The Green New Deal

[lomiller]

I don't disagree with your premise. But I certainly cannot afford $10 to 20 for a gallon of gas. Not only will we be paying more for fuel but EVERYTHING we buy as it all requires not only energy to produce, but to ship.

Going immediately to those prices could be a problem, but a more gradual approach that allows markets and the economy to adapt should be viable. You still may not like it if you own a house 100 miles from any decent job, but the longer we stay at unreasonably low prices the more houses like that people build. Waiting longer also means we need to take much more rapid and drastic action down the road, and ultimately create far more economic disruption than necessary.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Are you saying I'm wrong? Say what you will. It's really saying "I got mine and too bad to those trying to get theirs."

Yes, you are wrong. Both in your initial premise and in your strawman. But more importantly, even if you were right, your ideas have nothing to do with finding a way forward for solutions.

There is a fundamental error in logic in our economic systems that values extraction technologies of increasing scarcity over ecosystem function of increasing abundance.

No matter how hard you fight against this fundamental flaw, you only make it worse, not better. That's why all you can see is punishment and increasing costs and a burden on the poor.

But once we take that external cost and turn it into a real asset, then it actually builds it's own economy of abundance. You have to look at systems as a whole to even see this!

 

[quadraginta]

I am entirely serious. The whole problem is the level of industrial activity required to sustain this many people at a certain minimum lifestyle. Properly price the externalities of 7 billion people on the planet, and the problem takes on a whole new light.

We might not need to go that far - seriously, I don't know. But also seriously, how far do we need to go, to properly capture the relevant externalities and properly assess the true cost of stuff?

Somewhere between pricing the externalities on your list and pricing the externalities on my list, you drew an arbitrary line, and arbitrarily declared everything on the other side of it unserious.

So: Serious question. Where did you draw the line, and why?

Coal fired power plants being operated as they are right now would be dumping toxins regardless of the world population.

Perhaps they would be dumping less if the population were lower, because less power would be required, but that doesn't change the dumping, which isn't being included in the cost of that energy. It may change the totals, but the proportions remain the same.

 

[theprestige]

Coal fired power plants being operated as they are right now would be dumping toxins regardless of the world population.

A fraction of the world population would require a fraction of the power. Below a certain level, coal emissions would probably be negligible in terms of climate effects, and easily manageable as a matter of environmental pollution. And the total coal supply would last a *lot* longer.

 

[acbytesla]

Going immediately to those prices could be a problem, but a more gradual approach that allows markets and the economy to adapt should be viable. You still may not like it if you own a house 100 miles from any decent job, but the longer we stay at unreasonably low prices the more houses like that people build. Waiting longer also means we need to take much more rapid and drastic action down the road, and ultimately create far more economic disruption than necessary.

I agree 100 percent.

But a home closer in is not affordable for many. For example. A 1500 square foot home in Seattle proper is 600K, a similar home say in Everett Washington about 40 miles North is 400K another 30 miles North it becomes 300K. Now, what happens to the value of those homes in the city when fuel is much more expensive?

This is much more complicated than most people think and the solution is bound to be incredibly controversial.

 

[quadraginta]

A fraction of the world population would require a fraction of the power. Below a certain level, coal emissions would probably be negligible in terms of climate effects, and easily manageable as a matter of environmental pollution. And the total coal supply would last a *lot* longer.

An interesting 'what if', but not a reflection of the real world.

We have the population we have. We make decisions based on that.

As far as externalities are concerned, I draw the line at real world effects having real wold consequences, not on hypothetical 'what ifs' designed solely to sidetrack an otherwise sober and serious conversation.

Sorry you don't want to participate.

 

[novaphile]

I don't disagree with your premise. But I certainly cannot afford $10 to 20 for a gallon of gas. Not only will we be paying more for fuel but EVERYTHING we buy as it all requires not only energy to produce, but to ship. Our economy DEPENDS on CONSUMPTION. People reduce their consumption when they dont have resources to purchase.

Yes, but you can afford 20 cents for a kilowatt hour or electricity can't you?

So maybe we should take away the subsidies (in the form of not making the polluters pay for the damage they do), and you should drive an electric car?

Like me.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, but you can afford 20 cents for a kilowatt hour or electricity can't you?

So maybe we should take away the subsidies (in the form of not making the polluters pay for the damage they do), and you should drive an electric car?

