Global Warming and Housing Prices

[NateJohnson9]

Hey guys. Just read a fascinating report that said climate change is going to impact insurance premiums and home prices pretty dramatically in the next 50 years: http://www.movoto.com/blog/homeownership/climate-change/

 

Does anyone have an opinion? I'd like to think it's not too late to make a change!

[JohnB]

And now for the very hard truth. The climate changes over time, it always has and always will. This will mean some areas become less attractive and others will become more attractive.

 

The insurance companies exist to make money and will use any excuse to pump up the premiums.

 

This is the adult world.

 

Deal with it.

 

Understand that if we could magically stop emitting CO2 and magically reduce the amount in the atmosphere to pre industrial levels tomorrow, the climate would still change. Housing prices and insurance would still vary.

 

And welcome to the forum.

[CaptainPanic]

There are signs that the climate is causing weather to become more severe (someone invented a new word, and called it 'global weirding'). That means more damage to houses. And that means that you need to pay more to your insurance company.

 

And now for the very hard truth. The climate changes over time, it always has and always will. This will mean some areas become less attractive and others will become more attractive.

 

The insurance companies exist to make money and will use any excuse to pump up the premiums.

 

This is the adult world.

 

Deal with it.

 

Understand that if we could magically stop emitting CO2 and magically reduce the amount in the atmosphere to pre industrial levels tomorrow, the climate would still change. Housing prices and insurance would still vary.

 

And welcome to the forum.

The funny thing is that everything you say is true, but although you don't literally say it, you seem to suggest that humans are not influencing the climate, and CO2 has nothing to do with it. Humans, who have changed the surface of almost the entire landmass of the planet, and who have significantly increased the concentration of multiple gases which are responsible for the absorption of infrared light, and who also emit large amounts of particles (soot, etc) - so much in fact that on a day when there were no airplanes in the USA, the difference was immediately measurable. It sounds like you suggest that those humans have nothing to do with the climate. It's weird how words can sound when chosen carefully. Anyway, I think that the above is nonsense, and if you indeed claim that humans have nothing to do with any changes in the climate, then I would like to have some citations and clarifications please.

[rigney]

To suggest that humans doesn't have a hand in global warming would be rediculous. But I don't believe for a minute JohnB indicated or said that. Scientists digging into earths history have found continuous tectonic upheavel having broken up Pangaea, mountain forming, the beginning of life on up through dinosaurs, to even include us humans have had a hand in climate warming and cooling. But when I think about this microcasm we live on, it's about how different it is from our neighbors. How very lucky and fortunate we are that life somehow found this safe little haven. The shame is, our modern civilizations are not so much acclimated to re-production as they are to production. As long as there is a lump of coal, a barrel of oil or a tree to be axed down as fuel or lumber, productivity will continue. It is said that Al Gore, who "supposedly" set this global warming ship in motion, and who may have also invented the internet???, doesn't know squat about the enviroment except how to quickly use it up. And yep! Housing, food, clothing and green energy will all shortly go sky high in price. Have you looked at the price of a books on "Global Warming"?

http://www.universetoday.com/35796/atmosphere-of-the-planets/.

Edited November 30, 2012 by rigney

[ParanoiA]

The piece being missed here is that actions speak louder than words. GW solutions have been largely about words - words spoken by governments, arguing and compromising in the field of law. Only a fraction of the planet is invested in this solution since governments make up a considerably smaller portion of the human race than the citizens of the world. Solutions are watered down disappointments of what actually needs to happen. Activists mainly target laws and legislatures to direct their proposed changes, and indict markets in the process, which then polarizes those who admire voluntary human exchange, or markets. Then those market admirers get all stupid and link the science of GW with the solutions of misguided, controlling eco warriors - cut from the same cloth as most activists that would rather convince a small group of government agents that will force the citizens to comply, rather than take their case to the citizens of the world.

 

The result? Not enough citizens of the world *acting* on a belief of GW. The market does not respond to words, because they are made up of the people of the world. People respond to actions. And people will always act more proficiently and promptly when they believe something than when they are forced to comply with something.

 

It's not rocket science. If everyone in the world literally stopped buying gasoline cars tomorrow, guess how long gasoline automobiles will continue to be made. Now compare that with how long and fruitless a legal movement involving the governments of the world would take to implement the same result. And would anyone believe that governments and legislatures wouldn't create a ton of exceptions and watered down compromises effectively leaving at least a quarter of the gasoline cars in demand?

 

The market will create whatever we want. We have to want it. And that means our asses have to have the same conversation our mouths are having. Hershey's doesn't pay attention to exclamations of chocolate love. It responds to sales - the act of purchasing chocolate.

 

Convince the citizens of the world that GW is real, and their actions will follow. While that takes time, it will take less time than convincing small groups of government ying yangs to create laws to bypass the respect of individual choice. Redirect all of that energy to your neighbors, your citizens. Change the argument to embrace freed markets, that markets are necessary for the cure, and you'll be shocked how quickly the GW deniers switch gears. And when our actions begin to follow our words, the market will transform magnificently and provide the solution far quicker.

 

What do you have to lose? Your government targeted solution is not happening. The fight is lost. The solutions they play around with equate to digging trenches with spoons.

[akh]

The funny thing is that everything you say is true, but although you don't literally say it, you seem to suggest that humans are not influencing the climate, and CO2 has nothing to do with it. It sounds like you suggest that those humans have nothing to do with the climate. It's weird how words can sound when chosen carefully. Anyway, I think that the above is nonsense, and if you indeed claim that humans have nothing to do with any changes in the climate, then I would like to have some citations and clarifications please.

 

No, generally that is what he means. He is one who thinks climate scientists make things up just to insure their careers. He is literally saying that climate changes all the time and humans have little or nothing to do with it. Just look through his posts in the climate change sub forum.

 

 

Convince the citizens of the world that GW is real, and their actions will follow. While that takes time, it will take less time than convincing small groups of government ying yangs to create laws to bypass the respect of individual choice. Redirect all of that energy to your neighbors, your citizens. Change the argument to embrace freed markets, that markets are necessary for the cure, and you'll be shocked how quickly the GW deniers switch gears. And when our actions begin to follow our words, the market will transform magnificently and provide the solution far quicker.

 

 

While I generally agree, this approach is not at all easy. How exactly will free markets cause change? By in large oil, coal, and natural gas are still cheap energy. Yet, if you really look at the data and evidence, we are heading towards an irreversible situation, one that will occur long, long before any market condition will create a switch in mentality. I believe this is the problem, the free market cannot address the issue.

 

 

And it not just climate change, we have to seriously consider ocean acidification from dissolved CO2 as a major problem. Even if you can manage to deny all the evidence in support of AGW, can you really deny the acidification issue? http://www.nature.co...l/ngeo1635.html

Edited December 1, 2012 by akh

[ParanoiA]

While I generally agree, this approach is not at all easy. How exactly will free markets cause change?

