Global Warming

[mld]

no they pay money to get em taken away, otherwise they'll be buried in rubbish. Pollution is different in that it goes into the air and doesn't have a short term direct effect. Putting rubbish that floats in the air I guess.

But the market in skip[s is a decent analogy. Years ago companies dumped their rubbish in the river or the bush, that became illegal then they had to hire skips, then tips became more regulated as the effect of different kinds of toxic rubbish became apparent. Skips became dearer, companies become mopper and more smarter or efficient with their wast, and skip companies do the same in a cut throat competitive highly regulated market. A good study in a regulated and evolving market as new knowledge and societies expectations change.

None of this supports the proposed trading system over taxing the inputs though.

 

[tigersnake]

I have my views on the CT but one thing that I disapprove of is why a portion of the CT is to be given to the United Nations to help poorer countries battle climate change.

Tigersnake can you tell me if this is fair or not, you look as if you're the Greg Combet of PRE. ;D

I'll take it as a compliment, Combet is a member of Cabinet who I like and respect. Smart, understated. Hate shorten anyway...

very complex question re UN, very complex. To try and answer it while watching the cricket, in a nutshell, geez, the poor countries argue that we got rich and they stayed poor because of us. That is colonisation. Europe colonised Africa and Asia and stripped it of wealth and wreaked havoc, Japan colonised Asia and did the same. THEN colonisation ended and we consolidated that wealth and had monster booms based on cheap energy back when nobody knew or cared about the environmental effects. SO we ( Europe, US, Japan) took our money from colonisation, industrialised with cheap energy and no emissions regs and made a motza.

Now we are saying we have to go greener energy, and we have the money to invest to do because we are rich. So the poor countries who are running 50 years or more behind us in development terms, are saying fair suck of the sav. you've made a motza and have a good life based on cheap energy, why can't we have a go?

Now we say, oK we can see your argument, but if you all build coal power stations and drive big cars we are all stuffed, so we'll give you a bit of $$ to get going. Does that make any sense.?

The reality is though that rich countries tend to drag the chain or pike altogether on their UN pledges.

 

[mld]

In fact, when I think about it, your analogy is a good argument against government-created markets. The market involving skips evolved without government design, as a result of regulations preventing previous behaviours. The current proposal isn't that at all, it is forcing the 600 (IIRC) largest companies to participate in an artificial market designed and run by the government.

Pricing the inputs would be more effective in terms of driving emissions down. It applies to all emitters, it is far more difficult to fudge the figures on, and provides a competitive advantage for companies that can use less inputs than their competitors (and as a result, creating less emissions. It even creates space for companies to provide low emissions services and technologies.

A better analogy for the emissions trading proposal would be discouraging smoking by putting in place a trading system for the country's biggest smokers, pricing how much smoke they inhale, making them trade for how much they can inhale. After all, it is the smoke that is the problem, not the input.

 

[evo]

We know how much carbon is produced when we burn a litre of oil. Very clear.

the grand irony is that oil is going to be excluded from these extra prices hikes/tax. It is freakin' bizarre

 

[tigersnake]

the grand irony is that oil is going to be excluded from these extra prices hikes/tax. It is freakin' bizarre

its not ideal, but I don't see it as bizarre. This initial measure is highly politicised. Politics is reality. Its a highly pragmatic tiny first step, basically the only real policy outcome is to initialise the acceptance of a price on pollution, thats it. But i believe that is a significant first step. Its gunna be a long road.

Mld i'll have to take that on notice, I remember reading stuff about it, seems fair on the face of it.

 

[BustinDustin]

Of course it was a compliment mate, I knew Greg going back now nearly 15 years ago and he really stamped his authority in politics during the MUA saga, the only Labour politician who I respect.

Do we really trust the UN to hand out the money to these countries, do we really trust these poorer countries will utilise the money to combat CT? IMO Tigersnake it smells of a New World Order to me. For as long I have been on this planet I've been hearing of starving children in Africa, countless organisations have been involved in sponsoring children and raising money to feed, shelter & clothe these human beings but these people are still starving and do not have the everyday necessities to even survive and in this country we have people with their jar of vaseline and are saying yes please to CT as they lie over a barrel.

