Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Global Warming

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,906
1,313
Brisbane
So who’s property rights are the upper atmosphere? How do pollutants get priced in?What about long term effects or run off into a neighbouring property?

Do we need the NZ approach? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...iver-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being

Then joe can gagf because the land owns itself.

Joes rights’ in your example are an artificial construct anyway we created for our own purposes. They are very useful and clearly have many pros but weren’t set up to protect the environment or social goods. We’ve seen the market fail to deliver in this space multiple times because the market by its nature finds any way to exploit a free or low cost resource.
I believe this answers your question, it is a short read: https://mises.org/wire/rothbard-explains-proper-response-climate-change

Long term effects or run off could constitute a property right violation and the transgressed party has cause for damages.

Sort of, but it follows a logical chain of reasoning that allows the problem "how do we deal with the problem of scarcity" to be addressed. It's certainly up for discussion on the finer points, but in the main, it is property rights that allow for disputes concerning these issues to be resolved. It doesn't matter what resources are in question, they are covered by property rights be they environmental or social. People that claim market failures are often people that don't like the choices other people make and so they seek government coercion to direct things towards an outcome they prefer. Market outcomes to the extent they are unimpeded by governments should by and large reflect the preferences of the majority of people.
 

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
2,253
2,199
I believe this answers your question, it is a short read: https://mises.org/wire/rothbard-explains-proper-response-climate-change

Long term effects or run off could constitute a property right violation and the transgressed party has cause for damages.

Sort of, but it follows a logical chain of reasoning that allows the problem "how do we deal with the problem of scarcity" to be addressed. It's certainly up for discussion on the finer points, but in the main, it is property rights that allow for disputes concerning these issues to be resolved. It doesn't matter what resources are in question, they are covered by property rights be they environmental or social. People that claim market failures are often people that don't like the choices other people make and so they seek government coercion to direct things towards an outcome they prefer. Market outcomes to the extent they are unimpeded by governments should by and large reflect the preferences of the majority of people.
Thanks for sharing. I think I understand the logic.

Completely impractical and therefore useless IMO. The idea that I can use the legal system to sue everyone else in the world who has contributed to the impacts that climate change has had on the world to me is laughable. There aren’t enough lawyers, knowledge and dollars in the world for everyone to use the legal system on everyone else where their property rights have been infringed.

I’m a chemical engineer by education and there is such a thing as a runaway reaction. This is the stage where it doesn’t matter what you do for example to cool down the system… it is going to heat up And explode

The logic that you have to wait until the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt means our reactor may well have exploded by the time this is the case - so I think its Impossible to assert this system can work when a consequence may be irreversible even though it is yet to trigger and you could also rightly assert that we will never know if it was irreversible or not. In terms of being preventative it has to be a complete failure as it can only ever be reactive the way that article lays it out.

That has its own ethical problems that get well laid out by the trolley problem. Do no harm as an absolute means taking a minor harmful action to prevent massive harm is morally bankrupt. I think we will agree to disagree on that one so probably never going to change each other’s minds as that seems a fundamental tenet of your (and not of my) Logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,906
1,313
Brisbane
Thanks for sharing. I think I understand the logic.

Completely impractical and therefore useless IMO. The idea that I can use the legal system to sue everyone else in the world who has contributed to the impacts that climate change has had on the world to me is laughable. There aren’t enough lawyers, knowledge and dollars in the world for everyone to use the legal system on everyone else where their property rights have been infringed.

I’m a chemical engineer by education and there is such a thing as a runaway reaction. This is the stage where it doesn’t matter what you do for example to cool down the system… it is going to heat up And explode

The logic that you have to wait until the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt means our reactor may well have exploded by the time this is the case - so I think its Impossible to assert this system can work when a consequence may be irreversible even though it is yet to trigger and you could also rightly assert that we will never know if it was irreversible or not. In terms of being preventative it has to be a complete failure as it can only ever be reactive the way that article lays it out.

That has its own ethical problems that get well laid out by the trolley problem. Do no harm as an absolute means taking a minor harmful action to prevent massive harm is morally bankrupt. I think we will agree to disagree on that one so probably never going to change each other’s minds as that seems a fundamental tenet of your (and not of my) Logic.
It wouldn't need to involve suing everyone, just one large player suing another large player and the precedent is set. This would then allow for some reasonable costing to be discovered that should by and large reflect the damage incurred, which would then allow prices to adjust accordingly and allow for further damage claims to proceed.