 

Markets don't *cause* change, consumers do. Consumers through their buying practices send messages to the market on what they want. As unrealistic as my scenario above is (the idea that the entire world rejects gasoline cars overnight) - if consumers actually did that, the market will stop selling gasoline cars instantly, and start selling whatever it is they are buying. The free market *will* change, absolutely. When in history have consumers stopped buying a product (actions) while the market continues to make it anyway? That's a business model that will fail extremely quickly, ha ha.

 

In the real world, this process takes a bit more time, but is effectively the same result. The market is responding to our behavior, they don't direct it. It may seem that way sometimes, when we choose the irresistible gasoline energy and infrastructure already in place. But again, that's because individually we have chosen to hold cheap energy in higher regard than GW. If we really thought we were going to suffer and die on massive scales, then why would cheap energy be chosen?

 

Let me ask this..for those of you who believe in GW, do you drive gasoline cars? Do you get your electricity from coal power? Do you practice your belief? Or do you make excuses to use the cheap energy alternative? This is what I mean by our mouths having the same conversation as our asses. If people really believe we are doomed, they would act like it. They will finance a $50,000 dollar electric car if they truly believed death was the likely alternative. Or ride a bike - even 20 miles, if they really believed in doom.

 

By in large oil, coal, and natural gas are still cheap energy. Yet, if you really look at the data and evidence, we are heading towards an irreversible situation, one that will occur long, long before any market condition will create a switch in mentality. I believe this is the problem, the free market cannot address the issue.

 

Governments are failing miserably at this. They are not doing it. You know this. They play games with silly "resolutions" that require complete ignorance to appreciate. China scoffs at us and they are poised to be the next superpower in just a handful of years and they are half the population of the world.

 

Meanwhile, what little consumer pressure has been put on the market is yielding great results. Many new innovative electric car companies are popping up. Everything is uber expensive, as we are in the R&D phase. More pressure would bring more results. Starting with every decision you make. Solar panels, switching your home from gas to electric, building energy efficient homes and revolutionary tech methods to control climate, lights and etc that optimize every kilowatt.

 

I have switched to electric and luckily my power plant uses dams and moving water to turn the 3 phase generators for most power generation, or so they claim. That kind of pressure would be harder to apply, but it's still possible. Although, I'm doing it for different reasons than GW. I want energy independence, and an energy revolution.

 

At the end of the day, people will innovate and work harder when motivated by self interest (money, adoration, altruism) than they will by force, and belief in the predicament is key to that.

 

And it not just climate change, we have to seriously consider ocean acidification from dissolved CO2 as a major problem. Even if you can manage to deny all the evidence in support of AGW, can you really deny the acidification issue? http://www.nature.co...l/ngeo1635.html

 

I'm not a denier, just to be clear. I see the AGW argument as mostly a distraction. Energy independence and the value recognition of energy evolution - particularly for the poor - is far less of a polarizing argument that conservatives and deniers can get behind. Once electric cars and other solutions become cheaper then it doesn't matter what anybody believes - they world will be on board. The result is what matters, not the details of the argument.

 

We need to tailor our arguments for successful outcome, not to prove points, even if they are sound. My two cents, anyway.

 

 

 

Edit: Oh, I forgot to ask you. Is the acidification issue something that is capable of being reversed? I don't know much about it. From there we can think about how to motivate humans to do it.

Edited December 1, 2012 by ParanoiA

[akh]

Markets don't *cause* change, consumers do. Consumers through their buying practices send messages to the market on what they want.

 

 

I understand this fully, its not what a meant really.

 

That's because individually we have chosen to hold cheap energy in higher regard than GW. If we really thought we were going to suffer and die on massive scales, then why would cheap energy be chosen?

 

This is true. I think the problem is that most people have a hard time accepting the consequences of cheap energy (fossil fuels). There is not a sense of imminent danger, its not tangible or visceral enough for most people to consider in the course of their average day.

 

Let me ask this..for those of you who believe in GW, do you drive gasoline cars? Do you get your electricity from coal power? Do you practice your belief? Or do you make excuses to use the cheap energy alternative? This is what I mean by our mouths having the same conversation as our asses. If people really believe we are doomed, they would act like it. They will finance a $50,000 dollar electric car if they truly believed death was the likely alternative. Or ride a bike - even 20 miles, if they really believed in doom.

 

Its not belief, it is what the evidence supports. I do ride a bike. I have not turned on my heat this winter despite the fact that the temps dip into the low thirties. I only ran my A/C (thermostat set at 85) this summer when it hit 105+ for a week. But not many would do this. I would also like to point out that people do many, many dangerous things to themselves and others daily. People don't even have enough sense to quit looking at their smart phones when they drive. Do you really think they can individually assess the dangers AGW? Again, its the detachment from the danger that makes most people fail to recognize it.

 

Meanwhile, what little consumer pressure has been put on the market is yielding great results. Many new innovative electric car companies are popping up. Everything is uber expensive, as we are in the R&D phase. More pressure would bring more results. Starting with every decision you make. Solar panels, switching your home from gas to electric, building energy efficient homes and revolutionary tech methods to control climate, lights and etc that optimize every kilowatt.

 

This has happened solely because of market conditions?

 

Governments are failing miserably at this. They are not doing it. You know this. They play games with silly "resolutions" that require complete ignorance to appreciate. China scoffs at us and they are poised to be the next superpower in just a handful of years and they are half the population of the world.

 

I agree that governments are failing at this. The fact that there is no agreement and that China "scoffs" at us should be more of an example of the extreme difficulty of this situation. If governments (small groups of individuals) can't agree and move forward, how do you expect individuals to behave differently? We are in a country were people signed petitions to secede from the union as the result of the last election. Yet, somehow everybody is going to agree to make individual changes to halt or mitigate AGW? No way, not a chance. It will never work that way. Humans just don't work like that.

 

At the end of the day, people will innovate and work harder when motivated by self interest (money, adoration, altruism) than they will by force, and belief in the predicament is key to that.

 

It is not force, but persuasion. Again, there are people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, that evolution is false, that the earth is flat, that one god or prophet is better than the others, that cows are sacred, that pork should not be consumed, that green is better than blue, that not all art is art, that ...yet all people of the world will share "belief in the predicament"? I think not.

 

 

 

We need to tailor our arguments for successful outcome, not to prove points, even if they are sound. My two cents, anyway.

 

Without question.

 

Edit: Oh, I forgot to ask you. Is the acidification issue something that is capable of being reversed? I don't know much about it. From there we can think about how to motivate humans to do it.

