Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 8, 2010 22:25:54 GMT -4
The biblical Noah was a doomsday forecaster and he was right once, but when he was right, his detractors perished. So, if you believe that story, doomsday forcasters can be right. Two problems with that analogy: 1. In the Biblical narrative, Noah doesn't actually tell anyone that they're all about to be drowned. So he didn't really forecast anything to anyone and he didn't have any detractors. 2. Noah wasn't anything like a modern environmentalist. There is no indication he tried to limit his carbon emissions at all.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Apr 20, 2010 14:34:53 GMT -4
The biblical Noah was a doomsday forecaster and he was right once, but when he was right, his detractors perished. So, if you believe that story, doomsday forcasters can be right. Two problems with that analogy: 1. In the Biblical narrative, Noah doesn't actually tell anyone that they're all about to be drowned. So he didn't really forecast anything to anyone and he didn't have any detractors. 2. Noah wasn't anything like a modern environmentalist. There is no indication he tried to limit his carbon emissions at all. So would you buy a modern version of Noah who rounded up species and said that we were all in danger -- kind of like Noah but a blabbermouth. I kind of recall that he DID warn people -- either that or people thought he was wacky noodles. Isn't that part of the story that people thought he was crazy? By the way, if someone told you that God told them to tell everyone to limit carbon emissions, would you believe them? If not, why not? Does God talk to you?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 20, 2010 15:20:11 GMT -4
I kind of recall that he DID warn people -- either that or people thought he was wacky noodles. Isn't that part of the story that people thought he was crazy? Like I said, it's not in the Bible. That is a subject for another thread. Suffice it to say, I do not believe the predictions of doom from anyone who cannot back up what they say somehow. In the realm of science that means real research based on real data, and not massaged towards a given conclusion. I have yet to see anything to convince me that there is a definite causal link between CO2 released by human activity and global climate warming. What most purveyors of global warmism concentrate on is the evidence that the climate is changing. Even if such evidence is valid, it doesn't prove we caused it. The fact that their suggested fixes for the problem coincides nicely with populist wealth redistribution schemes and increased government control of unpopular industries makes me extremely suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Apr 21, 2010 4:33:07 GMT -4
...people thought he [Noah] was wacky noodles. Isn't that part of the story that people thought he was crazy? You're getting confused. That's the story Bill Cosby told on stage back in 1986: "Who is this really? What's goin' on? How come you want me to do all these things?" [Build an ark and gather all the animals.] "I'm going to destroy the world." "Right! Am I on Candid Camera?" And later: I'm just wondering, what would be the effect of an ark on the average neighbour? Now here's a guy going to work, 7 o'clock in the morning, Noah's next-door neighbour, and he sees the ark. "Hey! Y'all up there!" "Waddya want?" "What is this?" "It's an ark" "Uh-huh. [Long pause] You wanna get it out of my driveway? I've gotta get to work."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 21, 2010 11:06:09 GMT -4
I'm just wondering, what would be the effect of an ark on the average neighbour? Now here's a guy going to work, 7 o'clock in the morning, Noah's next-door neighbour, and he sees the ark. "Hey! Y'all up there!" "Waddya want?" "What is this?" "It's an ark" "Uh-huh. [Long pause] You wanna get it out of my driveway? I've gotta get to work." Neighbor: "So what's this thing for anyway?" Noah: "I can't tell you. Ha ha ha ha ha." Neighbor: "Can you give me a hint?" Noah: "You want a hint?" Neighbor: "Yeah." Noah: "How long can you tread water? Ha ha ha ha ha."
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 21, 2010 11:23:18 GMT -4
The fact that their suggested fixes for the problem coincides nicely with populist wealth redistribution schemes and increased government control of unpopular industries makes me extremely suspicious. There is also little in the way of proof that the proposed remedies would be efficacious. Further skepticism need be applied to the assumption that governments could even implement potentially efficacious environmental reforms in a manner that would be useful. For example we could eliminate much of our carbon production by building more nuclear power plants. Except government constraints make next to impossible to build. Thanks to the environmentalist movement. At the same time, we subsidies wind based energy production which can only provide incremental reductions in carbon emissions and require a high level of redundancy from fueled sources for the days the wind doesn't blow enough. I have a very hard time separating the science from the enviro-religious political agenda in understanding what is fact and dogma in this debate. My study of history tells me that governments are structurally incapable of separating these in forming policy. Until there is more clarity on the subject, the politics of global warming deserve extreme skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 21, 2010 14:05:08 GMT -4
Further skepticism need be applied to the assumption that governments could even implement potentially efficacious environmental reforms in a manner that would be useful. Really? What about automotive emissions standards in California? Which, in fact, have impact outside California, because automotive companies tend to build them into all their cars rather than make cars specifically for the California market.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 21, 2010 15:14:20 GMT -4
Further skepticism need be applied to the assumption that governments could even implement potentially efficacious environmental reforms in a manner that would be useful. Really? What about automotive emissions standards in California? Which, in fact, have impact outside California, because automotive companies tend to build them into all their cars rather than make cars specifically for the California market. Which begs the question - have the California emissions standards actually improved the environment? And is the improvement worth the cost in funds and lives (lighter cars are generally not as survivable in accidents).
