Climate change extremes?

[Medic007]

You got the dynamics figured out. If $5 a gallon is not enough to reduce consumption, just increase the tax to $10 per gallon. Is it your contention that there is no price at which we would use less gas on aggregate?

I'm saying the tax point to alter Ralph's consumption will be well above what Jan can afford with rebates done retroactively, at least initially. And I'm a firm believer that a transfer of wealth at that magnitude may cause an increase in Jan's consumption because she'll be able to afford to consume more. That defeats the purpose of decreasing consumption to lower carbon emissions.

Wouldn't it be much easier to just ban the production or importation of any vehicle that can't achieve a fuel efficiency of 52 mpg, which appears to be the best available in 2018?

 

[07pilt]

I'm saying the tax point to alter Ralph's consumption will be well above what Jan can afford with rebates done retroactively, at least initially. And I'm a firm believer that a transfer of wealth at that magnitude may cause an increase in Jan's consumption because she'll be able to afford to consume more. That defeats the purpose of decreasing consumption to lower carbon emissions.

Wouldn't it be much easier to just ban the production or importation of any vehicle that can't achieve a fuel efficiency of 52 mpg, which appears to be the best available in 2018?

Why do we have to alter Ralph's consumption if we can alter aggregate consumption? Rich people carbon doesn't capture more heat than poor people carbon.
If you give Jan a windfall why would she waste it on $10 gas?
If you really think that there is no level of taxation that can reduce consumption then we really are at an impasse.

 

[davidallen]

Looks like Jan is about to upgrade to an F350.

Or a Tesla pickup truck. I know I will be looking hard at an electric pick up in 4 or 5 years...

 

[07pilt]

Or a Tesla pickup truck. I know I will be looking hard at an electric pick up in 4 or 5 years...

TeslaQ pickup truck.

 

[davidallen]

TSLAQ pickup truck.

FIFY

Quite the ride....

 

[davidallen]

We will need about $1 bln for albedo management, let's go ahead and hold that out from the rebate pool.

 

[07pilt]

We will need about $1 bln for albedo management, let's go ahead and hold that out from the rebate pool.

We can get that from the luxury tax that Medic is in favor of.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Or a Tesla pickup truck. I know I will be looking hard at an electric pick up in 4 or 5 years...

I just binged it. 300,000 lb towing capacity! Mouthwideopen.gif

I think Jan will be buying a 25 year old F350 before she can afford to buy a Tesla Pickup.

https://electrek.co/2018/06/27/tesla-pickup-truck-everything-we-know/

 

[Medic007]

Why do we have to alter Ralph's consumption if we can alter aggregate consumption? Rich people carbon doesn't capture more heat than poor people carbon.
If you give Jan a windfall why would she waste it on $10 gas?
If you really think that there is no level of taxation that can reduce consumption then we really are at an impasse.

Why don't we want to alter Ralph's consumption?

Of course the CO2 emissions of the wealthy don't trap more heat than poor people's CO2 emissions do on a molecule by molecule basis. That's just silly. But the wealthy's volume of CO2 emission per capita is much higher than that of poor people. It's obviously the total CO2 volume that matters. I'm not sure why that seems to be a difficult spot in this conversation.

I don't know that Jan will "waste" her windfall on $10 gas. There's nothing that stops her from using her windfall on gas though. She's probably not going to buy a Porsche, but she might drive more miles to spend the extra money, or she might raise/lower her thermostat to make her place more comfortable because she can afford it now. Lots of possibilities for her to increase her carbon emissions with the extra cash. Most people tend to upgrade their lifestyle when they have an upgrade to their cash flow.

 

[Medic007]

We can get that from the luxury tax that Medic is in favor of.

What luxury tax am I in favor of? I don't think I've proposed taxes on luxury items. I've proposed limits on them because I'm told that our carbon emissions have put the planet in imminent danger.

But of course we don't want any of those limits because the effects of man-made climate change aren't as important as the lifestyle of wealthy people because democracy and politics.

This has been a great conversation.

 

[07pilt]

Why don't we want to alter Ralph's consumption?

Because it is easier to alter aggregate consumption.

