Evil Indian Capitalist Polluters Kill Millions

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Sandman

Technology will solve all problems, right? Let's hope you're right, although there is no reason to assume you are.

In truth there is no reason to assume he's wrong. He has the recorded history of mankind to back up his claims. I'm curious what laurels your resting on?

Your proposal needs modification. Specifically, the developed nations should curb their own consumption because the world does not have enough resources for everyone to have a Western lifestyle.

The statement about lacking resources is completely uncalcuable, and therfore completely suspect. You can't predict what resources we will eventually use, so you therefore can not predict whether or not there are enough for everyone.

Imagine telling a farmer 100 years ago that there'd be 6 billion people on the planet. His response would be there just wouldn't be enough food to feed them all, yet with the advent of better farming technology we have more than enough food to feed everyone and there is no indication of world population shrinking in the near future.

[el freako]

To furthur White Elephant's arguments about the scarcity of natural resources...

Since 1850 the prices of raw materials (as measured by the Economist's commodity index) has fallen by around 80% relative to the general price level.

However the price of 'people' in the west (i.e. their wages) has risen tenfold relative to prices.

To put this another way, to buy the same amount of raw materials that would have required someone 150 years ago to put in a full 14 hour day will now take the wages of around a quarter of a hour's work.


Also to back up Fez, most pollution in the west has been dealt with (with the noteable exception of CO2), but usually only when public opinon has forced government regulation on hostile industry (which makes perfect sense as pollution is a classic example of market failure).


To tackle CO2 production the best and fairest way would be to set some target for CO2 production per person and tax anything above this.
However such a scheme would hit the US far harder than Kyoto would have done (as the US would be required to make much larger cuts than other countries as it's CO2 output per person is much higher).
The only initiative the US has come up with so far is to cut 'CO2 intensity' (basically the amount of CO2 produced per unit of GDP) by around 1.5% a year - this may sound good but unless the US economy grows by only 1.5% a year CO2 production will still rise.
It isn't even better than what has happened in the past - I recently did a study of CO2 production from primary energy for the G5 economies in the period 1913-1998 and a 1.5% reduction in CO2 intensity was the average for the period.
So basically the US's proposal is really to 'do nothing'.

[DanS]

"So basically the US's proposal is really to 'do nothing'."

No, it's to keep the status quo and let the market do its work. There is real difference in this distinction, as the change is built into the system.

Edit: Of course the net effect is an increase in C02 for now. But I bet this will only happen for a relatively short period of time.

[el freako]

DanS,

Originally posted by DanS
No, it's to keep the status quo and let the market do its work. There is real difference in this distinction, as the change is built into the system.

If the market has only achieved a 1.5% a year reduction in CO2 intensity over the last 90 years what makes you think it will suddenly get better now?

Over the last 10-15 year the EU has seen reductions in CO2 intensity of around 2-2.5% a year thanks to government intervention (mainly taxation on energy).

I fail to see any change being built into the system - could you please enlighten me?

[DanS]

"I fail to see any change being built into the system - could you please enlighten me?"

The reduction in C02 intensity is the result of individual actions that reduce emissions versus GDP growth. People are acting, even if not quickly enough to reduce overall emissions (both in the EU and US). Just like productivity growth, these deltas don't just materialize out of thin air.

"Over the last 10-15 year the EU has seen reductions in CO2 intensity of around 2-2.5% a year thanks to government intervention (mainly taxation on energy)."

This taxation is highly regressive. Also, for instance, most gasoline taxes bear no resemblance to the costs borne by society. No thanks.

[el freako]

Originally posted by DanS
"I fail to see any change being built into the system - could you please enlighten me?"

The reduction in C02 intensity is the result of individual actions that reduce emissions versus GDP growth. People are acting, even if not quickly enough to reduce overall emissions (both in the EU and US). Just like productivity growth, these deltas don't just materialize out of thin air.

So what you are saying is that the 1.5% reduction in CO2 intensity is likely to continue - I agree, but surely this supports my view that the current US policy is to effectively 'do nothing'.

Originally posted by DanS
"Over the last 10-15 year the EU has seen reductions in CO2 intensity of around 2-2.5% a year thanks to government intervention (mainly taxation on energy)."

This taxation is highly regressive. Also, for instance, most gasoline taxes bear no resemblance to the costs borne by society. No thanks.

Agreed that the taxation is regressive and not best suited to CO2 reduction.
However the EU is actually doing something whereas the US's only proposal is to take no action at all.

What would you do DanS?

[Sandman]

Replies for this resurrected thread.

Okay... so they should build petroleum, coal and gas power plants?

A mixture of everything seems the most logical course of action. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, as they say.

