Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

A bit of historical context and economic enlightment for those who indulge themselves with certainty about the future:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...8bb_story.html

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

How about:

• He is not dumb or intellectually lazy
• His ability as an executive - to gather the right information, discern what's important and what's not, and to reach a decision - is above reproach.
• He has the ability to spend much more time than you or I in studying something, and probably has much better access to sources and people
• His cred as a capitalist, entrepreneur and innovator is untouchable.
• He's demonstrably conservative

By that standard I guess we should all support Trump for president.

Uh-Oh, now I've gone and done a baaaad thing...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

By that standard I guess we should all support Trump for president.

Uh-Oh, now I've gone and done a baaaad thing...

well...

• Trump is not dumb, I don't know if he merits an A on intellectual effort
• His ability as an executive - I guess... except it was mentioned that if he'd simply put the wealth he inherited into conventional hands-off investments, he'd be richer than he currently is. Make of that what you will
• He has the ability to spend much more time than you or I in studying something... haven't seen much proof that he actually does
• His cred as a capitalist, entrepreneur and innovator... see up two points
• He's demonstrably conservative. In the bad way.

C'mon, admit it, you only wish it was Gates and not Trump running in the primary. ;-)

[Kenomac]

I just have to smile and laugh when some of the folks on this forum refer to a 47ft sailboat as a "BIG BOAT." Here's one of my next door neighbor's in Sardinia vacationing on his rented boat whilst contemplating a way to reduce his carbon footprint. Yes, I was probably in the same cove or just around the corner when this was taken.

Bill Gates on this one while one of the Clintons was on another super yacht at about the same time in the area. Unlike Gates, I doubt Chelsea Clinton paid even a dime for her vacation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=poVefE-8ZGY

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I just have to smile and laugh when some of the folks on this forum refer to a 47ft sailboat as a "BIG BOAT."

47ft IS a big boat. Be proud of the fact that your efforts have borne such fruit. You're likely a 1 percenter. Top 5% without doubt. Congratulations.

(If you won the lottery, robbed a bank or are a trust fund brat... don't tell us and we won't know)

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

47ft IS a big boat. Be proud of the fact that your efforts have borne such fruit. You're likely a 1 percenter. Top 5% without doubt. Congratulations.

(If you won the lottery, robbed a bank or are a trust fund brat... don't tell us and we won't know)

Well actually... my wife and I are hardly what most would consider one percenters on our 53 foot sailboat. We both work 40-50 hours per week as registered nurses six months per year. Only three more years to go... or rather 18 months working in the nuthouse.

Our neighbors in Sardinia on the other hand..... Some of them even have a second 200ft yacht just to carry the toys around, but we enjoy the same waterfront view.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by weavis

The Irish in me also gives me another dictum to follow.

First: believe nothing.

Then believe nothing at all.

Wait! I'm Irish (decent). You missed the third line:

Then have another beer (or whisky) with all, and toast our collective idiocy.

P.S. Welcome to the party (although I'm mostly out now).

[jwing]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Just one little question for everyone that thinks a carbon tax on big businesses like big oil and coal consortiums won't be passed down to the little guy ( us tax payers) ? Who will pay the tax?

That's pretty easy to answer:

First, understand that the intent of such a tax is not to increase revenue, but to reduce the burning of coal and petrochemicals. So:

All carbon taxes that are directly paid by the consumer, such as a carbon tax on gasoline, can be avoided or reduced by buying less gasoline. Easily done by most people.

All carbon taxes that are indirectly paid by the consumer, that is, passed through the wholesale and retail chain to the consumer, can also be avoided or reduced by the consumer. How? Through the magic of market forces. Say Company A is old-fashioned and refuses to keep up with the times and therefore ends up paying $5 in carbon tax for every $1 that it's tree-hugging competitor, Company B, has to pay, due to Company B having a less wasteful process. Company B, therefore could sell its product for less while maintaining similar profit margins as Company A. People will choose Company B and Company B's net profit will soar.

(By the way, this is already happening in our economy today, even without carbon taxes. A few years ago Southwest Air was smart enough about purchasing fuel that they could then afford to install fuel saving winglets on their planes. They were then flying with cheap fuel and using less of it. Meanwhile, dinosaurs like Delta didn't bother making good fuel purchasing contracts, so they couldn't afford the winglets. Delta was paying more per gallon and burning more gallons per passenger-mile. Southwest could, and did, sell tickets for less money, not charge extra for a suitcase, and still make more profit than the dinosaurs.)

Finally, the tax pass through to the consumer is ultimately the most fair way to encourage reduction in carbon burning. That is because it is the consumer that ultimately drives demand for products and services. So naturally it is the consumers who should pay the cost of the damage that is caused by those products and services.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jwing

That's pretty easy to answer:

First, understand that the intent of such a tax is not to increase revenue, but to reduce the burning of coal and petrochemicals. So:

All carbon taxes that are directly paid by the consumer, such as a carbon tax on gasoline, can be avoided or reduced by buying less gasoline. Easily done by most people.

All carbon taxes that are indirectly paid by the consumer, that is, passed through the wholesale and retail chain to the consumer, can also be avoided or reduced by the consumer. How? Through the magic of market forces. Say Company A is old-fashioned and refuses to keep up with the times and therefore ends up paying $5 in carbon tax for every $1 that it's tree-hugging competitor, Company B, has to pay, due to Company B having a less wasteful process. Company B, therefore could sell its product for less while maintaining similar profit margins as Company A. People will choose Company B and Company B's net profit will soar.