If the world is really serious about significantly reducing CT then alternatives to fossil fuelled passenger vehicles must become mandatory and stinging us for using electricity should be a secondary alternative. I know automotive manufactures are designing the cleaner alternatives but the push must come from the UN to stamp out fossil fuelled passenger vehicles, that would be a very good start. But wait, the oil conglomerates wouldn't be in favour of this would they? Massively reducing carbon by eliminating fossil fuels for passenger vehicle will create a massive dent in their profits. Countries such as China, Vietnam, and even India are still growing and the growing rate of fossil fuelled vehicles on their roads hasn't really peaked. It's more like one step forward and hundred steps back. Welcome to the new world!

 

[Giardiasis]

I dunno what to say. Dunno where to start, as I've said, I love free markets, but they are there for us, we aren't there for the market. Markets fail all the time and impinge on human rights or destroy the environment. A classic example taught in HSC economics is slavery. The south of the US got hugely wealthy on the back of slavery. If you care about human rights, its a classic case of market failure. Labour was too cheap, just like energy is too cheap now. The Prez stepped in and wanted to ban slavery, the South said get stuffed don't mess with the free market, black people aren't human like us, we'll lose competitive advantage to other countries with slaves etc etc. It seems weird now but it was a fairly even debate at the time. Like I said, I love markets, but they have to be regulated where people or the environment gets hurt, thats my view.

You have a confused idea of what the free market is and a warped view of history. Pro-slavery laws were anti-free market, it was government intervention that allowed this despicable treatment of people to occur. The state benefited from slavery laws, not society. Adam Smith, the father of free markets, opposed them after all, both morally and economically. The work of free men comes cheaper than slaves, it was the free market that resulted in their abolishment, as it demonstrated the inefficient division of labor slavery created separate from the moral problem.

Where do you draw the line on laissez faire? thats what I always wonder, the laws of the land effect markets, chuck 'em out, taken to its logical conclusion, your argument, if someone want to buy it and someone want to sell it, thats fine. Teenage prostitution fine, (I know you are'nt for that mind you just making a point), why have insider trading laws, any corp regs at all, why have open AGMs, it goes on and on. Markets have never been totally free, never will. again, I love free markets, but failures have to be regulated, and I believe this matter is one of the most important to regulate in history.

We obviously need a judicial system to define what private property is, and laws to protect people from fraud and c.o.e.r.c.i.o.n (sorry for some reason it wont let me spell ccion properly) from others. In terms of where you draw the line, well 2 people can engage in a transaction as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Example 1 person can't make a valid contract with other to kill another. Example 1 person can't make a valid contract with another to prostitute a minor. It is up to society through parliament to decide these matters.

The biggest gripe I have with the government's interference in the free market involves it providing unions and banks with unfair protections that allow it to distort the free market and even commit fraud.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

c.o.e.r.c.i.o.n (sorry for some reason it wont let me spell ccion properly)

The PRE filter doesn't like O.E.R.

 

[tigersnake]

You have a confused idea of what the free market is and a warped view of history. Pro-slavery laws were anti-free market, it was government intervention that allowed this despicable treatment of people to occur. The state benefited from slavery laws, not society. Adam Smith, the father of free markets, opposed them after all, both morally and economically. The work of free men comes cheaper than slaves, it was the free market that resulted in their abolishment, as it demonstrated the inefficient division of labor slavery created separate from the moral problem.

Depends which side of the fence you were on at the time. Its easy to say all that now, but at the time the South rejected the scientific consensus that black people were human. They believed, or kidded themselves more like, they were somewhere between monkeys and humans, but not human, therefore not eligible to human rights like humans. Huge battle over the science of the time, which was market driven depending on your vested interests, sounds familiar don't it?

 

[tigersnake]

The PRE filter doesn't like O.E.R.

I thought it was just me, I've been having a bit of trouble today, one of my earlier posts made no sense. I only had 1 beer.

 

[tigersnake]

Of course it was a compliment mate, I knew Greg going back now nearly 15 years ago and he really stamped his authority in politics during the MUA saga, the only Labour politician who I respect.

Do we really trust the UN to hand out the money to these countries, do we really trust these poorer countries will utilise the money to combat CT? IMO Tigersnake it smells of a New World Order to me. For as long I have been on this planet I've been hearing of starving children in Africa, countless organisations have been involved in sponsoring children and raising money to feed, shelter & clothe these human beings but these people are still starving and do not have the everyday necessities to even survive and in this country we have people with their jar of vaseline and are saying yes please to CT as they lie over a barrel.

