Is global warming true?
- Thread starter mrcoolboy15
- Start date
meowmeow
Active member
somewhatgifted said:
Good find.
What this means is that these companies already have their plans in place (in other words they can comply without new costs) but new regulation would harm their competitors (who would have to incur high costs to comply). You can bet that DuPont never did anything in the "public interest" unless it benefited their financial position.
CDB
Registered User
somewhatgifted said:
It would be nice, but not necessarily. Bottom line is the market performs better than government controlled economies. Over time we'd find what I guess you could call the optimal level of pollution. Plus the internalized cost makes R&D into cleaner energy much more attrqactive because it would actually be profitable for companies, and without instituting a forced price hike through government fiat that would make them take a hit in production. That's something a lot of people don't get. If you artificially raise the price of something production has to fall, either in that industry or somewhere else. The same thing happens when a price goes up due to scarcity but that purs production. The problem is no one, including the government, knows what the prices should be. If it's done artifically you lose productivity because the price is arbitrary; it means resources are not being allocated along with demand to some degree or another, and you get over investment into some areas, underinvestment in others. If it happens naturally productivity will increase over time and it will do so in line with consumer demand. What that means is over time other countries simply won't be able to compete unless they keep getting subsidies up the wazoo which, as the USSR proves is only maintainable for so long.
They don't have to. Afterall what makes people make iron friendly decisions? Nothing but incentive. When the air, like iron, becomes an owned commodity use of it for one purpose, dumping, necessarily lowers its overall value, especially when it comes to its use for other purposes. The incentive is to increase supply and find the marginal limit of acceptabkle pollution. This is more evident in the water ways.
Say you've got a river and a company wants to use it for dumping. That's nice, but people also want to use it for fishing, swimming, boating, drinking, and whatever else. Dumping has to compete with all those other uses for which people are willing to pay. And in the same way you can only use your property to the extent it doesn't interfere with someone else's use of theirs, same thing goes. Dump all you want and charge for it, but if it makes someone else's water undrinkable you've violated their property rights, similar to just dumping garbage on their front lawn, and have to stop or pay them to continue. And they may not give a damn how much you're willing to pay. That's another aspect of private ownership in these resources that makes it very suitable for this purpose: because what you do hundreds of miles away might affect someone else's property. That means the technical unit of property as determined by actions intefering with one another is massive. That means the cost of doing things that really do reduce the option of other uses to the air and water would be massively expensive. Check out Walter Block's work on what he call's "the hold out."
True. But as above they have to compete with productive uses of those resources, and at that level I have no problem with some government involvement. It's really no different at that point than China dumping their trash in your yard. If their use of the resources affects us, let them pay like everyone else, and let the government enforce that internationally just as it would have some enforcement duties here. The point is they wouldn't own the resource and wouldn't be setting the prices, merely protecting property rights.:bow28:
somewhatgifted
Registered User
CDB said:
I like this example. Ill check it out, i just finished a good book and im eager to learn more. Economics has always been extremely interesting to me.
somewhatgifted
Registered User
meowmeow said:
I agree, im just glad someone is trying to extort money out of me, helping the well being of the planet, instead of brainwashing me to allow them to continue being slobs.
somewhatgifted
Registered User
spatch said:
LOL, atleast your humour is bases on the cruel potential truth instead of blind ignorance.
size
Well-known member
Another article worth reading
Invalid Link Removed
One point of interest:
"I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. "
Invalid Link Removed
One point of interest:
"I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. "
size
Well-known member
Another article worth reading:
Invalid Link Removed
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
"When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases."
Invalid Link Removed
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
"When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases."
Mega NRG Man
Member
I dont think the argument is in Global Warming itself.... Its been happening since the last Ice Age.... The argument is Mans impact on global warming.
But yes... Opinions are like *** holes... everybody has one!!!
Adams
If you ask me, we've made a small change, but the Earth can change and grow to shift around these small influences we've caused. It would take something far larger in scale to really shift the climate to a point where it would be noticeable and have an impact on us, and even then, the Earth would eventually restore balance. If we look through history, Earth has been bombarded by asteroids, suffered great geological turmoil, and coped with the change peacefully, reverting all of the damage done in time.
So I am not really worried. None of the low level acts I or any of you do can create lasting change in the Earth.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Besides the impact of man statement.. I agree with you. Mother Earth has her own Homeostasis.
Adams
somewhatgifted
Registered User
Yeah.... actions have no consequenses if noone is looking or if theres alot of people around you wont miss one or two?
CDB
Registered User
I believe global warming to be true, all environmental problems root to one problem...overpopulation. I feel bad for the generations to come because we are destroying it for them, but at the same time, they will have much cooler stuff than we do
Most areas that are supposedly over populated have population densities that aren't significantly different than most suburban US towns. A significant portion of the Earth, especially if you consider the sea, has near zero to zero population.