[Al_U_Card]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-26, 18:06, said:

The devil is indeed in the details. We shall see.

You can be sure that the bankers and bureaucrats will make out like bandits...

So, will we be quantifying the "effect" on climate that these measures will have? How many thousandths of a degree will the reductions result in and at what cost to the taxpayer?

Sheep just gotta be fleeced. Especially when they ignore the sounds of shearing.

[Al_U_Card]

billw55, on 2013-June-26, 09:44, said:

I am wondering what that means. Obama's carefully worded statement seems to say that the EPA will be involved, but nothing about just what exactly they will do.

A view from outside of the fishbowl

So President Obama has thrown some crumbs to his supporters in the NGOs by giving a speech on climate (coverage here, for example). I'm not sure there's much to genuinely quicken the pulse here. The general theme seems to be some more fixing of markets to favour his supporters in the renewables industry and some more regulations to tie up the fossil fuel bogeyman.

It's just that it's only coal he intends to tie up in red tape; several commentators are noting that he almost seems to be smooching up to the fracking industry. So one could almost see this as "going with the flow" rather than an attempt to change anything.

Meanwhile, there are no carbon taxes or emissions pricing mechanisms on offer and none of the more suicidal actions longed for by environmentalists and other eccentrics. It seems like something of a damp squib, given the excited trailing of the speech beforehand.

And in fact, the sudden interest in climate is odd in itself. So late in his tenure, it's hard to see him as being able to achieve anything very much. Anyone would think he was trying to divert attention from his problems on the civil liberties front.

[Winstonm]

And, of course, who doesn't take seriously someone who sources "several commentators" who offer that it "almost seems" that one can "almost see". And when we read that environmentalist = eccentric, we have to question a poster's motivations.

Anyone would think? Not really.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2013-June-26, 13:11, said:

I am interested in what methods will be used to cut emissions without cutting power production. Or perhaps cutting production at fossil plants is part of the plan? Anyway, the details are important, but rarely get discussed in press events.

In an better world, we'd be able to impose a carbon tax which would decrease carbon emission (and power production) while generating offsetting revenue. The resulting funds could then be returned to consumers to offset some of the effects of the tax. In theory, rational consumers should respond by decreasing their consumption of carbon intensive goods while increasing their consumption of goods that aren't carbon intensive. (British Columbia is using just such a system today)

Sadly, its not possible to get this sort of thing through congress so we end up with some kind of blanket emissions caps. Not particularly good policy, but we're probably stuck with this sort of crap until at least 2020.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-June-24, 13:07, said:

I don't claim that I have more right to be here because I have been here longer or participate in a wider variety of threads.

I do claim that the fact the Al_U_Card and Daniel_1960 only participate in Climate Change threads raises interesting questions about their presence on a bridge discussion board. I reference my own posting history to demonstrate that there sharp difference in my behavior from theirs in response to Bill55's comment that I was the one behaving like a troll.

I don't think that I have a right to be a moderator. Back during the early days of the forum, Inquiry offered me an official role as such. I responded that I was far too much of an asshole to be in that type of a position and said that I don't think that BBO would like my being formally associated with their site.

With this said and done, Inquiry and Fred's position seems to be that trolls are welcome.
Mine is that troll's are strongly undesirable.

Sadly, ignoring the troll's doesn't work
Politely refuting their arguments doesn't work

I treat them with the disdain with which I feel they deserve.

Glad to hear you feel that what, because I got the feeling otherwise. How would participation in a bridge forum make one a better poster on climate change? I have heard you call me a troll, and others call you such. I do not believe that either of us are as such, and I feel that we both have an equal right to post here. Just because we have a difference of opinion, should not mean ther we treat each other with disdain. Some of my most informative and invigorating conversations have occurred with those with whom I disagree. Obviously, if everyone agreed with either you or me, then there would be no arguing over the proper course of action. If you feel unwelcome here, no one is forcing you to stay.

[Winstonm]

Richard,

By the classical definition of "internet troll", I don't think the tag fits Daniel". Special interest mouthpiece seems more fitting.

[Al_U_Card]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-June-27, 05:00, said:

So, will we be quantifying the "effect" on climate that these measures will have? How many thousandths of a degree will the reductions result in and at what cost to the taxpayer?

I suppose it is more about guilt being assuaged than the consideration of the effects of this brand of "austerity". Controlling people is the key. The weather is just an excuse and an unbelievably poor one at that.

[Winstonm]

Al_U_Card, on 2013-June-27, 09:02, said:

Controlling people is the key.

Of course, it is, but in a positive sense. Regulations are made to try to ensure behavior for the common good. Restricting the actions of the few in order to safeguard the good of the many ensures liberty for the many.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-27, 07:03, said:

Anyone would think? Not really.

True, most people don't.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-27, 09:20, said:

Of course, it is, but in a positive sense. Regulations are made to try to ensure behavior for the common good. Restricting the actions of the few in order to safeguard the good of the many ensures liberty for the many.

This has been the Statist argument since the dawn of time.

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-27, 11:40, said:

This has been the Statist argument since the dawn of time.

