This means that God is constantly refilling the oil fields as we speak!
amirite???
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Cap and Trade
Cap and TradeFollow
Jophiel wrote:
KTurner wrote:
It's a long read, but interesting whether you are a believer in man made climate change or not.
When you're done, you should read through this:
Climate Models
Ice Ages
Water Vapor
Couple things: First being sample size. The sample size chosen in all the examples does a good job at correlating CO2 to temperature, and I understand why they chose that sample size, because it represents when man started introducing significant levels of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Assuming the links I provided were at least in the right ballpark, i'd like to know why the temperatures in the past (100s of millions of years ago) didnt also correlate so neatly with CO2 levels and fluctations
Second being the water vapor discussion. according to this:
Quote:
This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up).
As addressed in my link
Quote:
The "greenhouse effect" actually is a [big] player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C). Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
it's not disputed that greenhouse gasses effect the climate, but that humans have any significant effect on the greenhouse gasses. And the data from that source suggest humans don't. The only sources that believe in man made climate change and that actually discuss the effects of water vapor, always end up saying its a positive loop related to CO2 emission, but that positive loop, at least according to the NOAA is arguable.
I'm somewhat open minded though and I would kinda like to know where they got the CO2 numbers in this graph. If it's acknowledged by both sides of the argument, then i dont understand how they can correlate CO2 with temperature.
edit: doh, that ship has sailed. damn work.
Edited, Jul 8th 2009 2:32pm by KTurner
#79REDACTED,
Posted: Jul 08 2009 at 2:07 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Let's see with a billion cars running every day around the world and relatively inexpensive gas I'd say it's safe to assume we'll be flying solar powered auto's long before there's any chance of us running out of fossil fuels.
publiusvarus wrote:
Let's see with a billion cars running every day around the world and relatively inexpensive gas I'd say it's safe to assume we'll be flying solar powered auto's long before there's any chance of us running out of fossil fuels.
Not if we don't push for development of those magical solar powered cars. Or do you think they'll spontaneously generate once the oil is gone?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Since most nations we'd see our industry offshore to (all actually) have less stringent pollution control laws than existing US laws even before the cap and trade limits are applied, this will almost certainly result in that industry producing more pollution, including greenhouse gases, per unit of productivity than they were producing before the introduction of the cap and trade laws.
The net global effect is to increase the total output of greenhouse gases, not reduce it.
The net global effect is to increase the total output of greenhouse gases, not reduce it.
It's pretty certain that current US pollution standards are higher than those in most if not all of the developing nations. Certainly, if a company has a *choice* of where to move their factories to, they'll pick the least expensive spots, which are also the most likely to have the least stringent pollution laws. You're free to refute this assumption, but I think it's pretty darn reasonable and obvious.
Assuming that is true, and that there's a one to one correlation of industrial productivity shifted from the US to other nations, then it's a simple matter of the ratio of the relative pollution allowed per unit of production. If a factory in the US produces X amount of pollution per unit of production, and a factory in say Equador produces 1.5X pollution per unit of production, than every unit of production moved from the US to Equador will increase global pollution by the difference (depending on units produced). The more we shift from the US elsewhere, the greater the increase to global pollution.
You are correct that this rests on the assumption that offshored industry will produce more pollution than they would have if they'd remained in the US and you're free to try to refute that. I think you'll find that difficult to do...
Quote:
There's also the question of why this concern for keeping American businesses domestic didn't exist for the GOP (or you, looking at old threads) back during the outsourcing debates. Why, you don't need to worry about the businesses going abroad, Gbaji -- all those workers will just retrain into new and exciting careers, remember?
You're mixing issues. My argument has always been that it's silly to blame the businesses for offshoring or outsourcing. They don't take those actions out of some desire to hurt (or to help) people. They do what is the most profitable for them to do. If the government changes laws which make it more profitable to offshore, they'll do it. So don't blame them. Blame the government regulations which changed the economic conditions.
I've had a consistent position on this all along. I guess the difference is that you're trying to approach this from some sort of moral obligation angle, as though private industry has a moral obligation to keep employing US workers even as the US government passes regulations making it increasingly more expensive to do so. It's the government's actions which in this case (and in most cases) are guided by some sense of moral objectives, not the private businesses. If you seek to reduce pollution out of some moral belief that this is "better for society", than you must also take responsibility for the negative effects like lost jobs.
It's just always seemed odd to me how liberals can march and protest and demand government action against private industry which makes it less profitable for them to operate here. Then, when those industries close down their factories and move them elsewhere, those same liberals jump up and down and scream at the evil capitalists taking their jobs away. It's like you guys can never grasp the connection between the two, even after we explain it to you a thousand times...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
KTurner wrote:
Second being the water vapor discussion. according to this: So an increase in CO2 levels that would cause an increase in temperature, and thus increasing water vapor, wouldnt necessarily cause a positive loop of global warming, cloud cover would increase and also reflect more heat than normal. It's an unknown.
