|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 23 2013 02:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:57 radiatoren wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:45 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:
With the same process ? Fluids ? At the same rate ? In the same areas ? Please man, please. The processes have improved from both efficiency and safety standpoints. Same with the fluids. What's your point? Can you prove that ? Because I thought one of the main problem was that the composition of the fluids were highly protected by the private compagnies to a point where we can't say what's in them. Also, you didn't respond the "rate" and "area". I don't know what you mean by "rate." Fracking obviously is occurring more frequently now than it has in the past. By definition, it is also occurring in new areas. The fracking fluid is a red herring. It's not the potential problem (which is why oil company CEO's chug it at PR events). The problem is if the hydrocarbons escape the well and the casing and leak into the groundwater. Not when it has returned to the surface, they don't... Which is why I said that the fracking fluid is a red herring. The stuff that the fracking fluid brings up (the hydrocarbons) is the problem.
Can't see how it is not a problem with fracking that the fluid dissolves and brings to the surface problematic stuff. I might have been more clear about my point hinging on the flowback, but ultimately the fluid used is what is dissolving the problematic stuff.
Edit: And just to be clear: Problematic stuff is much more than hydrocarbons. Radon and brominated methanes are pretty significant known problems too. Other problems are probably present too, but less than 20 years of experience with thousands or millions of new liquid compositions, is a short period to evaluate their ability to bring back pollutants.
|
On November 23 2013 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. Pretty easy, if the market were perfects, their profit would be less since they would be forced to pay the polluted to pollute them (if the externality was internalized in the market, which is exactly the goal of a carbon tax). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer. No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit. It's all theory anyway.
Consumers wouldn't gain through taxation. They'd gain if the government redistributed the tax revenue (I'm admittedly being picky here), but that ignores the higher prices due to less supply.
You can certainly make an argument that consumers, on net, would benefit from higher prices and less pollution, but that's more of an allocation story than a rent seeking one.
|
On November 23 2013 03:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:58 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:57 radiatoren wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:45 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:
With the same process ? Fluids ? At the same rate ? In the same areas ? Please man, please. The processes have improved from both efficiency and safety standpoints. Same with the fluids. What's your point? Can you prove that ? Because I thought one of the main problem was that the composition of the fluids were highly protected by the private compagnies to a point where we can't say what's in them. Also, you didn't respond the "rate" and "area". I don't know what you mean by "rate." Fracking obviously is occurring more frequently now than it has in the past. By definition, it is also occurring in new areas. The fracking fluid is a red herring. It's not the potential problem (which is why oil company CEO's chug it at PR events). The problem is if the hydrocarbons escape the well and the casing and leak into the groundwater. Not when it has returned to the surface, they don't... Which is why I said that the fracking fluid is a red herring. The stuff that the fracking fluid brings up (the hydrocarbons) is the problem. Then there is a problem ? Also, I said rate and area, because (to my knowledge) the problem fracking may cause depend on the caracteristics and the composition of the soil.
I'm not an expert in drilling or geology, but the soil composition shouldn't matter as long as its stable enough to hold a well. Keep in mind that we're drilling 5,000 - 10,000+ feet below the surface. The well casing prevents the extracted hydrocarbons from leaking between the deposit location and the surface.
|
On November 23 2013 03:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means.
All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. Pretty easy, if the market were perfects, their profit would be less since they would be forced to pay the polluted to pollute them (if the externality was internalized in the market, which is exactly the goal of a carbon tax). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer. No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit. It's all theory anyway. Consumers wouldn't gain through taxation. They'd gain if the government redistributed the tax revenue (I'm admittedly being picky here), but that ignores the higher prices due to less supply. You can certainly make an argument that consumers, on net, would benefit from higher prices and less pollution, but that's more of an allocation story than a rent seeking one.
You're being picky yeah.