 

General overview of the problem and the chemistry.

http://www.pmel.noaa...cidification%3F

 

The process can reverse, but my understanding is that it takes much more time for this to occur (several hundred years), and as long as there is an increase in dissolved CO2 the oceans will continue to become lower in pH (less alkaline, they are not truly acidic at this point).

Edited December 1, 2012 by akh

[ParanoiA]

This is true. The believe the problem is that most people have a hard time accepting the consequences of cheap energy (fossil fuels). There is not a sense of imminent danger, its not tangible or visceral enough for most people to consider in the course of their average day.

 

Exactly, the message and energy needs to be directed at them, to fix the perfect information gap. Markets are only as successful a representation of consumer choice as the information they have. This is why the market is not responding to our GW concerns as rapidly as you’d like – because not enough participants in the system possess or believe the information.

 

Its not belief, it is what the evidence supports. I do ride a bike. I have not turned on my heat this winter despite the fact that the temps dip into the low thirties. I only ran my A/C (thermostat set at 85) this summer when it hit 105+ for a week. But not many would do this.

 

Sounds like you follow your belief. And it is belief in scientific evidence. Others don't believe the scientific evidence, or in science. Really need to work on persuading them. I suggest not polarizing them and inflaming their belief system, and instead try to disarm them with respect. People are much more flexible when they are not defensive. Pass a GW law on a denier or ridicule him and he'll cling to his anti-science beliefs out of spite. Human nature.

 

This has happened solely because of market conditions?

 

Not solely, no. But certainly mostly. According to that link, a $57,000 dollar Tesla Model S drops $7500 dollars in government subsidy (I do not agree with) to leave it at $50,000. Tesla didn't go into business to exploit a $7500 credit, and I doubt that credit becomes the deciding factor for most people ready to blow 50K on a car. But it must have some effect, I admit. The pressure from consumers and rational self interest, I believe, accounts for most of the motivation to go into business.

 

I agree that governments are failing at this. The fact that there is no agreement and that China "scoffs" at us should be more of an example of the extreme difficulty of this situation. If governments (small groups of individuals) can't agree and move forward, how do you expect individuals to behave differently? We are in a country were people signed petitions to secede from the union as the result of the last election. Yet, somehow everybody is going to agree to make individual changes to halt or mitigate AGW? No way, not a chance. It will never work that way. Humans just don't work like that.

 

And yet, if the market could produce comparable electric cars *cheaper*, all of China and the rest of the world *will* switch, won't they? To deny that is to deny they are rational economic participants. Their "agreement" is achieved by appealing to their economic interests.

 

The only question now is can the market produce such things cheaper? And I believe that is remedied by persuasion redirected from governments to the populace; increased demand.

 

Governments cannot achieve this. There is no sideways argument to suddenly achieve their agreement. Real benefits get the job done. With a generalized animosity toward fossil fuels as a result of successful persuasion of the populace, this will translate to the rest of the fossil fuel applications.

 

Surely you aren't denying the market will respond directly to demand. The only real question here is can enough consumers be persuaded. I think that's far more realistic and achievable than hundreds of governments agreeing and creating equitable laws to use force to get it done.

 

It is not force, but persuasion. Again, there are people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, that evolution is false, that the earth is flat, that one god or prophet is better than the others, that cows are sacred, that pork should not be consumed, that green is better than blue, that not all art is art, that ...yet all people of the world will share "belief in the predicament"?

 

Well it is force when governments create laws to do it. I'm advocating persuasion directed at consumers, or the populace.

 

As for the rest, despite all the differences, approximately 2 billion people believe in Christianity, and a little more for Islam. If 2 billion people believed in GW and practiced it in their actions, that would be more than enough market pressure to produce magnificent results and blow our minds. We don't actually even need that much, though it would be great. Only enough to get humans innovating and consuming the innovations, getting things cheap enough that the rest of planet acts in their economic self interest.

 

General overview of the problem and the chemistry.

http://www.pmel.noaa...cidification%3F

 

The process can reverse, but my understanding is that it takes much more time for this to occur (several hundred years), and as long as there is an increase in dissolved CO2 the oceans will continue to become lower in pH (less alkaline, they are not truly acidic at this point).

 

I see. So it looks like we need to get this stopped, fast. I've made my arguments, so I won't beat the dead horse.

 

And keep in mind, I don't actually have a problem with a government effort to reverse the process with some kind of fantastical future tech. That actually seems to me a perfect example of government jurisdiction. Similar to fighting wars, it is large in scale, and it is in our national interest and does not involve interfering with the rights of anyone, anywhere. (Other than the confiscation of monetary property for taxes, which I do not oppose). And the world would probably love us again.

Edited December 1, 2012 by ParanoiA

[john5746]

 

 

Exactly, the message and energy needs to be directed at them, to fix the perfect information gap. Markets are only as successful a representation of consumer choice as the information they have. This is why the market is not responding to our GW concerns as rapidly as you’d like – because not enough participants in the system possess or believe the information.

 

 

Its more than an information gap. I eat too much and don't exercise enough, even though I know better. I think vegetarianism would be better for me and for the environment and I am creeping in that direction, but can't seem to make it happen.

There is no upside to smoking, yet people start all the time. We know we should wear condoms, but don't. Humans can be lazy and irrational. The market is just an expression of our short term desires, minus empathy - hardly a way to run a society.

Not solely, no. But certainly mostly. According to that link, a $57,000 dollar Tesla Model S drops $7500 dollars in government subsidy (I do not agree with) to leave it at $50,000. Tesla didn't go into business to exploit a $7500 credit, and I doubt that credit becomes the deciding factor for most people ready to blow 50K on a car. But it must have some effect, I admit. The pressure from consumers and rational self interest, I believe, accounts for most of the motivation to go into business.

 

Innovation is highly risky. Government can reduce the risk by keeping competitors from stealing ideas, making funds easier to access. They can also help with public access by insuring standards. Can you imagine if gas pump dispensers were different sizes?

 

And yet, if the market could produce comparable electric cars *cheaper*, all of China and the rest of the world *will* switch, won't they? To deny that is to deny they are rational economic participants. Their "agreement" is achieved by appealing to their economic interests.

 

Since the market doesn't have the total costs of global warming built in, it might never be cheaper. It may always be cheaper to pollute. I think its ok to cost more, just like the iPhone, it is better. I would buy an electric car at a premium if I knew I could charge it at any gas station and mechanics were familiar with it. Businesses are good at innovation and competition, but to scale, we need the field set. Government is better at making a standardized field

Governments cannot achieve this. There is no sideways argument to suddenly achieve their agreement. Real benefits get the job done. With a generalized animosity toward fossil fuels as a result of successful persuasion of the populace, this will translate to the rest of the fossil fuel applications.

