What is the Effect of Global Warming on Hurricanes?

[GreyMatters]

jshore,

I never said I don’t “believe” in market economics. You did correctly guess that you and I don’t agree on how to handle the market economics of this issue. That hardly means I don’t “believe” in it though.

You are correct that the entire breadth of this issue can not be discussed without talking about market economics. I was implying that in my comments of why the current proposed solutions will fail, mainly because the approaches will not work in the reality of the markets.

Take the Kyoto Protocol. Its un-natural attempt at inflating the cost of carbon energies to reduce consumption is flawed to the point of being useless, so much so, that I wonder at why it is being used since it can’t possibly do what they tell us it is supposed to do. Especially when, from a high level, the Kyoto Protocol looks like a giant wealth distribution scheme, something socialist politicians have long said is the solution to all economic problems, not just global warming.

You see I am Libertarian by nature. I bet that will help you better understand where I stand on regulation as a means of controlling the markets. I don’t think it works. So, I can hardly support more to solve this issue. To be specific regulations do accomplish things, but I don’t think they are an affective means to influence the buyers wants and choices.

I do think that the markets will be the driver for the solution to this problem though. When a viable, cleaner, more efficient energy technology is invented, that has a comparable cost to carbon energies, humans will choose that energy over carbon. Pretty simple.

The Kyoto Protocol approach is to falsely inflate the cost of carbon energies to the point where it costs more than the alternatives. You can claim supposed costs of global warming catastrophes if you like but I bet you know how those will be received by me.

My approach would be to invest in technology development to invent something that has comparable costs to current/future carbon energies and causes less pollution. I can not agree with you that regulation is the only means to control this though, even if regulation were affective. If today the perfect energy source were invented and cost little to nothing then it would be used and no regulation would be required. Now, my example is extreme, but there has to be some middle ground, and there is, just look at any replacement technology ever invented. When it became cheaper to make/sell/buy it was used in mass and replaced its predecessor.

I suppose the reality is both will be done. There will be people who want to fight this through regulation and those that want to find a solution that won’t deprive people of the benefits of modern living.

[GreyMatters]

I do “believe”, I swear it, I do “believe” in market economics. lol.

I am libertarian jshore. I am sure that will provide you a better insight into my views on your assertion that “It is only through the regulation” that this will be solved.

I bet if a magical energy invention were invented today that causes no polution and costs nothing, that with no regulation, carbon energies would not be used any more. Yep, no need for regulation there. I know that is a fantastical scenario, but, since it has happened countless times in other technologies, it is hardly a false perspective on market dynamics. If a better, cheaper product is available then it will bought and used.

And I didn’t even have to disparage the socialist’s dream of wealth distribution and free market killer, the Kyoto Protocol.

I have loathed both Clinton and "W"s adminitstrations but I have admired both stances on denying USA’s involvement in that joke attempt at solving this problem.

[Loopydude]

@GreyMatters

I was not specifically “impunging” [sic] anyone Loopydude, lol. Though after reading your quote, David Barber is a prime example of the type of person I am talking about. Thank you for providing me with an example. Your quote says it all.

Well, what is it then? In a previous post, you said:

I personally think that much of the zealousness coming from the extreme “environmentalists” has little to do with the actual affects of man-made global warming and more to do with their political/social positions on polution, government and human beings in general. I think these bias have infected much of the media reporting and politics of this issue, and it has hurt the good science being done out there on it.

You’re obviously claiming that anyone expressing the oppinion that there might be an urgent need to curb CO2 emissions is a politically-motivated zealot. So an article quotes a respected researcher in the field, doing the “good science” you claim to exhalt, and your respons is it “says it all”. Says what all, exactly? That Barber is an extremist or a zealot? There are an awful lot of zealotous climatologists, then, perhaps even a majority. You know better than them?

@GreyMatters

I also did not say that reducing CO2 emissions is a bad/incorrect solution. There is more to it than that.

Okay…

@GreyMatters

I think any pollution is bad and should be responsibly reduced then eliminated. However, there is more to the world of pollution than just polluting. The cause of CO2 pollution, for the most part, is done by things that benefit man. I think that many of the solutions posed today would be a huge reduction of these benefits.

