Because you really like beans for lunch, and farting is the natural consequence of that.
Not anymore, because smoking inside will get you fired.
The vote went against you, as the majority of the people assigned a value <9$ to walk outside to smoke.
The analogy is using a hypothetical to demonstrate basic economic principles. Of course it is made up, but the fundamental economic principle behind the hypothetical is sound. Lets say you have a cow…
Two things.
One, it does have some small impact on the environment, and every bit helps.
Two, it encourage others to follow suit, and when others follow suit, others also vote to get others to follow suit. Leadby example, I think it is called.
We did. Taxes. I have no incentive to pay more taxes than the law requires - if I paid $10 extra dollars, it would cost me $10, and the return I get from my extra tax payment would be negligible (whatever the government decides to do with the $10).
But if there is a proposal for my community to raise taxes by $10 (per resident on average) to pay for a new road, then it’s in my best interest to vote for that proposal. It would still cost me $10, but I get access to a new road.
And for the purposes of this discussion, it’s irrelevant that some other people in my community would say “I don’t even drive, so I’m voting against it.” The point is, your (and Matt Walsh’s) argument is analogous to saying “I don’t believe you want the new road anyway - if you did, you’d have sent in an extra $10 already.” It is fallacious because a few proponents of the new road each sending $10 would not get the new road built anyway.
Besides being in a better position when the government regulations come out, there is also the point that early adopters had to deal with many issues or ideas that did not work inside a home.
By the time a water and sewage system was there a lot of the issues were solved and the government then knew what business to offer contracts to plug people to the system and to expand it.
In the case at hand there are a lot of issues with the old electrical grid that will have to be modernized and then a better integration with wind, solar power and battery technology will be done, with more advanced, cheaper and easier to use devices with an updated electrical grid. And a lot of the choices industry and government will do to deal with the CO2 emissions issue are therefore guided by what early adopters helped to optimize or invent.
Thank you for an excellent example of unregulated markets producing poor outcomes. There are a wide variety of such exceptions. I’ve previously mentioned Braess’ Paradox.
This response is so completely wrong-headed — especially after Mr. Jay defining his scenario so carefully — that I’m reluctant to even label it “wrong.” An apter designation would be “very ignorant and confused.”
@ manson1972: Do yourself a favor: re-read and study Mr. Jay’s post, and hope to gain a more logical outlook, and a clue about elementary accounting.
I agree. It astounds me that there could possibly be any controversy over the meaning of the article, the reason it was written, or the reason our newly registered troll posted it.
The point of the article is right in the title, namely that not only is climate change not a problem, but the fact that environmental advocates don’t choose to live in primitive conditions of deprivation is evidence that they don’t believe in climate change either.
And the article is complete nonsensical bullshit in every respect, so that the only response that I thought was worth providing was a sarcastic description of my snack, since I don’t have much source material for turning this into a recipe thread. But for those who really need it spelled out for them, the article is just delusional ranting in the following basic ways:
[ul]
[li]It falsely assumes that climate change is not a serious problem;[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]It falsely assumes that if it was, climate change mitigation would have to be based on individual voluntary actions rather than large-scale public policy;[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]It falsely assumes that such individual actions would require everyone to live in deprived low-technology circumstances;[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]It falsely assumes that public policy – which is key to solving this problem on local, national, and international levels – would never work. “… even if there were a problem to fix, the law couldn’t do anything on its own.” His exact words.[/li][/ul]
In fact the entire thing is just blithering nonsense.
The reality is that while voluntary individual actions can go a long way towards conservation and environmental protection through practices like recycling and general care for our natural resources, most emissions reductions scenarios require large-scale public initiatives. For example, an individual might try to reduce his electricity use, but it takes public policy to phase out coal-fired power plants altogether and build large-scale wind farms and nuclear plants. It takes public policy to provide incentives for clean energy development, electric cars, industrial emissions regulation, cap and trade programs, and international agreements to establish emissions targets worldwide. These things matter a lot more than whether I have a TV or leave a light on a night, or the size of Al Gore’s house.
Well, the beard-but-no-mustache look doesn’t work on me, so Matt Walsh, whoever he is, is going to have to live without taking me seriously. This is a burden I can live with.
In the spirit of the thread, I will quote an authoritative source on this:
[QUOTE=k9bfriender]
Two, it encourage others to follow suit, and when others follow suit, others also vote to get others to follow suit. Leadby example, I think it is called.
[/QUOTE]
This almost seems like you are saying if you want someone to listen to your views and change their actions, you should be doing those same actions…
[QUOTE=k9bfriender]
One, it does have some small impact on the environment, and every bit helps.
Two, it encourage others to follow suit, and when others follow suit, others also vote to get others to follow suit. Lead by example, I think it is called
[/QUOTE]
On a personal note, THIS!! I fully support this, and what I have been saying all along.