(By the way, this is already happening in our economy today, even without carbon taxes. A few years ago Southwest Air was smart enough about purchasing fuel that they could then afford to install fuel saving winglets on their planes. They were then flying with cheap fuel and using less of it. Meanwhile, dinosaurs like Delta didn't bother making good fuel purchasing contracts, so they couldn't afford the winglets. Delta was paying more per gallon and burning more gallons per passenger-mile. Southwest could, and did, sell tickets for less money, not charge extra for a suitcase, and still make more profit than the dinosaurs.)

Finally, the tax pass through to the consumer is ultimately the most fair way to encourage reduction in carbon burning. That is because it is the consumer that ultimately drives demand for products and services. So naturally it is the consumers who should pay the cost of the damage that is caused by those products and services.

Good post, thanks. Let's take a narrower example perhaps we can all relate to, namely the production, distribution, and consumption of fuel we buy at the pump for our vehicles. At any moment in time, there's no way to properly dispose of the emissions from our vehicles, so the best remedy is to discourage the consumption of the fuel. But are you (and Jack) saying that while the tax is passed down to the consumer who pays the tax at the pump, the actual amount of the tax is assessed at the wellhead (if you will), to the producer (or refiner, perhaps)? And this assessment is variable, depending on the amount of emissions produced in making the product? Because if it's not variable, then it seems to me that all the producers would be assessed the same amount (the 5-7% in B.C.?), that same amount would be passed to the consumer whether it's at a Shell, Mobil, or Exxon station, and the only driver of reduced emissions is lower demand. (OK if the cos. all use the same clean technologies).

In the bigger picture, however, well thought out economic solutions seem to have more promise of implementation than social or political ones which are simply imposed. Just gotta be careful of one of the basic laws of economics, though, namely the "law of unintended consequences."

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Wait! I'm Irish (decent). You missed the third line:

Then have another beer (or whisky) with all, and toast our collective idiocy.

P.S. Welcome to the party (although I'm mostly out now).

No Irish descent but wish I did:

May the breeze be fresh and a fair one.
May your life be long and a good one.
May your death be easy and a quick one.
May your beer be cold,
Let's have another one.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

At any moment in time, there's no way to properly dispose of the emissions from our vehicles, so the best remedy is to discourage the consumption of the fuel.

The carbon tax will also serve as an incentive for alternative energy sources.

And it more than just petroleum consumption. The "big baddy" is coal generated electricity. Coal has the highest number of deaths per terawatt of energy produced, as well as being the major course of CO2 emissions.

[Mike OReilly]

I leave the nuances of economic to the experts (much like I leave climatology to actual climate scientists ). However, I will point out one obvious fact. Regardless of how we pay financially for the pollution associated with civilization, we are all already paying for it through the impacts on our collective commons.

[Capt Phil]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The carbon tax will also serve as an incentive for alternative energy sources.

And it more than just petroleum consumption. The "big baddy" is coal generated electricity. Coal has the highest number of deaths per terawatt of energy produced, as well as being the major course of CO2 emissions.

You are clearly personally invested in clean energy, sensible fossil fuel usage and seem particularly proud of the British Colmbia political solution to reduce the amount of diesel and gasoline consumption, Jack.
What do you feel is a equitable answer to the thousands of coal miners in Kentucky and Virginia who are now out of work with no transferable skills to another industry? I took a drive through 'coal country' this fall and the abject poverty and closure of many fine small businesses in towns that have depended upon the coal industry employment for generations Has to be seen to be believed!
My son who lives in BC rides a bike to work because the fuel for his car is too expensive. This is great until somebody hits him going to or from work and I or the BC government will have to support him and his family for many decades to come.
There are many unintended consequenses to things like carbon taxes that the governments have not yet thought through IMO. Believe me, I worked for many years in the oil industry in Canada and the US and there are pass through costs that are assessed at the pump or airport storage tank. In other words, there is no such thing as a free lunch! Phil

[transmitterdan]

The theory behind the carbon tax was that the proceeds (90% at least) would be distributed back to the individual tax payers. It doesn't take a huge leap to imagine those coal miners would be reimbursed some of their lost wages for the sacrifice they make to improve the environment. However, the carbon tax system in the US was batted down by environmental groups, elected officials and even some climate groups. My opinion is that they opposed the system because there was no money in it for them.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

What do you feel is a equitable answer to the thousands of coal miners in Kentucky and Virginia who are now out of work with no transferable skills to another industry? I took a drive through 'coal country' this fall and the abject poverty and closure of many fine small businesses in towns that have depended upon the coal industry employment for generations Has to be seen to be believed!

We could say the same thing about the asbestos miners of Quebec.

The town of Asbestos hitched its fortunes to a maverick product, and a younger generation is already seeking its prospects elsewhere. On the sidewalk outside an adult-education school, young students taking a smoking break say they’re not sticking around Asbestos. “There are no more jobs here because they say asbestos is toxic. For me, it’s pretty much over,” says 18-year-old Alex Daudelin, who plans to look for work in the Northwest Territories or northern Quebec.

As asbestos industry collapses, a town's fibre is torn - The Globe and Mail