[tannerwaterbury]

Originally Posted by MonsieurHood

What massive and decisive action are we going to take Livingston? Tell me? Ultimately that kind of thinking leads to things better left alone, better left unthought, better left unsaid doesn't it? I could write it here but it might get me banned. We don't do those kinds of things and the few people who did them have the darkest most horrible names in all of history. Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you know who and what I'm talking about? Is that the kind of world you want to live in? A world of fear, a world that has total disregard for all that's hopeful and positive and right? A world without freedom of choice? Where the leaders make THOSE kinds of decisions? Read between the lines. Personally, I'd rather live in a Biodome.

Whoa now, come on this is a debate on Climate Change. I understand that the way things are going might lead us somewhere different, but i wanted this thread to be a debate on Climate change and its scientifical purpose, not Political one. This is what im trying to avoid, because if we get into politics, then things will start to fall apart rapidly. Lets leave politics out on this thread please, thanks.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by TGElder

EPA regulations keep industries from being able to expand their operations to produce more fuel, or to invest in any kind of R & D for new energy sources because these companies are constantly being forced to retrofit their refineries to keep up with new regulations that are annually updated. Expanded production equals more supply which reduces prices. Simple entry level economics.

The majority of cost in each gallon of gasoline is in taxes to the local, state and federal government. Currently I am paying $2.35/gallon. $.46 is in federal taxes, $.18 is in local taxes, and $.08 is in local taxes. That's $.72 of each gallon going to pay taxes. This does not include the taxes that the oil company is made to pay for transportation, taxes on property that they pay, and corporate taxes that they pay. Because you must realize that NO corporation ever pays taxes. Taxes are calculated into the production cost and those costs are passed on to the end consumer to pay.

To the first paragraph: The oil industry takes all the money it can from you. Thats called economics. It doesnt matter how much more fuel they produce or rafine in the United States. The more the US produces, the less does the OPEC produce to keep the prizes and the profits as high as possible. All what Drill-Baby-Drill would achieve is to shift the profits from the pockets of Sheiks into the pockets of american shareholders (advocated by The Heritage Foundation, brought to you by Fox News and politicians from both sides). These shareholders then invest this money in the Five Star Luxury Hotels of the Sheikhs. You will not see a single cent of that money - never, ever, no way, never.

The only way to make gas prizes drop for YOU are alternative sources of energy and fuel. If you have an alternative as a consumer, thats when you have a lever to bargain at the gas pump. And thats why the oil lobby will do everything it needs to keep that lever out of your hands.

To the second paragraph: Yes, there are taxes on gasoline, because there are taxes on every business. Decrease these taxes and all it will achieve is to increase the profits of the shareholders (advocated by The Heritage Foundation, brought to you by Fox News and politicians from both sides). And again these shareholders then invest this money in the Hotels of the Sheikhs. You will not see a single cent of that money - never, ever, no way, never.

The decrease of taxation will not flow into your pocket because YOU HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE. And as long as you dont have an alternative, for so long the oil industry will take all the money from you they can get. Prices will not drop. And to give you those alternatives the industries developing it need subsidaries - tax money! To decrease the taxes is to shoot yourself in the foot.

In conclusion:
Why would the experts on your TV advise you to shoot yourself in the foot?
Because the talking heads in your tube are not your friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFgQYb2C6fA

[TGElder]

Originally Posted by TheTrekkie

Global warming or not, inventing new alternative technology only brings advantages
1. oil and similar ressources probably still will last for 50 years, in a few decades it will be unaffordable. The economy and the "normal" people have to invent an alternative
2. independence from dictatorships we have to deal with to get their ressources
3. jobs are created
4. it's good for nature

Your estimates on the duration of oil and gas reserves are vastly underrated. We have in the Western Hemisphere, more untapped oil than exists in the entire middle east. Probably 100 to 150 years worth.
Freedom from foreign dictators who do not have our interests at heart comes from being energy independent and that can be achieved easily in the short term by drilling for our own resources. And in the long term by allowing energy companies to do what energy companies do. Find efficient ways to produce energy. A private industry will always find the most cost effective way to make something happen because we are incentivized by being able to make and keep a profit.
More production of current energy sources as well as R & D for new energy means jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow.
Energy companies today cannot operate the way they used to. there's simply too much public awareness to allow them to go back to the pollutive ways of the past. And our technology in getting to the resources has changed so much that the environmental impact is vastly reduced.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by TGElder

Your estimates on the duration of oil and gas reserves are vastly underrated. We have in the Western Hemisphere, more untapped oil than exists in the entire middle east. Probably 100 to 150 years worth.

