissions. There was a net benefit for everyone, even the oil industry. The 1st phase gave exemption to then 3rd world countries like China and India.
See, in the 90s, all the rage was about acid rains. Paper mills were all against any government measure to force them to reduce their emissions. They fought hard and long against that, until they finally lost and threw the towel. Then they realized they were way more competitive than their american counterparts. Wich led to that whole problem with Free Trade and americans invoking all sorts of reasons to raise fees on our wood, but that's another matter.
What is important here, is that our industry became more competitive then they were before.
When governments first talked about forcing auto makers to reduce their emissions, they fought long and hard against it. And then, they started to realize that their cars were actually better and lots of people are willing to pay a premium for electric & hybrid cars, so that's all the rage now. But had we listen to them, they'd still be selling 15L/100km SUVs instead of making tons of money with their new cars wich they can sell at a premium to willing customers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2015, 01:29:05 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2015, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:22:30 AM
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
That part isn't getting very much media play...
Probably because abortion has nothing to do with climate change. Or does Fox state otherwise?
well, less humans means less carbon dioxyde. So, abortion is a good thing to reduce climate change ;)
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2015, 02:14:14 PM
they don't have the right to pollute, they have to buy credits for their pollution, from people who pollute less.
They are buying credits from people who were given the right to pollute.
QuoteOvertime, there is a distinct advantage to any company that reduces its carbon dioxyde emissions.
The same is true under the mongers regime. Any company that reduces emissions pays less carbon tax.
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2015, 02:14:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2015, 01:29:05 PM
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2015, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:22:30 AM
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
That part isn't getting very much media play...
Probably because abortion has nothing to do with climate change. Or does Fox state otherwise?
well, less humans means less carbon dioxyde. So, abortion is a good thing to reduce climate change ;)
There are a lot of ways one can think of to reduce the number of humans on this planet. Many of them seem a bit extreme. Birth rates in the high carbon countries are already low. The point seems a stretch at best. At worst it is just another attempt to derail the real discussion. How do we reduce carbon emissions in the developed world, China and India.
The popester thinks Bruce Jenner should have been happy as a man. Cause that's how God made him.
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2015, 02:13:00 PM
I really like this Pope.
He's more or less willing to tolerate you back. ;)
Like him or not, he seems to at least make the church somewhat relevant in the 21st century. By bringing it into the 20th. Which is quite a feat.
Quote from: KRonn on June 19, 2015, 01:01:05 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 19, 2015, 11:22:30 AM
People on the left are drooling over this thing, but they're conveniently ignoring the abortion part.
That part isn't getting very much media play...
Lots of things ignored don't get a lot of play in the media.
Quote from: viper37 on June 19, 2015, 12:41:47 PM
A free market alternative
Taxation is not an alternative to a free market, it is in fact a pre-requisite to a free market.
And if the goal is to make taxation as efficient and less distortive as possible, carbon taxation has a lot to recommend it.
Joan, I'm pretty sure veep was getting at policies which harness economic incentives.
Quote from: Malthus on June 19, 2015, 02:48:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2015, 02:13:00 PM
I really like this Pope.
He's more or less willing to tolerate you back. ;)
I am not saying I agree with all that he does or says - he still has his base to pander to. And I have found spiritual satisfaction outside of the Catholic church, so don't really need to get back in. But as Norgy said, he is at least making his voice relevant where he can, and shifting focus to stuff where he can make a difference while staying true to the Catholic message. So I am not as much a follower, as a fellow traveller of the guy. ;)
I bet I don't feel that much different about him than he feels about me.
Quote from: Martinus on June 20, 2015, 09:34:44 AM
I bet I don't feel that much different about him than he feels about me.
:yes: He thinks you're waaay too old for him.
Quote from: The Brain on June 20, 2015, 09:40:40 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 20, 2015, 09:34:44 AM
I bet I don't feel that much different about him than he feels about me.
:yes: He thinks you're waaay too old for him.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
From the encyclical:
Quote"Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price, foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms the absolute power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises after a slow, costly and only apparent recovery."
:wub:
For most members of the progressive left the facts at some point become irrelevant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2015, 01:56:49 PM
For most members of the progressive left the facts at some point become irrelevant.
Is there such thing as "progressive right"? Or "regressive left"?
Quote from: Martinus on June 21, 2015, 01:57:56 PM
Is there such thing as "progressive right"? Or "regressive left"?
Teddy Roosevelt. Communists.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 19, 2015, 01:34:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2015, 01:29:05 PM
Probably because abortion has nothing to do with climate change. Or does Fox state otherwise?
