• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Republican EPA chiefs to Congress: Act on climate

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dphantom said:
The bottom line for climate changers is this:

make carbon-based energy expensive so alternative energy production "seems" cheap by comparison. Note this makes energy cheaper only in a relative sense. The rest of the plan is to redistribute wealth to the poor who without subsidies could not afford to use the energy they once did.

They are essentially trying to create a real demand for alternative energy production by artificially raising the cost of carbon-based energy.
Click to expand...

Compensating for negative externalities inherent to forms of energy that release large amounts of carbon dioxide is not "artificially raising the cost of carbon based energy." It is assigning its actual cost to it.
 
eskimospy said:
Compensating for negative externalities inherent to forms of energy that release large amounts of carbon dioxide is not "artificially raising the cost of carbon based energy." It is assigning its actual cost to it.
Click to expand...

Which is a great thing, if it works. I can tell you for a fact, that many of the green technologies out there do not take this into account. Its why a Prius does more damage to the environment vs a Chevy Impala, yet the Impala cost more.

If we truly care about the environment, we should apply all costs, and then let the market pick the winner. When we dont, we end up adding ethanol to gasoline and end up doing more harm to the planet than pure gas.
 
realibrad said:
Which is a great thing, if it works. I can tell you for a fact, that many of the green technologies out there do not take this into account. Its why a Prius does more damage to the environment vs a Chevy Impala, yet the Impala cost more.

If we truly care about the environment, we should apply all costs, and then let the market pick the winner. When we dont, we end up adding ethanol to gasoline and end up doing more harm to the planet than pure gas.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't matter, because you see we did SOMETHING!
 
glenn1 said:
What if we just reduced everyone's income by some amount, say 50%? Then we would generate less economic activity and thus less carbon emissions. You down with that?
Click to expand...

eskimospy said:
Talk about a non-sequitur.
Click to expand...

Why? Reducing incomes is basically what you're doing via a carbon tax anyway. It would make no difference if you reduce someone's income by x% or increase their total energy costs by the same x% of income. So I'll ask the same question again, what amount of economic loss would you be willing to endure to reach your carbon emission targets? It shouldn't be that hard for smart progressives like you and Eskimospy to provide some insight into the cost/benefit ratios you're willing to accept.
 
glenn1 said:
Why? Reducing incomes is basically what you're doing via a carbon tax anyway. It would make no difference if you reduce someone's income by x% or increase their total energy costs by the same x% of income.
Click to expand...

This is a basic misunderstanding of economics as carbon emissions and economic activity do not hold a 1:1 linear relationship. It would be illogical to attempt to address carbon emissions through lowering GDP, as that puts the cart before the horse.

So I'll ask the same question again, what amount of economic loss would you be willing to endure to reach your carbon emission targets? It shouldn't be that hard for smart progressives like you and Eskimospy to provide some insight into the cost/benefit ratios you're willing to accept.
Click to expand...

Actually you should be asking what ratio of GDP to carbon reductions people are willing to accept. Currently, Obama's plan to cut emissions to 30% below our 2005 levels will cost us approximately 0.2% of our GDP over that time period. That sounds pretty great to me. You?
 
eskimospy said:
This is a basic misunderstanding of economics as carbon emissions and economic activity do not hold a 1:1 linear relationship. It would be illogical to attempt to address carbon emissions through lowering GDP, as that puts the cart before the horse.

Actually you should be asking what ratio of GDP to carbon reductions people are willing to accept. Currently, Obama's plan to cut emissions to 30% below our 2005 levels will cost us approximately 0.2% of our GDP over that time period. That sounds pretty great to me. You?
Click to expand...

You do realize that 0.2% GDP reduction results in REAL human suffering right here and right now don't you? What amount of REAL CURRENT suffering are you willing to inflict in order to avoid IMAGINERY human suffering that MIGHT occur decades after your own death?
 
eskimospy said:
This is a basic misunderstanding of economics as carbon emissions and economic activity do not hold a 1:1 linear relationship. It would be illogical to attempt to address carbon emissions through lowering GDP, as that puts the cart before the horse.