I have re-read it. And I don’t come to the same conclusion that I would vote to ban smoking in the office. I value NOT going outside more than I do not like having smoke in my eyes. Something that was not in the analogy. The analogy as described by him tells me I should vote for banning smoking, when I know, considering that scenario in the real world, that I wouldn’t. I’m not sure what else I could tell you. I don’t need to study elementary accounting to know that I wouldn’t vote to ban smoking in that analogy. His analogy proscribes me doing something that I know I wouldn’t do. Therefore the analogy is flawed. I’m not sure what is so hard to understand about that.
Then kindly address your next post to the climate-denialist troll who started this stupid thread. (Not that he’s likely to respond.)
Explain to *him *how his views on climate change are incorrect.
Explain to *him *how he has somehow misinterpreted the meaning of the article, and how it isn’t really claiming that climate change is a hoax.
Really, your pedantic act is tiresome.
*“I don’t agree with your interpretation of this article and I don’t understand how your analogy applies to this issue, but I will now twist your analogy in infuriating ways to suggest things that I may or may not believe myself for the sake of making you appear to contradict yourself and then claim that we all understand the fundamental issues regarding the topic of discussion which I agree with you on, or maybe I don’t, but you should address these other issues that I may or may not actually care about before I can accept what I claim to assume you think you’re trying to say, and why is everyone acting so pissy toward me?” *
. . . This is a troll thread. And now you’re trolling the troll-pitters. Wolfpup has laid it all out bare and fair.
Nothing more needs to be said.
No yesbuts.
No whileImayagrees.
In my opinion, if you cannot agree with wolfpup’s post (#187), you are either being disingenuous or obtuse.
Anyway, I see no difference between what I said and what gyrate said. I said that even a small difference helps, and he said that an individual can only have a tiny effect, when compared to the effect of changing public policy.
If nothing else, public policy will require individuals to take actions, and many of those actions are already being done by those who care.
You quoted me twice, with the same exact quote, and first disagreed, then agreed with it. Not sure what to make of that.
But in any case, yes, do what you can and lead by example. But that doesn’t mean that you need to turn to an amish lifestyle, which is what the OP and the author of the article the OP is referencing is saying is required.
That’s the point though, you didn’t vote for the ban, but a majority of your co-workers did. A majority of your co-workers decided that walking outside to smoke is better than sitting inside and smoking, if that means that you have to deal with all the smoke in your face. You may disagree, just as you may vote against the ban on burning tires in your backyard, but that’s just it, it’s not up to you, it’s up to the community. You say that walking outside is worth a value of $50 to you, so you would not vote for the ban. Well, now walking outside is worth a value of your job. And that’s the whole reason why this needs to be addressed through public policy, so that the value is changed to one where complying with the action that is better for everyone is better for you as well.
I take it you did not read the wiki page on the tragedy of the commons?
We’ll try one more time then, change the analogy to music at your desk. You like listening to music at your desk, and wearing headphones is not all that comfortable, but you don’t like having to listen to your office mate’s music.
In this scenario, do you vote to require headphones if listening to music at your desk?
If the argument is that “climate alarmists” are not practicing what they preach, and trying to force sacrifices they aren’t making themselves - then that is a strawman argument. Because “climate alarmists” are not saying we all need to live like the Amish. It may result in somewhat higher energy costs, but that’s a far cry from “living like the Amish.”
Any excuse not to do anything, I see. “The wrong people responded.” “Your analogy isn’t perfect.” “I can’t be expected to click on links that provide me with actual real-life examples supporting other people’s positions.” Etc etc.
I didn’t say it didn’t matter. Merely that individual efforts are negligible in comparison to government action. But please, keep throwing up those indicators that you’re not remotely serious and are basically trolling this thread.
But since you asked, in addition to the small environmental benefit there are ancillary benefits to me to those actions. Lower energy bills. Lower transportation costs. Less household waste which keeps the local government landfill costs down, which keeps my tax bill down. Taking the stairs is good exercise. And I get to feel good about not being such a self-centered asshole. The downside is the loss of some convenience. Big whoop.
Never mind failure to adopt the Amish lifestyle - Climate Alarmists are bad because they hate humanity.
At least, that’s what David Harsanyi says, specifically in reference to Bill Nye, whose view of humanity is “repulsive” because he has apparently entertained (not endorsed) the notion of governments encouraging people to have fewer children. That’s, y’know, tantamount to eugenics, and Malthus was wrong. So there, we’re doing fine.
Favorite quote from Harsanyi’s op-ed: “Some of the Earth’s richest people live in some of its densest cities.”
Righto! There are a bunch of millionaires living in Delhi and Mexico City. And the rest will be just as rich some day.
Relax, breed, consume, and Science will find a way.