 

I already know electric cars are superior for the environment as do many others. But its just so easy to work with what is common. If we really pay the true price of the gas, in terms of damage to the environment, then the costs might be more in line. We could tax gas more and use those funds to subsidize the price of epumps for gas stations. That would speed up the demand, no doubt.

 

Well it is force when governments create laws to do it. I'm advocating persuasion directed at consumers, or the populace.

 

Of course we are trying to persuade. Sometimes we need both carrot and stick.

[ParanoiA]

 

 

Its more than an information gap. I eat too much and don't exercise enough, even though I know better. I think vegetarianism would be better for me and for the environment and I am creeping in that direction, but can't seem to make it happen.

There is no upside to smoking, yet people start all the time. We know we should wear condoms, but don't. Humans can be lazy and irrational. The market is just an expression of our short term desires, minus empathy - hardly a way to run a society.

 

 

Yes, hardly a way to "run" a society - as in, when you think people belong to you in some capacity, or have make believe responsibilities to you because they were born nearby. More nationalism. Yes, when you rule over a people, letting them choose things for themselves undermines that.

 

But we are a republic, and we don't have rulers. We have employees. Our choice *is* their job. This has changed over time, just as predicted and the tyrannical majority is on the rise. Has been for quite some time. That's why you can't stand libertarians like me, because we don't fall in line and entertain your rationalizations to make exceptions to every philosophical principle that stands in the way of your "better judgment" being implemented by force onto the populace.

 

You have no information gap in terms of your health, it appears. You have weighed the risks and rewards, the costs and so forth, and have made a decision that you'd rather sit than workout, or eat a fattening steak than a carrot. That's your choice. You have the information, and if you truly believed you would die tomorrow from it, your behavior would change - and if it didn't, then I'd challenge the notion that you actually believe it. Just like when someone chases me with an axe, I always run. Always. But, you believe you have more time to make your decision, and that you can reverse it, so you procrastinate. That's your choice.

 

It's a beautiful way to implement a society, to let people chase their own happiness however that is defined. Give them the information and watch them make the choices that make them happy. You're just dreaming up excuses to force the 49% to make the choices you 51% are so impressed and obsessed over.

 

 

 

Innovation is highly risky. Government can reduce the risk by keeping competitors from stealing ideas, making funds easier to access. They can also help with public access by insuring standards. Can you imagine if gas pump dispensers were different sizes?

 

 

Yes, John, imagine that. Then gasoline might not have this monopolized infrastructure that is keeping electric vehicles from being competitive. Didn't think of that did you? Yay government. Once again, they chose a winner - gasoline - and helped them crowd out all competition. I know, I know, they "meant" to help the people. Unintended consequences wins again. Crony capitalism wins again.

 

Government absolutely should protect ideas and intellectual property, part of their job. Standards? Not so much. Somehow, I can build my own computer knowing next to nothing about them. Did the government standardize the Windows based PC? There are hundreds of motherboard manufacturers, video card makers, CPU's and etc...yet they all seem to work, with varying quality. Seems I can choose the level of quality and performance I wish to trade for my money.

 

Industries start out "proprietary" on everything, as they fight for dominance, and eventually the market demands standardization and someone wins. Yay, Blueray. Yay CD's. If different cars were made with different gas ports, then gasoline sellers would create universal dispensers for them. It's not magic, it's humans seizing opportunity. And they're always more imaginative then you give them credit for.

 

 

 

Since the market doesn't have the total costs of global warming built in, it might never be cheaper. It may always be cheaper to pollute. I think its ok to cost more, just like the iPhone, it is better. I would buy an electric car at a premium if I knew I could charge it at any gas station and mechanics were familiar with it. Businesses are good at innovation and competition, but to scale, we need the field set. Government is better at making a standardized field.

 

And yet, your government has failed. All the governments of the world have failed to address the GW issue with anything remotely to scale with the problem. I mean it is downright hilarious what these jokers come up with. You know this. And you're still defending taking the fight to them instead of the market? Wait on your governments, and you will be screwed.

 

Electric car companies are innovating and coming up with ideas - ideas that don't require such things as "infrastructure" in the first place. This is the problem with government intervention: they will pick a winner, a technology that is pretty cool and promising, but then freeze it into place so that its evolution is limited. You're doing it and you don't even notice it - you assume a field needs to be set in the first place, with standards and blah blah blah.

 

You are assuming large scale infrastructure, because of your familiarity with gasoline. Innovators don't limit themselves like that. Most electric car companies seem to be shooting for charging at home, or charging "stations" at work, or anywhere you might park - like a Wal-mart parking lot. The "stations" are essentially conduit carrying 220 AC. Hardly large scale infrastructure. Pretty damn cheap actually. Businesses then use the concept to attract customers. Hey buy your burgers over here and get your car charged while you dine. Or, buy our groceries and we'll sell you charging time for half price, pay at the register on your way out.

 

And that's with extremely small scale interest and demand on that market. Stop pissing off conservatives and actually try persuading the populace and see what you get with large scale interest and demand.

 

 

 

 

Of course we are trying to persuade. Sometimes we need both carrot and stick.

 

 

Yes, I did read this in the handbook for tyrannts, and books on parenting. You may feel empowered to exercise government paternally, but I am not. I rebelled against them, and I'll rebel against you too. Your romanticism of control over me is a problem that you have, and most of your countrymen it looks like.

[Phi for All]

Exactly, the message and energy needs to be directed at them, to fix the perfect information gap. Markets are only as successful a representation of consumer choice as the information they have. This is why the market is not responding to our GW concerns as rapidly as you’d like – because not enough participants in the system possess or believe the information.

This is one of the things that really pisses me off about the Republican stance on this. They scream "free market!" but they scream even louder when we talk about pulling the subsidies that give oil an unfair advantage over alternative energies (like existing infrastructure wasn't enough of an advantage). This messes up the free market pressures that higher gas prices would undoubtedly bring to bear. We're only seeing the few efforts at alternatives because gas prices in the US spiked a little over $5/gal back in 2008. If we stopped subsidies, that kind of pricing would finally allow the market to make long overdue corrections.

[ParanoiA]

This is one of the things that really pisses me off about the Republican stance on this. They scream "free market!" but they scream even louder when we talk about pulling the subsidies that give oil an unfair advantage over alternative energies (like existing infrastructure wasn't enough of an advantage). This messes up the free market pressures that higher gas prices would undoubtedly bring to bear. We're only seeing the few efforts at alternatives because gas prices in the US spiked a little over $5/gal back in 2008. If we stopped subsidies, that kind of pricing would finally allow the market to make long overdue corrections.

