...you heard right..Carbon Dioxide..the stuff we breathe out.

Quote :

"If the environmental agency determines that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act, it would set off one of the most extensive regulatory rule makings in history. Even some who favor an aggressive approach to climate change said they were wary of the agency’s asserting exclusive authority over carbon emissions. They say that the Clean Air Act, now more than 40 years old, was not designed to regulate ubiquitous substances like carbon dioxide Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who has long championed the interests of the auto industry, said that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the E.P.A. would set off a “glorious mess” that would resonate throughout the economy. Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, warned Ms. Jackson during her January confirmation hearing that she should not undercut Congress’s authority by using the agency’s regulatory power to address global warming. "

Hey let's finish off the economy trying to 'fix' the man-made global warming hoax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19epa.html

2/19/2009 10:29:03 PM

Slipperly slope, next thing you know they are going to tax us for breathing... err exhaling...

2/19/2009 10:37:54 PM

If they're that concerned, they should just use their "Finding Unnecessary Shit To Complain About" budget to plant some trees.

2/19/2009 10:45:57 PM

i wish house Dems would step back, take a breath, and try one thing at a time. Rather than try to cram through countless bills and issues that they can finally pass now that they have a majority.

Seeking into the depths of a recession may not be the best time to pass a new emissions bill to regulate CO2.

2/19/2009 11:00:38 PM

Damn that Supreme Court!! *feign outrage*

In other news they should clamp down on other, and imo more crucial, pollutants such as mercury, pesticide runoff, light and sound.

You also have to realize that regulating something doesn't mean limiting it. Plus, once hypercapitalists get back in charge they will either reverse this or use it to loosen up the regulations that they will be practically ineffective.

2/20/2009 12:18:56 AM

Hooray for politics overtaking science.

Christ Almighty, I just want to drink myself into a coma at this point.

2/20/2009 2:30:02 AM

Quote :

"Hey let's finish off the economy trying to 'fix' the man-made global warming hoax"

Come one Earthdogg, we libertarians can't teach future generations of children the virtues of individual liberty if there are no future generations of children. Protecting the environment should be done through private property rights, but wherever that fails, immediate action is needed because ecosystem damage can be nearly permanent or permanent. (some call me a "green libertarian", although that party actually exists and I'm not sure I fit in completely with them)

environment >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual liberty >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just about everything else

Also, you seemed to be joking, but I'd fucking love if this "finished off the economy". Companies need to fail. If this helps them -- great. Second, the "man-made global warming hoax" is not a hoax. There will be no debate over this. Cite whatever you want.
THE FACT REMAINS THAT HUMANS CAUSED THESE CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE THROUGH THEIR POLLUTING ACTIONS. PERIOD.
I can't believe so many of you are so fucking stupid as to jump on the "no regulation is good" "man-made global warming hoax" bandwagon.
Fucking pathetic.

Quote :

"hypercapitalists"

These are the fuckers that make capitalism look bad. Fuck them.

Quote :

"In other news they should clamp down on other, and imo more crucial, pollutants such as mercury, pesticide runoff, light and sound."

Agreed.

[Edited on February 20, 2009 at 7:46 AM. Reason : ]

2/20/2009 7:30:34 AM

Clearly, CO2 is to blame for everything! CO2 accounts for 0.038% of the total atmosphere. The human CO2 emissions, being around 3% of 0.038%, are not much more than 1 part per 100,000 parts of the atmosphere. This is ridiculous.



What a joke. There are real environmental issues to worry about, not BS like this. Just wait fellas, a CO2 emissions tax for your vehicles (and probably lawnmower?) is on the way...

[Edited on February 20, 2009 at 9:57 AM. Reason : ]

2/20/2009 9:56:26 AM

Quote :

"immediate action is needed because ecosystem damage can be nearly permanent or permanent"

I know!! We've got to do something about all that water vapor in the air. It's the most abundant greenhouse gas.