If we talked about reality, it is absolutly wrong on my part : we would consume part of the revenue of the taxation just to collect the revenue, information would be imperfect (so the taxation rate would be sub optimal), etc. So yes, you can give a lot of counter arguments to my point.
But it has no interest for me in this argument : I was just comparing our world with a perfect one to show up that, in a perfect one, we could perfectly internalize the externality through a tax, a fact that would instantly push the price up of all the productions responsible of pollutions, and that would give advantage to less polluting compagnies. It was just a mean to show that there is indeed an excess profit made by the compagnies who pollute.
|
On November 23 2013 02:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:52 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. Were we really talking about policies on pollution, or the truth? I mean do you care about the truth, or just your allegiance to the status quo? You admit that pollution is bad, so that's progress of a kind. Small note but weren't hippies weren't already eco-friendly? I'm not even sure where the going off the rails is, can you point that out in my post? I still need to see your evidence that the masses have made gains from being diseased and harmed by pollution.And have you yet to read the scientific articles linked? Seems like you're the only one spewing BS. On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand.
I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. I don't think you can put a price tag on human life. Call me old fashioned. Call me pro-life even. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice. If you really want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should get rid of all of your possessions and live at a subsistence level with some indigenous people somewhere. My wife was listening to NPR last night, and they were talking about what sounds like a very nice island in the middle of the tropical pacific that has about 1,500 people who happily live on a communal, subsistence basis. I'm sure that you'd fit right in there -- at least until man made global warming submerges the island.
If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you wouldn't be using that petty old argument to deflect actual valid points.
|
On November 23 2013 03:11 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. Were we really talking about policies on pollution, or the truth? I mean do you care about the truth, or just your allegiance to the status quo? You admit that pollution is bad, so that's progress of a kind. Small note but weren't hippies weren't already eco-friendly? I'm not even sure where the going off the rails is, can you point that out in my post? I still need to see your evidence that the masses have made gains from being diseased and harmed by pollution.And have you yet to read the scientific articles linked? Seems like you're the only one spewing BS. On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. I don't think you can put a price tag on human life. Call me old fashioned. Call me pro-life even. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice. If you really want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should get rid of all of your possessions and live at a subsistence level with some indigenous people somewhere. My wife was listening to NPR last night, and they were talking about what sounds like a very nice island in the middle of the tropical pacific that has about 1,500 people who happily live on a communal, subsistence basis. I'm sure that you'd fit right in there -- at least until man made global warming submerges the island. If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you wouldn't be using that petty old argument to deflect actual valid points.
I don't hate myself enough to attempt to rationally argue about the merits of white/rich guilt and making reparations to people that have been "exploited" by my lifestyle.
|
On November 23 2013 03:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:11 Talin wrote:On November 23 2013 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. Were we really talking about policies on pollution, or the truth? I mean do you care about the truth, or just your allegiance to the status quo? You admit that pollution is bad, so that's progress of a kind. Small note but weren't hippies weren't already eco-friendly? I'm not even sure where the going off the rails is, can you point that out in my post? I still need to see your evidence that the masses have made gains from being diseased and harmed by pollution.And have you yet to read the scientific articles linked? Seems like you're the only one spewing BS. On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means.
All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. I don't think you can put a price tag on human life. Call me old fashioned. Call me pro-life even. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice. If you really want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should get rid of all of your possessions and live at a subsistence level with some indigenous people somewhere. My wife was listening to NPR last night, and they were talking about what sounds like a very nice island in the middle of the tropical pacific that has about 1,500 people who happily live on a communal, subsistence basis. I'm sure that you'd fit right in there -- at least until man made global warming submerges the island. If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you wouldn't be using that petty old argument to deflect actual valid points. I don't hate myself enough to attempt to rationally argue about the merits of white/rich guilt and making reparations to people that have been "exploited" by my lifestyle.
