Europe has taxes on gasoline, which is something different than taxing carbon. They exist because Europe isn’t a big petroleum producer and they wanted to repress imports from foreign lands.
Do they work? Any American tourist can see that they do. Cars are smaller and public transportation plays a greater role.
People respond to incentives. Increase the price of nickel and companies will shift to iron and aluminum.
???
You’re saying that they will turn down the thermostat, but that oil consumption won’t decline? That’s an odd argument.
At any rate, I’d expect most of the adjustment would involve insulation and the like.
Does the price mechanism actually work? Does consumption of a product decline as its price relative to other products rises?
Yes it does. As an example I’ll use gasoline. Petrol price changes are different than adjustments to the price of inputs such as CO2, lumber or copper. Gasoline is a final product. In contrast, a carbon tax would not only lead to a decline in energy usage, it would also permit fuel swapping from dirtier coal to cleaner and less carbon intensive natural gas. (Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so we would have to address leakage in some manner. There are always details to consider.)
But let’s look at gasoline anyway: it illustrates a subset of the effects. Raise the price of gas by 10% and you will see declines in consumption even within one year. Declines will amount to about 2.6%.
But I’m discussing permanent changes, so we should look at longer run effects. For periods over one year you see declines closer to 5.8% for 10% price increases. And over the very long run, you benefit from research and development into more fuel efficient cars, or even electrical ones.
So yes, markets respond to price changes. All of the preceding is based on the historical record. And while gas has fluctuated a lot, it’s not like SUV sales have been wholly decimated during the period studied: I frankly am not envisioning a back to the earth scenario.
How do electric cars help anything? They run on electricity, which is largely created by burning coal. Yay them, they’ve shifted from using one fossil fuel to increasing demand on another.
(If you are going to show Joe open water, just don’t mistake the Antarctic for the Arctic. He isn’t going to read the explanations why sea ice is only a warming harbinger in the northern hemisphere. )
But it IS human nature, and not Bad Corporations that are responsible for the lassitude over climate change inaction. I don’t think Alarmists really get that, and until they do, they are spinning their wheels.
Look no further than Mr Gore to see human nature archetyped. It is human nature to live richly, and we are all (on average) going to put our proximate comfort against a putative future collective good. We are going to each figure out which publicly-facing narrative best assuages the hypocrisy generated by the fact that, if AGW gasses are a substantial harm, my individual responsibility is to minimize my personal contribution IMMEDIATELY, while the problem gets solved.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Alarmists wanting to live comfortably will find solace blaming evil corporations for corrupting Grand Solutions. Until corporations and public policy gets cleaned up, I may as well participate in the tragedy of the commons, because my individual suffering will make no discernable net difference. Deniers wanting to live comfortably will point to record bitter winters where they live, and take pictures of expanding Antartic sea ice instead of diminishing Arctic sea ice. Until Sandy happens every year, I may as well participate in the tragedy of the commons, because the following year was so damn quiet it’s obvious Sandy was an ordinary weather outlier.
We collectively care about polar bears just like we collectively care about starving Biafrans and the trillions of dollars our children will have to repay. In general, but not in particular.
If the melting arctic were a local problem for Nantucket, it would not take 20 years for Cape Wind to be built, and it would be just fine to suffer the property value impact of noisy and ugly wind turbines. Until the harm is proximate enough though, the remedy will be need to be as painless as is not doing much of anything substantive. As with Cape Wind, it will need to be in someone else’s back yard of sacrifice.
We care. I care. Oh my, how I care! about the earth’s state 50 years out…
…say; I just heard golf clubs are on sale at Dick’s, and Costco has a travel sale on africa vacations!
In the real world, the actual current problem is a lack of icebreakers. I’m serious, this year the economic cost of the record cold is staggering. It’s an actual real problem, right now. But you can’t just buy a bunch of icebreakers, and the countries that have them won’t sell, they have a shortage as well.
I’m not joking, or trying to make some climate change point, it’s just a fact.
[It takes a lot of time and money to get an icebreaker.](US Coast Guard still wrangling with ice breaker shortage) Since regional climate can change quickly, it’s impossible to “adapt” fast enough to deal with sudden changes.
It’s not a sudden problem, in geological terms. But in real human terms, it certainly is.
Shortage of icebreaker ships could lose us the race to explore the Antarctic While the focus is on the expanding traffic at the poles, the last two years, but especially this last winter, illustrates how modern society and industry must prepare in advance. We can’t just suddenly be ready for climate change.
While your average idiot doesn’t give two shits, the military, the government and certainly industry cares a lot about AGW/climate change. They actually want to know what is coming, so they can be ready for it. Successful business and government depends on having a good idea of the future. Farming absolutely has to know something about what is really happening, and what will happen.
A major reason farmers think the government projections are shit, is because they have turned out to be shit. If farms had “adapted” for increasingly warmer winters with less snow, they would be in serious trouble right now. It doesn’t really matter much to some climate expert who predicts (or makes projections) milder winters and a lack of snow, when the expert turns out to be full of shit. But to anyone in the real world who believed them, and changed their plans, it matters a lot to them.
People might no care much about the IPCC Bullshit, but they actually care a lot about what will really happen.
Over six years ago. Your average person could give a shit. But in the real world, what happens with climate change, especially winters, matters a great deal. The alarmists thinks nobody cares, but in reality, we just don’t care about chicken little.
Especially when chicken little flies his private jet all over, and lives on ocean front property.
To repeat what I keep asking you…if what you say is true, and is furthermore of major significance, as you are eager to insist…then why isn’t the consensus that Measure refers to in post #240 dissolving even as we speak? Where are all the humble recantations from thousands of chastened boffins? Why are they not reeling away in shock and dismay, and throwing themselves at your feet, groveling for your forgiveness? Why do they seem so unimpressed with your Plus Ten Hammer of Thor data?
They did not hear this shocking information? Was it suppressed by the Algore Cabal and the liberal media? In that case, how did you find out?
I’m perfectly willing to be stunned into silence by your awesome data. But I gotta wonder why they aren’t. Perhaps you can clear that up for us.
Last time I looked there is virtually no cholera and other diseases thanks to now having sewage in our water, also the latest reports are that the ozone layer is recovering, that acid rain is getting under control, there is no more lead in gasoline, and there are other examples that show that this point is really just silly. While there is indeed a human nature component on this, the reality is that humans have showed before how to overcome it many times in the past.
And political, pointing constantly at Gore just betrays why there the opposition is mostly coming from, it is not based on science and what history shows what people can do.
Almost in all cases a combination of regulations and government action takes care of the problems that technology and short-sightedness of many in the past gave us.
What you propose for the individuals to do in the short range is also very irresponsible, as pointed before part of the change does depend on what we can do with our consumer power.
I would not bother much with that, there is plenty of evidence posted before to show that he does believe in a conspiracy and it doesn’t matter how many times that is debunked. Contradictory, and at the same time, he believes that scientists like Cohen support what he claims even though they use the research that he reported before was fraudulent as part of the conspiracy. There is also a constant cherry picking of the data (that again, according to him, is also the result of a conspiracy) made to toss bones to the rank and file that are deniers and will vote accordingly for more deniers, but he and others do believe in science as many out there are continuously telling us. :rolleyes:
And of course leaded gas is still used around the world, as well as in the US.
The ozone layer isn’t supposed to start healing until 2060 (when it is presumed fossil fuels will run out)
This is why I am skeptical, and think most people just don’t care about the AGW alarmism. The UN hasn’t wiped out cholera, or figured out how to provide clean water for everyone, much less basic health and welfare, but it wants to tell everybody what to do with fuels. People facing death from war, or starvation and death from bad water, or no water, really don’t care about global warming.
Which may provide interesting insights into mass human psychology, but has nothing to tell us about whether or not they ought to care about it. Is your point that people are stupid, the UN is ineffectual, or what, exactly?
