7/12 This discussion of Sith Lord Rove bores me, so I will query the
motd environmentalists again. Assuming your worst fears about
global warming were true, and you had the license to applications of
power to fix the situation, what would you do? -- ilyas
\_ I blame global warming on capitalism, a system that over-uses
and over-produces goods, plunders precious gifts that our mother
nature gave us just for the selfish goal of pleasure. Hence to
combat global warming, I would first seize power and turn the
entire Earth to communism. Then I'll stop productions on
unnecessary consumer goods and get rid of home ownership so that
the government can issue nearby housing to reduce traffic.
I'll also require everyone to take classes that expose them to
the pleasure of being in-tune with mother nature and to share
resources with the community. I'll offer free birth control to
slow down population growth. I'll offer FREE education to
everyone, a system based solely on meritocracy (no more Ivy
League style admissions). I'll setup a national R&D center that
researches renewable resources. Doing all of the above will reduce
usage of massive raw materials that were once needed in
capitalism, but no longer needed in our new communism. Doing so
will raise the quality of living especially those in 3rd world
countries, but will surely piss off overly spoiled Americans with
whom I'll appease with "Soma" pills.
\_ off the top of my head, I'd venture the following policy changes:
- Stop subsidizing oil in all forms: exploration, processing,
research, etc. This should have the effect of raising the gas
tax affecting supply & demand, as well as affecting all oil
consuming industries.
- For non-oil based global warming pollution, I would implement
something similar: (a) eliminate gov't tax breaks, subsidies,
(b) if that's not enough to dampen emissions, enforce some sort
of emissions protocol similar to kyoto, or perhaps stronger:
something that forces corporations to pay for the real-cost of
polluting, making it an incentive for them to find ways not to
pollute.
- Invest a heavy sum: $10-50 billion dollars into alternative
energy R&D firms: eg. fuel cells, solar, wind, nuclear fusion, ...
- Establish & fund a dept. within EPA concerned with global warming,
and enable it to fund grants studying causes of global warming,
and possible solutions. This latter is critical, as we need more
science about causes and solutions.
- Establish some sort of budgetary allotment for future years to
invest in gov't implementation of the previous two items.
- Engage the U.N. and other countries on emissions treaties like
Kyoto, and push for stricter treaties that encompass all nations,
developing or not. Perhaps meet with developed economies to find
some sort of economic fund to incentivize developing economies.
I don't think we're going to reverse global warming without some
serious pains. The economy will suffer setbacks. The first two
items above will cripple certain industries, but the survivors will
be much stronger companies. The implementation of the first two
may have to be phased in over a short period, to avoid an "imminent"
crippling blow. Even if they weren't, the industries would survive:
(cf. 9/11 & airlines). I need to think more about what to do about
other countries. -nivra
other countries.
\_ The point I am trying to make here is lowering the temperature
a very small fraction \epsilon costs big money (many billions
of dollars). I think treaties like Kyoto are mostly stupid
for this reason. I think a much more reasonable approach
would be to have 'commons rent' for both corporations and
individuals, and funnel the money into R&D that directly
fights the threat. -- ilyas
\_ Yes, but there's a time horizon issue. Any R&D into research
that does what you say (eg. directly remove greenhouse gases
from the atmosphere), and then implementation of said research
solutions has a fairly long time-line. There may be a
critical tipping point, and reducing current emissions, altho
more costly, helps the situation immediately. As an aside,
why would you introduce a "commons rent," rather than a
a direct fee assessed to polluters? Isn't the latter more
libertarian? -nivra
libertarian?
\_ I take a 'commons rent' to mean a general mechanism by which
a fee is assessed from any entity that uses a 'commons,'
proportional to the use of said commons, and which is used
for maintaining that commons and repairing 'use damage.'
I am not sure how that differs from what you are proposing.
I am not using standard terminology, as far as I know
'commons rent' is a term I made up. It is true that
things like Kyoto help things _now_, but that's about the
only saving grace they have. I frankly think they do more
harm than good, regardless of what the whole story on
global warming is. -- ilyas
\_ I take a 'commons rent' to mean a general mechanism by
which a fee is assessed from any entity that uses a
'commons,' proportional to the use of said commons, and
which is used for maintaining that commons and repairing
'use damage.' I am not sure how that differs from what
you are proposing. I am not using standard terminology,
as far as I know 'commons rent' is a term I made up. It
is true that things like Kyoto help things _now_, but
that's about the only saving grace they have. I frankly
think they do more harm than good, regardless of what
the whole story on global warming is. -- ilyas
\_ "proportional to use?" or "proportional to abuse?" Also,
your response fails to address the time horizon issue.
Also, I'm not that sure that "proportional to abuse"
won't be so different from what I proposed above.
Removing tax breaks and trying to implement some sort
of "real-cost" accountability program for polluters
is similar. Anytime you implement real-cost solutions,
industry will be hit, and this will help supply & dem.
to limit current emissions. -nivra
\_ I think the general commons problem is too complex to
treat here. My intuition is that 'abuse' should not
be treated by economic means. If someone hoses the
commons so much that NOBODY can get any use out of it,
it doesn't seem like assessing rent is the
commons so much that NOBODY can get any use out of
it, it doesn't seem like assessing rent is the
appropriate response. At any rate, leaving those
issues aside, you can get a lot of use out of
'commons rent' for reasonable use. 'Abusing' the
environment would be like setting off nukes for
profit. At this point you start putting people in
prison. -- ilyas
\_ fine. But the current situation has "abuse."