 

Absolutely. They only like the free market when it benefits them. They're all for subsidies for their own pet BS. And they also distort the GW argument because of their fears of the socialist suggestions to fix it. I've always wondered...would they also disavow night and day if they thought socialists were going to try to blow up the sun?

 

That's why I think a refreshed appeal to markets to correct this can bring many logically challenged conservatives back into reality. When they no longer fear "the socialists" and "eco warriors" maybe they can accept GW market based solutions - again, with a strong appeal to economics. Electric is cheaper, I'm convinced. It's the vehicles that are hard to design and build.

[iNow]

If we left it to markets we'd still have lead in our gas and paint and we'd have cars without catalytic converters and we'd have CFCs in our aerosol cans and we'd have arsenic in our drinking water and segregated water fountains and all manner of other things that you seem to think would magically not be there if only we left it to the "free market." There are many principles for which you argue that have a genuine place in helping improve things, but why do you so consistently sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect, paranoia? It always feels like it has to be all or nothing with you.

[ParanoiA]

If we left it to markets we'd still have lead in our gas and paint and we'd have cars without catalytic converters and we'd have CFCs in our aerosol cans and we'd have arsenic in our drinking water and segregated water fountains and all manner of other things that you seem to think would magically not be there if only we left it to the "free market." There are many principles for which you argue that have a genuine place in helping improve things, but why do you so consistently sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect, paranoia? It always feels like it has to be all or nothing with you.

 

Nice redirection. How about responding to what I’ve actually written in this discussion? Where is the “magic” in the markets as I’ve advocated in this solution? What I’ve suggested directly addresses the problems we are experiencing, both with the polarization of deniers and the lack of response by governments and markets

.

Both of those are resolved by perfecting the information in the market.

 

When conservatives and deniers are no longer defending their way of life and instead are pursuing a cheaper, more stable and dependable energy alternative, then they stop being enemies and we start working to the same end.

 

Or is it more important to score points and deride their ideology while we wait on governments to do something? How is that working so far?

 

 

 

 

P.S. If you want to have another libertarian ideological audit and put me on the witness stand to fend off all the “oh yeah, but what about…” exceptions, you’ll have to be a sincere, honest intellect instead of the silliness you pulled last time. I’m not interested in a return trip. You know where the thread is at, my points are there, where my values are located and where they’re not. That you missed it and throw “amorphous” around like grass seed is a problem that you have, and I’m not motivated to fix it for you.

[iNow]

Right then. Glad that this exchange with you was so fruitful. Thanks for the reminder.

[ParanoiA]

Right then. Glad that this exchange with you was so fruitful. Thanks for the reminder.

And nothing to say about the discussion at hand, or any of the points made. Fruitful, indeed. I take a lot from that.

[iNow]

If we really thought we were going to suffer and die on massive scales, then why would cheap energy be chosen?

 

Because we as humans have evolved focus on the problems of today at the expense of the longer term issues. Until the very recent past, we had no real drivers forcing us to focus on global environmental health or risks to third and fourth generation offspring we have yet to conceive. Our experiences were limited to local communities and packs, and our thinking and decision making processes reflect that.

 

Another issue is one of priority, along the lines of Maslow's hierarchy. If we're struggling to obtain dinner tonight or to protect the wellbeing of our loved ones in poor neighborhoods with little money, then of course we're not going to voluntarily pay more for energy or the fuel we need to get us back and forth from our minimum wage job. The needs of the moment take priority over the needs of the future or the civilization as a whole. People "choose cheap energy" even when they know it's bad because circumstances prevent them from personally doing what they think is right. This choice is rather often made even though they know and stipulate that said choice is detrimental to the environment, to our future, and to the rest of life on the planet.

 

The suffering and dying we know will come tomorrow is not here today, and hence is deprioritized relative to the problems of the present.

 

 

If people really believe we are doomed, they would act like it.

Markets are only as successful a representation of consumer choice as the information they have. This is why the market is not responding to our GW concerns as rapidly as you’d like – because not enough participants in the system possess or believe the information.

 

I believe this is a MAJOR flaw in your thinking. In addition to the simple issue of relative priorities and difficult circumstances I referenced above, humans overall don't tend to behave like rational actors. Decades of evidence shows this, and John has already quite adequately elaborated on how this lack of rational action occurs in practice, and his comments more than adequately demonstrate why your assertion here is little more than fantasy. We know people don't always act in their best interests, so it's in OUR best interests to stop assuming they will and to engage in alternative approaches.

 

 

At the end of the day, people will innovate and work harder when motivated by self interest (money, adoration, altruism) than they will by force, and belief in the predicament is key to that.

 

False dichotomy. Experience very clearly shows that innovation comes from many sources, and self-interest and force both play a role. To argue otherwise is to disconnect one's position from reality.

 

 

The only question now is can the market produce such things cheaper? And I believe that is remedied by persuasion redirected from governments to the populace; increased demand.

 

The time we have to act is short, but the time required for the markets to respond is long. Even if we assume the market can respond as quickly as it needs to to mitigate the rapidly increasing global average annual temperatures, you have to account for the state of consumer flexibility in todays economy.

 

Ultimately, when you argue for increased demand and consumer power, you must also account for how consumers can do achieve all of this in a depressed economy where unemployment is high, wages are down, spending power is diminished, and job security is low. Those are, after all, the conditions before us right now and all of these factors REDUCE the likelihood your proposal will achieve the needed solution. The time we have to act is short. The flexibility of consumers is low, and the time required for markets to change things is long. All of these factors lend themselves to choosing a more directed, regulated, and goal-oriented approach.

 

 

Governments cannot achieve this.

 

Sure they can, and it even happens using your own logic. The government is just a really big consumer in this scenario.

 

 

Finally, I'll also note that John's decision to eat a burger and drink a beer instead of eating eating a carrot and drinking wheatgrass juice has only an impact on his personal health, but his and your and my decisions to drive a car or truck or whatever and pollute the air we share impacts all of our health. You can choose to accept the costs of not exercising without impact to your fellow citizens, but you cannot choose to pollute the air without negatively influencing those around you.

 

Those decisions you make no longer only impact you, they impact us all, and other nonhuman animals, and future generations, and all of the countless other things we rely on like farming and fresh water... hence a stronger incentive for rapid acting, smart, centralized regulation and pressures to make the change happen... We can choose to simply drift out at sea on the raft of the free market and just cross our fingers hope for the best (and hope that it happens in the time needed to actually make a difference) or we can put an outboard motor and rudder on this thing and steer where we know we need to head based on all of the information we've collected on the topic for the last 60 years.

[akh]

GW is truly a Tragedy of the Commons. Until there is a countable toll in lives and money associated with climate change there will never be any united push for change. Even then, I doubt much will change. It will be survival of the most fortunate. I have personally discussed the issue with those researching climate policy. The overwhelming position is that the 2C temperature increase cap is firstly not at all safe to begin with and secondly a pipe dream. We will likely exceed the 2C mark unless there is radical worldwide change.

