# Groups that don't accept climate change **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/groups-that-dont-accept-climate-change/639685 "2012-11-02T17:26:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/groups-that-dont-accept-climate-change/639685/61 "2012-11-06T00:03:02Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Okay…Fair enough. But, in general, the free marketers I have run into are pretty optimistic about our ability to deal with scarcity without dramatic reductions in our quality of life. That’s why they have generally poo-pooed the idea that we are running into the limits of growth (of population or of consumption). I’ll grant you that. The epitome of this was the bet Julian Simon made with Paul Erlich of “Limits to Growth” fame. Erlich was so convinced that we were running out of things that he accepted a bet that he could put together a list of raw commodities that would be more expensive years later than they were then. He lost. Simon’s point was that the ingenuity of people working within a market system would find new ways to mine resources faster than those resources are being used up. And he was right, within the boundaries of the time limit they set. A good example of that today would be the massive amounts of new fossil fuels being discovered and exploited due to fracking, oil sands reclamation, and new drilling techniques. This doesn’t solve the global warming problem, but it might very well solve the energy problem. Still, these are finite resources. What can’t go on…won’t. Eventually you run out of them no matter how clever you are. An example of what happens then can be seen with the loss of very large timbers for construction. Most wood for construction now comes from new growth forests with relatively small trees. We have sharply restricted supplies of the kind of huge old trees that used to provide things like beams for large open spaces in construction. Today, our buildings are likely to have more columns or teleposts, resulting in chopped up spaces. For some uses we’ve replaced those beams with engineered beams, metal beams, or other construction methods, but we’d still very much like to have a better supply of them, and they have become so valuable that a few years ago a company spent a lot of money salvaging an old ship to reclaim its cargo of large logs. We never have come up with a perfect replacement, and the price of such beams has skyrocketed and stayed high. Sometimes, you just can’t overcome reality with cleverness. > [@](#): > > But there has been a lack of trying because the costs of fossil fuels have been subsidized since some of those costs are externalized. As a result, the price each individual pays for that energy is not the full cost, but rather there is an additional cost spread out over the population due to the damage to our climate system (and acidification of the oceans and the various other environmental pollution problems). Well… the price of oil has fluctuated greatly over time, by amounts greater than the proposed cost of carbon externalities. And the periods of high prices do result in greater R&D spending on conservation and alternative sources, so I accept your general point that if fossil fuels were taxed to cover their externalities it might stimulate research into alternatives. Unfortunately, you can’t enforce a global carbon tax, so the more likely result is that you’ll simply push energy-intensive activities (i.e. manufacturing) out of the countries that tax carbon. That could result in actually increasing the carbon footprint of our goods. I have never heard a good answer to this problem, or in fact even heard it being addressed by advocates of carbon taxes. The problem is that oil is fungible. Force a reduction in consumption in country A, and you lower demand and the price drops, which stimulates consumption in country B. So instead of improving the world’s carbon footprint, all you’ve done is create a mechanism for wealth transfer from country A to country B, with little or no change in CO2 output. In addition, manufacturing in the 21st century is quite mobile, as are high-energy services like computer data centers and server farms. Apply CO2 taxes to the U.S. and not to China, and you will accelerate manufacturing flight and give the Chinese a comparative advantage and an even stronger reason to oppose taxes on their own energy. The greater your taxes, the more incentive other countries have to burn the fuels you are taxing, because they derive greater benefit from doing so. How do you plan to solve this problem? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/groups-that-dont-accept-climate-change/639685/62 "2012-11-06T00:03:37Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > If we got the Tanzanians up to middle class status, the CO2 involved would kill us all. So that’s the reason the population explosion is a catch-22. > **[Tanzania's Largest Solar Power Project Springs Forward - CleanTechnica](https://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/22/tanzanias-largest-solar-power-project-springs-forward/)** > > Sign up for CleanTechnica's Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott's in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and/or follow us on Google News!   Tanzania probably doesn’t come to mind when you think about solar... > [@](#): > > Currently only 15% of Tanzania’s population has access to electricity according to the country’s Ministry of Energy and Minerals. Tanzania ranks amongst the world’s top ten countries for solar irradiation and small-scale solar power installations of the type promoted under the Kigoma programme are expected to play an increasingly important role in meeting the growing energy demand of Tanzania’s rural communities.” > > Jeff Felten, Managing Director, Camco Tanzania said: “We are delighted that the MCC has recognized the positive impact small-scale solar installations can have on rural off-grid communities in Tanzania. While industrialized countries are trying to rethink or refit their old coal-fired plants, much of Africa could potentially leapfrog that stage and move straight to renewable energy generation. As mentioned, you are still in the fallacy of assuming controlling emissions can not be separated from the increase of the population and generate new opportunities and sustainable progress, (that includes also non population control) several examples of history were already shown that demonstrate that you should temper your Malthusian pet peeve and look at the whole picture. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/groups-that-dont-accept-climate-change/639685/63 "2012-11-06T00:19:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > In addition, manufacturing in the 21st century is quite mobile, as are high-energy services like computer data centers and server farms. Apply CO2 taxes to the U.S. and not to China, and you will accelerate manufacturing flight and give the Chinese a comparative advantage and an even stronger reason to oppose taxes on their own energy. The greater your taxes, the more incentive other countries have to burn the fuels you are taxing, because they derive greater benefit from doing so. > > How do you plan to solve this problem? Well, on this I have to say that if they do not change the Chinese people will react to the consequences, the point here is that I do not think the powers that be in China would like the uncertainty and unrest coming thanks to climate disruption. There is also the fact that we still will remain one of the biggest clients of China and so it is Europe. [http://climatecrocks.com/2012/08/27/voices-rise-across-the-spectrum-in-favor-of-carbon-tax/](http://climatecrocks.com/2012/08/27/voices-rise-across-the-spectrum-in-favor-of-carbon-tax/) > [@](#): > > SOME people argue that a carbon tax would do little good unless it were also adopted by China and other big polluters. It’s a fair point. But access to the American market is a potent bargaining chip. The United States could seek approval to tax imported goods in proportion to their carbon dioxide emissions if exporting countries failed to enact carbon taxes at home. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/groups-that-dont-accept-climate-change/639685/64 "2012-11-06T02:15:18Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Tanzania's Largest Solar Power Project Springs Forward - CleanTechnica](http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/22/tanzanias-largest-solar-power-project-springs-forward/) > > As mentioned, you are still in the fallacy of assuming controlling emissions can not be separated from the increase of the population and generate new opportunities and sustainable progress, (that includes also non population control) several examples of history were already shown that demonstrate that you should temper your Malthusian pet peeve and look at the whole picture. Good like with that off-gridddy, leapfroggy stuff. Seriously. But I think if the Tanzanians (I’m sure you realize I’m using the term as a synecdoche for all the low footprint peeps) had their druthers, they druther be driving Tatas made in plants powered by a decent grid and not small scale solar running an overhead hanging light bulb. If they make solar work, though, good on them. The whole place still looked a bit lame when I was there a few years back… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/groups-that-dont-accept-climate-change/639685.md?page=3)