I don't know that Jan will "waste" her windfall on $10 gas. There's nothing that stops her from using her windfall on gas though. She's probably not going to buy a Porsche, but she might drive more miles to spend the extra money, or she might raise/lower her thermostat to make her place more comfortable because she can afford it now. Lots of possibilities for her to increase her carbon emissions with the extra cash. Most people tend to upgrade their lifestyle when they have an upgrade to their cash flow.

Doubtful the whole windfall is going to go to fuel consumption.

 

[Medic007]

Because it is easier to alter aggregate consumption.

So everyone but Ralph is expected to decrease their carbon emissions even though Ralph's carbon emissions dwarf Jan's and Bill's. As long as all of the Jan's and Bill's of the country are doing their part by want or by force, Ralph's carbon emissions don't matter as much because Ralph is politically more relevant than Jan and Bill. Is this the representative summary from our conversation?

 

[07pilt]

What luxury tax am I in favor of? I don't think I've proposed taxes on luxury items. I've proposed limits on them because I'm told that our carbon emissions have put the planet in imminent danger.

@davidallen please excuse my previous comments about luxury taxes. Medic has only commented in favor of limiting luxury items in between arguments about the feasibility of a tax and rebate program. I was wrong to assume you had a sudden bout of class consciousness.

But of course we don't want any of those limits because the effects of man-made climate change aren't as important as the lifestyle of wealthy people because democracy and politics.

We do live in a democracy and so politics dictate that to solve a crisis like global warming you pick the policy most likely to get support.

 

[Medic007]

Doubtful the whole windfall is going to go to fuel consumption.

If any of it goes toward any additional fuel consumption by Jan and Ralph doesn't decrease his consumption, we've added to the problem, not helped it.

 

[Medic007]

We do live in a democracy and so politics dictate that to solve a crisis like global warming you pick the policy most likely to get support.

How about we pick no policy and let the deniers and believers choose how much they contribute to CO2 emissions. That sounds like more democracy than an additional production tax.

 

[07pilt]

So everyone but Ralph is expected to decrease their carbon emissions even though Ralph's carbon emissions dwarf Jan's and Bill's. As long as all of the Jan's and Bill's of the country are doing their part by want or by force, Ralph's carbon emissions don't matter as much because Ralph is politically more relevant than Jan and Bill. Is this the representative summary from our conversation?

Ralph will decrease his carbon emissions, his demand is elastic too. Ralph's carbon emissions don't matter at all, aggregate emissions are the only thing that matters. This is America, money buys better healthcare, faster cars, bigger tits, and a lot more $10 a gallon gas. If you want to change the fundamental nature of America then join the revolution, but don't use it as an excuse to hold up solution that is doable today.

 

[07pilt]

If any of it goes toward any additional fuel consumption by Jan and Ralph doesn't decrease his consumption, we've added to the problem, not helped it.

No because you are assuming the ex post consumption numbers we are working from are the same as the ex ante consumption number and for that to be true you have to believe that consumption magically stays the same when the price more than doubles.

 

[Medic007]

Ralph will decrease his carbon emissions, his demand is elastic too. Ralph's carbon emissions don't matter at all, aggregate emissions are the only thing that matters.

Exactly what makes up the aggregate emissions? Do Ralph's emissions go into an alternate atmosphere? You post as if the sum of individual contributions doesn't create the aggregate.

I guess maybe I'm lost in your explanation of the magic that makes the emissions of all of the Jan's and Bill's of the country matter, but the emissions of all of the Ralph's somehow don't.

If the aggregate isn't the sum, then what is it?

 

[07pilt]

How about we pick no policy and let the deniers and believers choose how much they contribute to CO2 emissions. That sounds like more democracy than an additional production tax.

That's where democracy has landed today and it isn't really working out so well. Now through politics we can try to move democracy to a production tax or to banning large houses, small planes, and fast cars. To me a production tax seems more feasible. Feel free to do everything you can to get large houses banned.

 

[Medic007]

This is America, money buys better healthcare, faster cars, bigger tits, and a lot more $10 a gallon gas. If you want to change the fundamental nature of America then join the revolution, but don't use it as an excuse to hold up solution that is doable today.

Is doable actually worth much if it doesn't produce results? Why not just do nothing and get the same results?

 

[07pilt]

Exactly what makes up the aggregate emissions? Do Ralph's emissions go into an alternate atmosphere? You post as if the sum of individual contributions doesn't create the aggregate.

I guess maybe I'm lost in your explanation of the magic that makes the emissions of all of the Jan's and Bill's of the country matter, but the emissions of all of the Ralph's somehow don't.

If the aggregate isn't the sum, then what is it?

I don't care who is doing the emitting as long as the aggregate is lower. If 100% of the emissions come from Ralph but they are 50% less than they are last year, that's fine with me.

 

[07pilt]

Is doable actually worth much if it doesn't produce results? Why not just do nothing and get the same results?

The only way it doesn't get results is if you don't believe in the elasticity of demand. If that is the case please say so, so that I can know once and for all you are too stupid to argue with.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

That's where democracy has landed today and it isn't really working out so well. Now through politics we can try to move democracy to a production tax or to banning large houses, small planes, and fast cars. To me a production tax seems more feasible. Feel free to do everything you can to get large houses banned.

Is there something in the political climate of today that makes you think legislators can pass a production tax?

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

The only way it doesn't get results is if you don't believe in the elasticity of demand. If that is the case please say so, so that I can know once and for all you are too stupid to argue with.

There is no doubt that demand would go down with the price of fuel doubling. Why not raise the tax on fuel to $1,000/gallon? That would reduce emissions by 95%.

 

[07pilt]

Is there something in the political climate of today that makes you think legislators can pass a production tax?

No, but that bridge isn't as far as banning large houses.

 

[07pilt]

There is no doubt that demand would go down with the price of fuel doubling. Why not raise the tax on fuel to $1,000/gallon? That would reduce emissions by 95%.

$1000/gallon in year five, gotta give people time to adjust

 

[Medic007]

The only way it doesn't get results is if you don't believe in the elasticity of demand. If that is the case please say so, so that I can know once and for all you are too stupid to argue with.

Oh, I believe in the elasticity of demand. In fact, I used an example of what will be considered a very hefty tax increase on gasoline and the very negligible dent it makes in the hypothetical wealthy person's income. You suggested increasing the tax until Ralph feels the pain and reduces his consumption. Is there an upper limit that's feasible before we say this isn't getting it done if Ralph's demand isn't dropping?

I know my hypothetical increase of $5.00 in production tax has no chance of getting any support. It may actually require more than that to get Ralph to reduce his consumption. Do you believe a tax increase like $5.00 or more per gallon has any chance of getting through Congress? If that is the case please say so, so that I can know once and for all you are too stupid to argue with.

 

[Medic007]

I don't care who is doing the emitting as long as the aggregate is lower. If 100% of the emissions come from Ralph but they are 50% less than they are last year, that's fine with me.

Ahhhh. Gotcha. But of course let's not bother with the fact that we could lower it even further by finding ways to make Ralph to decrease his emissions because Ralph won't like it.

 

[07pilt]

Oh, I believe in the elasticity of demand. In fact, I used an example of what will be considered a very hefty tax increase on gasoline and the very negligible dent it makes in the hypothetical person's income. You suggested increasing the tax until Ralph feels the pain and reduces his consumption. Is there an upper limit that's feasible before we say this isn't getting it done if Ralph's demand isn't dropping?

No I have said over and over again that I don't care about Ralph's consumption only overall consumption.

I know my hypothetical increase of $5.00 in production tax has no chance of getting any support. It may actually require more than that to get Ralph to reduce his consumption. Do you believe a tax increase like $5.00 or more per gallon has any chance of getting through Congress? If that is the case please say so, so that I can know once and for all you are too stupid to argue with.

You are the one who made up the $5.00 figure. I do think a production tax is the most likely to pass demand side solution to reach a given emission target.

 

[07pilt]

Ahhhh. Gotcha. But of course let's not bother with the fact that we could lower it even further by finding ways to make Ralph to decrease his emissions because Ralph won't like it.

Like I said, I am all for your campaign to limit house size, but I doubt even Jan will want to be told how big her house can be.

 

[davidallen]

There is no doubt that demand would go down with the price of fuel doubling. Why not raise the tax on fuel to $1,000/gallon? That would reduce emissions by 95%.