I do not think that any affective solution will be made until humans can still have a chance at receiving these benefits and can reduce CO2 emissions. Technological advancements in energy types and efficiency are, IMHO, the only way man-made CO2 is going to get reduced then eliminated from the atmosphere.

So it’s good to reduce CO2 emissions (and polution in general), but only if it can be done via new technologies that make the effort to conserve imperceptible. Why on Earth would anyone be motivated to act under such conditions? Necessity being the mother of invention, if no one feels the need to curb emissions so long as it’s an immediate inconvenience, then they won’t be curbed.

@GreyMatters

I would vote for the need to reduce man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere without any reason other than I am of the philosophy “you pack out what you pack in.” But, I am not going to vote for something that will reduce my benefits without offering another method to receive those benefits.

Well which is it? “Pack out what you pack in”, or “all gain with no pain, or I do nothing”?

@GreyMatters

I have clearly stated my opposition to the precautionary principle. I think that is where we would ultimately disagree the most on this issue.

If one should “pack out what you pack in”, what’s even precautionary about it? And taking precautions, as a principle, is usually considered wise by most responsible people. Insurance costs you something, and may never be used, but prudent individuals get it because it can help them avert a disaster should they be unfortunate. It wouldn’t be misfortune, in our case, if human-caused climate change had severe negative consequences for humanity. It would be myopia.

@GreyMatters

[The Kyoto protocol is] fantasy unless you can provide not only the solution to elimination of the CO2 but also the solution to keeping the benefits.

Kyoto may indeed be flawed, but I think he idea of simply holding off doing anything if it in any way reduces our “benefits” is even more fantastical. It’s this attitude which makes the very progress you seem to think will be another benefit (reduction of emissions) impossible. People don’t just pull “efficiency” out of their behinds, and they don’t spend lots of time and money increasing it unless there’s some imperative. Your formula trades immediate benefits for future benefits, and recommends no imperative whatsoever to realise the latter. You claim human nature makes more aggressive strategies “fantasy” but seem to ignore the part of human nature that resists change without perceived need.

If you take the position that science which doesn’t fit with your rosiest predictions for the future is a form of environmental extremism, simultaneously claim reducing CO2 emissions is a good thing, and then conclude nothing should be done unless it has no economic impact, what is to be made of your overall philosophy, except that you’re not only being unrealistic, but a tad incoherent?

[GreyMatters]

LoopyDude,

You’re obviously claiming that anyone expressing the oppinion that there might be an urgent need to curb CO2 emissions is a politically-motivated zealot.

I did not say that. I was clear on the group of people who I think are politically motivated zealots, extreme “environmentalists”. I know that lacks a lot of definition, but I will start with the people who first claim the affects of the supposed man-made portion of global warming is clearly understood, and that those affects will be, for sure, catastrophic to life on earth. If a scientist does this, then yes I would label them with my catchy monicker.

So it’s good to reduce CO2 emissions (and polution in general), but only if it can be done via new technologies that make the effort to conserve imperceptible.

I will not say you completely misunderstood me, but you are close. I was trying to say that there are benefits that man gets from carbon energy. I don’t think people are going to choose to eliminate those benefits on the premises expounded upon by the extreme “environmentalists.” Just because the world is warming does not mean the world is ending as we know it. To get people to stop using carbon energy, it either has to be in their face relevant now to stop using it, or you have to replace it with a viable, as cheap alternative. You obviously think it is in your face relevant now and I disagree with you, respectfully.

Well which is it? “Pack out what you pack in”, or “all gain with no pain, or I do nothing”?

That is not even close to what I said.

And taking precautions, as a principle, is usually considered wise by most responsible people.

There is nothing wrong with taking precautions. However, you should do a little reasearch on the precautionary principle before you try and debate my stance on it. Your comments do not reflect the precautionary principle philosophy or how it is being used in politics by socialist groups. When you can tell me for sure that CO2 is going to cause catastrophic consequences to life on earth then we can take scientifically sound, tested, viable, active precautions to prevent it. Until then, doing what Kyoto proponents want to do would be using precautionary principle steps to prevent something we don’t know is going to happen. (Go ahead, say it till you are blue in the face, but it still doesn’t prove man is causing catastrophic global warming.) While you are at, please prove that the steps being taken, like Kyoto, will not cause more harm than you think it will solve. You can’t, and that is why it is using the precautionary principle and not taking precautions.

cite

then conclude nothing should be done unless it has no economic impact

I didn’t say that either.

If you take the position that science which doesn’t fit with your rosiest predictions for the future is a form of environmental extremism,

And again, I did not say that. One, I made no predictions of the future. Two, science has a lot to say about this, some bad predictions and others are good. If I have to choose, I would choose both. A fantastical example is the polar bear and warm water fish. I will predict, if global warming continues at this pace, that polar bears will be hurt and warm water fishes will be helped.

Climate change has and will happen until the earth is dead. During the lifetime of life on earth these changes will benefit some and hurt others. Its called life and it is not fair.

I will say that as far as human knowledge goes the highest point of life on earth, with regards to bio-mass and the number of species, occurred around 250 million years ago when the temp is estimated to be many degrees warmer and with an atmosphere with much more CO2 in it, so it may not be as bad as some people claim. Then again it could be worse. My point is we don’t know what it will be so how can we possibly prevent it from happening.

but I think he[sic] idea of simply holding off doing anything

Should I say it? Ok. I didn’t say that either.

I think we should be doing all the work possible to develop new technologies to eliminate carbon based energy. I don’t see how that fits with your comment that I think we should be doing nothing. There is more, but I think that proves your comment wrong.

[Loopydude]

I guess I am completely not understanding, because mostly I see a lot of backpedaling and equivocation. You say one thing, get debated on that point, and then claim you really said something else. I can quote you word for word, and you tell me I’m misreading, or quibble over semantic nitpicks, claiming I don’t understand the precautionary principle (linking to a wikipedia article, no less). I’m not into word games, quite frankly, and I’ve had far too much of that on the Dope for one lifetime. Call me a cop out if you like, but I really don’t think you’re debating with me in good faith here.

[GreyMatters]

Wow, loopydude I seem to be experiencing the same thing.

I am trying to debate you. I am not trying to be evasive. Please tell me where you think I am trying to play word games and I will try and clarify.

My last post was clearly stated. I disagreed with your comments on my position when you were incorrect on my position. I apologise if you are not getting the satisfaction you require.

Oh, and you obvisouly do not understand the precautionary principle if your early comments are to be taken at face value. I again refer you to the wikipedia link if you are still having problems understanding this. Please, let me highlight my reason for thinking this with a quote from my link:

The precautionary principle, a phrase first used in English circa 1988, is the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown, but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences, then it is better to avoid that action.

To relate this to man-made global warming:

“the consequences of an action are unknown”

I think the total consequences of the man-made portion of the current global warming trend are, in fact, unknown.

“but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences”

I think the exteme “environmentalists” are overstating the affects of the supposed man-made portion of the warming trend, and that they are over emphasising the negative possibilities of this affect. I do, however, think the extreme “environmentalists” have judged their version of the affect to have this potential.

“then it is better to avoid that action”

So, if the preceding illogically based premises are thought to be true then we need to avoid said action? The path to this conclusion is too illogical to follow.
But, lets do it anyway because somebody can be quoted in Science magazine as saying we should? I think not. Sorry.

Now contrast that with taking real precautions against confirmed risks based on actual facts.

Like, I am pretty sure falling off the Empire State Building will kill me. I better take precautions so I don’t fall off the building. Or, I think cutting my head off my body will kill me so I better not cut my head off. Or, riding 140 mph on a motorcycle into a concrete wall 100 feet thick will kill me so I better not do that little trick.

I hope that clarifies my position better.

[Evil_Captor]

@GreyMatters

Take the Kyoto Protocol. Its un-natural attempt at inflating the cost of carbon energies to reduce consumption is flawed to the point of being useless, so much so, that I wonder at why it is being used since it can’t possibly do what they tell us it is supposed to do. Especially when, from a high level, the Kyoto Protocol looks like a giant wealth distribution scheme, something socialist politicians have long said is the solution to all economic problems, not just global warming.

What? Because we are proposing to no longer allow industries to use the atmosphere as a cost-free dumping ground for wastes of all kinds, you bring up the specter of socialism? Yah, that’s rational.