It probably reduces the effects or the rate of change, due to fewer energy consumers.
Anyway, if global warming gets too bad, my kids can move to Alaska. :uffda:
We had record highs in the 80s here a few days ago...it was pretty miserable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 19, 2015, 02:32:18 PM
How do we reduce carbon emissions in the developed world, China and India.
- increase electricity production by non fossile fuels and these states should then export, at fair price, their electricity to those who rely on fossile fuels.
- increase public transportation services in big cities, i.e., make them efficient to use instead of trying to screw the automobile driver so he would eventually adopt public transit
- go with the hammer on automobile manufacturers, since they require a bail out every now and then, force them to reduce the emissions of their vehicles. Well, that's mostly done.
- rework the road system in major cities to avoid unnecessary congestion, wich is done to piss off auto drivers in the first place as a way to force them to use inefficient public transportation
- impose sanctions on goods from countries wich do not adhere to our environmental standards. When the Chinese realize they can't outsource us the cost of their negligence, they'll start caring.
that's for the non extreme measures. If you want extremes, a nuke or two on China, in the name of environmental protection, would rally the CdM of this world to the cause. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
Joan, I'm pretty sure veep was getting at policies which harness economic incentives.
yes.
Make it a tax, and everyone will try to dodge it, resulting in often counter-productive effort.
I tire of this pope.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 21, 2015, 04:18:19 PM
I tire of this pope.
Don't go all Henry VIII on us. :(
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
Joan, I'm pretty sure veep was getting at policies which harness economic incentives.
yes.
Make it a tax, and everyone will try to dodge it, resulting in often counter-productive effort.
Uh, that's the point. They dodge the tax by not producing as much carbon.
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
Joan, I'm pretty sure veep was getting at policies which harness economic incentives.
yes.
Make it a tax, and everyone will try to dodge it, resulting in often counter-productive effort.
Why is a carbon tax easier to dodge than a cap on carbon emissions?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2015, 05:41:50 PM
Uh, that's the point. They dodge the tax by not producing as much carbon.
I assume he means fraud/mis-reporting. But again I don't see how a mandatory cap regime solves that problem.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2015, 10:04:05 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
Joan, I'm pretty sure veep was getting at policies which harness economic incentives.
yes.
Make it a tax, and everyone will try to dodge it, resulting in often counter-productive effort.
Why is a carbon tax easier to dodge than a cap on carbon emissions?
It's not. It's just seems so.
Well, he still hasn't confirmed whether he shits in the woods :mellow:
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 10:21:08 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2015, 10:04:05 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2015, 03:40:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
Joan, I'm pretty sure veep was getting at policies which harness economic incentives.
yes.
Make it a tax, and everyone will try to dodge it, resulting in often counter-productive effort.
Why is a carbon tax easier to dodge than a cap on carbon emissions?
It's not. It's just seems so.
How is it easier to dodge a carbon tax on an end product like the gas pump for example. I am asking for a friend.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2015, 10:33:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 10:21:08 AM
It's not. It's just seems so.
Why is that?
Because Upper managements motives their teams of accountants & lawyers into doing so, just like they do for every other tax. It's Business as usual.
@CC Hire a tax lawyer.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 10:41:28 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2015, 10:33:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 10:21:08 AM
It's not. It's just seems so.
Why is that?
Because Upper managements motives their teams of accountants & lawyers into doing so, just like they do for every other tax. It's Business as usual.
@CC Hire a tax lawyer.
You want me to pay some guy a bunch of money to tell me there is no way to dodge the carbon tax on gas?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 10:44:55 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 10:41:28 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2015, 10:33:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 10:21:08 AM
It's not. It's just seems so.
Why is that?
Because Upper managements motives their teams of accountants & lawyers into doing so, just like they do for every other tax. It's Business as usual.
@CC Hire a tax lawyer.
You want me to pay some guy a bunch of money to tell me there is no way to dodge the carbon tax on gas?
Oh there's a way.
Well don't be greedy. Share with the class.
I don't like taking work away from lawyers tho.
Transfer the burden of the cost of gas to you tax heaven located shell subsidiary and ask for a refund of the tax since it's not located in Canada nor does it do business in Canada.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 11:03:10 AM
I don't like taking work away from lawyers tho.
Transfer the burden of the cost of gas to you tax heaven located shell subsidiary and ask for a refund of the tax since it's not located in Canada nor does it do business in Canada.
The tax is on consumers. Even tourists have to pay it.
Oh!
Find another customer pass the burden unto them just like the cies do.
THis is an idiotic argument.
You are basically saying we should not tax this because the tax you imagine will be poorly written and it will be easier to avoid than comply, hence nobody will comply.
Sure, that is possible - but it is an equally (in)valid argument for every possible tax or regulation imaginable.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 11:07:33 AM
Oh!
Find another customer pass the burden unto them just like the cies do.
Sure, even if that occurs there is still an extra cost incurred to someone which creates the market incentive for alternative energy products to be developed. The goal isn't to maximize tax revenue. The goal is to create the market conditions for alternative energy products to be developed and flourish.
A noble goal but what if the means destroy the middle class economy?
Then we will all look like silly billies now won't we?
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 11:47:37 AM
A noble goal but what if the means destroy the middle class economy?
How does that destroy something called a middle class economy?
A couple of countries have imposed carbon taxes. Any analysis which suggest they have been prone to unusually high evasion rates?
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2015, 11:09:52 AM
THis is an idiotic argument.
You are basically saying we should not tax this because the tax you imagine will be poorly written and it will be easier to avoid than comply, hence nobody will comply.
Sure, that is possible - but it is an equally (in)valid argument for every possible tax or regulation imaginable.
In fact it is an argument that could be used against every single law ever written. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2015, 10:04:05 AM
Why is a carbon tax easier to dodge than a cap on carbon emissions?
Why is income tax easier to dogde than sales tax?
Presumable, by the time you get into a carbon tax, there'll be thousands of exceptions, and big corporations will hire armies of lawyers, just like they do for their other taxes to try to find loopholes to exploit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 10:38:22 AM
How is it easier to dodge a carbon tax on an end product like the gas pump for example. I am asking for a friend.
how do you dodge sales tax at the gas pump?
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2015, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 10:38:22 AM
How is it easier to dodge a carbon tax on an end product like the gas pump for example. I am asking for a friend.
how do you dodge sales tax at the gas pump?
You don't. That's my point. I am not sure why you think there is a good analogy with income tax.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 12:17:30 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 11:47:37 AM
A noble goal but what if the means destroy the middle class economy?
How does that destroy something called a middle class economy?
When the price of gas at the pump goes up, the middle class stays home. When the Middle class stays home all facets of the economy suffers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 01:12:15 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2015, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 10:38:22 AM
How is it easier to dodge a carbon tax on an end product like the gas pump for example. I am asking for a friend.
how do you dodge sales tax at the gas pump?
You don't. That's my point. I am not sure why you think there is a good analogy with income tax.
Well... there is a way. It's a bit convoluted though and involves a quite a bit of fraud. The customer isn't dodging the tax, but a third party can by setting up dummy gas dealers.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 01:16:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 12:17:30 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 11:47:37 AM
A noble goal but what if the means destroy the middle class economy?
How does that destroy something called a middle class economy?
When the price of gas at the pump goes up, the middle class stays home. When the Middle class stays home all facets of the economy suffers.
That didn't happen in BC when the carbon tax was imposed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 01:23:08 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 01:16:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 12:17:30 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 11:47:37 AM
A noble goal but what if the means destroy the middle class economy?
How does that destroy something called a middle class economy?
When the price of gas at the pump goes up, the middle class stays home. When the Middle class stays home all facets of the economy suffers.
That didn't happen in BC when the carbon tax was imposed.
That was a long time ago though.
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2015, 01:27:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 01:23:08 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 01:16:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 12:17:30 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 11:47:37 AM
A noble goal but what if the means destroy the middle class economy?
How does that destroy something called a middle class economy?
When the price of gas at the pump goes up, the middle class stays home. When the Middle class stays home all facets of the economy suffers.
That didn't happen in BC when the carbon tax was imposed.
That was a long time ago though.
So it has a good track record. :P
Gas didn't go up?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
Joan, I'm pretty sure veep was getting at policies which harness economic incentives.
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2015, 03:39:41 PM
- increase electricity production by non fossile fuels and these states should then export, at fair price, their electricity to those who rely on fossile fuels.
- increase public transportation services in big cities, i.e., make them efficient to use instead of trying to screw the automobile driver so he would eventually adopt public transit
- go with the hammer on automobile manufacturers, since they require a bail out every now and then, force them to reduce the emissions of their vehicles. Well, that's mostly done.
- rework the road system in major cities to avoid unnecessary congestion, wich is done to piss off auto drivers in the first place as a way to force them to use inefficient public transportation
- impose sanctions on goods from countries wich do not adhere to our environmental standards. When the Chinese realize they can't outsource us the cost of their negligence, they'll start caring.
that's for the non extreme measures. If you want extremes, a nuke or two on China, in the name of environmental protection, would rally the CdM of this world to the cause. ;)
:hmm: Are you sticking by your assessment, Yi?