Finally a bit of honesty, thank you.
|
On November 23 2013 03:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:11 Talin wrote:On November 23 2013 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. Were we really talking about policies on pollution, or the truth? I mean do you care about the truth, or just your allegiance to the status quo? You admit that pollution is bad, so that's progress of a kind. Small note but weren't hippies weren't already eco-friendly? I'm not even sure where the going off the rails is, can you point that out in my post? I still need to see your evidence that the masses have made gains from being diseased and harmed by pollution.And have you yet to read the scientific articles linked? Seems like you're the only one spewing BS. On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means.
All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. I don't think you can put a price tag on human life. Call me old fashioned. Call me pro-life even. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice. If you really want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should get rid of all of your possessions and live at a subsistence level with some indigenous people somewhere. My wife was listening to NPR last night, and they were talking about what sounds like a very nice island in the middle of the tropical pacific that has about 1,500 people who happily live on a communal, subsistence basis. I'm sure that you'd fit right in there -- at least until man made global warming submerges the island. If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you wouldn't be using that petty old argument to deflect actual valid points. I don't hate myself enough to attempt to rationally argue about the merits of white/rich guilt and making reparations to people that have been "exploited" by my lifestyle.
It's not about hating, it's about being responsible, and about caring for others.
|
On November 23 2013 03:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:11 Talin wrote:On November 23 2013 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. Were we really talking about policies on pollution, or the truth? I mean do you care about the truth, or just your allegiance to the status quo? You admit that pollution is bad, so that's progress of a kind. Small note but weren't hippies weren't already eco-friendly? I'm not even sure where the going off the rails is, can you point that out in my post? I still need to see your evidence that the masses have made gains from being diseased and harmed by pollution.And have you yet to read the scientific articles linked? Seems like you're the only one spewing BS. On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means.
All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. I don't think you can put a price tag on human life. Call me old fashioned. Call me pro-life even. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice. If you really want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should get rid of all of your possessions and live at a subsistence level with some indigenous people somewhere. My wife was listening to NPR last night, and they were talking about what sounds like a very nice island in the middle of the tropical pacific that has about 1,500 people who happily live on a communal, subsistence basis. I'm sure that you'd fit right in there -- at least until man made global warming submerges the island. If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you wouldn't be using that petty old argument to deflect actual valid points. I don't hate myself enough to attempt to rationally argue about the merits of white/rich guilt and making reparations to people that have been "exploited" by my lifestyle.
because you are lost in the commodity fetish
|
On November 23 2013 03:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 03:11 Talin wrote:On November 23 2013 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. Were we really talking about policies on pollution, or the truth? I mean do you care about the truth, or just your allegiance to the status quo? You admit that pollution is bad, so that's progress of a kind. Small note but weren't hippies weren't already eco-friendly? I'm not even sure where the going off the rails is, can you point that out in my post? I still need to see your evidence that the masses have made gains from being diseased and harmed by pollution.And have you yet to read the scientific articles linked? Seems like you're the only one spewing BS. On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. I don't think you can put a price tag on human life. Call me old fashioned. Call me pro-life even. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice. If you really want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should get rid of all of your possessions and live at a subsistence level with some indigenous people somewhere. My wife was listening to NPR last night, and they were talking about what sounds like a very nice island in the middle of the tropical pacific that has about 1,500 people who happily live on a communal, subsistence basis. I'm sure that you'd fit right in there -- at least until man made global warming submerges the island. If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you wouldn't be using that petty old argument to deflect actual valid points. I don't hate myself enough to attempt to rationally argue about the merits of white/rich guilt and making reparations to people that have been "exploited" by my lifestyle. because you are lost in the commodity fetish
GUILTY AS CHARGED.