Stop Water Vapor Now!

2/20/2009 11:15:57 AM

Quote :

"they should clamp down on other, and imo more crucial, pollutants such as mercury, pesticide runoff, light and sound"

I also agree


I imagine any regulating that they do will have some form of that cap and trade system a lot of people were hyping up. It will end up being just another way for some businesses to make money.
I mean, since american companies dont actually produce manufactured goods anymore, they need to find something they do produce that they can trade and profit from.

2/20/2009 11:31:00 AM

Okay, really, just curious here; for those who are arguing that AGW is a hoax, what exactly is the objection, here? That the Greenhouse Effect is wrong? I think CO2's response to trapping reflected rays from the Sun have been pretty well-demonstrated: I mean, we have an entire planet (Venus) if you're still skeptical.

So, what then? The small concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere? We have plenty of records of different climates from millions of years ago when the CO2 concentration was different. So... are those wrong? Are the ice cores wrong?

Or is the objection the order-of-magnitude problem - i.e., the amount of carbon put into the air by human activities must be small compared to the amount already there? But what about the fact that we've been doing this in large scale for the last 150 years, with a rapid acceleration of this process in the last 100?

To wit: other things we put in the air - like NOx - are relatively small in concentration relative to the atmosphere too. But does anyone deny the existence of smog, or the human component thereof?

And before you jump all over me - I'm not denying the fact that there's a huge control agenda behind many pushing remedies to the problem right now - there very much so is. But what it means is that it calls for better remedies, not writing the whole phenomena off as a ruse.

2/20/2009 11:58:21 AM

Yeah, it's embarrassing to me that a significant portion of people who graduated from my school steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the obvious link between carbon dioxide and global warming.

2/20/2009 12:50:13 PM

Do people honestly think that we can take trillions of barrels of oil and entire mountain ranges worth of coal and release them into the air and it will have no effect on world climate? To think so is an obscene premise.

Its like a worldwide lack of juvenile object permanence. Just because you burn things doesn't mean they just go up to Jesusland and disappear.

2/20/2009 1:44:18 PM

^

2/20/2009 2:00:09 PM

I'm sort of on the fence with global warming, in the sense that I'm not really sure what the truth is. All of the predictions are based on climate models, something I don't fully understand. I suspect that many of the people out there claiming absolute certainty about global warming don't fully understand it, either. I'm just not convinced one way or the other. I've seen thousands of graphs showing information that could support either view. It's impossible to know if information/predictions is/are legitimate. Global warming has become less like science, and more like religion, where people are told "don't ask questions, there's a consensus. Just believe, because we told you to believe!"

I hate to be ignorant, but the truth on global warming just doesn't seem to be as cut and dry as other matters of science. Maybe if I were to read all of the published material on global warming, I could have a better understanding of it. I know that most people haven't, yet they profess complete knowledge.

2/20/2009 3:09:56 PM

Quote :

"Do people honestly think that we can take trillions of barrels of oil and entire mountain ranges worth of coal and release them into the air and it will have no effect on world climate? To think so is an obscene premise."

2/20/2009 3:18:57 PM

lulz

the solution to pollution is dilution

2/20/2009 3:24:00 PM

Quote :

"Do people honestly think that we can take trillions of barrels of oil and entire mountain ranges worth of coal and release them into the air and it will have no effect on world climate? To think so is an obscene premise."

I'm not saying that it won't. It's obvious that we're producing a shitload more CO2 and cutting down a substantial amount of forest. That's bad. Is it the only cause of climate change? I don't know, and you don't either. Just because it has an effect on the climate doesn't mean it's the only cause, that it's a substantial problem, or that we can realistically do anything about it.

2/20/2009 3:54:35 PM

Quote :

"Hooray for science overtaking politics."

Fixed that for ya, Grumpy.