Like me.

That is for more than double my current rate.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

We also need to properly price the externalities of having so many people on the planet to begin with.

Except the number of people on the planet isn't an externality.

Externality

A negative externality (also called "external cost" or "external diseconomy") is an economic activity that imposes a negative effect on an unrelated third party. It can arise either during the production or the consumption of a good or service.

Just being alive doesn't constitute an externality. Nor does using resources, polluting, congestion etc. as long as the costs are born by the parties involved. It only becomes an externality when others end up paying for it instead. By itself this has no effect, but internalizing costs creates a powerful incentive to reduce the negative effects that are causing them.

A fraction of the world population would require a fraction of the power. Below a certain level, coal emissions would probably be negligible in terms of climate effects, and easily manageable as a matter of environmental pollution. And the total coal supply would last a *lot* longer.

This is all true, but it's irrelevant to the situation we are in. For obvious moral and practical reasons we cannot just reduce the population by 90% overnight (it would only be fair to ask those with the largest footprint to take themselves out of the equation first, and we all know how that would end) so we are stuck with what we have. But that doesn't mean we are screwed.

Per-capita CO2 emissions vary from virtually zero in countries like Somalia and Ethiopia, up to as much as 45.4 metric tonnes per year in Qatar (the US is 16.5 and China is 6.4). So we could easily reduce CO2 emissions to a manageable level by simply lowering our standard of living, without having to kill anyone or take away reproduction rights. Or we could maintain our standard of living by introducing technologies which reduce CO2 emissions. Internalizing costs could result in either scenario or a mixture, depending on how people want to deal with it.

I don't know about you, but I would much prefer a market-based approach that gives people the freedom to come up with their own solutions, rather than being told that I must die for the good of humanity - whether by government decree or being killed by the effects of pollution because the offenders refused to pay for it.

However we cannot expect the market to internalize costs by itself. The problem is that parties who externalize their costs gain an economic advantage over those who don't, which has the opposite effect. Therefore we have to correct it from outside the market, either by public pressure or government intervention. In a democracy the people decide what government they want, so ultimately they will determine which way to go (embrace new technology, accept lower living standards, or ignore the problem and suffer the consequences). Unfortunately we live in a country full of short-sighted fools who won't discover they made the wrong choice until it's too late.

 

[acbytesla]

However we cannot expect the market to internalize costs by itself. The problem is that parties who externalize their costs gain an economic advantage over those who don't, which has the opposite effect. Therefore we have to correct it from outside the market, either by public pressure or government intervention. In a democracy the people decide what government they want, so ultimately they will determine which way to go (embrace new technology, accept lower living standards, or ignore the problem and suffer the consequences). Unfortunately we live in a country full of short-sighted fools who won't discover they made the wrong choice until it's too late.

This is it in a nutshell. People have to be convinced there is a problem before they can be persuaded to dip into their wallets. And you have people working to elect leaders to ensure they continue to have that advantage.

I've been angry..no disappointed with my fellow Americans who are in love with big gas guzzling vehicles. A few years back prices more than doubled and everyone started to dump them. Prices fell and they went right back to the SUVs and Trucks that most of them don't need. Hell, FORD discontinued every car but the Mustang.

CAFE standards were imposed to encourage car manufacturers to keep working on fuel efficiencies. But car companies are whining because while they are making more efficient cars they are not meeting those CAFE goals and they don't want to pay the penalty.

But there may be a limit to how efficient ICEs can become, but lighter smaller vehicles would meet those goals. Still as long as fuel is relatively cheap the public doesn't want to buy them.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Our economy DEPENDS on CONSUMPTION.

True, but meaningless. Externalities cause overconsumption because the product is cheaper than it should be. That overconsumption will cause problems down the line that may eventually harm the economy, so it is (literally!) not healthy.

People reduce their consumption when they dont have resources to purchase.

This is not entirely true, nor is it necessarily a problem. If a product is being overconsumed because it is too cheap, purchasing less may be better for them. If the price of a product increases it provides an incentive to produce alternatives that are cheaper - perhaps even becoming cheaper than the original ever was. What this means is that a market is most efficient when all the costs are internalized, even if it causes some products to become too expensive for people to purchase. When a market is working most efficiently it is using the least resources and producing the best overall value.