So what? That would just mean that the problem is postponed but not solved. Japan is still ahead of developing new technologies. And waiting another hundred years before doing something about it does not make the problem go away. It just shifts it from this generation to the next. And the next generation will have it much harder to keep up with Asia then our generation.

Originally Posted by TGElder

Freedom from foreign dictators who do not have our interests at heart comes from being energy independent and that can be achieved easily in the short term by drilling for our own resources. And in the long term by allowing energy companies to do what energy companies do. Find efficient ways to produce energy. A private industry will always find the most cost effective way to make something happen because we are incentivized by being able to make and keep a profit.

And what when all the oil in the U.S. is consumed? Then you would need foreign oil. And again the problem is just postponed. And again you leave it to the next generation. How noble of you.

Originally Posted by TGElder

More production of current energy sources as well as R & D for new energy means jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow.

Alternative energy sources would produce jobs too while solving the problem that you suggest to postpone.

Originally Posted by TGElder

Energy companies today cannot operate the way they used to. there's simply too much public awareness to allow them to go back to the pollutive ways of the past. And our technology in getting to the resources has changed so much that the environmental impact is vastly reduced.

Now what? First you say regulations are bad and keep these poor sharholders from getting even richer on your costs and the costs of future generations. And now, out of a sudden, you talk about how good public awareness is? Isnt that regulations? What now? Make up your mind, please.

[TheTrekkie]

Originally Posted by TGElder

Your estimates on the duration of oil and gas reserves are vastly underrated. We have in the Western Hemisphere, more untapped oil than exists in the entire middle east. Probably 100 to 150 years worth.

Can u give me a reliable source for these numbers.
As far as I know big, new oil sources, that are accessible with a good cost-benefit ratio, weren't found since the 60s anymore.

However I expect a huge cost-benefit shift the moment they find a more efficient way to save energy from renewable ressources, anyway.

Scientists just have started developing these new technologies. In the past the same often has been said about other technologies that were new. When Star Trek startet nobody could think about computers in every house of every citizen. Computers were too expensive, too big, not efficient enough, yet, they were something for scientist or the military. All of them underestemated the technological progress that made these technologies more and more efficient.

[horatio]

Right now we mainly tax labour and capital income (OK, there are also sales taxes but unless you live from gov.transfers they translate into labour/capital taxes). I guess everyone would agree that working or saving is kind of a good thing. CO2 emissions are a bad thing because they increase the average temperatures and cause damages in some ecosystems of the world. It is worthwile to mention here that already poor continents like Africa will get struck harder than Europe or North America.
So why not reduce the "good taxes" and tax the "bad thing" instead? I really can't make it any simpler.

As I look upon this through the economist's lense, I have to add that every economist I know, liberal or conservative (and I can tell you that there are far more conservative than liberal economists), considers this the #1 externality and market failure which has to be addressed via carbon dioxide taxation or a cap-and-trade system ... not at least because the beauty of such systems is that the costs of climate heating are correctly priced into the market system.

I know that we don't wanna head down the political road here, but isn't it surprising that even the most conservative economists are all for countermeasures against climate change while the resp. political party is not?
You cannot maintain a party only with populism and special interest representation and sans intellectuals. I don't say this because I despise conservatives but because I want conservatism to return to where it was a few decades ago, where conservative thinkers had influence upon party programs.

[Botany Bay]

Originally Posted by horatio

You cannot maintain a party only with populism and special interest representation and sans intellectuals. I don't say this because I despise conservatives but because I want conservatism to return to where it was a few decades ago, where conservative thinkers had influence upon party programs.