2/20/2009 4:55:35 PM

Quote :

"Do people honestly think that we can take trillions of barrels of oil and entire mountain ranges worth of coal and release them into the air and it will have no effect on world climate? To think so is an obscene premise."

2/20/2009 5:00:34 PM

I mean, our houses aren't covered with soot when we wake up each morning, where do you think its all going?

2/20/2009 6:02:04 PM

I'm going to ask a question I am legitimately ignorant about since this seems like it might be the thread to do so: let's say that climate change is caused by human activity (as it is). What exactly is the laizzes-faire solution to that problem? I saw that, at least to some extent, Reason mag said they accept CC, but how is it possible to meet the proper targets for reduciton of greenhouse gasses without actually establishing targets in the first place? I'm legitimately ignorant of this.

2/20/2009 6:21:50 PM

Quote :

"What exactly is the laizzes-faire solution to that problem?"

the pure free-market solution to this is that company's actions will change when people stop doing business with them, presumably because people do not agree with the company's environmental policies or because the environmental results of the company's actions become so grave or obvious that people simply will not patronize them.

There are several problems with this, though. off the top of my head (this could be fleshed out much, much more):
1) often the results or consequences of the actions are not felt immediately or imminently. Climate Change is a long term problem that requires a forward-thinking solution. If the main consequences of heavy pollution in the form of climate change aren't felt for 50 years, then people or company's won't take immediate action without government or regulatory intervention. This boils down to "we'd better do something before it's too late". i.e. if it takes Manhattan to be covered in water before people realize we need to change, then it's kind of too late to begin to change.

2) there are huge problems with asymmetrical information. that is, consumers are generally left in the dark about the environmental practices of the companies they buy from, and therefore cannot make informed positions. E-Dogg and LoneShark will claim that if people actually cared that much, they would demand total information symmetry before doing business with them, but then again, E-Dogg and LoneShark are dogmatic idiots who apparently don't live in the real world.

3) With companies like electrical utilities, there are often government sanctioned monopolies, where consumers have no real choice in who they buy from. If Progress Energy is the only place I can buy electricity from in Raleigh, then Progress has no direct competition and therefore no real free-market incentive to reduce pollution and other externalities of power generation.

2/20/2009 8:17:33 PM

Quote :

"and therefore no real free-market incentive to reduce pollution and other externalities of power generation."

What you are describing is essentially the classic externality problem; in this case, a commons problem. Discharging pollution into the atmosphere is essentially the "commons" - no one entity owns the rights to it, and therefore no entity has a stake in preserving the quality of the commons.

Thus, the main options at our disposal:

1) Privatize the commons: i.e., establish an incentive for an owner to preserve the resource. Workable in some cases - not really all that feasible when it comes to atmospheric emissions

2) Regulate: the proposal on the table

3) Internalize the externality: A compromise between direct regulation which preserves the free-market approach would be to place a price on the actual pollution itself - in essence, a Pigouvian tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

An applicable example would be a carbon tax - in essence, our goal here is to raise the price of the object in question such that the market price reflects its "true" cost - one which includes the cost of the environmental impact.

The problem, of course, is determining in what exactly that cost is. But I would still argue that it's a superior approach overall, which provides for an incentive for the market to decrease the damage in question (thus making the producer more competitive).

2/20/2009 8:47:19 PM

these carbon taxes are just backdoor communism, which fits right in with Obama's plans

2/20/2009 10:42:06 PM

I wouldn't say that. It's more of a recognition that unlimited freedom to pollute is neither possible nor desirable in a limited, natural system.

2/20/2009 11:08:51 PM

^
Exactly.

Quote :

"1) Privatize the commons"

This is essential.
I differ from most libertarians in this sense. They always say that private property rights should be the solution to the environmental problem, but that only works for land that is privately owned... and what percent of land is privately owned? For that matter, what percent of air and sea is privately owned? See the problem?