The problem with fossil fuels is that they were so cheap and abundant that they have become the basis of our economy, disincentivising the development of alternative energy sources. But now we realize that they have a hidden cost which has been piling up - and the Earth is demanding payment. So prices will go up, but only until they reach the prices of alternative technologies - which will then become cheaper. Some renewables are already cheaper than coal, so in time they will push it out of the marketplace and reduce energy costs in the long run. Considering that this occurred without coal being made to pay for all its externalities, just imagine where we would be now if it was!

If only we hadn't been able to switch to coal (and then oil) when the wood ran out, we might have solved this problem a lot earlier.

 

[acbytesla]

True, but meaningless. Externalities cause overconsumption because the product is cheaper than it should be. That overconsumption will cause problems down the line that may eventually harm the economy, so it is (literally!) not healthy.

This is not entirely true, nor is it necessarily a problem. If a product is being overconsumed because it is too cheap, purchasing less may be better for them. If the price of a product increases it provides an incentive to produce alternatives that are cheaper - perhaps even becoming cheaper than the original ever was. What this means is that a market is most efficient when all the costs are internalized, even if it causes some products to become too expensive for people to purchase. When a market is working most efficiently it is using the least resources and producing the best overall value.

The problem with fossil fuels is that they were so cheap and abundant that they have become the basis of our economy, disincentivising the development of alternative energy sources. But now we realize that they have a hidden cost which has been piling up - and the Earth is demanding payment. So prices will go up, but only until they reach the prices of alternative technologies - which will then become cheaper. Some renewables are already cheaper than coal, so in time they will push it out of the marketplace and reduce energy costs in the long run. Considering that this occurred without coal being made to pay for all its externalities, just imagine where we would be now if it was!

If only we hadn't been able to switch to coal (and then oil) when the wood ran out, we might have solved this problem a lot earlier.

I totally get what you are saying. HOWEVER

When people stop consuming, they stop buying, companies stop producing and they stop employing.

Try making a living without a job and the income associated with that. The MOMENT you start making people pay for what to them had been previously free, they will suffer.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I've been angry..no disappointed with my fellow Americans who are in love with big gas guzzling vehicles. A few years back prices more than doubled and everyone started to dump them. Prices fell and they went right back to the SUVs and Trucks that most of them don't need.

Yes, it is disappointing. But a large part of the blame should be leveled at American manufacturers who couldn't compete in the car market, and saw the truck loophole as a way to save themselves. People didn't just go back to SUVs and Trucks because they are in love with big gas guzzling vehicles, they were pushed into it by aggressive advertising and manufacturers who were too scared to innovate.

But things are changing now - rapidly. The gamble is not paying off as well as ICE car manufacturers had hoped. The technology is stagnant, sales are down, and interest in electric cars is skyrocketing. Industry leaders like Bob Lutz poo-pooed the electric car industry and said that Tesla is 'headed for the grave yard', but it is their own companies that are going that way.

CAFE standards were imposed to encourage car manufacturers to keep working on fuel efficiencies. But car companies are whining because while they are making more efficient cars they are not meeting those CAFE goals and they don't want to pay the penalty.

CAFE standards were a good idea, but not sufficient. The government should have taxed gas according to its true cost, and fed the proceeds into electric car incentives. And they should have closed the loopholes. Americans love loopholes - they will do anything they can to subvert the spirit of a law.

6 Clever Ways the Car Industry Has Gamed the CAFE Fuel Economy Standards

Chrysler's PT Cruiser, originally intended to be marketed as a Plymouth, was slavishly based on the platform of the pint-sized Neon. But by making the rear seat removable, Chrysler somehow convinced the EPA that the thing was actually a truck–and deserved to be classified with Dodge's pickups and big-ol' SUVS...

Carmakers make more money on larger vehicles, but CAFE forces them to make smaller ones. It's a situation ripe for evading the rules, and in the 1990's several manufacturers found a loophole big enough to drive a truck through: Give your giant SUV, such as a Ford Excursion, a gross vehicle weight (GVW) rating of more than 8500 lbs and it becomes a heavy-duty truck–at least according to the letter of EPA's law.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I totally get what you are saying. HOWEVER

When people stop consuming, they stop buying, companies stop producing and they stop employing.