As a comment about whats going on among conservatives right now and how it affects the whole debate. The Cold War is over:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2p6q...e=channel_page

And finally, well, the song fits the mood and the clip fits the song as the notion that the Cold War is over and it has Nimoy in it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5e1...eature=related

[MonsieurHood]

Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury

Whoa now, come on this is a debate on Climate Change. I understand that the way things are going might lead us somewhere different, but i wanted this thread to be a debate on Climate change and its scientifical purpose, not Political one. This is what im trying to avoid, because if we get into politics, then things will start to fall apart rapidly. Lets leave politics out on this thread please, thanks.

Excuse me, did I say something political? I want it made perfectly clear that I'm not talking about politics at all. I'm talking about being loving, caring human beings first, before we make some decision based purely on science that we might end up regretting. Going overboard, reacting impulsively, rashly and recklessly in any situation is never a good idea, no matter how dire the situation becomes. Neither should humanity make important decisions based purely on data, numbers and logic, the human factor should always be part of the equasion. That was the point I thought I was trying to make. This isn't about politics, and it wasn't my intention to introduce politics into this discussion, just a clarification.

[TGElder]

Originally Posted by MonsieurHood

What massive and decisive action are we going to take Livingston? Tell me? Ultimately that kind of thinking leads to things better left alone, better left unthought, better left unsaid doesn't it? I could write it here but it might get me banned. We don't do those kinds of things and the few people who did them have the darkest most horrible names in all of history. Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you know who and what I'm talking about? Is that the kind of world you want to live in? A world of fear, a world that has total disregard for all that's hopeful and positive and right? A world without freedom of choice? Where the leaders make THOSE kinds of decisions? Read between the lines. Personally, I'd rather live in a Biodome.

MonsieurHood has a point here.
What radical and massive action would you propose? Most often radical and swift actions lead to uncontrollable results, and failure.
Think about driving your car, it goes off the road, so you panic and jerk the steering wheel. In your attempts to regain control of your car you've just over corrected right into the Peterbuilt coming at you in the opposing lane.
This is exactly what the Global Warming crowd is trring to get us to do. Take some radical action without considering the possible consequences. Actions based on emotion rather than on sound scientific principle, and a well thought out plan.

As stated before. Climate change is normal, it's not something new. Man has little if anything to do with these events. Did Man cause the Ice Ages when he learned how to use fire?
Did Man cause the rivers and lakes in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Nevada when he discovered the New World?
Our planet has a climate that is always in flux. Last year we had drought, this year a surplus of rain. Nature tends to balance things. Don't worry your pretty little heads over it and don't dare try to get BIG BROTHER to try to tell me how to live my life. If I want incandescent bulbs rather that CFL bulbs that's my business. If I choose not to buy a hybrid vehicle that's my business too.

Do these things if it eases your conscience. If you feel guilty for living like average Americans, you could live like the Amish. No phones, no lights, no motorcars....(I'm having a GI flashback).

Just use that organ between your ears for more than keeping your head from collapsing. PLEASE!

[horatio]

OK, you two guys claim that a CO2 tax would be "going overboard, reacting impulsively, rashly and recklessly" and "based on emotion rather than on sound scientific principle".

Let me give you a link to the Stern Report, to my knowledge the most comprehensive economic study so far: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Summ...onclusions.pdf

Doing nothing would lead, according to Stern, to about 5% loss of annual GDP while the costs of countermeasures would be about 1%.
Just like firefighters are cheaper than having no firefighters and letting a house burn down every few months or years, we should do something against climate change because it is cheaper. Losing 1 is less than losing 5.

So much from the brainless "Global Warming crowd". Logic, numbers and reason. Now go on, use newspeak and tell me that 5 is in fact less than 1.

And by the way, please use solid arguments instead of accusing others to not think or be hysteric about global warming. That is no way to lead a polite discussion. As I have said, I have no problem with conservatives if they behave, think and don't resort to cheap populism.