 

If the US and other developed nations could come to some resolution, what do you say to emerging countries like India and China? "Hey we've had our fun, sorry we beat you to it. But all thsoe emissions you are releasing with your emerging economy, well you need to stop that sorry!"

 

The thing is that in the USA, we have completely screwed ourselves with cheap fuel. We have allowed our infrastructer to develope around cheap fuel. We drive miles upon miles to work. We spend endless hours commuting. Our homes are far away, we thrived on sprawl. So now what to do? We are so vulnerable. One fuel shock to the system and we are done. There was a very good graph on the NYT website (can't find link right now) that showed how higher fuel taxes and prices impacted driving habits and consumption. The net result was that those countries with higher prices had less consumption (not surprising). But also many of those countries have equal or better standard of living to the US. But if there is ever a fuel crisis or a crisis such as GW, those countries are far better equiped to make change because there community, lifestyle, cities, towns have developed under the pressure of higher fuel prices. A 2$ spike in fuel in a country that pays 8$ a gallon already will have an impact. A 2$ spike in the US would be catastrophic. So less consuption and higher prices is not just to slow GW, it is needed as a security measure. But there are millions of homes and strip malls and fast food restaurants that exist soley by sucking the pipe of cheap fuel.

Edited December 6, 2012 by akh

[ParanoiA]

 

 

Because we as humans have evolved focus on the problems of today at the expense of the longer term issues. Until the very recent past, we had no real drivers forcing us to focus on global environmental health or risks to third and fourth generation offspring we have yet to conceive. Our experiences were limited to local communities and packs, and our thinking and decision making processes reflect that.

 

Another issue is one of priority, along the lines of Maslow's hierarchy. If we're struggling to obtain dinner tonight or to protect the wellbeing of our loved ones in poor neighborhoods with little money, then of course we're not going to voluntarily pay more for energy or the fuel we need to get us back and forth from our minimum wage job. The needs of the moment take priority over the needs of the future or the civilization as a whole. People "choose cheap energy" even when they know it's bad because circumstances prevent them from personally doing what they think is right. This choice is rather often made even though they know and stipulate that said choice is detrimental to the environment, to our future, and to the rest of life on the planet.

 

The suffering and dying we know will come tomorrow is not here today, and hence is deprioritized relative to the problems of the present.

 

I think that does accurately describe those closer to the poverty line and becomes less true for those further away from it. Incidentally, this is what the government-force solution struggles with – poor countries that see little benefit in heeding the West’s claims of a warming earth. No amount of convincing moves them.

 

But this does not describe the middle class or the rich, the bulk of America and the world population. At least half of the humans on the earth are capable of planning for long term survival and success, which requires prioritizing future struggles. Arguably, that’s *why* they’re not poor. The very nature of markets, R&D and how new things start out as expensive – a relative esoteric consumer base – refutes the notion that problems of the future cannot be prioritized over problems of the present.

 

And again, this supports my point about focus on the markets. Government cooperation in the form of drafting laws that force their citizens to behave a certain way completely ignores their local, short term struggles. A focus on markets to produce alternative sources cheaper than the status quo is how you satisfy short term struggles. Again – their proverbial pocket books convinces them without saying a word.

 

The fact that electric vehicles are being produced by so many recent startups is proof that there is a consumer base, already, that is choosing expensive, low supply alternatives to cheap, already established high supply existing products. They are choosing the future over today.

 

What I’m advocating is investing in the information side of that so that ALL consumers capable of long term planning are putting their money into alternatives. Right now, we have a polarized consumer base due to the GW argument and only a small portion of those capable of prioritizing tomorrow’s issues over today’s conveniences – people with wealth – are participating in alternative energy solutions.

 

 

 

 

I believe this is a MAJOR flaw in your thinking. In addition to the simple issue of relative priorities and difficult circumstances I referenced above, humans overall don't tend to behave like rational actors. Decades of evidence shows this, and John has already quite adequately elaborated on how this lack of rational action occurs in practice, and his comments more than adequately demonstrate why your assertion here is little more than fantasy. We know people don't always act in their best interests, so it's in OUR best interests to stop assuming they will and to engage in alternative approaches.

 

 

This is the fundamental philosophical divide. I believe their choices *are* rational - for their sensibilities. Is it rational to jump out of a perfectly good airplane? Is it in their best interest to let them jump out of airplanes with glorified umbrellas just so they can get a thrill? The risk-reward would not seem rational.

 

John's point proposes to defer to groupthink for "proper choices". The sovereignty of the group over the sovereignty of the individual. The ole democracy vs. republic dilemma. If the group decides that John's choices are not rational, then the group must correct John's choices.

 

I reject that the group has any moral or ethical claim over my choices. The group would have to be armed with my sensibilities, to know my goals in life, to know what makes me happy, to know what I prioritize as important, to know my particular culture..etc. I have a hard enough time knowing this about myself, let alone to have to field a diverse group of strangers.

 

I see the result of our choices as empirical evidence. If exercise is better for me, then why aren't I doing it? I'm not doing it because I apparently find greater value in not exercising, choosing short term convenience over longevity - as opposed to a failure of properly rendering my intentions. This is a valid choice - to choose short term gains over longevity. And there are good arguments for it. Getting killed by a bus at 30 years old could mean exercise and sacrifice was a waste.

 

My intentions are apparent by what my ass is doing, despite the conversation my mouth is having.

 

 

 

False dichotomy. Experience very clearly shows that innovation comes from many sources, and self-interest and force both play a role. To argue otherwise is to disconnect one's position from reality.

 

It's not a false dichotomy since you either apply force or not. Governments getting together to discuss GW and how they can each draft laws to bully their citizens into ignoring market forces - the aggragate will of the populace - is the force design that seems to be the focus of eco warriors and GW activists. It's failing miserably because those same people misplace their ire at the market, as if it is not an expression of the populace. They will actually disparage markets to an audience...an audience that *is* the market. Their ire is aimed at the people of the world, but they act as if they are separate from "markets".

 

To believe the stick produces more free thought and innovation over the carrot is to disconnect one's position from reality. The central economic control practiced by the soviet union as opposed to the mostly free, distributed economic freedom of the West is a fabulous example of that.

 

 

 

The time we have to act is short, but the time required for the markets to respond is long. Even if we assume the market can respond as quickly as it needs to to mitigate the rapidly increasing global average annual temperatures, you have to account for the state of consumer flexibility in todays economy.