Certain corporations are polluting greenhouse
gases to a proportion way more than other
corporations and invididuals.
corporations and invididuals. -nivra
\_ So there is a line between 'use' and 'abuse.'
For me, 'abuse' is when you hose things so much
it interferes with others using the commons.
I take it you want to
other countries.
libertarian?
I am not using a standard terminology, as far as I know
'commons rent' is a term I made up. -- ilyas
I take it your perception of the dividing line
has something to do with your intuition you have
to charge more than proportional rent from
'big users,' per the usual liberal
has something to do with your intuition you
have to charge more than proportional rent
from 'big users,' per the usual liberal
progressiveness. -- ilyas
\_ no. proportional is entirely fair. The key
is how you calculate it. Truly proportional
commons rent would be a fantastic idea. The
major environmental problems we have today
are due to exploitation of public resources
by a few individuals/corporations who are
not paying anything close to "proportional"
costs for the public resources they utilize.
Some (not me, b/c I haven't looked into it
enough) may argue that current emissions
have already crossed the line from "use"
into "abuse." The earth has a sustainable
level of greenhouse gases it can support
in the atmosphere above and beyond what
would naturally be present if no human
emissions occurred. However, enormous
levels of emissions beyond this sustainable
level has "hosed things so much" that
everyone has to curb back emissions in
order to avoid hosing the earth as we know
it. -nivra
\_ We're all bored of you too, ilyas.
\_ Raise gasoline tax rate to 100%.
\_ Unleash my gasoline-eating nano-bots in the oil-wells.
\_ Sacrifice a half-wit libertarian to the earth goddess.
\_ seclude myself in an island paradise with a bevy of maidservants
to meditate upon the solution
\_ I'd split the US into two. The Union and the Confederate. All
the Confederates can do what they've always wanted, like making
abortion illegal, repeal ALL firearms control for unlimited
rights to use use and carry assault rifles/grenades/artillery
units, putting gays and lesbians into re-education internment
camps, give extra tax incentives for the expansion of our
new government (Walmart), legalize shooting and killing
immigrants, and most importantly, legalize incest.
The Union on the other hand should do what they've always
wanted, like raising tax back to ~60% like the pre-Reagan
social-communist era, legalizing gay marriage & marijuana,
and encouraging sodomy on public media.
\_ I'd split the US into 2 and put all the dumbass stereotype
spitting morons like you on an island and the rest of us could
get on with life.
\_ As President of the United States, I would say that the scientific
consensus is that a significant proportion of the warming of the
earth in the last 100 years is from humanity's emission of
greenhouse gases. I would say that a small minority of established
scientists believes that this is not true.
As such, I would like to work with developed and developing
countries toward creating a progressive but fair energy policy,
mindful of both the current situation and future predictions of who
will be contributing the most to global warming.
mindful of both current and future predictions of who will
be contributing to global warming.
This is in contrast to Dubya's position in which he puts the small
minority ahead of the scientific consensus.
[Yeah, I'm setting tone, not really spelling out a plan, but isn't
that what Dubya does?]
\_ I would lie and dissemble and try to twist the facts to the point
that the public was paralyzed into inaction. Then I would hope
and pray I died before the problem really came to light and pass
it on to the next generation for them to fix with their superior
technology. Hey, I should get me a job with the White House!
\_ Wow ilyas. You have superior troll fu. I salute you!
\_ Terra-form mars - we need to get off this planet quick. I'd
increase funding for fusion and matter-antimater research b/c
we need Zefram Cochrane to invent warp drive and save humanity.
\- the "if you were king" phrasing is sort of silly. what makes
the difficult are the structural issues that make coordination/
cooperation hard. i would make pol pot type arbitrary
cooperation difficult. i would make pol pot type arbitrary
decisions about what rights to give to people.
\_ I wouldn't. Enlightened dictatorship is a dangerous fantasy.
The 'if you were king' is a meaningful question about what
one would want in an ideal situation. This gives me information
\_ I hope you weren't serious about that last part. -- ilyas
\- i sort of am. if i became king of the earth, on a bad day
i'd probably be more like saloth sar/pol pot than say the
sultan of brunei or stalin or your avg african kleptocrat.
\_ Yeah, terraforming mars would be so much easier than cleaning
up Earth.
\_ How lame. So you are going to pattern yourself after
a butcher. Good for you, Mr. Kantian. Anyways, this
is probably why !psb is a perennial candidate. -- ilyas
\- well i am distinguishing between various butchers.
my point was i would probably put various people
to death for "decadence". actually i would have
then tomented via "symbolic restribution" and then
maybe put them to death.
\_ If you are distinguishing between various butchers
you, once again, are missing the point. By your
own description, the only thing stopping you from
monstrosity is the threat of violence. In other
words, you are immoral. -- ilyas
\- i am not defending this as moral but if i
were king, i would put many decadent cockroachs
to death and torment.
\_ Go you...
\_ I would use the Swift Sword of Death. -geordan |
http://csua.com/feed/