IE =ID, in case anyone was wondering. 
I was wondering how Internet Explorer figured into the evolution debate…
It certainly didn’t survive by being the fittest!
–John Mace, a Mozilla user for at least 2 years now
Or maybe “Manbearpig!”
Well, I came into the thread to say what Miller said (good job, BTW), but I’d like to expound for a moment.
About a year ago, some tree-hugger friends of mine brought up the subject of global warming. They explained that humans were completely responsible and we were destroying the ice caps by destroying the ozone layer. I asked how they knew this and all they could do was quote a magazine article. I refused to accept what they said based on the article, and they basically said I was “rejecting science” and “blindly following Bush.”
What I was doing was doubting. Since that time, I’ve read extensively what both sides of the debate have to say (studiously ignoring anything written by politicians or comedians). Yes, there are scientists on both sides. James Trefil’s book represents the “not people’s fault” side reasonably well. Quite a few books represent the other side, some more scientific than others. Reading the debates on the subject on SDMB has been educational, too.
I’m now almost 100% convinced that there is a natural warming cycle, that it’s being dangerously accelerated by human action, and that if we don’t get things under control it will create a feedback loop that will be near-impossible to stop.
Gore’s message is propoganda. Yep.
But I think he’s right.
I want a cite for each and everyone of those Foundations showing what industry is behind it, and a cite that each of those industries are trying to cast doubt on Global warming.
Sorry, you have no credibility. I want hard cites from unbiased sources.
My link above lists all the funders and is a non-partisan site.
Underlining added.
Disagree. I think externalities are reasonably well understood.
There is some disagreement regarding the magnitude of the appropriate response: some seemed to lean towards a “no-regrets” policy during the 1990s. Oddly enough, estimated damages were highly sensitive to the discount rate which was assumed.
I saw the movie. What do you want to know about it?
I have no idea what you are trying to say. What is an “externality”?
John:
Externalities are a form of market failure. They occur when the full effects of a transaction are not reflected in market prices.
There can be positive or negative externalities. A positive one occurs when third parties receive benefits from a good that they don’t pay for.
The classic negative externality is pollution. In an unregulated market, manufacturers (and consumers) lack sufficient incentive to curb polluting activities. To put it another way, when a consumer buys (say) a paper notebook, he pays for the labor, a share of the cost of the plant and equipment and raw materials. What he doesn’t pay for are the damages associated with air or water pollution. In an unregulated market, such notebooks will be too cheap, production will be too high, and efforts to adjust production processes to lower pollution will be less than optimal.
Now typically the best amount of pollution isn’t zero. So mandating specific plant-by-plant regulations may not be cheapest way to curb pollution. Far better would be to charge (in some way) for the right to pollute. That is, polluters should be charged for the damage they do to health and the environment. That way, the “external” costs of the pollution are “internalized” into the production decisions of the firm and consumption decisions of the citizenry.
That’s the argument. There are complications, of course.
Perhaps a better introduction is here:
A “no regrets” policy might have been a tax on CO2 equivalent to about a nickel per gallon of gasoline. It would fall heavier on coal, however, and make natural gas relatively cheap.
Such a tax would encourage people to make low-cost adjustments to reduce CO2 output, but not aggressive steps. Modest fuel switching (from coal to natural gas) might be one example.
It’s called “no regrets”, since it wouldn’t be an awful policy even if scientists discovered an abundance of offsetting factors for global warming.
Anyway, what is the proper tax on CO2 (or its equivalent)?
The proper tax on a ton of C02 should be set equal to the (estimated) marginal damages from pollution.
Some of those damages materialize in the future. When applying cost/benefit analysis, effects in the future are typically discounted in some way, using some sort of interest rate.
The higher the interest rate, the less the weight given to future effects.
Nordhaus (1991) and Cline (1992) used different “discount rates”. Apparently, if you set them equal, their results don’t differ too much. Cato’s capsule summaries (with predictable rhetoric) are here: http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html
Cite?
I thought CO2 was essentially transparent to incoming solar radiation where it matters. And that’s the gas that has people worried.
I understand about the H2O/clouds/albedo thingummy-loop-whatsit, but that’s not the big driver of ACC. CO2 is.
To conclude:
“Externalities” are fairly well understood. If a market transaction has external effects not captured in existing prices, charges for pollution permit the effects to be internalized.
So we should tax CO2 (or set up a regime of tradeable emissions permits, strengthen TANF and appliance standards in some cases, etc.) The question is, “How much?”.
Currently, the government sets a tax of zero on C02. That seems low.
