OK you convinced me, now what?

Well sure … that's sorta by definition in "tragedy". But, that doesn't mean that it isn't in everyone's best interest to address it. (And as I said, it has been successfully addressed in situations before (West Basin in California, Fishing in Alanya Turkey, etc) What makes this different and un-addressable?

 

Economic pain. What would happen to elected officials who voted to double the price of gasoline ??

 

Well #1, isn't it the politicians' job to make hard decisions, and not just care about keeping their public office?

And #2, it would be irresponsible to just double the price of gas, due to the shock to our economy, so they would probably deserve to be unelected. If it ever got to the point where we felt that making gas more expensive was necessary to help cut usage, the price of gas would be increased gradually over a period of years, to allow the economy to adjust. While other steps were taken to assist in the transition to other forms of transportation fuel or modes of transport.

 

It should be obvious really. The examples you gave still allowed users of those resources other options. They could move to a new area and exploit the resources not under severe restrictions, or they could purchase private property and mandate their own restrictions on use.

To combat AGW it must be all encompassing, worldwide, on the use and emissions of carbon dioxide, there would be no escape and few options. The people might vote for the needed taxes and cuts to carbon emissions initially, but they would soon discover the economic pain and lifestyle degradation was too great.

 

None of the above will significantly reduce CO2. It will reduce wealth creation and the ability to adapt to whatever warming occurs but will do nothing to significantly reduce that warming. That’s the Iron Law of Climate Policy.

 

Right, just as we eliminated people's ability to own other people because owning other people's rights to liberty is never rightful whether you own their rights by owning a slave deed or a land deed.

 

But incorrectly.

Utter ignorance. It had nought to do with labor markets. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Wrong again. Fisher and Minsky understood it far better than all Marxists combined.

Which dishonest snow job are you referring to?

You and your "labor economists" are the ones with naff all understanding, as already demonstrated.

Nope. Flat false.

No, it's already been done, with unsurprisingly catastrophic results.

Nothing but snot from you, as usual.

Of course you are objectively wrong. See "Wheels of Fortune" by Fred Harrison.

 

LOL!! Don't you ever get tired of humiliating yourself? The facts prove you flat wrong. The United States has about 1/3 the ratio of income mobility of Denmark and less than half that of Canada, Finland and Norway:

Sawhill, Isabel V.; Morton, John E. (May 2007). "Economic Mobility: Is the American Dream Alive and Well?" Brookings Institution.

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

The subject was taxing land, not property. Increasing the tax on land INCREASES development and use, because the owners can't avoid losing money if they just hold it out of use. Increase the holding cost, and they will either use it productively or sell it to someone who will.

 

What does that have to do with low income quintile in Canada??

 

No, that's garbage. The effect of taxing land is the opposite of the effect of taxing homes.

Right, by making idle speculation and underutilization unprofitable.

No, that's false. The wealthy will no longer be able to hold the land idle because they will lose money. The PRODUCTIVE will then get to use it.

Nope. That is often claimed, but it has never actually happened. All that happens is that landowners are given large gifts of land value by the community, which they may then decide to liquidate for an untaxed capital gain. It takes an exceptionally disingenuous person to call this process of massive subsidization, "driving the less wealthy off their land and out of their homes."

Wrong again. Property taxes are almost entirely unshiftable because the elasticity of supply is so low. That's why rents are highest where property tax rates are lowest -- like CA -- and lowest where property tax rates are highest, like TX.

 

<sigh> Do you even know what "income mobility" means? Do you think it might have something to do with opportunities for the poor to get good paying jobs?

 

I know exactly what it means. And my question stands.

 

Land is property.

Increase the taxes too high, and people will walk away because its too expensive to own property. That's what happened in South Florida and California, property values went up which drove property taxes up to the point that homeowners could no longer afford the taxes and had to move. Only the ultra-rich could afford the property, and there aren't enough of the ultra-rich to own all the property. In both states it caused citizen referendums to modify (lower) property taxes.

 

You seem to be concern trolling. Throwing up your hands and saying "it can't be done" really isn't a good argument.

I never meant to imply that gradually increasing gas prices was going to solve global warming by itself. That's silly. I just pointed out that the sort of things we might do will be phased in over time, which is much easier to sell politically than an immediate shock to the system, and also less disruptive. Because contrary to right-wing propaganda, the goal is to actually solve the problem, not destroy the global economy.

The things that need to be done are doable, both practically and politically, as long as people stop disputing the fact of AGW and agree we should address it. I already explained the overall strategy for dealing with it: reducing emissions, increasing conservation and energy efficiency, and as much as possible switching to clean sources of energy. We are already doing all three, and will be able to do it more fully and quickly once dickheads like James Inhofe and ignoramuses like Trump are sidelined.

It's only politically impossible if a) you don't want to do anything and/or b) you think the plan involves wrecking our standard of living. It doesn't.

I posted the IPCC cost estimates for mitigation earlier in this thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ced-me-now-what.537161/page-7#post-1069365540

It amounts to 0.6% of global GDP per year. That is eminently doable, and not anywhere close to wrecking the economy or noticeably harming your standard of living.

 

The Paris Accords do nothing to reduce Global Warming. And the chance that everyone complies is zero. Additionally China and iIndia will do very little to mitigate CO2 emissions. Any move to significantly reduce CO2 emissions is regressive toward the low income and those politicians will not be re-elected. The gas tax increase in CA will go down soon.

What climate sensitivity to CO2 is assumed by the IPCC ?? You realize that is a political and not scientific paper.