If the world is really serious about significantly reducing CT then alternatives to fossil fuelled passenger vehicles must become mandatory and stinging us for using electricity should be a secondary alternative. I know automotive manufactures are designing the cleaner alternatives but the push must come from the UN to stamp out fossil fuelled passenger vehicles, that would be a very good start. But wait, the oil conglomerates wouldn't be in favour of this would they? Massively reducing carbon by eliminating fossil fuels for passenger vehicle will create a massive dent in their profits. Countries such as China, Vietnam, and even India are still growing and the growing rate of fossil fuelled vehicles on their roads hasn't really peaked. It's more like one step forward and hundred steps back. Welcome to the new world!

GC hey, seems like a future PM. They can stick shorten geez

I's sorry Bustin but I believe the NWO thing or world Government is paranoid *smile*. 2 point on the UN aid that the research indicates:

1) First World countries often band together and make high-minded pledges, but often or usually more like, fall far short, don't come good on them.

2) A lot of overseas aid actually ends up back in the country that has given that aid's pocket. For example via consultants, hiring Aus companies to put in infrastructure in Africa, things like that. You may or may not agree with that but it is what generally happens.

I totally agree its 2 steps forward and a hundred steps back. I know it sounds pissweak but its better than no steps forward. I reckon it will quickly become 10 steps forward and 100 steps back, then 40 steps forward, etc etc. Its a massive change in thinking, but it has to start somewhere.

 

[AngryAnt]

You have a confused idea of what the free market is and a warped view of history. Pro-slavery laws were anti-free market, it was government intervention that allowed this despicable treatment of people to occur.

What a load of rubbish. The slave economy drove huge economic wealth for England and for the South, and for other countries and colonies that utilised slavery For example, the tobacco farms in the Caribbean colonies were totally dependent upon slave labor to generate obscene wealth for the English who owned them. The slave trade was a great example of the free market when humans were treated as a commodity. Much of the slave trade occurred outside government jurisdictions in any case and there was no international regulation, there being no international bodies at the time.

Of course governments benefited from the wealth generated by slaves, as did the rest of society, no argument. To argue that the slave trade occurred in spite of the free market rather than because of it beggars belief.

 

[tigersnake]

What a load of rubbish. The slave economy drove huge economic wealth for England and for the South, and for other countries and colonies that utilised slavery For example, the tobacco farms in the Caribbean colonies were totally dependent upon slave labor to generate obscene wealth for the English who owned them. The slave trade was a great example of the free market when humans were treated as a commodity. Much of the slave trade occurred outside government jurisdictions in any case and there was no international regulation, there being no international bodies at the time.

Of course governments benefited from the wealth generated by slaves, as did the rest of society, no argument. To argue that the slave trade occurred in spite of the free market rather than because of it beggars belief.

yep. G-man wants it all his own way. At the time, there was a market in black people, if you believed that they were sub human, it was a free market, if you believed they were people, it was a market failure. Simple. And thats what the American Civil War was over.

 

[Giardiasis]

Depends which side of the fence you were on at the time. Its easy to say all that now, but at the time the South rejected the scientific consensus that black people were human. They believed, or kidded themselves more like, they were somewhere between monkeys and humans, but not human, therefore not eligible to human rights like humans. Huge battle over the science of the time, which was market driven depending on your vested interests, sounds familiar don't it?

Pretty sure people weren't debating the issue in terms of an established scientific consensus. That is a modern day way for warmists to argue global warming.
It's the economy stupid, pure and simple. The people that enjoyed the economic benefits didn't want to give up their advantages, and the rest of society suffered. The free market demonstrated the economic superiority of free workers over slaves. If you don't understand how slavery is anti-free market, then you do not understand free markets.

 

[Giardiasis]

What a load of rubbish. The slave economy drove huge economic wealth for England and for the South, and for other countries and colonies that utilised slavery For example, the tobacco farms in the Caribbean colonies were totally dependent upon slave labor to generate obscene wealth for the English who owned them. The slave trade was a great example of the free market when humans were treated as a commodity. Much of the slave trade occurred outside government jurisdictions in any case and there was no international regulation, there being no international bodies at the time.

Of course governments benefited from the wealth generated by slaves, as did the rest of society, no argument. To argue that the slave trade occurred in spite of the free market rather than because of it beggars belief.