Quote:
This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up).
"Uncertainty" isn't entirely unknown and it's under study. This is a point where those who disagree with ACC tend to exaggerate and act as though no one has studied this or thought of it besides them. Speaking rather recently (the original page you linked says it was last modified in 2003), we had results published in Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations published in the March 2009 Journal of Climate. While admitting to uncertanty in some aspects and biases in positive feedback in some regions...
Study conclusion wrote:
...The two common biases, shown in the ENSO cycle, however, do not appear to be carried over the global warming simulations. The variations in the cloud albedo feedback among different models are not correlated with the variations in the same feedback in the global warming simulations among different models. The variations in the water vapor feedback among different models during ENSO over the cold tongue are positively correlated with the variations in the water vapor feedback during global warming, but the correlation is weak. There is no correlation between the feedbacks over the cold tongue region during ENSO and the globally averaged feedbacks during global warming.
Therefore, the overestimate of the water vapor feedback and the underestimate of the cloud albedo feedback during the ENSO cycle in the models do not necessarily imply that the sensitivity of the mean tropical climate to anthropogenic forcing is overestimated by the models. As noted by Zhu et al. (2007), in two leading GCMs the changes in the cloud amount in response to ENSO and to global warming may involve different mechanisms. On the other hand, we are not suggesting that the prevalence of these two biases in the models during ENSO should not be of concern for the accuracy of global warming simulated by the models.
Therefore, the overestimate of the water vapor feedback and the underestimate of the cloud albedo feedback during the ENSO cycle in the models do not necessarily imply that the sensitivity of the mean tropical climate to anthropogenic forcing is overestimated by the models. As noted by Zhu et al. (2007), in two leading GCMs the changes in the cloud amount in response to ENSO and to global warming may involve different mechanisms. On the other hand, we are not suggesting that the prevalence of these two biases in the models during ENSO should not be of concern for the accuracy of global warming simulated by the models.
In shorter terms, the feedback effect is being studied and, thus far, has not resulted in reason to assume the climate models are inaccurate (although it's always something to watch out for).
Edited, Jul 9th 2009 8:11am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
You are correct that this rests on the assumption that offshored industry will produce more pollution than they would have if they'd remained in the US and you're free to try to refute that. I think you'll find that difficult to do...
I'm more interested in you proving that the amount of additional pollution they will produce will exceed the amount prevented in the US since you're the one making the claim than I am in me refuting it. Again, this also rests on the fact that producing widgets produces a finite amount of pollution even on the worst widget producing days. Companies are not suddenly going to decide that producing widgets now require burning fifteen metric tons of coal per widget produced, even if they are free to do so.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I think a simple carbon tax would be a much more simple and effective solution to this problem. We've had cap and trade in the EU for a while, and it's both complicated and relatively inefficient. If the government auctions the permits then it's very expensive, and if they give them away it can actually be counter-productive. And no one really undestands what's going on.
If you're going for a "pay for what you pollute" principle, and i think we should, then just create a carbon tax. "Internalise the external costs of pllution", as the EU's official jargon says.
If you're going for a "pay for what you pollute" principle, and i think we should, then just create a carbon tax. "Internalise the external costs of pllution", as the EU's official jargon says.
I honestly don't care about this issue.
At all.
I think I'm settling back into my lazy-liberal ways.
At all.
I think I'm settling back into my lazy-liberal ways.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
publiusvarus wrote:
Because the US has one of the stictest standards for companies that produce pollution in the world. See how simple that was.
If it was so simple, you'd have proved something instead of restating the faulty logic you already tried using.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Because the US has one of the stictest standards for companies that produce pollution in the world. See how simple that was.
If it was so simple, you'd have proved something instead of restating the faulty logic you already tried using.
Why actually take the time to prove something, when Faulty Logic provides better Sound Bites.
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You are correct that this rests on the assumption that offshored industry will produce more pollution than they would have if they'd remained in the US and you're free to try to refute that. I think you'll find that difficult to do...
I'm more interested in you proving that the amount of additional pollution they will produce will exceed the amount prevented in the US since you're the one making the claim than I am in me refuting it. Again, this also rests on the fact that producing widgets produces a finite amount of pollution even on the worst widget producing days. Companies are not suddenly going to decide that producing widgets now require burning fifteen metric tons of coal per widget produced, even if they are free to do so.