You see I am Libertarian by nature. I bet that will help you better understand where I stand on regulation as a means of controlling the markets. I don’t think it works. So, I can hardly support more to solve this issue. To be specific regulations do accomplish things, but I don’t think they are an affective means to influence the buyers wants and choices.

It’s already been pretty much established on this board that certain minimal regulations are necessary to allow markets to work. For example, if you don’t have regulations against insider trading in the stock market, you soon have a greatly reduced pool of traders, because outsiders will always assume, undoubtedly correctly, that insiders are rigging the game against them. Property laws are also necessary to allow people to keep what they gain by trading. There’s no such thing as a free market. Without regulation, all you have is banditry.

The Kyoto Protocol approach is to falsely inflate the cost of carbon energies to the point where it costs more than the alternatives. You can claim supposed costs of global warming catastrophes if you like but I bet you know how those will be received by me.

No, the Kyoto accords just force industry to factor in the cost of waste disposal via the air just like they now have to factor in the cost of waste disposal via water or landfills.

[GreyMatters]

@Evil Captor

What? Because we are proposing to no longer allow industries to use the atmosphere as a cost-free dumping ground for wastes of all kinds, you bring up the specter of socialism? Yah, that’s rational.

Yeah, that’s rational to so flippantly ignore the possibility that the basis for the Kyoto Protocol is founded on an economic model, Socialism, that is used by billions of people on the planet and multiple countries.

Kyoto is an attempt at capping worldwide CO2, atmospheric, man-made pollution. Kyoto is attempting to do it to alleviate the man-made affect on the temperature of our climate. Your disposal description is totally new to me on the what and why’s of the Kyoto Protocol.

The structure of the capping process in Kyoto is to arbitrarily assign a cap to CO2 output by individual countries. The first world, developed countries were capped at 1990 levels, which are lower than each countries current output, except Russia. I think the developing countries are broken into two groups, those with caps and those that are exempt from caps. For those with caps on their CO2 output, the cap is higher than their current output of CO2. The difference between the developing countries actual output and capped output is the total carbon credit.

Developed countries have to either meet their 1990 level output through reduction or buy these carbon credits so that worldwide output is under the arbitrary worldwide cap.

So, the wealthy countries have to purchase the developing countries, arbitrary, fantasy carbon credit because a regulation has been put in place to artificially cap worldwide output. The wealth of a wealthier country gets moved to a country with less wealth.

That seems like a pretty clear example of re-distributing wealth. This process seems to me to have its foundation on Socialist economic principles.

That and it is also a centrally controlled attempt at a worldwide planned economy which is another common Socialist tenet.

I am not a proponent of socialist principles. I agree with free markets. I am, however, not of the crowd that socialism is inherently evil. I am of the crowd it is inherently stupid, fallible, corruptible and unworkable.

@Evil Captor

It’s already been pretty much established on this board that certain minimal regulations are necessary to allow markets to work.

I did not say that regulations could not be used to structure the workings of a market. I can not say that a market does not need them to function because, as far as I know, every modern market has used some form of regulation.

What I disagree with is the efficacy of using regulations to influence the buying trends of a given market. I think you can use regulations to either have or not have certain buying situations, but that influencing the buying of certain things within a market doesn’t work very well. I think the main driver in that specific area is supply and demand coupled with cost, which is usually regulated by supply and demand. In Kyoto, a process outside of supply and demand is artificially being used in an attempt to drive up costs and or limit supplies in arbitrary ways that can not be proven to accomplish the goal of CO2 reduction and then reduction of the affect of the subsequent warming from the CO2.

[GreyMatters]

I am sorry I should have included this quote from Wikipedia in my earlier post:

The political systems of socialism and communism are intended to diminish the perceived conflicts arising from unequal distribution of wealth. They did so by forcing wealthier members of society to surrender some or all of their assets to the majority in a process sometimes called wealth transfer. The State or the people then administer all public assets. Critics of state-managed economies cite the former Soviet Union and The People’s Republic of China as examples of countries where, despite aggressive economic regulation, wealth continued to distribute unevenly, often among those in politically powerful positions.

cite

[jshore]

The point of having the industrialized countries start the process of stabilizing and cutting their emissions is that these countries:

(1) are responsible for the vast majority of the excess CO2 currently in the atmosphere.

