The Green New Deal

[quadraginta]

<snip>

<respectful snip>

We just need to increase the price of CO2 emission higher than it's current price of $0.00 to truly reflect the damage it inflicts on our environment.

In that case, we also need to properly price the externalities from solar panel manufacturing, etc.

<snip>

I agree.

In fact, I would go even farther. How about externalities aside from CO2.

Like the toxic elements and compounds contaminating the air and watertables and watersheds around coal burning power plants. Or from the mining operations that supply them.

How cheap would power from coal be if all of those externalities were "properly" priced?

I'm hugely in favor of an honest effort to be made to always properly price the externalities which we currently just dump on the people and the environment they have to live in.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree.

In fact, I would go even farther. How about externalities aside from CO2.

Like the toxic elements and compounds contaminating the air and watertables and watersheds around coal burning power plants. Or from the mining operations that supply them.

How cheap would power from coal be if all of those externalities were "properly" priced?

I'm hugely in favor of an honest effort to be made to always properly price the externalities which we currently just dump on the people and the environment they have to live in.

The problem of course is you destroy the economy if you do that. The world economy runs better on cheap energy.

 

[theprestige]

I agree.



In fact, I would go even farther. How about externalities aside from CO2.



Like the toxic elements and compounds contaminating the air and watertables and watersheds around coal burning power plants. Or from the mining operations that supply them.



How cheap would power from coal be if all of those externalities were "properly" priced?



I'm hugely in favor of an honest effort to be made to always properly price the externalities which we currently just dump on the people and the environment they have to live in.

You're not going far enough. We also need to properly price the externalities of having so many people on the planet to begin with.

 

[quadraginta]

The problem of course is you destroy the economy if you do that. The world economy runs better on cheap energy.

But the energy isn't really "cheap". It's just that the real costs are hidden. Disguised from the average consumer.

It's a TANSTAAFL problem.

You seem to be saying that the world economy would collapse if everyone knew what things really cost and why.

 

[quadraginta]

You're not going far enough. We also need to properly price the externalities of having so many people on the planet to begin with.

Don't have a serious response?

That's okay. You can dodge the point if you want to.

 

[theprestige]

Don't have a serious response?

That's okay. You can dodge the point if you want to.

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?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I know a farmer who gets paid for wind turbines on his property.

Originally they didn't even put up fences around them, and the cattle were able to graze right up to the towers.

Eventually they did put up some fences, the bloody cows kept licking the paint off the towers.

Every time I see the guy, he's so happy about the rent he gets for having those towers on his land...

BTW. No one here is going to buy the ******** about "rare earth", toxic chemicals, cost more to make than they can generate, etc. about solar panels.

If they cost more to make than the energy they generate, all the companies that make them would be bankrupt now, wouldn't they?

And all the people, like me, who've been using them for ten years would also be bankrupt, wouldn't we?

The ones on my roof are quite happily paying my electricity bills every day.

I know another farmer, with a stand-alone solar system, with thirty year old panels, which are still generating 80% of their original rated capacity.

And there's nothing about them which isn't recyclable so spare us the blather.

Glass, plastic and aluminium with a miniscule coating of electronics.

Maybe you should shill somewhere else?

Exactly! But it doesn't fit into the socialist micromanaging governmental control paradigm many on this thread are used to thinking in. The market handles this quite nicely.

Oh and if the Fossil fuel emitters were paying a price for carbon, and they were paying it to that same farmer to sequester, then he would be just as happy to sequester additional carbon too. But it takes effort to go out and move cows daily. It costs money to buy the electric fencing for portable paddock changes.

Right now this is all externalized with BS cap and trade schemes and communist fee and dividend fiascoes.... all because the idiots developing the mitigation strategies don't understand real grassroots business. All they understand is macro-economics (just barely) and power and control politics.

The concept is so ridiculously simple that it is astonishing really. Pay someone to do it and there will be plenty of people very very happy to do it. Carbon becomes a real asset in both the fossil fuel form and the CO2 form. The carbon cycle will balance itself just as the markets balance themselves. But ask them to do it free? Screw you!

In fact the communist Chinese actually figured that one out in their Loess plateau project a few years back. I am actually kind of embarrassed that the damn Chinese understand capitalism better than the US! OMG.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly! But it doesn't fit into the socialist micromanaging governmental control paradigm many on this thread are used to thinking in. The market handles this quite nicely.

Sorry to point this out, but in a human society the government is part of the market.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Sorry to point this out, but in a human society the government is part of the market.

obviously

 

[acbytesla]

But the energy isn't really "cheap". It's just that the real costs are hidden. Disguised from the average consumer.

It's a TANSTAAFL problem.

You seem to be saying that the world economy would collapse if everyone knew what things really cost and why.

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.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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.

But the energy isn't really "cheap". It's just that the real costs are hidden. Disguised from the average consumer.

It's a TANSTAAFL problem.

You seem to be saying that the world economy would collapse if everyone knew what things really cost and why.

He might be saying that, but it doesn't necessarily require real costs to be outrageously high to include "real costs" on fossil fuels.

Carbon in the soil is so beneficial anyway, and relatively so cheap to increase, the additional cost to consumers is minimal to balance the carbon cycle. In the end actually a net profit for the producers at less net cost for the consumers! Win win for everyone.

 

[acbytesla]

He might be saying that, but it doesn't necessarily require real costs to be outrageously high to include "real costs" on fossil fuels.

Not according to what I've read. But I would be thrilled to know that I'm wrong.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Not according to what I've read. But I would be thrilled to know that I'm wrong.

Well start with that video I posted so you understand the context from which I am speaking. Then we can discuss other parts from the same page.#1007

 

[acbytesla]

Well start with that video I posted so you understand the context from which I am speaking. Then we can discuss other parts from the same page.#1007

A 36 minute video where the speaker has an unbearable knack of not getting to the point? If your point is that we need to create and return land to plant supporting and carbon holding plants I agree. But please dont make me have to finish watching that guy.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

A 36 minute video where the speaker has an unbearable knack of not getting to the point? If your point is that we need to create and return land to plant supporting and carbon holding plants I agree. But please dont make me have to finish watching that guy.

yeah he has a certain style of presentation that can be annoying to some. I was more interested in making sure you understood the economy of abundance compared to the economy of scarcity, and how that works. Not to mention the obvious at around 18:20, the results of actually paying people to do the work of restoration, and how that effects the economy.

I am sure they didn't get paid much. Certainly pennies in comparison to the economic gain returned. But the very concept of taking an external hidden cost, and "uncovering it" so to speak, in the real economy, means it can pay for itself too!

It's a completely different concept than trying to penalize the fossil fuel companies for the "evil" they are doing. Give me a break. Our whole society was built on this foundation! We just forgot about the other side of the carbon cycle. We simply need a mechanism for pricing carbon on both sides! Then the markets themselves will balance out the price.

 

[acbytesla]

yeah he has a certain style of presentation that can be annoying to some. I was more interested in making sure you understood the economy of abundance compared to the economy of scarcity, and how that works. Not to mention the obvious at around 18:20, the results of actually paying people to do the work of restoration, and how that effects the economy.

I am sure they didn't get paid much. Certainly pennies in comparison to the economic gain returned. But the very concept of taking an external hidden cost, and "uncovering it" so to speak, in the real economy, means it can pay for itself too!

It's a completely different concept than trying to penalize the fossil fuel companies for the "evil" they are doing. Give me a break. Our whole society was built on this foundation! We just forgot about the other side of the carbon cycle. We simply need a mechanism for pricing carbon on both sides! Then the markets themselves will balance out the price.

I got to about 8 minutes and said "enough". He still hadn't said anything remotely interesting or informative.

It's not a question of penalizing anyone. Fossil fuel companies are just trying to make a buck which they have made plenty of. Profit motive is what it is all about.

What is important to consider though is the rich developed world has not had to pay those externalities for the last 150 plus years and there is something terribly wrong asking the poor now to pay it.

 

[lomiller]

Nobody has any idea on how to price anything 'correctly'. But a market grossly distorted by externalities is even worse, because it guarantees very incorrect pricing which invites disaster. And we are looking at disaster on a scale that has never been seen before.

Nitpick. How to price something correctly (or reasonable facsimile) isn’t that hard. “Let the market decide” and “trial and error” both accomplish this. What’s difficult is knowing up front what that price point will be, and of course it may not even be fixed value at all but a constantly changing/evolving value.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I got to about 8 minutes and said "enough". He still hadn't said anything remotely interesting or informative.

It's not a question of penalizing anyone. Fossil fuel companies are just trying to make a buck which they have made plenty of. Profit motive is what it is all about.

What is important to consider though is the rich developed world has not had to pay those externalities for the last 150 plus years and there is something terribly wrong asking the poor now to pay it.

Yeah, you have the same stubbornness as the old Chinese man who objected to the project. Literally you and a billion more just like you are why so far we have been unable to solve this otherwise intransigent problem. All good if you don't have the patience to learn how to break the deadlock. I'll just discuss this with someone else instead.

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah, you have the same stubbornness as the old Chinese man who objected to the project. Literally you and a billion more just like you are why so far we have been unable to solve this otherwise intransigent problem. All good if you don't have the patience to learn how to break the deadlock. I'll just discuss this with someone else instead.

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."

 

[lomiller]

I agree.

In fact, I would go even farther. How about externalities aside from CO2.

Like the toxic elements and compounds contaminating the air and watertables and watersheds around coal burning power plants. Or from the mining operations that supply them.

How cheap would power from coal be if all of those externalities were "properly" priced?

I'm hugely in favor of an honest effort to be made to always properly price the externalities which we currently just dump on the people and the environment they have to live in.

In most countries, for most products, these costs are already built in by setting environmental regulations. Conforming to these regulations costs more, and companies build that into the price of their products. Of course there are always those (Republicans in the US) that fall for the line of “these regulations are damaging our competitiveness!” and want to allow companies to be “competitive” by socializing many of their costs.