Where do you stand on the GW/AGW issue?

[a_unique_person]

Thanks for running through the efforts of the EU to maintain an effective and fair method of enforcing emissions limits. I've read the occassional article on how well this is going but, as we know, only the bad news makes the front page. As I've written previously, I am very pessimistic over these efforts. They're fine and dandy when the added costs are voluntary but you'll get anything from grumbling to outright fraud once the system is made mandatory.

So, for this too, I sit and watch.

There is no sit and watch option.

 

[Slimething]

There is no sit and watch option.

Heh.

 

[fsol]

Thanks for running through the efforts of the EU to maintain an effective and fair method of enforcing emissions limits. I've read the occassional article on how well this is going but, as we know, only the bad news makes the front page. As I've written previously, I am very pessimistic over these efforts. They're fine and dandy when the added costs are voluntary but you'll get anything from grumbling to outright fraud once the system is made mandatory.

So, for this too, I sit and watch.

The EU ETS has been compulsory since Phase I.

Phase I seems to be a bust as far as I can see. But it's only in Phase II when they are actually meant to be getting their act together. It's a learning process and what they learn from Phase I will go into Phase II.

Like you I wait with interest to see how it pans out.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Land use change, deforestation, black soot, Asian brown cloud.
For these you tax and control poor nations.
CO2....
For this you tax rich nations.
Now, what would you like to tax and control?

Originally Posted by a_unique_person
Conspiracy theories again? That forum is down the hall, second door on your right.​

Originally Posted by mhaze
Ducking and dodging a wee bit? What was the IPCC's opinion of deforestation?

The claim is absurd, it deserves no response at all.

A subject you wish not to discuss. Okay.

 

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Land use change, deforestation, black soot, Asian brown cloud.
For these you tax and control poor nations.
CO2....
For this you tax rich nations.
Now, what would you like to tax and control?

Originally Posted by mhaze
Ducking and dodging a wee bit? What was the IPCC's opinion of deforestation?A subject you wish not to discuss. Okay.

Choose not to discuss? Until you come up with any evidence to back up your opinion, such claims are just as nonsensical as the moon landing hoax.

 

[mhaze]

Choose not to discuss? Until you come up with any evidence to back up your opinion, such claims are just as nonsensical as the moon landing hoax.

What's ridiculous is your assertion.

I simply point out, if one has a choice to tax a big asset base or a small one, a rational person would pick the big one.

 

[mhaze]

Thanks for running through the efforts of the EU to maintain an effective and fair method of enforcing emissions limits. I've read the occassional article on how well this is going but, as we know, only the bad news makes the front page. As I've written previously, I am very pessimistic over these efforts. They're fine and dandy when the added costs are voluntary but you'll get anything from grumbling to outright fraud once the system is made mandatory.

So, for this too, I sit and watch.

I notice Mexico is a signer to Kyoto.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!

 

[Slimething]

I notice Mexico is a signer to Kyoto.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!

Quite a few of the Kyoto signatories should be doing what they've pledged, AGW or no. Anyone who's been to Mexico City will attest to the fact that there's a "ceiling" on that city. Reducing CO2 emissions there would be a boon as it would reduce air pollution overall.

Do I think that Mexico will fulfill its obligations under Kyoto? No. Is that the US's fault? No. What does Mexico face as retribution? Nothing.

ETA: I'm not picking on Mexico. I love the place. However, it's government is not used to enacting or enforcing altruistic efforts. Please use it as a stand-in for most countries with similar governance.

 

[a_unique_person]

What's ridiculous is your assertion.

I simply point out, if one has a choice to tax a big asset base or a small one, a rational person would pick the big one.

So you have no evidence.

 

[Lonewulf]

So you have no evidence.

Right. Motive != evidence.

That's the same thing on the Moon Landing is a Hoax board. "Well, the government would want to do it because it would fool the commies. Since we have a motive, therefore it must have happened. You stupid idjits, can't you see how common sensical this is?! If it makes sense to us, therefore it must have happened!"

 

[Slimething]

Right. Motive != evidence.

That's the same thing on the Moon Landing is a Hoax board. "Well, the government would want to do it because it would fool the commies. Since we have a motive, therefore it must have happened. You stupid idjits, can't you see how common sensical this is?! If it makes sense to us, therefore it must have happened!"

Good point. In criminal cases, proving motive is not enough. The state mus also establish means and opportunity to have a viable case. As many times as a bank in my area has been robbed and I would have liked to have more money, I would have been in prison by now.

Still, logic favors the view that, given a choice of two different funds sources, a government would probably choose to tax the larger due to its magnitude and the lower impact on its subscribers. The politics of taxation are complex, though, so the state may go the other way due to strong popular opinion.

 

[mhaze]

.... logic favors the view that, given a choice of two different funds sources, a government would probably choose to tax the larger due to its magnitude and the lower impact on its subscribers. The politics of taxation are complex, though, so the state may go the other way due to strong popular opinion.

So if you were a taxing agency and could tax Mexico or the US, which would you pick? And how many of the 180 countries in Kyoto are net recievers of cash and benefits, either directly, or indirectly??

 

[Slimething]

So if you were a taxing agency and could tax Mexico or the US, which would you pick? And how many of the 180 countries in Kyoto are net recievers of cash and benefits, either directly, or indirectly??

Well, the US, of course as it has the higher GDP and, therefore, more value behind its money. Moreover, the politics would favor Mexico as the taxation authority would be criticized for picking on a poor nation. So, Mexico "wins" on two counts here.

[wiseass] The way that the dollar has been floating lately, though, you''d better do it quick![/wiseass]

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Land use change, deforestation, black soot, Asian brown cloud.
For these you tax and control poor nations.
CO2....For this you tax rich nations. Now, what would you like to tax and control?
​

Originally Posted by a_unique_person
Conspiracy theories again? That forum is down the hall, second door on your right.
​

I hadn't though of those other possibilities. So, we have other candidates than CO2? That means that these factors must be tested and modeled. Suddenly, the task is not so simple.

Science rarely is when there's this many variables involved. The scientific method requires not only the probable identification of a cause but also the debunking of other possible causes.

Yesterday and today hold uncertainty regarding whether any global climate change outside of natural variation even exists. As for tomorrow?

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, the US, of course as it has the higher GDP and, therefore, more value behind its money. Moreover, the politics would favor Mexico as the taxation authority would be criticized for picking on a poor nation. So, Mexico "wins" on two counts here.

[wiseass] The way that the dollar has been floating lately, though, you''d better do it quick![/wiseass]

The system of carbon trading was supposed to ensure a 'market' system was in place, no money would go to the government/s running the scheme, certainly not to the UN. It would just pass around between private companies.

 

[Slimething]

The system of carbon trading was supposed to ensure a 'market' system was in place, no money would go to the government/s running the scheme, certainly not to the UN. It would just pass around between private companies.

That's what I meant when I posted a while back that carbon-credit trading seems to me like a town surviving by doing each other's laundry. You're going to trust a stock market to self-police? Wow, the financial scandals that brings to mind!

 

[mhaze]

The system of carbon trading was supposed to ensure a 'market' system was in place, no money would go to the government/s running the scheme, certainly not to the UN. It would just pass around between private companies.

no money would go to the government/s running the scheme

HAHAHAHA!!!

 

[Lonewulf]

It's hilarious that a lot of this argument over GW/AGW seems to hinge on Kyoto, which is merely a proposed method to solve the problem.

And the whole thing was brought up as a conspiracy; that the same people that work "behind the scenes" in their dark and smoke-filled rooms planning on how to dupe saps into believe that global warming is a result of CO2, are the same ones that get all the sweet sweet cash.

So... has the evidence been presented yet, or have I missed it?

 

[rockoon]

And the whole thing was brought up as a conspiracy;

The conspiracy theory is that all the scientists and researches that present evidence contrary to the AGW theory are infact secretely funded by oil companies.

 

[a_unique_person]

no money would go to the government/s running the scheme

HAHAHAHA!!!

Perhaps you could point out where carbon trading on the free market is designed to put money in the pockets of the governments and IPCC? I have actually heard free market economists want a tax rather than an a trading scheme, if there has to be a way to manage CO2 production. They feel a tax would be much more efficient.