It's not about the company Joph. It's the laws of the country they are operating in. How "clean" are the power plants? It takes the same amount of power to produce a widget whether in the US, or somewhere else. If the regulations for pollution controls on power plants allows for more pollution per unit of energy produced, then they'll produce more pollution in the process of building those widgets.
Same deal for transportation. What are the smog requirements for the trucks transporting the materials into the factory and the finished goods out?
Same deal for the manufacturing process itself (although that's going to depend on how much is fabricated versus just assembled).
The point is that there's no possible way for this to produce *less* overall pollution than in the US, unless the pollution laws in that country are more stringent than they are in the US. Given the virtually every single country in the world, and certainly every single country we'd be likely to offshore these industries will have less restrictive pollution laws, it's pretty much guaranteed that this process will result in an overall increase of pollutants of all types.
You call that "faulty logic", but I just don't see why you think so. It's perfect logic. It's always cheaper to make things dirty rather than clean, environmentally speaking. That's why there's a need for pollution laws in the first place. It stands to reason therefore that moving industry from a nation with tight pollution controls to one with loose pollution controls will result in a greater per-unit generation of pollution. It's guaranteed.
The only way this wont happen is if we assume that we can magically invent better technology to run our factories cleaner somehow. It's possible, but unlikely and in any case will be more expensive (making the offshoring a more likely result). I suppose if you pretend that we'll reduce it by simply producing 17% less stuff, but that's even more unlikely. It's not like global demand for widgets decreases because you passed some environmental rules in the US.
How do you not see this? It's freaking obvious!
Edited, Jul 9th 2009 1:14pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
The only way this wont happen is if we assume that we can magically invent better technology to run our factories cleaner somehow. It's possible, but unlikely and in any case will be more expensive (making the offshoring a more likely result). I suppose if you pretend that we'll reduce it by simply producing 17% less stuff, but that's even more unlikely. It's not like global demand for widgets decreases because you passed some environmental rules in the US.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
gbaji wrote:
It's not about the company Joph. It's the laws of the country they are operating in. How "clean" are the power plants? It takes the same amount of power to produce a widget whether in the US, or somewhere else. If the regulations for pollution controls on power plants allows for more pollution per unit of energy produced, then they'll produce more pollution in the process of building those widgets.
Exactly. Too bad you can't understand that.
Hey, I make widgets. Under the worst of circumstances, manufacturing a widget produces 10 units of pollution. Whether that pollution is coming from a powerplant smoke stack or truck exhaust or out of ACME Widgets doesn't matter. Current US pollution controls bring that down to 7 units. But wait! Oh no, Cap & Trade! Rather than do the 5 units, I run off to found ACME Somalian Widgets, Inc knowing that no one in the Somalian government cares what I do. So now I'm producing 10 units again. Again, it doesn't matter if this is coming from Mogadishu Gas & Power or from my factory -- there's a finite power cost (and thus pollution cost) to manufacture a widget.
So I'm now adding 3 more units of pollution per widget than I was in the US. Horror! But wait! Amalgamated Doodads and United Thingies both stay in the US and, combined are producing 4 units per item less than they used to for a net of -1 unit of pollution per item made. Planet Earth is saved!!!
The truth is, you have absolutely no idea how much manufacturing would move anywhere. None. Don't even pretend because you're fooling no one. Even with increased production costs, moving your manufacturing overseas doesn't just automatically make sense. That's ignoring pollution producers that can't be moved in the first place. The largest anthropogenic producer of greenhouse pollution in the US are power plants. Have fun relocating your power plant in India. Bring lots of extension cords.
Quote:
You call that "faulty logic", but I just don't see why you think so.
Because it relies on numbers you're making up in your head and are (as usual in your arguments) demanding we accept as real despite (also as usual) a lack of any support beyond Gbaji insisting that it's really, really absolutely obvious! Gosh!
Edited, Jul 9th 2009 3:36pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Given the virtually every single country in the world will have less restrictive pollution laws
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
publiusvarus wrote:
I know let's tax the sh*t out of them and find out. Sounds like a good plan to me.
Woohoo!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Hey, I make widgets. Under the worst of circumstances, manufacturing a widget produces 10 units of pollution. Whether that pollution is coming from a powerplant smoke stack or truck exhaust or out of ACME Widgets doesn't matter. Current US pollution controls bring that down to 7 units. But wait! Oh no, Cap & Trade! Rather than do the 5 units, I run off to found ACME Somalian Widgets, Inc knowing that no one in the Somalian government cares what I do. So now I'm producing 10 units again. Again, it doesn't matter if this is coming from Mogadishu Gas & Power or from my factory -- there's a finite power cost (and thus pollution cost) to manufacture a widget.