Before the creation of states, people could not travel very far without the risk of being killed.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-27, 11:40, said:

This has been the Statist argument since the dawn of time.

Liberty does not mean freedom from interference. Liberty means freedom to maximize potential. More risk-taking occurs when the penalty for failure is diminished by a common shared safety net.

John Galt is fiction.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-27, 11:40, said:

This has been the Statist argument since the dawn of time.

Yeap...

And, curiously enough, mankind has chosen to live in "States" since the dawn of time

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2013-June-27, 07:53, said:

In an better world, we'd be able to impose a carbon tax which would decrease carbon emission (and power production) while generating offsetting revenue. The resulting funds could then be returned to consumers to offset some of the effects of the tax. In theory, rational consumers should respond by decreasing their consumption of carbon intensive goods while increasing their consumption of goods that aren't carbon intensive. (British Columbia is using just such a system today)

Sadly, its not possible to get this sort of thing through congress so we end up with some kind of blanket emissions caps. Not particularly good policy, but we're probably stuck with this sort of crap until at least 2010.

It's an interesting idea. You are probably right that it won't pass congress anytime soon. I would also comment that such a scheme does not generate revenue - only shuffles revenue around, and ultimately into government coffers. The idea that they would return the resulting funds to consumers made me laugh. Who would fall for that line?

Still, some parts could work in theory. Generators pay a tax on emissions, which raises their cost, which they pass to their customers, and on down the chain, until maybe some portion of the end users decide to reduce consumption to save money. For this to work to a degree even close to making a difference, we will need a large increase in non-carbon generation.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2013-June-27, 13:18, said:

It's an interesting idea. You are probably right that it won't pass congress anytime soon. I would also comment that such a scheme does not generate revenue - only shuffles revenue around, and ultimately into government coffers. The idea that they would return the resulting funds to consumers made me laugh. Who would fall for that line?

Canadians, for one

As I said in my original post, there is a revenue neutral carbon tax being used today in British Columbia...

http://www.fin.gov.b.../climate/A1.htm

How about the Hoover Institute at Stanford?
http://online.wsj.co...1965799658.html

[dwar0123]

billw55, on 2013-June-27, 13:18, said:

It's an interesting idea. You are probably right that it won't pass congress anytime soon. I would also comment that such a scheme does not generate revenue - only shuffles revenue around, and ultimately into government coffers. The idea that they would return the resulting funds to consumers made me laugh. Who would fall for that line?

Given that the current tax load is about the lowest it has been in my lifetime, your cynicism doesn't match reality. Taxes can be reduced and as funds are the definition of a fungible resource, it doesn't matter how they are reduced, an increase in tax revenue can be returned to the consumer by a decrease in another area.

Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't, more likely it would take longer for the decrease to occur than either you or I would ideally like, but to suggest that taxes never decrease, which is what you are suggesting, is stupid.

[mike777]

dwar0123, on 2013-June-27, 13:39, said:

Given that the current tax load is about the lowest it has been in my lifetime, your cynicism doesn't match reality. Taxes can be reduced and as funds are the definition of a fungible resource, it doesn't matter how they are reduced, an increase in tax revenue can be returned to the consumer by a decrease in another area.

Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't, more likely it would take longer for the decrease to occur than either you or I would ideally like, but to suggest that taxes never decrease, which is what you are suggesting, is stupid.

I find the tax load pretty heavy.

In my state, city and county they just raised many taxes including property, water, sewer, utility, phone, gas, etc...
I find hotel taxes going up, airplane taxes, rental car taxes going up huge at ORD.

Do you really find your tax load low...really you find you pay the fewest/lowest tax load in your lifetime?

[Zelandakh]

All the talk about who is and is not a troll reminded me of an internet questionaire from ages back on "what is your forum type" or something along those lines. Unfortunately I do not have the link for that any more, so instead here is a link to 18 Types of Internet Trolls. You can judge for yourselves whether any BBF posters fall into these categories.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-27, 12:32, said:

Liberty does not mean freedom from interference. Liberty means freedom to maximize potential. More risk-taking occurs when the penalty for failure is diminished by a common shared safety net.

John Galt is fiction.

Both as literature and as philosophy.

Our representative democracy was designed to protect the individual from the majority. Mob-rule is the classic case of excess where your rights are trampled by the mob "majority".

Now, getting back to the issue at hand, still no takers on the weather/temperature-controlling effect of reducing the "carbon pollution" as O.B.A.M.A. (Only Bankers Are Making Anything) put it?
Will these measures have the desired (any?) effect?
Or is it just another scam?

[Al_U_Card]

Zelandakh, on 2013-June-28, 03:16, said:

All the talk about who is and is not a troll reminded me of an internet questionaire from ages back on "what is your forum type" or something along those lines. Unfortunately I do not have the link for that any more, so instead here is a link to 18 Types of Internet Trolls. You can judge for yourselves whether any BBF posters fall into these categories.

Sounds (and maybe looks) familiar...

The Retroactive Stalker will go back in time to find every craigslist post you ever made until he finds something embarrassing you said, even if you posted it three years ago. After that, whenever you post anything new, the Retroactive Stalker will link to the old post(s) in an effort to discredit you.