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 22, 2010 9:44:50 GMT -4
Further skepticism need be applied to the assumption that governments could even implement potentially efficacious environmental reforms in a manner that would be useful. Really? What about automotive emissions standards in California? Which, in fact, have impact outside California, because automotive companies tend to build them into all their cars rather than make cars specifically for the California market. Some clarification. I am not proposing that environmental regulation is exclusively negative. I am specifically referring to carbon emission regulations. Assuming that carbon emissions are causing unfavorable climate change. The global level of carbon emissions that would no longer effect the climate is nothing more than a guess based on models that are constantly revised. There is no real world way to collect data to show this. This is exacerbated by the tragedy of the commons problem, if the US cut emissions to zero, it may not even help, because emissions in the the developing world are growing quickly. So assuming that carbon emissions are causing climate change there is no straight forward way to affect that change. So assuming global warming is legitiamte, how can this be addressed. Solutions I've seen proposed to date all require extensive insertion of government into economic affairs. For example, carbon based tariffs on imports to affect penalize pouting manufactures while compensating complaint domestic manufacturers. We have enough experience with tariffs and other restraints on trade to know that they typically result in rent seeking by domestic producers and unions. Because there is no rational level of tariff that can be assessed, manufactures and unions will push for the highest level of protection available regardless of the cost to the consumer. This is called rent seeking and penalizes consumers to the benefit of owners and a few employees. It is an expected result when the government is enmeshed in economic affairs. The allied concern is corporate influence on the government. If we are concerned about it now, for things such as favorable tax rules, just wait until the government is in the position to pass out special relief for emission requirements. The result is highly anti-democratic and there is no institutional way to prevent it. Governments are monopolies and can be expected to act like monopolies. That is to eliminate competition and maximize the economic benefits to its constituents at the expense of its customers. The customers being its citizens.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 22, 2010 13:29:43 GMT -4
Surely the citizens are also the constituents? Or is it, as the Supreme Court seems to believe, as much the corporations who are writing the laws anyway?
No, if emissions standards work in cars, there's no reason to automatically assume they won't work elsewhere, so far as I'm concerned. And in exactly the same fashion.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 22, 2010 15:28:25 GMT -4
It is not that emissions standards won't lower emissions. It is that the any standard for the gross level of permitted carbon emissions would be essentially arbitrary and the efficacy of any level of emission reduction, much less unilateral action, is in question. Too little and we may do no good, wasting the billions in wealth put into reductions. To much and we waste billions in wealth by over protecting. And that is assuming we can do any good at all.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 22, 2010 16:05:20 GMT -4
That's not an inherent problem with the regulations, though. Just the setting of whatever limits are set. Besides, I am personally of the opinion that, even if you choose to disbelieve the scientific consensus, it's smarter to avoid dumping things into the atmosphere as much as possible, no matter what they are. You never know, after all.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 22, 2010 17:36:56 GMT -4
I think efficiency is an ideal that automakers should be striving for, and I don't understand why they treat it like a burden that has to be forced upon them.
If a computer programmer wrote inefficient code their software would be less successful than their more efficient competitors. I like finding ways to make the programs I write do things with as few lines of code as possible. Clean and simple code is beautiful. And yet when it comes to cars people seem to love big, heavy, and inefficient. If I designed engines I would be obsessed with using as little gasoline as possible... and my cars wouldn't sell.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 23, 2010 11:40:24 GMT -4
I think efficiency is an ideal that automakers should be striving for, and I don't understand why they treat it like a burden that has to be forced upon them. If a computer programmer wrote inefficient code their software would be less successful than their more efficient competitors. I like finding ways to make the programs I write do things with as few lines of code as possible. Clean and simple code is beautiful. And yet when it comes to cars people seem to love big, heavy, and inefficient. If I designed engines I would be obsessed with using as little gasoline as possible... and my cars wouldn't sell. You answered your own question. Car manufacturers want to build cars they can sell for a profit, not cars no one will buy. Toyota has the Prius, but they also have whole lines of pickups and SUVs that they make real money on.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Apr 23, 2010 18:19:48 GMT -4
You answered your own question. Car manufacturers want to build cars they can sell for a profit, not cars no one will buy. Toyota has the Prius, but they also have whole lines of pickups and SUVs that they make real money on. It seems to be a distressingly common viewpoint that people buy fuel inefficient cars, because that's what the automakers produce, rather than the view that automakers make inefficient cars, because that's what the public wants to buy. Which begs the question - have the California emissions standards actually improved the environment? The air quality in Los Angeles has improved quite a bit during the time that the standards have been in place. The extent to which the standards should get credit for that might be a matter of some debate. Also, whether the improvement was achieved at anything close to the best possible price - well, that's the problem with direct rather than incentive regulation. And that's an issue with things like CAFE as well. If the goal is carbon emissions reduction, then it regulates the wrong thing. It forces a decrease in carbon emissions per unit of distance driven (provided the cars are maintained properly, and CAFE provides no particular incentive to do that), but it provides no incentive to drive less (and perhaps a disincentive, if it lowers the cost of driving), no incentive to share rides, no incentive to take public transportation (and again possibly disincentives, if it lowers the cost of driving), etc. A tax on fuel, offset by a reduction in other taxes, would be a better way to reduce carbon emissions than direct regulation. But it would be less emotionally satisfying than direct regulation.
|
|