So I'm now adding 3 more units of pollution per widget than I was in the US. Horror! But wait! Amalgamated Doodads and United Thingies both stay in the US and, combined are producing 4 units per item less than they used to for a net of -1 unit of pollution per item made. Planet Earth is saved!!!
So I'm now adding 3 more units of pollution per widget than I was in the US. Horror! But wait! Amalgamated Doodads and United Thingies both stay in the US and, combined are producing 4 units per item less than they used to for a net of -1 unit of pollution per item made. Planet Earth is saved!!!
Now who's making up numbers? The companies who continue to produce inside the US will be unlikely to reduce the pollution per unit of production much. The US laws are already incredibly restrictive. You might see a couple of percentage points reduction in per-unit pollution. Maybe.
The bulk of the reduction of total pollution will come about as a result of industry simply leaving the US. Period. If the target goal is to reduce total greenhouse emissions in the US by 17%, then it'll be accomplished by nearly 17% of the productivity which currently generates greenhouse gases moving elsewhere. The effect of that shift on global greenhouse gas emissions should be obvious...
Do you honestly think that we have cheap anti-pollution technology just lying around and we've just chosen not to use it? The EPA passes the most stringent regulations it can on our industries, and the only thing preventing them from being more stringent is the economic costs of doing so. We're literally being as clean as we can afford to be. If the EPA thought they could impose more restrictive rules on US industries without those industries simply leaving, they would have done so. Heck. Many believe that our current pollution laws are already too strict and have hurt us in this area. This is just more piled on top of that.
Quote:
The truth is, you have absolutely no idea how much manufacturing would move anywhere. None.
You're right. I don't know exactly how much would move. However, I can say with absolute certainty that more will move away than will choose to reduce their pollution rates to meet the new requirements. It's pretty obvious economic reality.
Quote:
Don't even pretend because you're fooling no one. Even with increased production costs, moving your manufacturing overseas doesn't just automatically make sense. That's ignoring pollution producers that can't be moved in the first place. The largest anthropogenic producer of greenhouse pollution in the US are power plants. Have fun relocating your power plant in India. Bring lots of extension cords.
Sure. That's pretty immovable and pretty inelastic. Which is why a whole lot of other stuff will end up moving. Unless the same folks pushing for cap and trade also wish to loosen their stance on nuclear power and building new cleaner coal plants?
The point is that cap and trade doesn't require any pollution levels. It allows polluters to buy their way out of it. It's pretty obvious as well that industries which can't move (like power) will just buy carbon credits and pass the expense on to the rest of us.
Which is one of the reasons why Conservatives just view this as a tax program. What reductions we do get will mostly come from industries moving and those which stay will just pass the costs on to the consumers. Net effect is that we just pay more for stuff and lose more jobs.
Doubleplusgood!
Quote:
Because it relies on numbers you're making up in your head and are (as usual in your arguments) demanding we accept as real despite (also as usual) a lack of any support beyond Gbaji insisting that it's really, really absolutely obvious! Gosh!
It relies on no numbers at all Joph. It relies on a common sense understanding of behaviors of players in a market. If you make operating more expensive in one locale, it'll increase the likelihood of moving. That requires no numbers to be true.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Now who's making up numbers?
Yeah, you caught me in that I made up "10 units of pollution", obviously thinking that people would say "Zoinks! He must really mean 10 units of pollution!" I should come clean now and admit that there's no real AMCE Widget company either.
Quote:
You're right. I don't know exactly how much would move.
No, you don't know at all how much will move. "Exactly how much" implies that you can ballpark it. You have no idea. Period.
Quote:
However, I can say with absolute certainty
No, you can't. But it's precious that you keep pretending that you can.
Quote:
It relies on no numbers at all Joph. It relies on a common sense understanding of behaviors of players in a market
Classic Gbaji. "It's true because I say it's really obvious!"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Quick!!!!!! One of the other Liberals out there rate him up so he can feel smart again.
Classic default poster.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
ThiefX wrote:
Classic Jophiel and a classic Liberal. Start losing a arguement and you post a random reply to a well thought out statement and try to insult him while never answering his statement.
Yeah. That'd require me to be "losing". When someone is demanding something is true and the sole reason they can come up with it "It's obvious that it's true" -- that's not really proving anything. The fact is Gbaji has zero idea how many businesses will relocate abroad and is using his guess that it's going to be enough to cause a net gain in pollution as a reason to complain about the bill. His sole support for this is... "It's obvious".
But, yeah. You sure showed me.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Quick!!!!!! One of the other Liberals out there rate him up so he can feel smart again.
Classic default poster.
It's true. I only feel smart when I get rated up from "Excellent" to... umm... "Excellent PLUS", I guess.
How come I'm not Excellent PLUS yet?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 261
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (261)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Cap and Trade
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC