- #1
torquerotates
- 207
- 0
There are those that posit that global warming can only be tamed via government regulations. On the other hand you have people saying that it can be tamed through free market economics. What do you guys think?
So what is the optimal temperature and why?NLocke said:everyone needs to face the facts and realize this it IS a real problem.
Evo said:Are we so self-centered that we think what is ideal for humans is ideal for earth?
I'm sorry, I don't buy any of this. It has never been easier or cheaper to move goods and people than it is now. And I have no idea in what way you think a huter-gatherer society is more robust than our current society, particularly wrt climate change.vanesch said:I think the real problem with a potential climate change is that our current society is sliced up in nation states with territories, and that a general move of populations is made impossible by this structure. ... In as much as a climate change might not have affected too much our early ancestors before the switch to agriculture, it will hugely affect our current, fragile society which is absolutely not designed to adapt to such feats.
torquerotates said:There are those that posit that global warming can only be tamed via government regulations.
torquerotates said:global warming can only be tamed via government regulations.
torquerotates said:government regulations.
To me, that sounds suspiciously like attempting to use science to bring political change howe you want it.torquerotates said:government regulations.
DaleSpam said:I'm sorry, I don't buy any of this. It has never been easier or cheaper to move goods and people than it is now.
And I have no idea in what way you think a huter-gatherer society is more robust than our current society, particularly wrt climate change.
Evo said:The Earth has been through periods of warming and periods of cooling. Who is to say what is right? Maybe a shift back to the warmer era which had rich forestation in Antartica? Lush vegetation in Greenland? Perhaps these are the norms and we're trying to preserve an unnatural climate?
Someone please tell me what the natural climate for the Earth is. Not what we as present day humans have experienced.
Is the present climate really the best for the earth? Wasn't a warmer worldwide climate better at sustaining more vegetation and life forms than our current temperature?
Are we so self-centered that we think what is ideal for humans is ideal for earth?
...To evaluate the consequences of possible future climate changes and to identify the main climate drivers in high latitudes, the vegetation and climate in the East Siberian Arctic during the last interglacial are reconstructed and compared with Holocene conditions...
...Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9–14.5 °C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 °C in contrast to today's 2.8 °C.
Glaciations had a profound impact on the global sea-level and particularly on the Arctic environments. One of the key questions related to this topic is, how did the discharge of the Siberian Ob and Yenisei rivers interact with a proximal ice sheet?...
...Furthermore, the existence of the channel–levee complexes is indicative of unhindered sediment flow to the north. Channels situated on the shelf above 120-m water depth exhibit no phases of ponding and or infill during sea-level lowstand. These findings denote the non-existence of an ice sheet on large areas of the Kara Sea shelf.
torquerotates said:There are those that posit that global warming can only be tamed via government regulations. On the other hand you have people saying that it can be tamed through free market economics. What do you guys think?
I see your point, you are making a political statement, not a technological or economical statement. I was primarily making an economic statement, but I also disagree with your political claim.vanesch said:You mean, like, people who find that they are living in an economically unfriendly environment have no difficulties to go geographically there where it is economically more prosperous ? Because *this* is the solution to climate change for a group of people: to go to where climate will be nice to them (and hence let's them to be economically prosperous).
I guess that's why the US is watching closely its border with Mexico, and that's probably why so many Africans pay crazy sums to hide underneath a vehicle just to cross the Mediterranean. Why don't they simply buy a normal boat ticket, 100 times cheaper ?
If it is slow climate change, then they can walk (as they did) to where it is better for them. Nowadays, you can't do that anymore. You cannot walk from, say, Sudan to Germany with your entire tribe.
DaleSpam said:I think that the idea that large populations cannot shift across national borders today is wrong. It certainly is not correct between the US and Mexico nor between Europe and the middle-east and africa.
Yes, it is a large fraction, about 20%. Consider the following, the largest urban population of Mexicans is Mexico City, the second largest is Los Angeles. Money sent back to Mexico from immigrants in the US is the second largest source of Mexican GDP. And the influx has been large enough to significantly change the demographic make up of the US to the point that in several states whites are no longer a majority.vanesch said:You think that a large fraction (say, 60% of the Mexicans) went to the US ?
There's also the interest of those companies that are selling green product, like the fluorescent bulb. Many companies, GE in particular, have a big stake in AGW being true, or at least believed, and thus forcing regulations requiring the use of their product.Ivan Seeking said:Free market economics requires cause and effect. The markets only respond to changes that affect the bottom line, so I don't see how the long term impact of GW would motivate change in the markets today. What is driving most companies to use green technologies is the price of energy.