Try making a living without a job and the income associated with that. The MOMENT you start making people pay for what to them had been previously free, they will suffer.

Sometimes but not always. If they are paying for an investment that increases economies, then the return on investment can be enough that rather than suffer, they benefit.

This is what I have been on about for a while now.

The best example of such a previously externalized cost that benefits even after the additional cost would be garbage pick up. People used to throw garbage in the streets. Even defecate and open sewers. The service garbage collection and sewers built and suddenly EVERYONE benefits. Better quality of life, but crucially more economic activity too! Construction companies and engineers for water supply and sewers, garbage pick up companies for trash. All these new jobs and businesses, greater economic activity, less disease and higher quality of life.

We can do that with CO2 too. But the damn socialists in the democratic party are too stuck on punishing the evil fossil fuel companies and financing their own visions of progressive social change and redistribution of wealth by decree, they forgot how economics works!

You pay land managers to sequester carbon in the soil and it will be done. Make that pay a cost on the production side and the economic carbon cycle will mirror the biophysical carbon cycle and balance itself. win/win and everyone on the whole damn planet benefits.

But now you just want to continue the dynamic of driving farmers into abject poverty so they can be controlled. And at the same time wanting to punish hard working people in energy fields for building civilization to begin with. Lose/lose and it will indeed collapse all human civilization in the end if it continues. It's just ridiculous. Fundamentally flawed economics.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, it is disappointing. But a large part of the blame should be leveled at American manufacturers who couldn't compete in the car market, and saw the truck loophole as a way to save themselves. People didn't just go back to SUVs and Trucks because they are in love with big gas guzzling vehicles, they were pushed into it by aggressive advertising and manufacturers who were too scared to innovate.

But things are changing now - rapidly. The gamble is not paying off as well as ICE car manufacturers had hoped. The technology is stagnant, sales are down, and interest in electric cars is skyrocketing. Industry leaders like Bob Lutz poo-pooed the electric car industry and said that Tesla is 'headed for the grave yard', but it is their own companies that are going that way.

CAFE standards were a good idea, but not sufficient. The government should have taxed gas according to its true cost, and fed the proceeds into electric car incentives. And they should have closed the loopholes. Americans love loopholes - they will do anything they can to subvert the spirit of a law.

6 Clever Ways the Car Industry Has Gamed the CAFE Fuel Economy Standards

SORRY. But this is flat out FALSE....at least parts if it is. Interest in electric cars DOES NOT mean that people are buying them. Outside of Tesla, they are just a massive drain on Car Manufacturer's resources. EVs made up .03 percent of US market last year. Ford alone sold 2.4 million vehicles in the US in 2017 Tesla which is the ONLY company with significant EV sales sold 57,000 total number of vehicles in 2017. However, Tesla sales skyrocketed in Q4 delivering 76,000 vehicles in that quarter because of the more affordable Model 3 finally being manufactured at a high enough rate. But keep in mind, the cheapest Tesla model is still 35 K.

Electric cars are very expensive and out of reach for most. I can't afford one. The problem is what has always been the problem. The battery technology although improving is simply way too expensive.

 

[acbytesla]

Sometimes but not always. If they are paying for an investment that increases economies, then the return on investment can be enough that rather than suffer, they benefit.

This is what I have been on about for a while now.

The best example of such a previously externalized cost that benefits even after the additional cost would be garbage pick up. People used to throw garbage in the streets. Even defecate and open sewers. The service garbage collection and sewers built and suddenly EVERYONE benefits. Better quality of life, but crucially more economic activity too! Construction companies and engineers for water supply and sewers, garbage pick up companies for trash. All these new jobs and businesses, greater economic activity, less disease and higher quality of life.

We can do that with CO2 too. But the damn socialists in the democratic party are too stuck on punishing the evil fossil fuel companies and financing their own visions of progressive social change and redistribution of wealth by decree, they forgot how economics works!

You pay land managers to sequester carbon in the soil and it will be done. Make that pay a cost on the production side and the economic carbon cycle will mirror the biophysical carbon cycle and balance itself. win/win and everyone on the whole damn planet benefits.

But now you just want to continue the dynamic of driving farmers into abject poverty so they can be controlled. And at the same time wanting to punish hard working people in energy fields for building civilization to begin with. Lose/lose and it will indeed collapse all human civilization in the end if it continues. It's just ridiculous. Fundamentally flawed economics.

No offense, But I haven't a clue what you are saying. It seems as if you just want to rant and blame Democrats.

I'm not saying the fossil fuel companies are evil. Only that their product is killing the planet. But just like you really can't blame say Colombia for the drug problem in the US, you can't blame the fossil fuel companies for meeting a market demand.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No offense, But I haven't a clue what you are saying. It seems as if you just want to rant and blame Democrats.

I'm not saying the fossil fuel companies are evil. Only that their product is killing the planet. But just like you really can't blame say Colombia for the drug problem in the US, you can't blame the fossil fuel companies for meeting a market demand.

Sure I am blaming Democrats. Not all of course, but surely the ones promoting the Green New Deal. It is fundamentally flawed economics. This is the topic of the thread. Outside this thread on this forum I actually have thousands of liberal followers of my writings. Because I tell it like it is. That wouldn't happen if I constantly bad mouthed liberals in general.

But the Green New Deal could be modified to actually be part of a workable economic system. Same goes for the EICDA. Fundamentally flawed, but capable of being modified into a functional bill.

And yes, I am quite sure you don't have a clue. That's actually the point in a way. Not you personally, but the plans currently being supported by the Democrats. It shows not a damn clue at all how economies of abundance work. And little to no clue how the carbon cycle works either. With such little knowledge it is easy to see why the proposed plans are so ridiculously poor.

 

[acbytesla]

Sure I am blaming Democrats. Not all of course, but surely the ones promoting the Green New Deal. It is fundamentally flawed economics. This is the topic of the thread. Outside this thread on this forum I actually have thousands of liberal followers of my writings. Because I tell it like it is. That wouldn't happen if I constantly bad mouthed liberals in general.

But the Green New Deal could be modified to actually be part of a workable economic system. Same goes for the EICDA. Fundamentally flawed, but capable of being modified into a functional bill.

And yes, I am quite sure you don't have a clue. That's actually the point in a way. Not you personally, but the plans currently being supported by the Democrats. It shows not a damn clue at all how economies of abundance work. And little to no clue how the carbon cycle works either. With such little knowledge it is easy to see why the proposed plans are so ridiculously poor.

I believe I'm fully capable of understanding some very complex subjects. Nevertheless, whatever your point outside Republicans good, Democrats bad is so far lost on me. Now you can say I'm just stupid and incapable of understanding or modify your messaging.

BTW, I don't agree with the Green New Deal. But I never looked at it as serious legislation but an attempt to get people talking about what needs to be done.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I believe I'm fully capable of understanding some very complex subjects. Nevertheless, whatever your point outside Republicans good, Democrats bad is so far lost on me. Now you can say I'm just stupid and incapable of understanding or modify your messaging.

BTW, I don't agree with the Green New Deal. But I never looked at it as serious legislation but an attempt to get people talking about what needs to be done.

No actually I am fairly sure you are far too smart for your own good. You proved it earlier when you failed to get past 8 minutes of a presentation of a plan that has a working prototype already functioning.

30 minutes to discover a solution to a intractable problem literally and quantifiable 10,000 years old.... Yet you got too bored to make it even past 8 minutes.

No the issue isn't your intelligence, it's your patience and attitude.

 

[acbytesla]

No actually I am fairly sure you are far too smart for your own good. You proved it earlier when you failed to get past 8 minutes of a presentation of a plan that has a working prototype already functioning.

30 minutes to discover a solution to a intractable problem literally and quantifiable 10,000 years old.... Yet you got too bored to make it even past 8 minutes.

No the issue isn't your intelligence, it's your patience and attitude.

Ever hear of an "elevator pitch" RBF? It's important for people to get to their point quickly if they don't want to lose their audience. I have little patience for those who don't get to their point and instead drone on. This video could have been two hours long and I would be happy to have watched the entire video if it could ever actually have said anything. But watching a 40 minute video for two minutes of content is not bearable.

BTW, I just finished watching a 38 minute presentation of the Integrated Molten Salt Reactor https://youtu.be/OgTgV3Kq49U

and before that a 48 minute video about the disadvantages of Thorium.
https://youtu.be/GAiHtrWHxK0

And before that a 1 hour 43 minute presentation of Microsoft's Hololens
https://youtu.be/mMNVSwO1yDo