 

Ultimately, when you argue for increased demand and consumer power, you must also account for how consumers can do achieve all of this in a depressed economy where unemployment is high, wages are down, spending power is diminished, and job security is low. Those are, after all, the conditions before us right now and all of these factors REDUCE the likelihood your proposal will achieve the needed solution. The time we have to act is short. The flexibility of consumers is low, and the time required for markets to change things is long. All of these factors lend themselves to choosing a more directed, regulated, and goal-oriented approach.

 

That first line is a bit misplaced. If everyone suddenly demanded apples instead of burgers, McDonald's would have mass apples for sale inside of a week. They are not going to sit around for couple of years ignoring the demand for apples. Apple producers would immediately react with increased focus on production.

 

You couldn't even get a law drafted in a week, let alone passed in a month. And no government law could make apples grow any quicker either.

 

No, it's information dissemination that takes the time. The market reacts to changes in consumer behavior immediately. The consumers changing their behavior is what takes the time, relative to government coercion.

 

If a product doesn't yet exist, then government force will not be any quicker at forcing the market to invent it than plural consumer demand. And strong enough consumer demand will trump force any day. Only if the consumer demand is too low, will government force and control (laws, subsidies, distortion of market information) initiate invention. That's what we have now. A lot of government intervention instead of a stronger, more robust response that could be brought on by massive consumer demand. The demand is too low, in part I believe because of focus on government cooperation and intervention, thereby ignoring the consumer base. This effect is doubled due to the aversion of government force by almost half of the consumer base.

 

I advocate activating as much of the consumer base as possible - that half that is polarized about the GW issue, in addition to the numbers of uninterested, uninformed consumers that possess incomplete and distorted information.

 

Gas subsidies is a great example of distorted information. The consumer is not realizing the full cost. The information is imperfect to say the least. Correcting that is another step to fixing the information gap with alternatives.

 

 

 

Sure they can, and it even happens using your own logic. The government is just a really big consumer in this scenario.

 

True, just like how China is going to be persuaded to use natural gas. They have double the US reserves and it's cheaper than coal. As a consumer, I agree.

But my point was about countries attempting to cooperate in coersion of each other's citizens. That isn't working. Only an ideologue would still grasp at this when imperical evidence shows that the world of governments are not persuaded. They aren't doing it. It's that simple. And you know this. It's an incredible disappointment for the environmentally concerned.

 

 

 

Finally, I'll also note that John's decision to eat a burger and drink a beer instead of eating eating a carrot and drinking wheatgrass juice has only an impact on his personal health, but his and your and my decisions to drive a car or truck or whatever and pollute the air we share impacts all of our health. You can choose to accept the costs of not exercising without impact to your fellow citizens, but you cannot choose to pollute the air without negatively influencing those around you.

 

Those decisions you make no longer only impact you, they impact us all, and other nonhuman animals, and future generations, and all of the countless other things we rely on like farming and fresh water... hence a stronger incentive for rapid acting, smart, centralized regulation and pressures to make the change happen... We can choose to simply drift out at sea on the raft of the free market and just cross our fingers hope for the best (and hope that it happens in the time needed to actually make a difference) or we can put an outboard motor and rudder on this thing and steer where we know we need to head based on all of the information we've collected on the topic for the last 60 years.

 

 

And how is that working for you? You can only use coersion for your own country. The interaction with the rest of the world is a natural free market of sovereign entities. You will need to conquer all of them before you can "steer" them. They are not being steered.

You can continue to make these impassioned arguments for force, and die by them. Or, you can try something else. What you are doing is not working, no matter how sensible it may seem to regulate your fellow man.

 

For all the reasons you mentioned above, I suggest disseminating the correct information to the planet of consumers since their governments will not get on board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, I apologize for the above post. That's awfully long winded, even for me. I won't blame anyone if they ignore most of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

GW is truly a Tragedy of the Commons. Until there is a countable toll in lives and money associated with climate change there will never be any united push for change. Even then, I doubt much will change. It will be survival of the most fortunate. I have personally discussed the issue with those researching climate policy. The overwhelming position is that the 2C temperature increase cap is firstly not at all safe to begin with and secondly a pipe dream. We will likely exceed the 2C mark unless there is radical worldwide change.

 

If the US and other developed nations could come to some resolution, what do you say to emerging countries like India and China? "Hey we've had our fun, sorry we beat you to it. But all thsoe emissions you are releasing with your emerging economy, well you need to stop that sorry!"

 

The thing is that in the USA, we have completely screwed ourselves with cheap fuel. We have allowed our infrastructer to develope around cheap fuel. We drive miles upon miles to work. We spend endless hours commuting. Our homes are far away, we thrived on sprawl. So now what to do? We are so vulnerable. One fuel shock to the system and we are done. There was a very good graph on the NYT website (can't find link right now) that showed how higher fuel taxes and prices impacted driving habits and consumption. The net result was that those countries with higher prices had less consumption (not surprising). But also many of those countries have equal or better standard of living to the US. But if there is ever a fuel crisis or a crisis such as GW, those countries are far better equiped to make change because there community, lifestyle, cities, towns have developed under the pressure of higher fuel prices. A 2$ spike in fuel in a country that pays 8$ a gallon already will have an impact. A 2$ spike in the US would be catastrophic. So less consuption and higher prices is not just to slow GW, it is needed as a security measure. But there are millions of homes and strip malls and fast food restaurants that exist soley by sucking the pipe of cheap fuel.

 

akh, I understand your frustration. Essentially, you're disappointed with the choices the people of the world are making. We've tried going to their governments to make them change, but they aren't interested.

 

The only other option is go to the people themselves, or conquer the entire world so we can make them change.

 

It's important to note that our cheap fuel that is undermining our well being was aided by government intervention. It required the distortion of information and markets to happen. To be honest though, I think it would have happened anyway. But we would have realized the full cost if government had stayed out of it and perhaps would be a little easier to transition today.

 

I sincerely believe the most realistic chance of massive, global change is cheaper alternatives to status quo. And I don't mean government manipulated information to make it "appear" cheaper - but actually for reelz, cheaper. The only words to be spoken after that is: would you like gas for X, or this alternative for 1/2X?

 

I believe an activated American consumer base can do that: self interested demand.

Edited December 12, 2012 by ParanoiA

[john5746]

The question of rational or irrational, doesn't matter much. Corporations and people will dump hazardous waste, cut corners, look the other way, and rationalize it. The risk/benefit ratio CAN be controlled somewhat. If you risk jail time or large lawsuits or must succumb to inspections, that increases the risk. Public attention to green corps increases the rewards.

Its really mostly about making good choices easier and bad choices more difficult. Since bad != more expensive and that is how many things are decided, sometimes it needs to be pushed in that direction. I'm not saying make gas illegal, just try to factor in more of the true cost that the market cannot.

