• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

We have been gored by Gore!

Grapes were grown in England in 2 different centuries when it was warm enough to do it.

Until they grow grapes in England, I tend not to worry.
 
lomiller said:
That depends on which scheme you adopt. Since everyone is harmed under a carbon tax you pay the community as a whole as represented by the (hopefully) elected government.

Under cap-and-trade you pay the person who owns the CO2 emission rights.





No, it assumes there are costs that are being paid by someone other then the producer [or] consumer.

When such costs exist, as they do with CO2 emissions, it will artificially lower the price of the product, artificially increase it’s usage and artificially increase it’s desirability in relation to comparable products. All of this goes counter to what a free market should be doing.
Click to expand...

If neither the producer or consumer is burdened by the costs, then there is no reason to burden both producer and consumer except a misguided sense of social justice.
 
garethdjb said:
Worry
Click to expand...

Good find.

I should have been more specific.

According to WIKI -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_wine#Roman_to_19th_century

Roman to 19th century

The Romans introduced wine making to the United Kingdom, and even tried to grow grapes as far north as Lincolnshire. The British climate was too cold and too wet to grow grapes for making wine. Winemaking continued at least down to the time of the Normans with over 40 vineyards in England mentioned in the Domesday Book, although much of what was being produced was for making communion wine for the Eucharist.

Are there grapes grown in Lincolnshire?

I will worry when they grow over most of England.

The point being that it was much warmer in England in Roman times than it is today.
 
Sporanox said:
If neither the producer or consumer is burdened by the costs, then there is no reason to burden both producer and consumer except a misguided sense of social justice.
Click to expand...


If incurred costs are paid by neither producer or consumer, but some other third party you no longer have a free market. "Social justice" has nothing to do with it. you either have a free market economy or you don't. What you are proposing is at odds with a free market economy.
 
lomiller said:
If incurred costs are paid by neither producer or consumer, but some other third party you no longer have a free market. "Social justice" has nothing to do with it. you either have a free market economy or you don't. What you are proposing is at odds with a free market economy.
Click to expand...

Not when the producers and consumers compose the entire economy we speak of. Is that what you meant? The US economy?

And don't think that, by repeating the words "free market" over and over, you will convince me just because I lean right.

EDIT: And could you please explain to me how, unless the "third party" is the government, your logic applies here?
 
Last edited:
Depends on whether it is a macro or a micro climate:

The length of the growing season of grapes differ from variety to variety and studies shows that at least 170 days of active, frost-free, growing is needed for grape vines to ripen a crop (remember, this figure will not be same for all varieties). But not only the length of the growing season is important; the heat accumulated during the growing season will determine if your grape vine will successfully ripen the grapes or not.

You will have to find out how many days of full sunlight with a temperate above 10°C or 50°F is measured where you live. This is called the GDD or “growing degree days”. Studies made on the physiology of the grape vine, determined that the grape vine is not very active below these temperatures.

The GDD is measured by using the following formula:

(HT + LT) / 2 - 50°F or -10°C=GDD *

HT = highest temp; LT= lowest temp

By adding up all the GDD points, you can measure your regions suitability for growing grapes and should be more than 2000 GDD (Fahrenheit) or 1200 GDD (Celsius) points. The closer your macro climate is to these numbers, the more suitable it will be for growing grapes.

http://www.my-grape-vine.com/blog/grape-growing-climate/

There may be hardy grape varieties available today that were not available uring the Roman Empire.

How does the England climate stack up?
 
Sporanox said:
Not when the producers and consumers compose the entire economy we speak of.
Click to expand...

It still doesn’t matter. The supply and demand curves are still shifted by the externality. When all the producers and consumers end up paying the external cost that is incurred, they are in effect subsidizing transaction that would not normally take place in a free market.

Sporanox said:
And don't think that, by repeating the words "free market" over and over, you will convince me just because I lean right.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Right wingers tend to ignore such free market basics like externalities. I seldom expect them to be on board when actual free market ideas are being discussed, to them the term is more of a meme or mantra they repeat without understanding what it is or how it really works.
 
boyntonstu said:
How does the England climate stack up?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant unless we have the same number for Roman times. We are, afterall comparing wine in England today vs Roman times, not Wine in England vs Wine in France.
 
lomiller said:
It still doesn’t matter. The supply and demand curves are still shifted by the externality. When all the producers and consumers end up paying the external cost that is incurred, they are in effect subsidizing transaction that would not normally take place in a free market.
Click to expand...

This reasoning process is amusing.

1: Assert that there is a cost to production of energy not taken into account, presumably because it is not quantified yet (how would one quantify that?)

2: Assert that we do not have a "free market" anymore because of that one facet, even though we've never had a free market according to that definition

3: Assert that to return the market to its "free" status, a cost has to be imposed by the government

:covereyes

Thermal pollution from nuclear reactors can alter the marine ecosystem in undesirable ways. Yet no one would propose regulating such pollution because allowing it "subsidizes" nuclear power. The principles of the free market really have nothing to do with this.
 
For some reason, this reminds me of the health-care debate, probably because of the whole "distribution according to ability to pay = rationing" idea. Ridiculous. Rationing is imposed by the government - that's why it's called rationing. Similarly, I'm fairly certain a subsidy does not exist until it is enacted by a third party.
 
boyntonstu said:
Grapes were grown in England in 2 different centuries when it was warm enough to do it. Until they grow grapes in England, I tend not to worry.
Click to expand...
boyntonstu said:
Are there grapes grown in Lincolnshire? I will worry when they grow over most of England.
Click to expand...
boyntonstu said:
There may be hardy grape varieties available today that were not available uring the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...
You should enter your goalposts in the Boston marathon -- I'd expect them to do well.
 
Sporanox said:
Yet no one would propose regulating such pollution because allowing it "subsidizes" nuclear power.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power is another place where externalties arise. You would find nuclear power much much cheaper and much much more dangerous if there was no regulation. This is because the cost of risk would be externalized, so nuclear power producers would no longer need to spend money of safty and could therefore make bigger profits at lower prices.

In the case of nuclear power, the externality is removed via regulation which gives rise to the possibility of to little or to much regulation. This is similar to the problem you would see with a carbon tax, which is how big should the tax be. Cap-and-trade avoids this difficulty by letting the marketplace decide how much those carbon emissions are worth.
 
lomiller said:
Nuclear power is another place where externalties arise. You would find nuclear power much much cheaper and much much more dangerous if there was no regulation. This is because the cost of risk would be externalized, so nuclear power producers would no longer need to spend money of safty and could therefore make bigger profits at lower prices.

In the case of nuclear power, the externality is removed via regulation which gives rise to the possibility of to little or to much regulation. This is similar to the problem you would see with a carbon tax, which is how big should the tax be. Cap-and-trade avoids this difficulty by letting the marketplace decide how much those carbon emissions are worth.
Click to expand...

"Externalities," ok, by all means, not tacit subsidies.

I do like the market dodge cap-n-trade would make by avoiding direct accounting by the government (although the "cap" would certainly play a large part in this). Of course, I can't support it given the doubts I have as to the integrity of the AGW establishment.
 
parky76 said:
wind power...is FREE energy. solar power...is FREE energy.
Click to expand...

Really? Where can I get some free solar-cells for my house? I'd like some free-energy. I'm tired of paying $0.03/kw-h for coal based power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom