12/15   Finally the global warming fanatics reveal their agenda.
        "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of
        wealth and resources"
        http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/965
        http://csua.org/u/k9c
        \_ Finally?  This isn't news to anyone paying attention to the hoaxers.
        \_ I don't know if I would agree with that, but the people doing the
           most polluting are certainly going to have to find a way to
           pollute less.
           \- "most polluting" is kinda tricky. obviously you have to factor
              in population, but maybe also factor in what the country does.
              although you cant just use portion of world GDP, since if i am
              tasked to produce a billion dollars of billable legal time and
              you are tasked to produce a billion dollars of aluminium, you
              reasonably get more "pollution credits" than i do. also, shouldnt
              say people in quatar or alaska be entitled to use more heating/
              colling energy than say bay area people who just want to be
              cooling energy than say bay area people who just want to be
              \epsilon more comfortable or have a bigger house etc. that's a
              problem of willing-to-pay -> utility -> efficiency analysis ...
              if billg or ALGOR is willing to may more to have their giant
              house go from outside temp of 85 to a comfortable 72 vs a than
              a poor person is willing (able) to pay to go from 36deg to 45deg
              or 110 to 90 for their small space, that doesnt mean the comfort
              of the rich offsets the lives of the poor. how about a spa tax.
              \_ Volume of C0^2 emitted is not that complex an idea. People
                 who live energy intensive lifestyles, whether it involve
                 using lots of aluminum, living in Dubai or Nome or some other
                 not really habitable place, or burning up lots of fuel
                 in long commutes, are probably not going to be able to
                 continue to live like that. The adjustment will be tough,
                 but one way or another it is going to end up happening.
                 \- it's not the science/engineering [volume of co2] that is
                    complicated it's the economics/philosophy/politics.
                    \_ Fair enough. Neither a straight "each citizen is
                       alloted X pollution credits, which they may use or sell
                       as they see fit" nor "each pound of C0^2 gets a one
                       cent tax" solution is likely to be acceptable to
                       enough people to work. But we have figured out ways
                       to stop pollution before, it is not like this is the
                       \- we have solved the problem before *inside a
                          soverign state*, meaning there is a legal process
                          for making decisions, and a legal system for
                          enforcing decisons [property rights, torts etc].
                          the international system is anarchic. and really
                          the problem isnt that well solved inside states.
                          e.g. hypersubsidized water etc. there are some
                          decent articles in the e'ist on problems in the
                          EU pollution trading regime. there is also some
                          good econ theory on when a tax is better and when
                          a cap + trading regime is better. i dont remember
                          the name of the classic paper in this area but i
                          can look it up maybe. it turns a lot on whether
                          the "total target" is well or ill defined, i.e.
                          there are some forms of pollution where "more
                          is worse" but it's fairly smooth. there are
                          other areas where things degrade slowly up to
                          a certain point but then fairly catastrophic
                          things happen, so the marginal cost depends on
                          scale factors.
                       first problem of this type ever. Much sticker is going
                       to be considering the cost and responsibility for past
                       damage to the atmosphere. Who is responsible for all
                       the C0^2 that has already built up and who will pay
                       for cleaning it up? That is a much trickier and more
                       political issue even than reducing current emissions.
                       \_ CO2: we used to call it "air for plants", now we
                          call it "pollution".  It's a scam.
                          \_ its a quantity thing.  In low doses, it's fine.
                             In high doeses it's a problem.
        \_ simplest way to look at it is globl warmnig being caused by people
           taking carbon from the ground,  to eventually be used by their
           customers to put it in the air.  A fee on extraction of in-ground
           energy consumers to take that same carbon out of the ecosystem is
           the most logicaly way to offset that.  That fee could then go to
           operations to get the carbon out of the ecosystem.  Or could go to
           "other parties" -- this is where the wealth redistribution issue
           comes, and obviously not where the money should go.  Taxing the
           problem to pay for 'the poor' is actually going to be counter
           productive -- developing nations are only going to increase their
           energy consumption.
           \_ Temp. rises precede CO2 rises.  CO2 does not cause GW.  CO2 GW
              is a hoax.
           \_ I suppose a more succinct way of saying this is charging the
              'big polluters' a fee to pay to the undeveloped countries is
              stupid and doesn't attack the problem. It exacerbates it by giving
              them capital to develop and become polluters themselves.
              Charging a fee to clean up or mitigate the mess makes more sense.