Bailout is actually more than $700bn

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No. You posed a hypothetical situation and I described the optimal solution IN THAT SITUATION.

If we could magically reduce carbon emissions without changing our behaviour then I would want to do that. Of course. But I am not smart enough to figure out what the most efficient way of reducing our carbon emissions is. Neither are you. Neither is anybody else. The way to figure it out is to provide a uniform price of carbon across the economy and let the magic of market calculation do the work for us.

And THAT argument is why I am no longer a socialist.

The history is PET and the NEP. Current affairs is the GoQ assuming they could introduce a carbon tax that the oil companies would not pass on to consumers.

You are asking people who have been burned to accept Liberals on good faith when their leader once more comes from Quebec with a plan to tax our livelihoods and even a Tory in Quebec thinks he can pass a carbon tax on the oil companies that will not be relayed to consumers. How stupid do you think we are?

You ask too much. I would not have suspended so much disbelief since I watched Lord of the Rings. You too are telling fictionalised fairy tales.

I'm glad you're a new adherent to markets and all. If the power of the argument won you over, it is a powerful argument.

Where I think you may be off track, just a bit, is thinking that market considerations are what and how Liberals gain power and govern in Confederation. Don't mistake me. The Tories are not a universe apart, but put yourself in my boots and accept without quibble that the federal Liberals have the best interests of Alberta or its oil industry at heart and I would not be surprised if you punched me in the nose let alone spit in my face.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


All right, '****. Regress to your little shell.

*sigh*

and I felt we were making progress.

Go ahead, pr1ck. I disagree with you. Throw the stones.

Moron.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, thank you for mentioning the watershed moment in Canadian history which put to bed that type of policy. 25 years ago.

Politicians do everything they can to favour Canadian producers and exporters. They do not handicap them.

How did Liberal policies favour Canadian producers?

[Ramo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


???????

Assume we know the EXACT climatological effects of any given level of carbon. Now explain how we find the ideal level of carbon emission.

The biggest issues right now are probably the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets breaking off. The other stuff - changed agricultural patterns, etc., are going to really hard to predict. So, assuming we know exactly what's happening, pick the most least aggressive schedule for reducing carbon emissions that stops this collapse.

Some set of time dependencies of carbon emissions are going to be relatively safe according to the academic community. Pick a moderately conservative schedule.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ramo


The biggest issues right now are probably the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets breaking off. The other stuff - changed agricultural patterns, etc., are going to really hard to predict. So, assuming we know exactly what's happening, pick the most least aggressive schedule for reducing carbon emissions that stops this collapse.

And how do you know that the damage caused by this is greater than the damage caused by reducing emissions to this level?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither


*sigh*

and I felt we were making progress.

Go ahead, pr1ck. I disagree with you. Throw the stones.

Moron.

You deserve it. Go back to Canada!

[Ramo]

And how do you know that the damage caused by this is greater than the damage caused by reducing emissions to this level?

We don't. We can do a crude estimate that suggests that is fairly likely the case, but I wouldn't be confident of any precise quantifying of harm. I think there are uncertainties in the orders of magnitude...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ramo
We don't. We can do a crude estimate that suggests that isn't the case (and is far from the case), but I wouldn't be confident of any precise quantifying of harm. I think there are uncertainties in the orders of magnitude...

So why do you think that setting this as the cutoff point is the right answer?

You need to construct the inframarginal harm and cost curves. I just need to find the marginal harm.

[KrazyHorse]

(to be fair I also need to re-estimate the marginal harm as carbon emissions drop; you get to use the same trick to calculte inframarginal cost, but are still stuck with constructing the whole harm curve instead of just the marginal harm)

[notyoueither]

So, how does cutting cheques to soccer moms in Toronto (encourage consumption) help reduce emissions (the stated goal) while sucking cash out of the region that is already investing billions in technology to reduce those same emissions (discouraging increases in efficiency)?

Can you answer that, or can you just be a pr1ck?

[KrazyHorse]

notyoueither
notyoueither is online now New Post 12-11-2008 01:08 This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

???

[notyoueither]

\o/

Wow. I never thought you were such a pvssy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither
\o/

Wow. I never thought you were such a pvssy.

lolz. You didn't think he was a ***** when he put other people on his ignore list, but when it's you he's a *****.

[notyoueither]

You didn't think he was a ***** when he put other people on his ignore list,

Did I say that?

[KrazyHorse]

notyoueither
notyoueither is online now New Post 12-11-2008 01:14 This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


Kidicious
Kidicious is online now New Post 12-11-2008 01:16 This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


notyoueither
notyoueither is online now New Post 12-11-2008 01:19 This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

???