Actually you should be asking what ratio of GDP to carbon reductions people are willing to accept. Currently, Obama's plan to cut emissions to 30% below our 2005 levels will cost us approximately 0.2% of our GDP over that time period. That sounds pretty great to me. You?
Click to expand...

except when you realize that reduction doesn't mean much. 30% reduction in power generation, x 14% (USA share of Co2) x 30% (share of Co2 generated by electrical product)

at the most a 1.26% reduction in co2. but that fails to account for growth in other nations.


so you have nothing but feel good measures that hurt our competitiveness.
 
bshole said:
You do realize that 0.2% GDP reduction results in REAL human suffering right here and right now don't you? What amount of REAL CURRENT suffering are you willing to inflict in order to avoid IMAGINERY human suffering that MIGHT occur decades after your own death?
Click to expand...

now you are just diverting.
 
bshole said:
You do realize that 0.2% GDP reduction results in REAL human suffering right here and right now don't you? What amount of REAL CURRENT suffering are you willing to inflict in order to avoid IMAGINERY human suffering that MIGHT occur decades after your own death?
Click to expand...

lol. There's no point in engaging you on this topic as you deny science. It's like trying to debate the merits of evolutionary biology with a creationist. All the money you spend researching cures that are arrived at using evolution is a waste of money in their eyes because it's all based on fake devil worship or whatever. You're just as illogical as they are, just about a different topic.

Also, I find it interesting how concerned you are about human suffering, considering you're the guy that thinks the US should allow people in other countries to suffer and die instead of attempting to intervene. You're quite the humanitarian.
 
I'll start to worry about AGW when The Rich actually are so worried about the cumulative affects of man they themselves reign in their seriously skewed CO2 lifestyle. Until that happens, the problem must not be bad enough for us mere peasants to worry about.

Now pollution, that's something we could all get behind. Why is it we can't concentrate on that again?
 
Now that the climate-change deniers are starting to realize that they can't credibly deny the science anymore, they're frantically trying to elaborate their fall-back position: Fighting climate change will destroy the economy. And they claim this without a even a hint of a consensus of economists to back up this claim.

Consensus of climatologists: Meaningless.

Utter lack of consensus of economists: Compelling.
 
I guess none of these slobs ever had to get their motor vehicle to pass an EPA emissions test only to have it fail and been force to waste $450 on repairs so they can get a waiver to keep using their automobile.
 
Will the economists have working models, unlike the climatologists? How bad can their predictions be but still be considered 'settled'?
 
shira said:
Now that the climate-change deniers are starting to realize that they can't credibly deny the science anymore, they're frantically trying to elaborate their fall-back position: Fighting climate change will destroy the economy. And they claim this without a even a hint of a consensus of economists to back up this claim.

Consensus of climatologists: Meaningless.

Utter lack of consensus of economists: Compelling.
Click to expand...

so since you guys have all the numbers, please show us how we can significantly on a global scale reduce co2 levels, and not harm the economy.
 
shira said:
Now that the climate-change deniers are starting to realize that they can't credibly deny the science anymore, they're frantically trying to elaborate their fall-back position: Fighting climate change will destroy the economy. And they claim this without a even a hint of a consensus of economists to back up this claim.

Consensus of climatologists: Meaningless.

Utter lack of consensus of economists: Compelling.
Click to expand...
What's most important is that this thread filled a need in you. You give us about one of these a week and they are all so new and fresh and you're accomplishing ever so much. You sir, are doing something and for that you should be very proud. I'm certain that if you were to convince all of P&N to subscribe to your mantra that the world would be on the path to salvation. In days of old you'd be standing on street corners with a sandwich board over your head proclaiming the end is near but the digital age has made it oh so much easier.

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King. You should be proud that eye was bestowed upon you.
 
boomerang said:
What's most important is that this thread filled a need in you. You give us about one of these a week and they are all so new and fresh and you're accomplishing ever so much. You sir, are doing something and for that you should be very proud. I'm certain that if you were to convince all of P&N to subscribe to your mantra that the world would be on the path to salvation. In days of old you'd be standing on street corners with a sandwich board over your head proclaiming the end is near but the digital age has made it oh so much easier.

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King. You should be proud that eye was bestowed upon you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, Cletus.
 
PokerGuy said:
According to wiki, the US is only 14%, and that percentage is dropping each year as others like China and India increase.
Click to expand...


Wow, 4% of the world's population, and we contribute 14% of the CO2? Seems like we're part of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top