Taking every bit of land, air, and sea that is not privately owned, and regarding it as being co-owned by every individual is completely compatible with libertarianism.... and, it makes sense. Then, when someone or some company dumps pollution into a river, EVERY SINGLE PERSON will have the legal right to sue for damages. The libertarian principle is that individuals can do whatever they want, so as long as it doesn't harm anyone's person, property, liberty, or right to the same. With privatized commons, all industrial pollution will be illegal, because it harms someone's (everyone's) air, water, etc.

"OH NOOOOES!!," cry the hypercapitalists, "That will hurt the economy!! We can't do that!!" Well guess what guys? Ourselves, and our property, liberty, and right to the same are way more important than the economy. The well-being of all ecosystems is infinitely more important than the well-being of any economy.

As the privatization of the commons may not be very likely, at least any time soon, an acceptable alternative might be a Pigovian tax:

Quote :

"With a Pigovian tax there is always an incentive to reduce pollution, whereas with direct regulation, a polluting company has no incentive to pollute any less than what is allowable"

Don't get me wrong: I hate taxes, but until the privatization of the commons, something needs to be done...

[Edited on February 21, 2009 at 4:51 AM. Reason : ]

2/21/2009 4:33:34 AM

... Meanwhile, we're still basing this global warming thing on suspect science....

Quote :

"Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said. The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said. "

We're not going to let errors in data interfere with the CC agenda, are we?



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY

2/21/2009 10:52:15 AM

One day, during a hike in the mountains, a very large, growling and angry looking wild mountain lion begins to run directly at EarthDogg, but he doesn't take any defensive or evasive action, because he can't scientifically prove that the lion will attack.

People like EarthDogg are why libertarians are so hated. Good going, guy.

2/21/2009 11:14:30 AM

EarthDogg:

Quote :

"We're not going to let errors in data interfere with the CC agenda, are we? "

I'm all for scientific integrity, and it's certainly a good thing to point out data errors being made in AGW models. However, a little honesty, please:

Quote :

"The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said."

Until data errors start producing opposite conclusions, you don't have that much of a leg to stand upon. About your only argument here is in the significance of the outcomes, not in whether it is actually occurring.

Willy Nilly:

Quote :

"Taking every bit of land, air, and sea that is not privately owned, and regarding it as being co-owned by every individual is completely compatible with libertarianism.... and, it makes sense. Then, when someone or some company dumps pollution into a river, EVERY SINGLE PERSON will have the legal right to sue for damages. The libertarian principle is that individuals can do whatever they want, so as long as it doesn't harm anyone's person, property, liberty, or right to the same. With privatized commons, all industrial pollution will be illegal, because it harms someone's (everyone's) air, water, etc."

Here's the problem; unless everyone's "co-ownership" includes an equity stake which allows them to buy, sell, or trade their ownership, we're essentially back to the commons problem. Ownership of finite resources implies rivalrous excludability - neither of which occur under your scenario. It is, in effect, still a commons by your framing. In other words, if everybody owns it, nobody does.

Now, some natural resources are easier to privatize than others. Water rights, for instance, have historically been handled on a downstream basis. States routinely assert water rights over other states - for instance, when one wants to divert more than their share, etc. The same principle can (and has been, in the past) applied to pollution - pollute my upstream water without my consent and we have a problem.

The outcome of this would then be that if a polluter wants to release, they have to obtain the consent of those downstream who are affected. Which, if one assumes transaction costs are small, is where Coase's theorem can kick in - an equilibrium can be reached between the affected parties which is the most economically efficient outcome. Which is not going to be, "Let the polluter pollute for free."

[Edited on February 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM. Reason : user.]

2/21/2009 12:14:20 PM

Scientist agrees that GW exists: He gets quoted in the Daily News, he gets some recognition.
Scientist disagrees that GW exists: He does not get recognition and is presented as a quack.

Politician champions the idea that GW exists: He gets to implement a solution that also dovetails with his own agenda.
Politician doesn't beleive in GW: His agenda doesn't get much taction because it doesn't it isn't tied to the greatest threat to humankind evar GW.

GW is just a tool that Scientist and Politicans use. In 20 years we will all look back and laugh at how much a joke GW was.

Even if the earth is warming at 1 degee per 100 years, does anyone in the right mind think that the effect on the earth will even be noticable? The ocean water rises a few inches, New York has imperceivable milder winters... Whoopdee fucking doo.

2/21/2009 10:53:23 PM

Quote :

"Even if the earth is warming at 1 degee per 100 years,"

Ignorance truly is bliss it seems.

2/21/2009 10:57:10 PM

Quote :

"One day, during a hike in the mountains, a very large, growling and angry looking wild mountain lion.... "

The story should actually go..that A big fat guy who lost the presidential election sneaks out of the bushes and shows me a picture he drew of a big angry bear. He warns me that this bear might attack me in 500 years or more. And I should pay him some money for "Bear Credits" to avoid an attack.

Look, the Earth may be warming..but man's contribution to that warming is far from settled science.

Quote :

"if everybody owns it, nobody does."

Presenlty, we have federal beuracracies which are supposed to protect us from polluters. The problem is that they allow violations of individual rights (the right to not get sick from your smokestack). And any damages that are assessed go to the gov't.

Pollution problems should be handled in the courts, not by federal agencies. They should be handled as violations of property rights, with damages paid to the victims..not the gov't. The potential of a class action suit hanging over the heads of manufacturers will be a much more effective incentive to control pollution, than gov't regulations.

And keep in mind, the biggest polluter in our country is the gov't (mostly the military). The gov't should sell off it's lands (reducing the tragedy of the commons issue), and abolish the gov't's sovereign immunity when it comes to pollution.

2/21/2009 11:02:22 PM

^^ Ok, so the earth is warming 1 deg per 100years. Scientist have proved it. Will you ever live to notice any of its effects? Will your children be impacted? Will your grandchildren give a shit?

July 4th, 2050 @ The beach
You: Holy cow children, when I was a kid the waves never came in this far!
Grandkids: Really?!
You: Yes, it was at least 6 inches further out than it is now. And my gosh, how can you kids bear this immense heat. Its at least half a degree warmer on average than I can ever remember!

[Edited on February 21, 2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason : -]

2/21/2009 11:19:30 PM

Quote :

"Will you ever live to notice any of its effects? Will your children be impacted? Will your grandchildren give a shit?"

That sounds like an excuse for laziness.

2/21/2009 11:48:46 PM

Wow, Hoffmaster is a total fucking idiot.

2/22/2009 2:06:27 AM

Quote :

"Look, the Earth may be warming..but man's contribution to that warming is far from settled science."

Another problem:

By innocently defending, in principle, those that suggest climate change may not be human-caused, you look like you're defending polluters. Quite the same way that if by innocently defending, in principle, those that possess child porn, you look like you're defending pedophilia.

If it turns out that climate change isn't caused by humans, fine. But do yourself and other libertarians a service, and stop fucking preaching about it!

2/22/2009 3:03:17 AM

what about regulation of other greenhouse gases? methane is 21 times more effective at trapping heat than CO2. Nitrous oxide is 310 times as effective, and fluorinated hydrocarbons can be up to 1300 times as effective. from rough figures, it seems that the amount of CO2 produced by humans in the US is about an order of magnitude higher than methane, but it seems that relatively, the ratio of natural methane to methane produced by human activities is much higher than the same of CO2.

2/22/2009 4:01:51 AM

Quote :

"That sounds like an excuse for laziness."

I asked three questions, you answered neither. Who's lazy?

Quote :

"Wow, Hoffmaster is a total fucking idiot."

Lol, look at his ePenis grow!

Just because I am not a GW coolaid drinker doesn't mean I don't care about the earth and mans destruction of it. I think in general that there are a lot worse things going on that we should worry about more so than CO2 gas.

