[Al_U_Card]

When not ROFLMAO, things that make you reconsider...

"Yes, the Met Office is funded by Big Oil. And Big Coal. And Big Nuclear. And Big Renewables. Basically we do applied for research for a very wide range of customers who need advice on weather and climate science. The energy & mining multinationals make very big, long-term investments (multi-decadal) and require risk assessments on those timescales, which includes advice on the range of projected regional climate conditions at the locations of their assets. It's a growing source of funding for climate research."

Cheers

Prof Richard A Betts
Met Office Hadley Centre
University of Exeter

[Al_U_Card]

Meanwhile, back at the "death spiral" ...

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-22, 16:39, said:

As a conservative who has been in business all of my life, I'm sick and tired of left-wing alarmist arguments like these from people who have no confidence in the resilience of a free market. Just level the playing field and let the market work.

If you care to investigate, you'll find that nuclear energy requires neither sunshine nor wind, so you can keep typing even at night on a calm day. The idea that you can only accomplish something by giving tax breaks to entrenched corporations or by "government fiat" is simply alarmist foolishness.

I suggested the "government fiat" scenario because it seems to me a lot of people here think government intervention is either required or the best solution to the problem, not because I agree with the idea.

If the government imposes a "carbon tax" that hardly makes for a free market. I should think the first step would be to eliminate government subsidies, including tax breaks and local monopolies.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-23, 09:45, said:

If the government imposes a "carbon tax" that hardly makes for a free market. I should think the first step would be to eliminate government subsidies, including tax breaks and local monopolies.

Commons, we don't need no stinking commons!

Nor does anyone serious claim that we want a completely unregulated free market

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-23, 09:45, said:

I suggested the "government fiat" scenario because it seems to me a lot of people here think government intervention is either required or the best solution to the problem, not because I agree with the idea.

If the government imposes a "carbon tax" that hardly makes for a free market. I should think the first step would be to eliminate government subsidies, including tax breaks and local monopolies.

Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but it appears to me that "free markets" are reactionary when a proactive approach is needed to head off future problems. Market react; people can think ahead.

[Al_U_Card]

Unless they are being hornswaggled by the acolytes of alarmism with their ever more strident cries of doom and gloom with the need to expiate our transgressions and repent our sins in paying hommage to climastrology and its runes, offals errrr "projections" (awfuls? ) based on models that with each passing day are shown to be less and less reliable, obliging the agenda to push back the fateful day ever further into the future.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2014-March-23, 10:58, said:

Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but it appears to me that "free markets" are reactionary when a proactive approach is needed to head off future problems. Market react; people can think ahead.

You have it reversed

Free markets tend to be proactive, people tend to be reactionary.

The reason for this is free markets have much much more information than a limited set of people such as governments.
Free markets also tend to react quicker, for better or worse.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-23, 09:45, said:

If the government imposes a "carbon tax" that hardly makes for a free market.

Without a carbon tax, how would you go about including externalities in the price of carbon-based fuels to provide a level playing field for free market competition?

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-23, 14:01, said:

Without a carbon tax, how would you go about including externalities in the price of carbon-based fuels to provide a level playing field for free market competition?

You raise important points. Free markets are not always a level playing field for everyone involved. We should strive for equal opportunity, but expect to fall short in real life. Now to be fair a level playing field means more than equal opportunity to many.

We do need ways to enforce laws for clean air and clean water. Many argue for a carbon tax at least in theory but even many liberals and progressives don't seem to vote for it or run on it. OTOH even conservatives can and will vote for clean air and clean water bills.

[helene_t]

The most recent research on climate change suggests that it may even influence the colour of our clothes:

Quote

previously documented red-dress effect is moderated by current climate concerns

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0088852

[Al_U_Card]

helene_t, on 2014-March-23, 14:17, said:

The most recent research on climate change suggests that it may even influence the colour of our clothes:


http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0088852

Miniskirts are another bonus of a warming planet...lol

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2014-March-23, 14:11, said:

Many argue for a carbon tax at least in theory but even many liberals and progressives don't seem to vote for it or run on it. OTOH even conservatives can and will vote for clean air and clean water bills.

The carbon tax was proposed by conservatives and is generally supported by conservatives, as do I. I'm trying to find out what liberals and progressives propose instead. Blackshoe appears to be backing away from the "government fiat" idea (and rightfully so), but doesn't say how he'd account for carbon-fuel externalities to make the free market work to solve our problem.