There’s a tree-hugging site in the UK that allows you to offset plane flights with carbon sinks (ie trees). Here’s its short-haul figure - 1 tree, for £10, over 10 years, “will sequestrate approximately 730kg of CO[sub]2[/sub] during its life time [sic]”* and thus offset your carbon footprint for the flight. Through economy of scale, I think that the fee would decrease massively.
*It’s not specific whether this is per person/flight or for the entire flight, though 730kg seems on the small size, so it probably is per person.
It does list the funders:"Media Transparency lists CEI as receiving a total of $4,296,645 (unadjusted for inflation) in 123 grants from a range of foundations in the period 1985 through to 2004. [36] (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?81)
Armstrong Foundation
Barre Seid Foundation
Castle Rock Foundation
Carthage Foundation Scaife Foundations
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (Koch Family Foundations)
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation (Koch Family Foundations)
David H. Koch Charitable Foundation (Koch Family Foundations)
Earhart Foundation
Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation
Jacqueline Hume Foundation
JM Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation
John Templeton Foundation
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Randolph Foundation
Rodney Fund
Roe Foundation
Sarah Scaife Foundation (Scaife Foundations)
Scaife Family Foundations
Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation
William H. Donner Foundation "
However, it makes *no claims * that “*All of these “foundations” are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola)”, * which is what I want cites for. So far, that cite claims that only 9% of CEI’s funding comes from Oil interests- but you claim it is 100%. And, Sourcewatch is hardly nonpartisan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcewatch
"*Critics claim that most of the project’s investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at what SourceWatch perceives to be prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals. The Center for Media and Democracy, which sponsors SourceWatch, has also targeted and focused on individuals within companies, lobby groups as well as academics, analysts and media personalities.[4][5] [6]
Sourcewatch has been criticised by conservatives and opponents of environmentalism for its political stance. Alan Caruba, who describes himself as a critic of "environmental propaganda’ writes “Source Watch is a project of the Center of Media & Democracy, a left-wing organization that devotes a lot of time to attacking the public relations profession in general and conservative writers in particular.”[7].
The website ActivistCash.com, operated by industry lobby group the Center for Consumer Freedom, describes the Center for Media & Democracy, the organisation behind SourceWatch, as “a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization… it is essentially a two-person operation” run by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. ActivistCash adds “If someone in a shirt and tie dares make a profit (especially if food or chemicals are involved), Rampton and Stauber are bound to have a problem with it.” [8] The Centre is funded by organisations, described by ActivistCash as ‘leftwing’, such as the Homeland Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the DJB Foundation, the Carolyn Foundation, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology.CMD Financials."*
And more:http://www.answers.com/topic/sourcewatch
“Some critics believe the project to have a liberal or left-wing outlook. Many of the project’s investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals.”
Thus Sourcewatch is hardly “non-partisan”.
You have claimed that the following: All of these “foundations” are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola). There is a list of those foundations. Please provides a cite for each and every foundation showing that it is a “fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola)”
For others who may be interested- Here is CEI’s own home page:
But I took one of the Foundations at random:
Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation
Here is a list of it’s major donations:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientsoffunder.php?funderID=15
(mostly colleges)
Here is more:http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/474
Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated Time Frame
Natural Resources Defense Council $53,500.00 2000 – 2002
Waterkeeper Alliance $31,000.00 1999 – 2001
Environmental Defense $10,000.00 1995 – 1995
(All of which are well known and respected environmental groups)
And here is this “front” donating to that well known “corportate interest” :rolleyes: - Harvard
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/02.15/RussianResearch.html
"*Jeremy R. Knowles, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), has announced a $10 million gift from the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation to the Russian Research Center in the FAS. * …*The Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation was established by the late Mr. Davis in 1962 and focuses on higher education and public policy. Davis held degrees from Princeton, Columbia, and the University of Geneva, and he authored four books and numerous articles on economics and international relations. * "
The OP asks if An Inconvenient Truth is “balanced.” Just a reminder - balance is highly overrated. There are not always two equally valid sides to every dispute.
There is no doubt that the earth is getting warmer. The consensus among those who have studied the issue is that human activities are speeding up that warming. We are playing with fire. One thing that seems certain is that the climate isn’t a linear process. That is, as things warm up climate won’t necessarily change in a smooth, predictable manner. There might be a trigger point at which the climate will change drastically. We just plain don’t know and if you don’t know how things work you shouldn’t be messing with them.
Dude, just seeing the name “Scaife” on that list doesn’t tip you off?!
Funders of the CEI – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute#Funding:
So we’ve got Texaco, ExxonMobil, Ford, GM, the American Petroleum Institute . . . what more do ya want?