|
On November 23 2013 03:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:16 sam!zdat wrote:On November 23 2013 03:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 03:11 Talin wrote:On November 23 2013 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. Were we really talking about policies on pollution, or the truth? I mean do you care about the truth, or just your allegiance to the status quo? You admit that pollution is bad, so that's progress of a kind. Small note but weren't hippies weren't already eco-friendly? I'm not even sure where the going off the rails is, can you point that out in my post? I still need to see your evidence that the masses have made gains from being diseased and harmed by pollution.And have you yet to read the scientific articles linked? Seems like you're the only one spewing BS. On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. I don't think you can put a price tag on human life. Call me old fashioned. Call me pro-life even. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice. If you really want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should get rid of all of your possessions and live at a subsistence level with some indigenous people somewhere. My wife was listening to NPR last night, and they were talking about what sounds like a very nice island in the middle of the tropical pacific that has about 1,500 people who happily live on a communal, subsistence basis. I'm sure that you'd fit right in there -- at least until man made global warming submerges the island. If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you wouldn't be using that petty old argument to deflect actual valid points. I don't hate myself enough to attempt to rationally argue about the merits of white/rich guilt and making reparations to people that have been "exploited" by my lifestyle. because you are lost in the commodity fetish GUILTY AS CHARGED.
"je sais bien... mais quand meme..."
they know what they are doing, and still... they are doing it
|
On November 23 2013 03:15 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 03:11 Talin wrote:On November 23 2013 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. Were we really talking about policies on pollution, or the truth? I mean do you care about the truth, or just your allegiance to the status quo? You admit that pollution is bad, so that's progress of a kind. Small note but weren't hippies weren't already eco-friendly? I'm not even sure where the going off the rails is, can you point that out in my post? I still need to see your evidence that the masses have made gains from being diseased and harmed by pollution.And have you yet to read the scientific articles linked? Seems like you're the only one spewing BS. On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. I don't think you can put a price tag on human life. Call me old fashioned. Call me pro-life even. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice. If you really want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should get rid of all of your possessions and live at a subsistence level with some indigenous people somewhere. My wife was listening to NPR last night, and they were talking about what sounds like a very nice island in the middle of the tropical pacific that has about 1,500 people who happily live on a communal, subsistence basis. I'm sure that you'd fit right in there -- at least until man made global warming submerges the island. If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you wouldn't be using that petty old argument to deflect actual valid points. I don't hate myself enough to attempt to rationally argue about the merits of white/rich guilt and making reparations to people that have been "exploited" by my lifestyle. Finally a bit of honesty, thank you.
What do you mean by "finally?" Spend enough time reviewing and understanding my posts, and you'll see that I'm always honest.
|
By the way, is anyone else seeing pro-fracking ads show up on TL now?
I'd rather see the Asian hookers.
|
On November 23 2013 03:17 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:16 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 03:16 sam!zdat wrote:On November 23 2013 03:14 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 03:11 Talin wrote:On November 23 2013 02:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. Were we really talking about policies on pollution, or the truth? I mean do you care about the truth, or just your allegiance to the status quo? You admit that pollution is bad, so that's progress of a kind. Small note but weren't hippies weren't already eco-friendly? I'm not even sure where the going off the rails is, can you point that out in my post? I still need to see your evidence that the masses have made gains from being diseased and harmed by pollution.And have you yet to read the scientific articles linked? Seems like you're the only one spewing BS. On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution.
Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. I don't think you can put a price tag on human life. Call me old fashioned. Call me pro-life even. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice. If you really want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should get rid of all of your possessions and live at a subsistence level with some indigenous people somewhere. My wife was listening to NPR last night, and they were talking about what sounds like a very nice island in the middle of the tropical pacific that has about 1,500 people who happily live on a communal, subsistence basis. I'm sure that you'd fit right in there -- at least until man made global warming submerges the island. If you wanted to be intellectually honest, you wouldn't be using that petty old argument to deflect actual valid points. I don't hate myself enough to attempt to rationally argue about the merits of white/rich guilt and making reparations to people that have been "exploited" by my lifestyle. because you are lost in the commodity fetish GUILTY AS CHARGED. "je sais bien... mais quand meme..." they know what they are doing, and still... they are doing it
Aren't we all in this "commodity fetish"? I'm going to assume all of us live in a house that consumes a lot of energy, use a lot of water, and don't really do much to avoid using products that are harmful for the environment (for example, buying products that are made out of oil, or electronic devices that make use of metals that are gathered by miners in really harsh conditions (coltan), etc...). I know I'm not being fair, it's just a supposition, and by "we", I mean society as a whole, not just TL.
