[custar]

Originally Posted by licence_to_kill

how is taxing energy, cap and trade, and other similar programs throwing money down the drain? even right wing economists like Mankiw support these.

I am not sure how you took that out of my post. I think you need to re-read my post. Energy is going to be taxed one way or the other, so that is a non-entity in this discussion and not something I touched on in my post.

Originally Posted by custar

things like Cap-and-Trade are not stewardship of the planet. I am behind developing renewable resources in a responsible and efficient way, but throwing money down the drain (or to big donors) is neither responsible nor efficient. There are ways to achieve the salutory ends without resorting to some elaborate argument like Global Warming.

I didn't post that Cap-and-Trade is throwing money down the drain; I posted that it is not stewardship of the planet. Cap-and-trade is not about renewable energy resources. It is about shifting money. The part about throwing money down the drain has more to do with ineffective programs. Throwing good money after bad like Solyndra is not responsible nor efficient.

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Stewardship is something we are responsible for regardless and it transcends politics.

I agree it should.

custar

[licence_to_kill]

But it is stewardship of the planet. By making people internalize their externalities (in this case pollution) we incentivize them to make greener choices.

[custar]

Originally Posted by licence_to_kill

But it is stewardship of the planet. By making people internalize their externalities (in this case pollution) we incentivize them to make greener choices.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124587942001349765.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gree...n-trading.html

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/...2%80%99t-work/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-s...-trade-scheme/

custar

[Iamamartianchurch]

I'm going to go ahead and say that the quantity of polluters is the problem. Just compare rural areas to urban and industrial areas.

Even if we reduce emissions to close to nil, it doesn't solve the core issues of expansion and consumption.

[licence_to_kill]

Originally Posted by custar

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124587942001349765.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gree...n-trading.html

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/...2%80%99t-work/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-s...-trade-scheme/

custar

well if you're just going to link farm i can do whole of a lot better than the WSJ opinion page and the heritage foundation

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/0...from-2004.html

[custar]

First, you are presuming that CO2 production at any level is a pollutant.

Second, it is about generating money.

Grandfathering versus auctioning the permits is primarily a question of distribution, not efficiency--it is a question of whether a public asset should be given to firms for free or sold as a means of generating public revenues.

Third, you totally missed part of the importance of the articles I cited (assuming you read them). While the U.S. and other developed countries may voluntarily participate, China and India as well as many if not most third world countries would do so only to sell off their credits or indulgences (which the credits resemble) and just keep going as they have. What would you really be able to do if China just ignored the limits?

custar

[licence_to_kill]

Nothing, we can't control what china does. Why you think thats reason for us to not to take steps to curb pollutants is confusing me.

[Tuff]

Originally Posted by Not2FFU

How do you propose this?

There are a lot of people unemployed that would probably make the parts once they had proper training. I don't view it as impossible. Hire a few knowledgeable people to teach many more. I believe that the parts for something can always be done cheaper (to an extent) by simply stop insisting that something cost a certain amount to build or create, when the price in question is set because people assume that everything has to cost a certain price. There are often ways to make things cheaper.

An example would be I recently had to fix my truck. Numerous mechanics told me it would cost about $800-$1000 to fix and it simply would not cost any less. I got it fixed for $400 because I found the parts myself (cheaper than their catalog had them for - and they were honest, known the mechanic for 25 years now) and for 300 and had labor done for 100 bucks.

This example may not be perfect, but if push came to shove, the panels could be made more cheaply. There simply isn't dire need in the minds of many, not when there is money to be made off oil.

[martinFrostad]

Efficiency is good, oil should be a thing of the past whether global temperatures or climate is changing or not. For example, why don't we use C02 in paintball anymore? We can play more games. Oil isn't forever why not use oil money for more efficient ways of producing energy. That way even jobs wouldn't be deleted, just transferred to a new field. I don't think there would be wars over wind turbines or solar panels either.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by martinFrostad

Efficiency is good, oil should be a thing of the past whether global temperatures or climate is changing or not. For example, why don't we use C02 in paintball anymore? We can play more games. Oil isn't forever why not use oil money for more efficient ways of producing energy. That way even jobs wouldn't be deleted, just transferred to a new field. I don't think there would be wars over wind turbines or solar panels either.

Originally Posted by martinFrostad

...why not use oil money for more efficient ways of producing energy...

You mean the part the government takes in taxes from oil, or the profits oil companies get? Because the ratio is over 6:1 last I heard.

[martinFrostad]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

You mean the part the government takes in taxes from oil, or the profits oil companies get? Because the ratio is over 6:1 last I heard.

Well time to start teaching Entrepreneurship in college again. Nobody wants to try and compete with oil for some reason. I live in the NW and there's a pretty big push for wind power. We should have a bullet train system by now. And countries like Norway already have hydrogen car highways.

[The Inflicted]

Originally Posted by martinFrostad

Well time to start teaching Entrepreneurship in college again. Nobody wants to try and compete with oil for some reason. I live in the NW and there's a pretty big push for wind power. We should have a bullet train system by now. And countries like Norway already have hydrogen car highways.

It isn't a matter of teaching entrepreneurship in this country- our current business tax model all but prohibits it.
Some proactive legislation could fix that right up.


Walter Russel Mead explains the problem: http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...obs-jobs-jobs/

...and Derek Thompson has some solutions: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ations/253211/

[The Inflicted]

Update: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...tenses/253395/

[martinFrostad]

Originally Posted by The Inflicted

It isn't a matter of teaching entrepreneurship in this country- our current business tax model all but prohibits it.
Some proactive legislation could fix that right up.


Walter Russel Mead explains the problem: http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...obs-jobs-jobs/

...and Derek Thompson has some solutions: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ations/253211/

i can dig it.

Dead end job+throwing money at an endeavor is what its going to come to. And is working for me and my dad (whom works for himself on the internet now)

Internet censorship laws have to die for any of this to occur though. The ease of access to info over the net is crucial now. Otherwise my family would be broke. I can already see some effects on the web from sites abiding to new laws. Especially in signups and user agreements.

[The Inflicted]

Originally Posted by martinFrostad

i can dig it.

Dead end job+throwing money at an endeavor is what its going to come to. And is working for me and my dad (whom works for himself on the internet now)

Internet censorship laws have to die for any of this to occur though. The ease of access to info over the net is crucial now. Otherwise my family would be broke. I can already see some effects on the web from sites abiding to new laws. Especially in signups and user agreements.

"Internet censorship laws"?
What exactly does your father do?

[Gnarly Whyn (Banned)]

Originally Posted by licence_to_kill

But it is stewardship of the planet. By making people internalize their externalities (in this case pollution) we incentivize them to make greener choices.

Only with taxes. And the accompanying political costs might only make things worse.

[Gnarly Whyn (Banned)]

Originally Posted by licence_to_kill

Nothing, we can't control what china does. Why you think thats reason for us to not to take steps to curb pollutants is confusing me.

Encouraging Chinese and Indian growth might be the fastest way to curb pollutants. It worked for the Western World.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by The Inflicted

"Internet censorship laws"?
What exactly does your father do?

[Gnarly Whyn (Banned)]

hahaha