(2) have much larger emissions per capita.

(3) have the greatest technological abilities to do so.

The only reason that you see this as being unfair to the richer industrialized nations is that you are comparing it to the situation where everyone gets to use the atmosphere as a free sewer. When you compare it to an alternative arrangement of establishing a quota of a certain amount of emissions per capita, it seems to be fabulously generous to these richer industrialized countries.

Besides which, the industrialized countries will no doubt make lots of money down the road in transferring the technology that they develop to the less industrialized countries once it is their turn to cut emissions…And, that day will come sooner than we know it.

In an analogy, if my neighbor has gotten fabulously rich and in the process has been polluting the water that I drink and he is forced to clean it up or to pay me for the damage he has caused, in your view this would apparently be socialism.

[GreyMatters]

jshore,

I do not disagree with anything in your post in general. But, there is more to it than just stopping the polluting and the wealth of the country/neighbor in our real world scenario.

I don’t disagree with stopping the pollution. I just disagree on the why’s and how’s of stopping it. And, for me, it has little difference if my neighbor is rich or dirt poor, if they are polluting then they need to stop and take responsibility for their actions.

I really do think that if as much money that will be going through or reduced in total due to Kyoto were used researching new technologies that we would achieve the goal of eliminating the pollution and not destabalize economies faster, more efficiently and with less risk than coverting to worldwide partial socialist economy based on carbon credits as the asset.

I will state again that I think the reality is both paths will be used to try and stop the pollution. I am betting the technological path will achieve more, faster and, in the end, will have more benefit to man.

Also, I clearly cited and compared the parts of Socialist principles with the parts of the Kyoto protocol and no where at any time did I equate stopping pollution with Socialism. Why do you think I said that, jshore?

[jshore]

Again, there are not two separate paths, a technological path and a path under which carbon emissions are constrained. They are inextricably linked.

It is interesting that you support the idea of investing directly in technologies. While I support a certain amount of that, I am sympathetic to the arguments made by anti-government types that governments are poor at choosing winning technologies over losing ones. That is why I think it is ultimately better to have carbon emissions constrained and then let the market decide the most cost-effective way to do that. I can’t figure out why this approach would be considered more socialistic than the alternate approach that you speak of!

[GreyMatters]

I said the Kyoto Protocol has Socialist principle like attributes that makes me think the foundations of this market influencing piece of worldwide legislation are based on some of the market principles of Socialism.

I have said this now three times. Why is it that you continue to incorrectly try and say that becuase I think Kyoto is socialist based that I think ALL avenues of regulation or government control over pollution would/is socialist based? I did not say that and you are wrong for implying it. Can I be any more clear on that specific point?

Now, don’t get me wrong, I still think regulations are ineffective in influencing the buying within a market no matter what economic system is being used. To be fair regulations fail in capatlist markets as well. I just think capitalist systems are better all around but far from perfect.

[GreyMatters]

Oh, and I also mentioned I am Libertarian, so I am wondering how you jumped to the conclusion I think the government should be investing or choosing the technologies?

That is another incorrect assumption on what I think.

I said that “if as much money that will be going through or reduced in total due to Kyoto were used researching new technologies.”

I did not specify who would make or to whom the investments in technological investments would be made to. Let me clarify, I think it would be a mix of government and private groups making and recieving the investments. With, hopefully, most of it being invested in private, for profit, groups.

[jshore]

@GreyMatters

I did not specify who would make or to whom the investments in technological investments would be made to. Let me clarify, I think it would be a mix of government and private groups making and recieving the investments. With, hopefully, most of it being invested in private, for profit, groups.

And, the private, for profit, groups would be making these investments why? If the direct cost for putting CO2 into the atmosphere is 0, what do they gain by making investments in technology to reduce the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere?

By the way, could you explain what you mean by “the market principles of socialism”?

[GreyMatters]

@jshore

By the way, could you explain what you mean by “the market principles of socialism”?

Please read post #88 and #89 and you will see I clearly defined exactly what you are asking. I apologise if I am not using all the correct verbage in the debate, but with the Wikipedia cites I think I am being very clear.

Let me know if that is not clear enough for you and I will continue to elaborate on it.