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 01:30:38 PM
Gas didn't go up?
Gas did go up but the middle class didn't stay home and the economy didn't suffer. So the evidence we have is that your prediction of what would occur is not accurate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 01:36:53 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 01:30:38 PM
Gas didn't go up?
Gas did go up but the middle class didn't stay home and the economy didn't suffer. So the evidence we have is that your prediction of what would occur is not accurate.
In B.C., in the vancouver area. Where people are paying 1 000 000$ for shacks.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 01:38:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2015, 01:36:53 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2015, 01:30:38 PM
Gas didn't go up?
Gas did go up but the middle class didn't stay home and the economy didn't suffer. So the evidence we have is that your prediction of what would occur is not accurate.
In B.C., in the vancouver area. Where people are paying 1 000 000$ for shacks.
The carbon tax applied to the entire province. And you are correct. It didn't seem to have an adverse effect on property prices in Vancouver. :P
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2015, 01:04:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2015, 10:04:05 AM
Why is a carbon tax easier to dodge than a cap on carbon emissions?
Why is income tax easier to dogde than sales tax?
It depends on the income tax but typically because "income" is a complex concept that requires definition and also because for political reasons, income taxes as implemented tend to get very complex. Notwithstanding those difficulties, most states do levy income taxes, often quite successfully.
QuotePresumable, by the time you get into a carbon tax, there'll be thousands of exceptions, and big corporations will hire armies of lawyers, just like they do for their other taxes to try to find loopholes to exploit.
Possibly but that is the same problem that exists with various kinds of cap schemes, and indeed, as Martinus argued, with virtually any mandatory legislation.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2015, 01:42:56 PM
Possibly but that is the same problem that exists with various kinds of cap schemes, and indeed, as Martinus argued, with virtually any mandatory legislation.
the tax will penalize everyone, but the credit trade will stimulate investment in green energy so that you would have people who are selling these credits because ther industry does not pollute at all, so that others can either pay the cost of their pollution, or find ways to optimize their process.
If you hike tax prices by 10cents a liter, you create an adverse effect on the economy because there will be no way to dodge that tax for the end consumers, businesses will send the cost to consumers, simply. So, heating oil will be more expensive, travelling and transportation will be more expensive, wich in turn will make everything we consume of higher price.
And there's the psychological effect. As soon as you pronounce the word tax, people with money try to find a way to dodge it.
If you create a sort of carbon market, then some people get creative to reduce their emissions instead of simply shifting the costs down to consumers because there is a competitive advantage for them to do so.
You dodge the gas tax by buying electric wheels, taking public trans, or riding a bike.
Same thing that would happen if gas producers had to buy emission permits.
Exactly.
Economically there isn't much difference between a tax and a cap and trade scheme. From the POV of a business, they both impose a cost. Whether the cost can and will be passed onto consumers depends on the industry structure and the shape of demand curves, not whether you call it a "tax" or a "permit cost". It's really the same thing. The only difference is cap and trade targets quantity whereas the carbon tax acts directly on price. The cap regimes makes sense if you really want to control quantity directly but you run the risk that crazy things can happen with price. With the carbon tax you have more control over the economic impact but it may not reduce emissions by the amount desired.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2015, 01:34:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 20, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
Joan, I'm pretty sure veep was getting at policies which harness economic incentives.
Quote from: viper37 on June 21, 2015, 03:39:41 PM
- increase electricity production by non fossile fuels and these states should then export, at fair price, their electricity to those who rely on fossile fuels.
- increase public transportation services in big cities, i.e., make them efficient to use instead of trying to screw the automobile driver so he would eventually adopt public transit
- go with the hammer on automobile manufacturers, since they require a bail out every now and then, force them to reduce the emissions of their vehicles. Well, that's mostly done.
- rework the road system in major cities to avoid unnecessary congestion, wich is done to piss off auto drivers in the first place as a way to force them to use inefficient public transportation
- impose sanctions on goods from countries wich do not adhere to our environmental standards. When the Chinese realize they can't outsource us the cost of their negligence, they'll start caring.
that's for the non extreme measures. If you want extremes, a nuke or two on China, in the name of environmental protection, would rally the CdM of this world to the cause. ;)
:hmm: Are you sticking by your assessment, Yi?
there's a difference between a credit system for greenhouse gas and how to reduce greenhouse gas. We don't reduce our emissions by kneeling and praying. Transporation and energy production are often regulated by the State. I could have added "eliminate subsidies on oil production". I fail to see how subsidizing a type of production over another is free market.