That is because the Kyoto is not in effect in the US. If it was there would be very bad effects. And I am talking into the hundreds of billions.

Why hundreds of billions? What evidence do you have that controlling CO2 would gravely damage the US economy?

In truth there is no reason to assume he's wrong. He has the recorded history of mankind to back up his claims. I'm curious what laurels your resting on?

A lack of trees knackered many an ancient civilisation. Whilst not strictly ancient, the demise of Easter Island due to excessive stone head construction is one such example. They used the trees for rollers and scaffolding. No trees=soil erosion. I wonder if they laughed off the critics as well?

The statement about lacking resources is completely uncalcuable, and therfore completely suspect. You can't predict what resources we will eventually use, so you therefore can not predict whether or not there are enough for everyone.

Will people of the future have no need of water?

[Ned]

El Freako, if the Euro's want to do something now to help America reduce "world" pollution, they could invest in electric-powered railroads throughout America to reduce car pollution. They could build nuclear powerplants in Canada and Mexico and ship clean power into the US. In other words, the Euro's can excersize quite of bit of self help and make a buck at the same time.

Stop complaining and start acting.

[DanS]

"but surely this supports my view that the current US policy is to effectively 'do nothing'"

Well, in the interest of putting semantics aside (), let's just say that the US policy is to do nothing beyond the 1.5% intensity reduction. That is, unless the market surprises the policy makers with something unexpected.

"What would you do DanS?"

I advocate the status quo, in lieu of a more definitive cost and risk profile.

As an aside, in the last 50 years, we have seen at least one threat to carbon-based fuels: nuclear energy. While nuclear energy had its own problems and didn't prove to be a winner, it does demonstrate that carbon-based fuels' continued predominant use is not at all certain.

[Ned]

DanS, Regardless of pollution issues, moving as quickly as possible to electric railroads has got to be in our self interests as a nation. If you have ever been to Japan, you can see just how efficient (and quiet) these railroads can be.

[DanS]

"DanS, Regardless of pollution issues, moving as quickly as possible to electric railroads has got to be in our self interests as a nation."

It would not. Where on Earth do you get that idea?

"If you have ever been to Japan, you can see just how efficient (and quiet) these railroads can be."

The U.S. isn't Japan. We had a passenger rail system every bit as extensive as Japan's once upon a time. Why don't we now? Because it doesn't make any sense for us.

Even now the majority of freight in the US is run on rail with diesel engines. The system just ain't broken.

[Ned]

Dan, I wasn't thinking of frieght. I was thinking of commuter trains that could help replace cars. Our older ciites all have them. Can you imagine what those cities would be like without trains?

[DanS]

"Dan, I wasn't thinking of frieght. I was thinking of commuter trains that could help replace cars."

As I said, we once had a passenger rail system every bit as extensive as Japan's. We don't now because it doesn't make sense with our population density. Cars are better transportation tools for the vast majority of Americans.

In the areas where it does make sense, we have it and it is successful.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Ned
El Freako, if the Euro's want to do something now to help America reduce "world" pollution, they could invest in electric-powered railroads throughout America to reduce car pollution. They could build nuclear powerplants in Canada and Mexico and ship clean power into the US. In other words, the Euro's can excersize quite of bit of self help and make a buck at the same time.

As I am sure you are aware, with the current taxation policies in the US such efforts are likely to be unprofitable (and unlike the recent performance of a lot of their american counterparts european companies believe in making profits).
What we have here is a clear example of market failure.
Sensible government intervention in cases of market failure are one of the things that has made the west so rich and powerfull today (if you disagree with this think how rich we would be if the coercive power of government was not applied to ensure property rights - in a 'market' solution only those with physical power can enforce their property rights).
Electrified rail is probably less suited to the US than Europe or Japan as the great distances will involve much greater loss of power through transmission.


DanS maybe we should wait for more data, but given the long lead-times on action that are needed to avert a global disaster on the worst-case scenarios we cannot afford to wait too long.
How long would you wait for data, and how sure would the scientific community have to be in order for action to be required.
Also remember that by not acting now the US takes the risk that if it needs to cut it's CO2 levels later in the century it will have to cut them further and faster than otherwise, a cut or freeze spread across a longer period would cause far less pain as the economy has more time to adjust.

It's a bit like saving for your retirement when you are in your early 20's - you may die and never see the money and you could enjoy it now, but evey year you save in your early 20's is worth two in your early 40's.

[Ned]

Taxation policies? What are you talking about.

Build nuclear plants in Mexico and Canada and sell us clean power. Surely nuclear power is price competitive. You can store the nuclear waste anywhere in Europe you like.