I'm also a chemical engineer by education; you can't just argue there is a runaway reaction and therefore argue justice can be overridden. If you want to claim damages, you need to successfully demonstrate you have suffered damages or will suffer damages. Your characterisation of the changes demanded by climate change alarmists as a minor harmful action needs a serious re-evaluation. You have no way to gauge whether it is minor in comparison to the alternative as there is no meaningful basis of comparison without linking costs to the action of market participants. Your method is to throw darts blindfolded and justice be damned.
 
Last edited:

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
7,857
11,018
Melbourne
Yep, let's wait until everything is truly f*cked and then we can all sue.

Now, I wonder about this one large player suing another large player - I thought your free markets had lots of players, not domination by large players. Are you suggesting that markets tend towards oligopolies with domination by leading firms? Surely your scenario above is proof positive of market power (the plebs can't sue, they have to wait for a precedent established by large market players, and then they can try and work the precedent . . . if they can afford the legal services and justice system, if not, they're f*cked) and we all know that oligopolies are inefficient as compared to free markets in free market theory (those of us who have done some economics know this anyway).

Wow, never thought I'd see Gia admit that markets tend towards oligopolies, Mises and Hayek would be very disappointed.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
2,253
2,199
It wouldn't need to involve suing everyone, just one large player suing another large player and the precedent is set. This would then allow for some reasonable costing to be discovered that should by and large reflect the damage incurred, which would then allow prices to adjust accordingly and allow for further damage claims to proceed.

I'm also a chemical engineer by education; you can't just argue there is a runaway reaction and therefore argue justice can be overridden. If you want to claim damages, you need to successfully demonstrate you have suffered damages or will suffer damages. Your characterisation of the changes demanded by climate change alarmists as a minor harmful action needs a serious re-evaluation. You have no way to gauge whether it is minor in comparison to the alternative as there is no meaningful basis of comparison without linking costs to the action of market participants. Your method is to throw darts blindfolded and justice be damned.

Yep we will have to agree to disagree. Your method is to just march off a cliff and hope the market intervenes in time to stop us doing it.

I’m sure any PID controllers you designed responded to deviations away from set point relatively promptly and tuning them if they didn’t work perfectly on day 1 was ok too.

A price on co2 equivalents could do the same.
 

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
2,253
2,199
Sure but you don’t advocate for that.
I think a price on co2e is a great idea. Where to set it is problematic but 100$US/t will start changing behaviours.

I like the idea of any taxes collected being spread back amongst the population (who bear the cost of it). So those who use less co2 end up
With a co2 tax return.

Unfortunately the bureaucracy/oversight involved will be massive.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,906
1,313
Brisbane
I think a price on co2e is a great idea. Where to set it is problematic but 100$US/t will start changing behaviours.

I like the idea of any taxes collected being spread back amongst the population (who bear the cost of it). So those who use less co2 end up
With a co2 tax return.

Unfortunately the bureaucracy/oversight involved will be massive.
No what you are talking about isn’t a price.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,906
1,313
Brisbane
Ok I’ll bite. Enlighten me on what price is meant to mean.
I’ve already explained it, a price is a function of a market economy whereby market participants come together for mutual benefit to exchange goods and services. Their preferences are then conveyed through this act of exchange and only through this process is a price discovered. These prices contain useful information that can then be used to perform economic calculation to determine what is profitable and what is not, and this then allows resources to be allocated in line with consumer preferences. This is not without error as it still relies on the skill of the entrepreneur to predict future demand but it at least allows for some sense to be made. Without prices, there can be no economic calculation.

When a bureaucrat slaps on an extra cost to CO2 emissions, this cost has no connection to the demonstrated preferences of market participants. It is completely made up and guaranteed to lead to malinvestment and squandered resources. The whole price structure is falsified by this intervention. It does not guarantee CO2 emissions will be reduced in the long term, it may in the short term but as it will lead to general impoverishment and a reduction in the supply of fossil fuels it will in all likelihood lead to more CO2 emissions as the demand for energy hasn’t decreased. Coal will have to fill the gap and where it can’t it will just lead to shortages. This is what we are seeing in Europe right now.