Therefore, aren't we all to blame? And if not, why? (Except for those who actually try really hard to be eco-friendly)
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism
edit: but yeah. we all consume too much because we are living in a fantasy land on borrowed time and our entire economy is based on huge externalities. we need to impose harsh taxation on unsustainable consumption. but that's politically impossible in a 'democracy,' and so we are doomed.
|
On November 23 2013 03:09 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. Pretty easy, if the market were perfects, their profit would be less since they would be forced to pay the polluted to pollute them (if the externality was internalized in the market, which is exactly the goal of a carbon tax). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer. No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit. It's all theory anyway. Consumers wouldn't gain through taxation. They'd gain if the government redistributed the tax revenue (I'm admittedly being picky here), but that ignores the higher prices due to less supply. You can certainly make an argument that consumers, on net, would benefit from higher prices and less pollution, but that's more of an allocation story than a rent seeking one. You're being picky yeah. If we talked about reality, it is absolutly wrong on my part : we would consume part of the revenue of the taxation just to collect the revenue, information would be imperfect, etc. But it has no interest for me in this argument : I was just comparing our world with a perfect one to show up that, in a perfect one, the externality would pass through the market, a fact that would instantly push the price up of all the productions responsible of pollutions, and that would give advantage to less polluting compagnies. It was just a mean to show that there is indeed an excess profit made by the industrial compagnies.
Well we should be allocated more into less polluting industries. To me that's more of a society has an allocation issue than a private profit / public loss issue. Polluting firms should be more into less polluting production than they are now (but just as profitable) rather than polluting firms operating at a market loss and being bailed out by society.
|
On November 23 2013 03:21 xDaunt wrote:
By the way, is anyone else seeing pro-fracking ads show up on TL now?
I'd rather see the Asian hookers.
I got bicycle ads, but that's probably because I'm a filthy communist eco-hippie. 
|
On November 23 2013 03:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:09 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 03:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. Pretty easy, if the market were perfects, their profit would be less since they would be forced to pay the polluted to pollute them (if the externality was internalized in the market, which is exactly the goal of a carbon tax). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer. No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit. It's all theory anyway. Consumers wouldn't gain through taxation. They'd gain if the government redistributed the tax revenue (I'm admittedly being picky here), but that ignores the higher prices due to less supply. You can certainly make an argument that consumers, on net, would benefit from higher prices and less pollution, but that's more of an allocation story than a rent seeking one. You're being picky yeah. If we talked about reality, it is absolutly wrong on my part : we would consume part of the revenue of the taxation just to collect the revenue, information would be imperfect, etc. But it has no interest for me in this argument : I was just comparing our world with a perfect one to show up that, in a perfect one, the externality would pass through the market, a fact that would instantly push the price up of all the productions responsible of pollutions, and that would give advantage to less polluting compagnies. It was just a mean to show that there is indeed an excess profit made by the industrial compagnies. Well we should be allocated more into less polluting industries. To me that's more of a society has an allocation issue than a private profit / public loss issue. Polluting firms should be more into less polluting production than they are now (but just as profitable) rather than polluting firms operating at a market loss and being bailed out by society.
Isn't that the same ? It's an allocation issue that result in a loss of well being for the consumer and an excess profit for the polluting industries (and a loss for less polluting industries).
|
On November 23 2013 03:55 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 03:09 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 03:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution.
Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. Pretty easy, if the market were perfects, their profit would be less since they would be forced to pay the polluted to pollute them (if the externality was internalized in the market, which is exactly the goal of a carbon tax). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer. No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit. It's all theory anyway. Consumers wouldn't gain through taxation. They'd gain if the government redistributed the tax revenue (I'm admittedly being picky here), but that ignores the higher prices due to less supply. You can certainly make an argument that consumers, on net, would benefit from higher prices and less pollution, but that's more of an allocation story than a rent seeking one. You're being picky yeah. If we talked about reality, it is absolutly wrong on my part : we would consume part of the revenue of the taxation just to collect the revenue, information would be imperfect, etc. But it has no interest for me in this argument : I was just comparing our world with a perfect one to show up that, in a perfect one, the externality would pass through the market, a fact that would instantly push the price up of all the productions responsible of pollutions, and that would give advantage to less polluting compagnies. It was just a mean to show that there is indeed an excess profit made by the industrial compagnies. Well we should be allocated more into less polluting industries. To me that's more of a society has an allocation issue than a private profit / public loss issue. Polluting firms should be more into less polluting production than they are now (but just as profitable) rather than polluting firms operating at a market loss and being bailed out by society. Isn't that the same ? It's an allocation issue that result in a loss of well being for the consumer and an excess profit for the polluting industries and a loss for less polluting process.
With "privatize the gains, socialize the losses" you are complaining about a head I win, tails you lose situation. If a TBTF bank does good they get to keep the profits. If a TBTF bank does bad they get bailed out.
That's a bit different from pollution. If you raise pollution standards the polluter goes out of business or at least takes a loss on the polluting activity.
Moreover, with pollution you are talking about a society changing its preference from industrial development to a cleaner environment. With TBTF society is complaining about a burden it never wanted.
|
On November 23 2013 03:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 03:09 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 03:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:42 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon. Pretty easy, if the market were perfects, their profit would be less since they would be forced to pay the polluted to pollute them (if the externality was internalized in the market, which is exactly the goal of a carbon tax). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer. No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit. It's all theory anyway. Consumers wouldn't gain through taxation. They'd gain if the government redistributed the tax revenue (I'm admittedly being picky here), but that ignores the higher prices due to less supply. You can certainly make an argument that consumers, on net, would benefit from higher prices and less pollution, but that's more of an allocation story than a rent seeking one. You're being picky yeah. If we talked about reality, it is absolutly wrong on my part : we would consume part of the revenue of the taxation just to collect the revenue, information would be imperfect, etc. But it has no interest for me in this argument : I was just comparing our world with a perfect one to show up that, in a perfect one, the externality would pass through the market, a fact that would instantly push the price up of all the productions responsible of pollutions, and that would give advantage to less polluting compagnies. It was just a mean to show that there is indeed an excess profit made by the industrial compagnies. Well we should be allocated more into less polluting industries. To me that's more of a society has an allocation issue than a private profit / public loss issue. Polluting firms should be more into less polluting production than they are now (but just as profitable) rather than polluting firms operating at a market loss and being bailed out by society.
This will never happen without government involvement. People will buy their electricity from the cheapest possible source. If that is fucking filthy coal plants, they will buy it there. Industry will maximize short-term profit, which is in those very same filthy coal plants. Very few people will calculate the ACTUAL cost (whatever that is... but taking into account the pollutants being belched into the air), realize that it is higher than some cleaner energy source and use that instead. This has two reasons:
1. People optimize short-term, not long-term... so if something has immediate costs RIGHT NOW, and the other has (higher) costs far away, but the costs right now are lower, they will almost certainly choose the latter option. There are numerous experiments from behavioural game theory backing this up.
2. If scientists and governments cannot reach a consensus on the price of pollution, how can you expect individual actors in the market to?
The best option is thus for the government to interfere and (somehow) tax pollution at a value that incentivizes industry to invest in cleaner technologies. Yes, that will make everything more expensive, and thus indirectly taxes the consumers. However, the government could invest that money in R&D of greener technology as well, thus giving a double-sided boost to green energy, and hopefully bringing the price down again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