I'm not suggesting people didn't derive great wealth on the back of slavery, but you are wholeheartedly wrong to suggest society benefited from it. The slaves themselves are a part of society are they not? Regardless the rest of the non-slave population were worse off as well, as free men allowed to exchange their labour for wages provides a far more cost-effective method of production.

Like Tigersnake, you do not understand what a free market is. A free market does not allow one section of society to profit at the expense of others (remember we don't live in a free market). Just because slavery existed doesn't mean it existed because of a free market, which appears to be what you are arguing. That's like arguing that murder occurs in a free market. A free market requires government regulation, it is not anarchy.

 

[AngryAnt]

I'm not suggesting people didn't derive great wealth on the back of slavery, but you are wholeheartedly wrong to suggest society benefited from it. The slaves themselves are a part of society are they not? Regardless the rest of the non-slave population were worse off as well, as free men allowed to exchange their labour for wages provides a far more cost-effective method of production.

Like Tigersnake, you do not understand what a free market is. A free market does not allow one section of society to profit at the expense of others (remember we don't live in a free market). Just because slavery existed doesn't mean it existed because of a free market, which appears to be what you are arguing. That's like arguing that murder occurs in a free market. A free market requires government regulation, it is not anarchy.

Your post demonstrates profound confusion. I have neither the time nor inclination to correct this, so carry on.

 

[Giardiasis]

That's cool, you are wrong.

 

[tigersnake]

Pretty sure people weren't debating the issue in terms of an established scientific consensus. That is a modern day way for warmists to argue global warming.
It's the economy stupid, pure and simple. The people that enjoyed the economic benefits didn't want to give up their advantages, and the rest of society suffered. The free market demonstrated the economic superiority of free workers over slaves. If you don't understand how slavery is anti-free market, then you do not understand free markets.

what kind of a post do you call that? 'Pretty sure people weren't debating...' Come on, that is what was happening. The scientific theories used were phrenology, which based levels of intelligence on head shapes, and also social Darwinism which tried to utilise Darwin's theories of evolution to suggests that Africans were in between humans and apes, less evolved than humans. Hitler tried a similar trick later on. That is what happened, there is no 'pretty sure it wasn't happening' about it.

As for the 'that is a warmest way to argue. Come on, you can't just dismiss argument you don't like, you have to prove them worn, and anyway, I just came up with that argument, but its a pretty good one if I do say so myself.

s for this bit: 'it's the economy stupid, pure and simple. The people that enjoyed the economic benefits didn't want to give up their advantages, and the rest of society suffered.' Um, isn't that what is happening now? The people that are enjoying the economic benefits don't want to give up their advantages, but in this case ecology and future generations suffer.

But its all so simple isn't it? Climate science, dumb, burning oil, good.

 

[AngryAnt]

That's cool, you are wrong.

Wrong that your post demonstrates profound confusion or wrong that I don't have the time to correct it?

 

[tigersnake]

I'm not suggesting people didn't derive great wealth on the back of slavery, but you are wholeheartedly wrong to suggest society benefited from it. The slaves themselves are a part of society are they not? Regardless the rest of the non-slave population were worse off as well, as free men allowed to exchange their labour for wages provides a far more cost-effective method of production.

Like Tigersnake, you do not understand what a free market is. A free market does not allow one section of society to profit at the expense of others (remember we don't live in a free market). Just because slavery existed doesn't mean it existed because of a free market, which appears to be what you are arguing. That's like arguing that murder occurs in a free market. A free market requires government regulation, it is not anarchy.

Good grief. This is illogical.

As I said, if you believed black people weren't people, it was a free market (the Southern USA). If you believed black people were people, it was a market failure and people's rights were restricted (Northern USA).

Now: If you don't believe the science on climate change the market is fine as it is and we don't need to put a price on pollution. If you believe the science on climate change it is a market failure not to have a price on pollution because ecology is being harmed and therefore the rights of future generations are being restricted.

Thats a Logical summary and a valid analogy.

I'm not saying if you don't believe the science on climate change you believe in slavery, I'm saying that there is no such thing as a free market, and that the definition of what a free market is can depend on your perspective which is influenced by a whole stack of things, primarily vested interests, but also culture.

You don't reject the science on climate change because you know anything about science, you reject it just because you don't like it.