I think the most likely scenario is that non-Western fossil fuel production will increase to fill the gap and the west will have scored an incredible own goal, now reliant on countries they do not have great relations with and who would be willing to use this leverage to advance political goals.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
14,142
4,720
I’ve already explained it, a price is a function of a market economy whereby market participants come together for mutual benefit to exchange goods and services. Their preferences are then conveyed through this act of exchange and only through this process is a price discovered. These prices contain useful information that can then be used to perform economic calculation to determine what is profitable and what is not, and this then allows resources to be allocated in line with consumer preferences. This is not without error as it still relies on the skill of the entrepreneur to predict future demand but it at least allows for some sense to be made. Without prices, there can be no economic calculation.

When a bureaucrat slaps on an extra cost to CO2 emissions, this cost has no connection to the demonstrated preferences of market participants. It is completely made up and guaranteed to lead to malinvestment and squandered resources. The whole price structure is falsified by this intervention. It does not guarantee CO2 emissions will be reduced in the long term, it may in the short term but as it will lead to general impoverishment and a reduction in the supply of fossil fuels it will in all likelihood lead to more CO2 emissions as the demand for energy hasn’t decreased. Coal will have to fill the gap and where it can’t it will just lead to shortages. This is what we are seeing in Europe right now.

I think the most likely scenario is that non-Western fossil fuel production will increase to fill the gap and the west will have scored an incredible own goal, now reliant on countries they do not have great relations with and who would be willing to use this leverage to advance political goals.
i might have missed it, but when a polluter "pays the price" for emitting, who are they paying?
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,906
1,313
Brisbane
i might have missed it, but when a polluter "pays the price" for emitting, who are they paying?
Property owners who are incurring damages due to the polluter’s emissions. As an aside, damages aren’t related to the value of property but to the physical integrity of it. If I build a house and it takes your view of the sea away, that wouldn’t constitute damages. If I build a refinery next to your property and it destroys vegetation on your land, that would constitute damages.
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,906
1,313
Brisbane
so that is everyone who breathes in bad air? do they prove that through courts? or do emitters pay everyone on earth an agreed amount per emission?
If you can demonstrate you have incurred damages in court then anyone can. Most likely a large player or someone representing many people. This is much easier to demonstrate with something like fluoride emissions or soot emissions, much harder with CO2 emissions. But if you can’t prove it in court then it’s likely you don’t have a valid claim.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
14,142
4,720
If you can demonstrate you have incurred damages in court then anyone can. Most likely a large player or someone representing many people. This is much easier to demonstrate with something like fluoride emissions or soot emissions, much harder with CO2 emissions. But if you can’t prove it in court then it’s likely you don’t have a valid claim.
Assuming we accept that emissions lead to climate change, and that climate change will affect everyone, should that mean everyone on Earth can sue everyone who contributes to emissions?

A class action might work for the individuals involved, but what air the other xbillion people in the world? And would that class action gaffe to be against every emitter in the world?
Would a Pacific Islander have to go to court in Mozambique to sue emitters there who are contributing to climate change?
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,906
1,313
Brisbane
Assuming we accept that emissions lead to climate change, and that climate change will affect everyone, should that mean everyone on Earth can sue everyone who contributes to emissions?

A class action might work for the individuals involved, but what air the other xbillion people in the world? And would that class action gaffe to be against every emitter in the world?
Would a Pacific Islander have to go to court in Mozambique to sue emitters there who are contributing to climate change?
You have to demonstrate that you have suffered physical integrity damage to your property and can demonstrate a clear link to an aggressor. Even assuming AGW theory is correct, this won't be the case for most people.

I mean they could try but I doubt they would be successful.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
14,142
4,720
You have to demonstrate that you have suffered physical integrity damage to your property and can demonstrate a clear link to an aggressor. Even assuming AGW theory is correct, this won't be the case for most people.

I mean they could try but I doubt they would be successful.
so emitters can continue to emit, with no price attached?
 

Giardiasis

Tiger Legend
Apr 20, 2009
6,906
1,313
Brisbane
so emitters can continue to emit, with no price attached?
Not if you can demonstrate an emitter has caused you damage.

Otherwise you’re left with convincing market participants that continuing to use fossil fuels is bad, so let entrepreneurs do their job and look at ways to provide people convinced of AGW theory to get off it. Push hard to remove subsidises for existing technologies and barriers for new entrants to compete with existing technologies. If enough people want it the market is the best way to provide it. Distorting the market through gov intervention is not a method that will provide you with the goals you seek, unless you consider CO2 reductions through supply shortfalls (and the misery to millions it will cause) to be acceptable. Sort of like killing a patient to prevent them from getting sick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user