Why I dislike the AGW cult

You've been good at being wrong. You should be sponsored.

 

As I thought you want laws created to force everyone to live the way you believe is right even though you are not willing to live by those rules yourself. You must not think the problem of global warming is really that big of an issue if you are not willing to do whatever it takes to stop it on your own. What I get from you and others on this is it's not what you do it's what you think that counts.

 

I asked what you do to fight global warming besides condemn those that are not believers and you had nothing to say so how am I wrong? How do you live different than me?

 

Again, I can't solve global warming. I'm not going to blubber about carbon footprint etc, nor my part in conservation organisation.

Global warming requires more radical action. See, for example, the failure of the "nudging" behaviouralists to present anything notable.

 

Radical action would be?

 

I am willing to live by those rules so as long as everyone else has to live by those rules as well.

I hold the same position with any tax. I am willing to pay the tax so long as everyone else is paying the same tax.

It's the same with insurance. It works because there is a critical mass of people participating. But, if you reduce the participation rate below the critical mass the whole enterprise collapses with the few who are still willing to participate left holding the bag.

I'm willing to make concessions now if it means maximizing the well being of humans in 2100 and beyond.

I'm not willing to make concessions now if there isn't a critical mass of people who are also willing to do the same. I care about the Earth, but I am not altruistic and I have no shame in holding that viewpoint.

 

Different ways of looking at it. We would need more comprehensive global agreement, as yourself even managed to show when you googled badly. Of course we could argue that there needs to be a change in macroeconomics. Take Georgescu-Roegen. His ecological economics has led to discussion pver degrowth. An alternative viewpoint is agrowth. Here, there is a disinterest in pursuing growth and a focus instead on policy designed to react to ecological constraints.

 

That "Critical Mass" will never be there and it is too late anyway. Our planet has reached tipping points that cannot be reversed as Ocean Albedo switches from reflective to absorbing and methane release continues unabated/increased. Within about 50 years things are going to get extremely tough and we already see the beginning as weather extremes begin.

 

And there you have it, the anti capitalisim agenda of the AGW movement for all to see. The political faction of the cult.

 

Once again, and there you have it. Raise taxes that will solve the problem. LOL

 

I haven't referred to anti capitalism. Perhaps you simply aren't aware of ecological economics and it's focus on sustainability?

 

Well, yeah, I see your point here. Raising taxes certainly isn't the solution for every problem. I get that. In fact, when it comes to economic policy I happen to lean more conservative in that I'm a huge proponent of capitalism and the power of the free market. This also means I like lower taxes. But, I understand that capitalism isn't wholly capable of solving public interest problems and for that reason I'm okay with a tax that could be used to mitigate global warming. However, if I'm going to champion an AGW tax I want to be sure that the tax 1) will produce results and 2) won't divert resources away from a more pressing public interest problem. And while I am a staunch proponent of AGW theory and I'm less certain about the direction public policy should go because of it. I understand that while the science of AGW should be one input into the decision making process it should not be the only input.

 

Sounds anti capitalism to me and I love the new millennials buzz word "sustainability". LOL

 

A carbon tax won't mitigate anything except the purchasing power of people pay checks. They will still drive their cars and heat their homes and buy products from companies that add the carbon tax to the price of their good or service. The only difference is everything will cost more and consumers will suffer as government grows from yet another tax and a carbon tax is exactly why so many leftist politicians are pushing AGW. They want a new revenue source and carbon is a new thing they can tax.

 

Given your position is based on not understanding ecological economics, perhaps your opinion here isn't particularly high up in the value stakes?

 

I'm curious what your definition of sustainable ecological economics is, how it would work and how much it would reduce our C02 contribution. Sounds pretty pie in the sky to me.

 

Already given an example: agrowth. In general, however, the shift is away from GDP analysis and focus on a true understanding of long term benefits and costs (beyond neoclassical analysis into variability in factors of production).

That has to be on a case to case level. However, in terms of ecological balance, the investment bar raised. See, for example, the third runaway at Heathrow. The politicians have enabled short term economic gain to out-trump environmental concern.

 

As I suspected you can't give me any real description of how this pie in the sky economic system would work and how much it would cut our C02 contribution. At least we are now talking about the real issue here though which is politics not environment and that is what the AGW movement is largely about. There's a saying that green is the new red and the saying fits well when it comes to AGW and those that want to use it to fight for a new age leftist style world government.

 

I didn't just give specifics over government policy, I gave a topical example. Amusing that you didn't notice!

 

If a carbon tax won't work then what do you think will?

 

An example like you gave is not anything near what I asked for and which you obviously can't provide but as I said at least we are on the real issue now which is your contempt for capitalism and the fact that you want to use AGW as a tool to change our economic system.

 

If true believers like yourself walked the walk and did everything possible in their personal lives to cut their C02 contribution it would definitely "help". Drive tiny cars and use them as little as possible. Don't take vacations that require driving or flying. Grow as much of your own food as possible. Buy your clothes from Goodwill, no unnecessary computer use, no AC in summer and keep your house just warm enough to prevent pipes from freezing in winter. The list of things you could do to reduce your C02 output is pages long but you won't do them. What you will do is live your lives just as us non believers do as you condemn us for not believing.

 

More blub! I gave a very pertinent example. The third runway is being pushed due to standard growth criteria. That is inconsistent with sustainability as it ignores ecological balance. In economic terms, there is a switch from GDP growth to investment where long term costs are central components.

Aren't you even aware of basic market failure?

 

Whatever it takes so long as you get a free pass eh?

For the record...I am not altruistic. That means I will not voluntarily degrade my family's well being so that you don't have to make the sacrifice for yours.

By the way, there are altruistic people that do the very thing you are asking for and the CO2 concentration still increases by 2+ ppm/yr so it doesn't seem like your idea is working anyway. What am I missing here?

 

I get a pass because I'm not a true believer and should not be held to your standards.
My idea isn't working because so very few of you are implementing it. The vast majority like 99% of true believers are just like you and the other guy in this conversation. They wring their hands about how man is destroying the planet with his C02 but continue to live their lives as if it were not really the problem they say it is. If all you believers practiced what you preached our C02 output would decrease dramatically. What you want though is for the government to force you and ME to do what you believe is right which is the typical liberal mindset.
I know an SF liberal who is morbidly obese and she blames McDonalds for it. I said just stop eating there to which she replied they put additives in it that make it unnaturally good and you can't resisist eating it to which I said funny but I have no problem resisting. She then went on to say government needs to outlaw junk food so she can no longer eat it and will lose weight. This is how liberals think and her McDonald's example is directly applicable to your AGW stance and how you won't do anything until you can get government to force you to and by extension force me to.