Only as a last resort...

 

[davidallen]

Oh, I believe in the elasticity of demand. In fact, I used an example of what will be considered a very hefty tax increase on gasoline and the very negligible dent it makes in the hypothetical wealthy person's income. You suggested increasing the tax until Ralph feels the pain and reduces his consumption. Is there an upper limit that's feasible before we say this isn't getting it done if Ralph's demand isn't dropping?

I know my hypothetical increase of $5.00 in production tax has no chance of getting any support. It may actually require more than that to get Ralph to reduce his consumption. Do you believe a tax increase like $5.00 or more per gallon has any chance of getting through Congress? If that is the case please say so, so that I can know once and for all you are too stupid to argue with.

You are presuming a static environment for Ralphie. He is quite likely to be migrating away from ICE in the near future anyway, these additional economic incentives will accelerate an inevitable shift. The real movement acceleration will come from the middle class who are much more sensitive to incentives and benefitted by trickle down innovation.

 

[davidallen]

Ahhhh. Gotcha. But of course let's not bother with the fact that we could lower it even further by finding ways to make Ralph to decrease his emissions because Ralph won't like it.

Really odd to hear a classic liberal advocate for punitive measures over incentives.

 

[davidallen]

I just binged it.

Does your son know why you hate him?

 

[davidallen]

There is no doubt that demand would go down with the price of fuel doubling. Why not raise the tax on fuel to $1,000/gallon? That would reduce emissions by 95%.

I have patience. President Inslee will be here soon enough.

 

[Medic007]

Really odd to hear a classic liberal advocate for punitive measures over incentives.

I'm operating under the assumption that the climate is in a state of impending doom. I've clearly stated that. Do we really have time for incentives with the future of the planet hanging by a thread right now?

 

[davidallen]

I'm operating under the assumption that the climate is in a state of impending doom. I've clearly stated that. Do we really have time for incentives with the future of the planet hanging by a thread right now?

I would suggest you are the only one ITT describing such a state. I suppose that would be because only absurd scenarios support your position. I could be wrong though.

 

[Medic007]

I would suggest you are the only one ITT suggesting such a state. I suppose that would be because only absurd scenarios support your position. I could be wrong though.

Your and my opinion of root cause is moot. Warming is occurring. We can choose to ignore or act on the variables under our collective control including technical solutions and reducing CO2 emissions.

How many chances will humanity have to influence this trend?

Did anyone say this would be easy? If so, they are fools. Head in the sand is no answer however. Doing hard things, once upon a time we were kinda good at that.

You might ask yourself the strategic implications of your statement if it were true... imagine the geopolitical consequences of northern China, Canada, and Siberia becoming the breadbasket of the world.

Climate models show a large portion of the current agricultural heart of the US becoming unproductive in the coming century as temperatures continue to rise. Dependence on other countries for agricultural products is obviously a loss of strategic and economic advantage for the US. Agricultural exports are worth somewhere north of $100 bln per year to the US economy.

You should read the article I linked a couple of posts up. Especially the part about Venus. I think it is very realistic that there is a point of no return, where even the most inventive inventors are unable to come up with a solution. Of course, that is not just a USA issue, it is a global issue.

I agree that humans can't make the planet completely uninhabitable. But, what if "warming" leads to stresses (such as famine, overcrowding, refugees looking for a safe haven), which ultimately result in mass genocide/nuclear war, or something else apocalyptic?

First, these things are measurable. Second, if global warming is releasing even more greenhouse gases, then that is an argument in favor of drastic action.

an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the responsibility of an activity-proponent to establish that the proposed activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm.

 

[07pilt]

unless we make draconian unconstitutional laws including siezure of homes, cars, and planes and outlawing all pickup trucks tomorrow we will all die in a firey inferno, I repeat there is no time to do this in a way that in anyway resembles orderly

 

[davidallen]

@Medic007 in your head the quoted statements translate to euthanizing humans? That's on you dude.

My opinion, we are a frog in a slowly warming pot. Water won't actually boil for a decade or more. If your agenda includes seizing property, killing folks, et al then by all means push off doing anything until that is justified.