In a sense nobody is considering anything else other than free markets any more, even the most adamant AGW. The only solution in play is carbon caps and trade - a free market approach with .gov giving out the credits which are then bought and sold. There's already a large and fast growing carbon trading exchange in Europe, principally founded by a US economist who's become wealthy as a result, interestingly. Fifty years ago governments would have indeed implemented an across the board one-emissions-standard-for-all regulation but no more.torquerotates said:There are those that posit that global warming can only be tamed via government regulations. On the other hand you have people saying that it can be tamed through free market economics. What do you guys think?
Sure, IFvanesch said:How fast do you think climate has to change to "capture" a walking tribe? Assume they walk 10 km a day. In a year, they have walked 3000 km including some rest. Even if they only walk 1 km a day, they do 3000 km in 10 years.
mheslep said:In a sense nobody is considering anything else other than free markets any more, even the most adamant AGW. The only solution in play is carbon caps and trade - a free market approach with .gov giving out the credits which are then bought and sold. There's already a large and fast growing carbon trading exchange in Europe, principally founded by a US economist who's become wealthy as a result, interestingly. Fifty years ago governments would have indeed implemented an across the board one-emissions-standard-for-all regulation but no more.
DaleSpam said:Yes, it is a large fraction, about 20%. Consider the following, the largest urban population of Mexicans is Mexico City, the second largest is Los Angeles. Money sent back to Mexico from immigrants in the US is the second largest source of Mexican GDP.
vanesch said:How fast do you think climate has to change to "capture" a walking tribe? Assume they walk 10 km a day. In a year, they have walked 3000 km including some rest. Even if they only walk 1 km a day, they do 3000 km in 10 years.
No market would exist anywhere without a government enforced rule of law. Nor will you find any free market economist stating government has no role.vanesch said:Uh, in my book that's government regulation! This market wouldn't exist without any imposed CO2 quota (by the gouvernment - via international agreements).
FromIn theory, if properly designed and implemented, market-based instruments allow any desired level of pollution cleanup to be realized at the lowest overall cost to society, by providing incentives for the greatest reductions in pollution by those firms that can achieve the reductions most cheaply.
Rather than equalizing pollution levels among firms (as with uniform emission standards), market-based instruments equalize the incremental amount that firms spend to reduce pollution — their marginal abatement cost (Montgomery 1972; Baumol and Oates 1988; Tietenberg 1995).
Command-and-control approaches could — in theory — achieve this cost-effective solution, but this would require that different standards be set for each pollution source, and, consequently, that policy makers obtain detailed information about the compliance costs each firm faces. Such information is simply not available to government. By contrast, market-based instruments provide for a cost-effective allocation of the pollution control burden among sources without requiring the government to have this information.
This is a little exaggerated. Even in total tyrrany or complete anarchy there is some market activity. However, you are absolutely correct that the government involvement in things like enforcing contracts and private property rights greatly enhances market activity.mheslep said:No market would exist anywhere without a government enforced rule of law.
There's always at least a little government as anarchy is unstable - it can not stay 'complete'.DaleSpam said:This is a little exaggerated. Even in total tyrrany or complete anarchy there is some market activity.
mheslep said:No market would exist anywhere without a government enforced rule of law. Nor will you find any free market economist stating government has no role.
I understand that; I was attempting to steer the dialog to a more productive question: what should be the nature of the government action? Putting any emissions restrictions aside for a moment, as I suggested above we still need to have a government to have any free market at all. For instance, it must act positively to assure private property rights. Thus its not representative of an ideal free market to imagine firm A acting independent of the govt. w/ only buyers and suppliers. The govt. must be in that example to enforce rights. This includes, importantly, the protection of third parties which have their property infringed by firm's A emissions. In an idea free market firm A would be required to make all third parties whole. Even in the case of AGW, if firm A contributed to some percentage of a catastrophic rise in sea level that destroyed my beach property, they owe me in an ideal free market. Unfortunately this idealized scenario doesn't work because of the transaction costs involved with large scale cases like AGW. So instead we need the govt. to act on our behalf instead by regulating the emissions. The interesting question is, how does it best do that without wrecking the productivity of the enterprise.vanesch said:I didn't say that, but the question was: should the government(s) intervene in this climate thing, or should we let the market solve it (on its own).
Global warming refers to the long-term increase in Earth's average surface temperature. It is primarily caused by the release of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere from human activities like burning fossil fuels and deforestation.
The effects of global warming include rising sea levels, more frequent and severe natural disasters, changes in weather patterns, and loss of biodiversity. These impacts can have serious consequences for both human populations and the natural environment.
The main solutions to global warming involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy sources. This can be achieved through individual actions, such as reducing energy consumption and using public transportation, as well as government policies and international agreements.
While the effects of global warming are already being felt, it is not too late to take action to mitigate its impacts. By implementing effective solutions and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we can slow down and potentially reverse the effects of global warming.
Individuals can take small but impactful actions to help combat global warming, such as reducing energy consumption, using renewable energy sources, eating a more plant-based diet, and supporting policies and initiatives that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is important for everyone to do their part in order to make a significant impact on global warming.