[mike777]

Germany's carbon emissions went up again, this time by 1.2% in 2013. The env. minister says Germany may miss its target of reducing carbon emissions by 40% in 2020 compared with 1990 levels. E16billion spent on renewable energy subsidies last year.

-----


U.S. Carbon Emissions: 2012 Levels At 20 Year Low
http://www.huffingto..._n_1792167.html

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2014-March-23, 14:11, said:

You raise important points. Free markets are not always a level playing field for everyone involved. We should strive for equal opportunity, but expect to fall short in real life. Now to be fair a level playing field means more than equal opportunity to many.

We do need ways to enforce laws for clean air and clean water. Many argue for a carbon tax at least in theory but even many liberals and progressives don't seem to vote for it or run on it. OTOH even conservatives can and will vote for clean air and clean water bills.

That may be true in the case of acting today about a problem today - I do not see markets reacting to correct a future consequence of a problem that does not affect the market immediately.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2014-March-23, 15:54, said:

That may be true in the case of acting today about a problem today - I do not see markets reacting to correct a future consequence of a problem that does not affect the market immediately.

ok but I think this is a deep misunderstanding of how markets work.

venture capital is just one example but there are thousands over the years

markets develop products that we..you and me never knew we wanted...ESPN(24 hour sports) comes to mind. CNN(24 hour news).
ONe reason why focus groups are often worthless, people, customers are often much more focused on what they want immediately.

Fraking was in development for decades.

If nothing else see how the internet is developed. It has many many more failures compared to wins.

BBO was developed by Fred over many years and steps.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2014-March-23, 16:28, said:

ok but I think this is a deep misunderstanding of how markets work.

venture capital is just one example but there are thousands over the years

markets develop products that we..you and me never knew we wanted...ESPN(24 hour sports) comes to mind. CNN(24 hour news).
ONe reason why focus groups are often worthless, people, customers are often much more focused on what they want immediately.

Fraking was in development for decades.

If nothing else see how the internet is developed. It has many many more failures compared to wins.

BBO was developed by Fred over many years and steps.

Sorry, but I do not buy this argument. We had sports - ESPN simply expanded coverage. We had news - CNN expanded coverage.

Until markets see an imminent threat, there will be no market-driven response to climate change. That is why the libertarian method will not work. Passed Out's conservative idea is much better, to start cutting back and encourage market-based solutions, but I am certain that P.O. realizes government must goad the market to act if action is to be taken now.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2014-March-23, 17:29, said:

Sorry, but I do not buy this argument. We had sports - ESPN simply expanded coverage. We had news - CNN expanded coverage.

Until markets see an imminent threat, there will be no market-driven response to climate change. That is why the libertarian method will not work. Passed Out's conservative idea is much better, to start cutting back and encourage market-based solutions, but I am certain that P.O. realizes government must goad the market to act if action is to be taken now.

Winston:

Ok I understand your point. If true you make a strong argument.

I would argue that there is a market driven response:

U.S. Carbon Emissions: 2012 Levels At 20 Year Low
http://www.huffingto..._n_1792167.html

But again if your main thesis is correct you make a powerful argument.

"Until markets see an imminent threat, there will be no market-driven response to climate change. That is why the libertarian method will not work. Passed Out's conservative idea is much better, to start cutting back and encourage market-based solutions, but I am certain that P.O. realizes government must goad the market to act if action is to be taken now."

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-23, 14:37, said:

Blackshoe appears to be backing away from the "government fiat" idea (and rightfully so), but doesn't say how he'd account for carbon-fuel externalities to make the free market work to solve our problem.

I fail to see how I can "back away" from something I never seriously proposed in the first place - but then I gather my sarcasm was lost on at least one reader.

You don't "make" the free market work, you let it work.

[mike777]

yes, often, not always the free market is not about saving the human race.

Often, not always, it is about making money, given risk factors, time factors, etc.

I note even rich people or those hoping to become rich hate water and air pollution. Even rich people can hate Nazis and genocide

If I can save the world and make money so much the better.

Granted if the money was gifted to me...I am not worried about making money but making sure the world knows I am its savior.

But that is an argument for gift taxes and closing loopholes.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-23, 18:33, said:

I fail to see how I can "back away" from something I never seriously proposed in the first place - but then I gather my sarcasm was lost on at least one reader.

You don't "make" the free market work, you let it work.

Ignorant as ever...

How well does the "free market" work without property rights?
And how do those property rights get protected without a government?