Trying to factor in the true cost of gas could get complicated really quick. I think all the wars in the Middle East were due to oil. If not for oil, I think we would never have engaged with the Middle East, much as we do with Africa. That's a huge cost.

Just want to say that I don't think your position is completely invalid. I think your point in regards to standards was correct, that's probably how it did happen. I think that's how it should work, opposing views clash and out comes something that nobody really likes, but most can live within.

If you find it unbearable to live within, well take your own advice and don't play the victim/blame violin, that won't persuade many people.

[ParanoiA]

 

The question of rational or irrational, doesn't matter much. Corporations and people will dump hazardous waste, cut corners, look the other way, and rationalize it. The risk/benefit ratio CAN be controlled somewhat. If you risk jail time or large lawsuits or must succumb to inspections, that increases the risk. Public attention to green corps increases the rewards.

Its really mostly about making good choices easier and bad choices more difficult. Since bad != more expensive and that is how many things are decided, sometimes it needs to be pushed in that direction. I'm not saying make gas illegal, just try to factor in more of the true cost that the market cannot.

Trying to factor in the true cost of gas could get complicated really quick. I think all the wars in the Middle East were due to oil. If not for oil, I think we would never have engaged with the Middle East, much as we do with Africa. That's a huge cost.

Just want to say that I don't think your position is completely invalid. I think your point in regards to standards was correct, that's probably how it did happen. I think that's how it should work, opposing views clash and out comes something that nobody really likes, but most can live within.

If you find it unbearable to live within, well take your own advice and don't play the victim/blame violin, that won't persuade many people.

 

You just changed the context of your own point. You were talking about exercise, eating "better", smoking and condoms - not violations of public and other's private property.

 

Taking your points in the original context creates quite an offensive set of assumptions. That because I have a different value set than you, life in general should be more expensive for me. Just more morality engineering, just like the religios. Why shouldn't I try to make things more expensive for you to choose vegetables and jogging? I'm not sure why liberals have such a problem with the religious right since they have so much in common. Both of them claim to have found some kind of truth that dismisses the input of the rest of the population of the world.

 

You've only met a handful of humans in your lifetime, much less know them very well, much less any significant portion of the approximately 330 million that live in your nation-group perimeter, much less the 7 billion that live on the entire planet. And somehow, you're so impressed with some bit of logic you've discovered, that you don't need to hear any of their thoughts and opinions to preempt them with your own. The hubris is truly astonishing.

 

I'm sorry that longevity and an over obsession with safety, boring and uneventful lives is what you revere. I admire something a little different: A shorter, hyper risk-reward, experience driven existence that I never once thought I should force onto anyone. Too bad I'm so "extreme" about my thoughts and opinions that I don't propse to legislate them on anybody...

 

 

Taking your points in the newly imported context aren't nearly so offensive. I have never once argued against regulations, rather a lot less of them. I think there are better ways to implement what regulations attempt to achieve without creating a low bar standard, but they'd still be considered regulations. The government has a role in such things, absolutely.

 

And government intervention is doing the opposite, unfortunately. They have a protagonist role, and they've totally rejected it for the antagonist one. Instead of forcing the market to reflect true cost, they have been complicit in hiding those costs. That's the whole purpose of subsidy - bury the costs in the tax code so we don't feel the cost individually.

 

Figuring in war costs would be an interesting study. I'd love to see it. Preliminarily, I see an issue with going to war over a product that the industry didn't ask to war about. It's one thing if "Big Oil" lobbies for war for oil, it's another if the politicians fear the rising costs and availability of oil and do it on their own.

 

 

And I'm not sure where that last line of yours came from. The violins and victim game are the tools of the statists that cry out against the people (the market) and consistently take their case to small groups of people that monopolize force and control (governments).

[john5746]

You just changed the context of your own point. You were talking about exercise, eating "better", smoking and condoms - not violations of public and other's private property. ...

 

And I'm not sure where that last line of yours came from. The violins and victim game are the tools of the statists that cry out against the people (the market) and consistently take their case to small groups of people that monopolize force and control (governments).

 

I was trying to make the point that people and the market can behave irrationally, but you define whatever happens as rational, so I dropped that point.

 

let's see if we can get to the heart of this thread - you seem to care about property at least. Is global warming a violation of property?

 

And review some of your previous posts for the violin - you blame people like me for your retirement options. I don't mind really, just saying it isn't going to bring me closer to your POV.

[rigney]

While the world remains a basket case of air, water and ground pollution; things have changed vastly over the past few decades here in the states to help ease the burden. Up and through the 60s, towns and cities with "any" industry were guilty of contaminating and polluting every facet of our enviroment. Back in the 50s here in Cleveland, Oh. the city dump stretched for miles along Lake Eries south east shore know as shoreway drive. When city employees burned it at night, the fires and smoke could be seen in other town and cities on the lake. Even during the day overcast from the burn looked like a heavy fog in the city. And yes, you could smell it. Our river, the Cuyahoga; actually caught fire once from the oil, gas and other flammables being dumped into it. Ford Motor was fined millions for being unable to contain emissions from their foundry in Brookpark even though they spent many millions in trying to do so. Today, smaller countries along with American have come a long way in alleviating this problem, but there are miles of corrections left to get it right. I don't believe windmills and solar power, or getting rid of fossile fuels is the final solution. But check this out.

http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Air_Pollution_Statistics

Edited December 13, 2012 by rigney

[ParanoiA]

 

I was trying to make the point that people and the market can behave irrationally, but you define whatever happens as rational, so I dropped that point.

 

let's see if we can get to the heart of this thread - you seem to care about property at least. Is global warming a violation of property?

 

And review some of your previous posts for the violin - you blame people like me for your retirement options. I don't mind really, just saying it isn't going to bring me closer to your POV.

 

On the first point, to split a hair, irrationality is something you infer, nothing you can prove. You ultimately have to define "good", which we cannot (and we know is at the heart of the naturalistic fallacy), particularly for someone else. It's a subjective game, which was more my point.

 

On the second point, I'm just not sure. I'm not comfortable drawing a conclusion on that yet. And, in terms of resolution, it's largely irrelevant, a distraction, unnecessary and detrimental to full scale cooperation. Too many are defensive about the consequences of such an answer, and use that to deny the predicament instead of using science and reason to analyze it. Of course, this is the point I've been harping on post after post...there are better ways to mobilize humanity against this threat. No matter how "right" we may be, if humans perceive us to be wrong - even if "irrational" - then we lose. We must find a winning strategy, as opposed to a losing one.

 

On that last point, you are probably correct. No amount of violins and victim arguments have managed to sway conservatives and republicans to see the POV of gay marriage. I shouldn't suppose pointing out how you victimize others would work on you either. Again, things you have in common with the "other" side.

Edited December 13, 2012 by ParanoiA