You also need to realize that the next 2 - 3 deg C of warming is net beneficial.

Those who believe that global governance can significantly reduce CO2 are fooling themselves. And those who actually implement actions which increase the cost of electrical energy are acting immorally and in opposition to the ability of human civilization to adapt to whatever warming occurs in the future.

 

That sounds really informed -- other than it being bullshit.

We are increasingly decoupling GDP -- and electrical production -- from CO2 emissions. It's ALREADY starting to happen.

For several years now, we've seen continued growth in global GDP without an increase in CO2 emissions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ent-just-failed-again/?utm_term=.48742cb1a337

One of the main reasons: China significantly and unilaterally cutting back its coal emissions. You know, the country you said would do "very little" to mitigate CO2 emissions.

So tell me again how it's impossible and China won't help.

 

China will never sacrifice economic growth to reduce CO2 emissions. Neither will India. Wake up. Do your homework and understand the issue. CO2 continues to increase every year.

 

We have Marxist analysis behind efficiency wage concepts. We then have empirical analysis testing those concepts. We then have a Georgist, with nothing but a land obsession, ignoring the reality.

It doesn't surprise me that you are incapable of using Georgism to construct valid, and radical, comment on environmentalism.

 

And again, I point you to actual reality, where countries are managing to cut emissions while maintaining growth. Because nobody was ever expected to sacrifice their economy in order to fight global warming,

Why do you prefer your “we are helpless” theory to the actual reality showing otherwise?

 

And all those actions will not reduce the global average temperature 100 years from now. They will however reduce the capability of those nations to adapt to any consequences of global warming. Why would anyone drive their car with the parking brake on ??

What I prefer is providing the maximum means to adapt to the specific local consequences global warming.

BTW a quick check of the 2017 CO2 data shows a sharp increase in CO2 emissions.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ns-rise-after-paris-climate-agreement-signed/

 

Though limiting our human contribution to CO2 is admirable and certainly wont hurt, the time for dealing with CO2 has past as we have managed to cross the warming threshold into Methane release which cannot be contained or limited. The cork has been popped and methane will make CO2 look like a match thrown into a bonfire. We are currently seeing the very beginning of this feedback loop in permafrost and ocean sediments but it has only just begun.

 

A rather breathtakingingly sweeping statement. Showing we can grow economically without additional CO2 emissions is a powerful proof of concept, and nobody thinks that the steps we have taken so far are the only steps we will ever take. It is an ongoing process, not a one-off thing.

Um, if we're able to maintain growth while reducing emissions, how is that reducing our capability to respond to things? Your claim simply makes no logical sense. You seem wedded to your ideologically based conclusion, regardless of actual facts.

Mitigation aids adaptation, in great part by avoiding the worst-case scenarios in which adaptation becomes astronomically more expensive and difficult. This isn't an either/or thing.

1.4% is not a "sharp increase".

It's not good news, obviously, but it also doesn't disprove the point. For several years we had growth without extra emissions, a feat previously thought impossible. We did it once; we can do it again. And if people like you would stop claiming the already-demonstrated is impossible, we could make progress on REDUCING emissions while maintaining growth.

For example, note that the huge increase in demand for oil was largely driven by the USA, a country now run by climate deniers and corrupt frauds like Scott Pruitt, who thought his job was to gut the EPA and do the bidding of fossil-fuel companies. And why? So we can drive bigger and less-efficient vehicles. That certainly seems like something worth wrecking the planet for.

Reducing emissions is doable, at a reasonable cost. We have already demonstrated it is possible. Thus refuting your claim that it is not, and that all we can hope to do is adapt.

 

Do your homework. The Paris Accords if every country meets them will not reduce global warming.

Are you kidding me ?? 1.4% in one year is not a sharp increase ??

Politically possible CO2 policies do nothing to significantly reduce global warming. But they do reduce economic growth. Why would any sane person advocate such policies ?? BTW what are the error bands on the CO2 emissions calculations ?? How is the CO2 emissions from China determined ??

 

Do YOUR homework. The Paris Accords were recognized going in as a first step, not the final step.

No.

You keep claiming this, but it's only true from your perspective of "I don't want to have to do ANYTHING."

That is not necessarily true, and even if they do, the question is "by how much?" If the IPCC estimates are accurate, it's only 0.6% of global GDP. Are you going to tell me that is too much?

Not sure exactly what you're referencing here. If you're talking about the IPCC cost estimate, why don't you look at the link I provided. I believe it breaks down costs by the target CO2 level, and in various scenarios (such as not all the proposed strategies being implement, or implementation being delayed). I believe the chart shows median cost for each scenario, but it might show the range of possible costs.

You are now throwing things against the wall to see if something sticks. And it's silly, because countries solve this sort of verification problem all the time.

Right now, we impute CO2 emissions by measuring other things, such as the amount of various types of fuel burned in that country.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/how-do-you-measure-carbon-dioxide-emissions

The measurements protocol follows a set of detailed guidelines put out by the IPCC for this precise purpose.

According to that source, the error bars on a country can range from 5% to 20%, depending on data quality and the size of the country's economy.

Going forward, countries are working on more direct forms of measurement:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/inside-the-quest-to-monitor-countries-co2-emissions/

One promising technology is attaching sensors to airliners, that will measure levels of man-made CO2 in each city they fly to. The hold-up here is diehard GOP opposition to the entire idea that global warming has a human cause: they routinely denied the Obama administration's request for $5 million a year to collect and analyze 5,000 air samples.

Verification and measurement is solvable. Again, refuting your "no we can't" stance.