Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT! Our inbox is full of email errors from members who have not updated their emails, please follow the instructions on how to update here
  • 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

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,827
1,516
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
6,850
1,267
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
6,850
1,267
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
13,530
3,594
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
6,850
1,267
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
6,850
1,267
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
13,530
3,594
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
6,850
1,267
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
13,530
3,594
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
6,850
1,267
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

RoarEmotion

Tiger Superstar
Aug 20, 2005
1,827
1,516
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.

Thanks.

I agree there is a phenomenon called the cobra effect and the root cause issue is demand for energy / materials so unless this gets addressed we get all sorts of other effects by picking a symptom of energy demand (co2 levels) without addressing that root cause. Unless there is a global ‘price/disencentive’ consistently applied then i agree it will force energy to be generated where that disincentive isn’t applied. If there is a global disencentive then this can lead to more nuclear power, renewable power etc but these also come with their own negative effects and yes energy would cost more at least in the short term.


I can’t see how we will agree that the market comes up with the right answer (always) using the legal system and price. I can see as you get to more micro levels, and if market participants have similar powers and abilities to access the legal system it can work. But that just isn’t true. Someone being exploited in South Africa doesn’t likely have the education or resources or political capital to hold their exploiter to account.

Everything has flaws as we don’t have perfect knowledge and nor can we predict the future. So I get the appeal of an approach based on what people and corporations do to measure what they want and if that impacts someone else illegally to use a legal system to address it. You can assert that this will always lead to the best (fairest?) outcomes and any other approach won’t, but since you can’t predict the future, the argument is flawed IMO and more a belief. Much like I have a belief intervention is warranted when the evidence starts to mount up.

We can’t play out two separate universes perfectly to see what would happen if we don’t intervene but Id guess there is enough evidence where countries have made different choices to show the benefits of government market manipulation on smoking rates via tax on cigarettes / packaging laws etc. and rules around drink driving / seat belt use etc and even right now with vaccine uptake. There are also plenty of counter factuals where it has failed such as diesel driven car policies in Europe leading to smog. I’d certainly advocate to look to improve things where there is evidence the market is failing, but if the intervention isn’t working, then you need to be open to reversing it.
 

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
21,438
4,914
FMD. Appears we're now leading the way in greenie wankery at Tigerland. Wish we'd concentrate a bit more on being excellent at playing footy n just quietly go about our core business instead of pretending to be leaders in saving the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
14,229
6,002
Camberwell
FMD. Appears we're now leading the way in greenie wankery at Tigerland. Wish we'd concentrate a bit more on being excellent at playing footy n just quietly go about our core business instead of pretending to be leaders in saving the world.
There is another choice TM which is you don’t read the thread.