The only real worry is some idiot politicians will use a fake threat to garner even more power over the people. Anyone who is actually old enough, knows full well just how wrong politicians usually are, and how shortsighted and stupid most people are.
As I have pointed before I was referring to developed nations, and your examples are a reason why the ones opposed to change in the past in those developed nations are forever considered in history to be examples of not nice or wise people.
AFAIK leaded gasoline in use but just in small amounts in marine and airplane engines. It’s use for car engines has been phased out since about 1975. Leading find nice results like the strong possibility that a lot of problems with developing intelligence and violence were related to the past use of lead in our cars and paints.
And this betrays why you are not the go to guy to solve an issue like this, the fact is that by not doing anything those estimates of recuperations would not be there, as it is the realization that we would be pessimistic if the CFCs emissions had not been controlled.
Again, what you did was to move the goal posts, what you pointed out were really perfect examples about what it needs to be done to make a difference.
Stop voting or supporting the ones that claim that pollution will always be beneficial for businesses or that it is useless for our well-being or that it does not help.
Always nice to see evidence of where the opposition really does come from.
In any case, currently the polluters do know who to put in power to prevent that “bad” outcome.
Nah, that is usually just wishfully thinking that history is on your side, it is not. The short-sightedness of politicians in the past also point at what needs to be done to eventually do the right thing. If the stink will not lead the government to act, it is us the ones that have to raise the stink to government.
Removing the lead from the gasoline did lead ( ) to nice results like finding the strong possibility that a lot of problems like a reduction of intelligence among poor people and violence were related in part to the past use of lead in our cars and paints.
I have said that human nature means what the average human being WILL do is what Al Gore and I do: Live as richly as possible for this one life we’ve been given. What Mr Gore and I will do with our consumer power is to consume. Houses. Rugs. Nice hotels that need rugs. Jets. Etc.
Care? Of course?
Sacrifice personally? No.
What we SHOULD do is an entire other discussion around what is ethical behavior.
Denialists deny, and consume richly because Denialism lets them avoid the ethical dilemma of working against the good of the commons.
Alarmists alarm, and consume richly because alarming (aside from the general secondary gain of working for a Great Cause) satisfies their need to Do Something, and is much less painful than actually personally sacrificing.
The problems we’ve solved that you mention did not require individuals to sacrifice personally in order to avoid being hypocritical in their position that the problem should be solved.
I never claimed to be anything, so your strawman argument is useless, just like most of what you type out. It doesn’t actually offer any solutions, just demands that somebody elks do something,.
Does anyone think anybody is going to stop flying? Of course not. The solution can not be to force people to stop doing something that is vital. Which is why I asked what you would do if you had absolute power.
If I had any power, I would force everyone who uses fossil fuels to either plant trees, or pay extra to have trees planted to offset the carbon. Same for ships. If you want to leave a ship trail across the pacific, then you have to also spread rock dust behind your ship to fertilize the ocean, offsetting the carbon, as well as the effect of the clouds created by ships. Except we don’t even know if ship tracks are a warming or cooling influence on the climate. They certainly are one of the largest changes made to the atmosphere. That “nobody really knows” is just another example of how bad climate science actually is.
We discussed that already, besides just pulling a fallacy, you are only betraying that politics is the main reason of the opposition observed now. It is not based on reason but prejudice and missing facts like what AL Gore is doing with his investments, even in the past you had to acknowledge that and you are acting here like if that was never mentioned, that does not lead to have your opinion to be respected, really.
And what Gore is advising is not based just on what he claims, many experts advice that, and they are coming also from the world of economics and have been mentioned before, so you want to pretend that nothing was discussed before and your repeated insistence on political personifications are misguided, the problem then is indeed with your ponderings, they are just designed to ignore the past discussions. I may say that those opinions then are not only invalid, but way past their expiration date.
)
) to nice results like finding the strong possibility that a lot of problems like a reduction of intelligence among poor people and violence were related in part to the past use of lead in our cars and paints.