What about our garbage landfill issues?
What about radioactive waste?
What about our deceasing supply of fossil fuels? What happens when it runs out?

All of these are more pressing issues in my opinion. They have been put on the back burner because of the GW and the most evilest of all compounds, CO2.

2/22/2009 9:37:27 AM

Quote :

"All of these are more pressing issues in my opinion. They have been put on the back burner because of the GW CC and the most evilest of all compounds, CO2."

Agreed.
Your credibility has gone from 0.0 to 0.1

[Edited on February 22, 2009 at 9:46 AM. Reason : ]

2/22/2009 9:45:35 AM

I liked it better when it was Global Warming. At least then you guys had the balls to predict something.

This Climate Change crap is just covering your asses, because you know deep down nobody knows WTF is going on.

2/22/2009 10:00:07 AM

Quote :

"I liked it better when it was Global Warming. At least then you guys had the balls to predict something. This Climate Change crap is just covering your asses, because you know deep down nobody knows WTF is going on."

the waming of the oceans doesn't necessarily mean air temps are going to get hot, it means weather patterns are going to become erratic. it does, of course, mean that warm seas will melt polar ice. terms like global warming are misleading b/c too many dumb shits heard global warming and started saying "GLOBAL WARMING DEBUNKED!" every time there was a cold day.

2/22/2009 3:18:19 PM

Likewise, "climate change" and "global climate destabilization" are frequently used by lazy scientists and reporters to blame random weather occurances, when sometimes the weather just acts crazy. Sorry but you can't use a blanket term like that for every freak storm or flood.

2/22/2009 4:34:56 PM

Quote :

"the warming of the oceans doesn't necessarily mean air temps are going to get hot"

So Thermodynamics no longer applies for Climate Change?

Quote :

"it means weather patterns are going to become erratic."

Weather is by definition erratic.

Quote :

"terms like global warming are misleading b/c too many dumb shits heard global warming and started saying "GLOBAL WARMING DEBUNKED!" every time there was a cold day."

Thats not a very good excuse for changing the name to something so generic.

2/22/2009 6:54:54 PM

It isn't generic. It encompasses the totality of events that are likely to transpire as a result of a warming planet.

Quote :

"Weather is by definition erratic."

Who's definition? Perhaps you should qualify what you mean by "erratic".

2/22/2009 7:30:26 PM

Quote :

" It encompasses the totality of events that are likely to transpire as a result of a warming planet."

It also encompasses the totality of events that are likely to transpire as the result of a planet existing in the first place. Our lovely little mudball has had plenty of Global Climate Change over its lifespan, and I'm sure this won't be the last.

2/22/2009 10:54:55 PM

Quote :

"you look like you're defending polluters"

Perhaps to you and the Al Gore crowd. All I'm defending is the fact that climate change has not been proven to be caused by man. And until it is, forcing everyone to change their lifestyle and turn over more power, control and money to the state is suicide.

2/23/2009 12:25:58 AM

^^ But surely you do not advocate we simply throw up our hands and say it is nature taking its course and obfuscate the roles and responsibilities of human activity.

[Edited on February 23, 2009 at 12:31 AM. Reason : .]

2/23/2009 12:29:47 AM

Quote :

"the Al Gore crowd"

In other words, nearly everyone on the planet.
(Pick your battles.)

Quote :

"All I'm defending is the fact that climate change has not been proven to be caused by man"

I know. And all I'm saying is the fact that most people will view you as nothing other than a polluter-defending douchebag.
(Pick your battles.)

Quote :

"And until it is, forcing everyone to change their lifestyle and turn over more power, control and money to the state is suicide."

Or, it's the only thing that will save the planet.
(Pick your battles.)

Quote :

"If it turns out that climate change isn't caused by humans, fine. But do yourself and other libertarians a service, and stop fucking preaching about it!"

2/23/2009 7:58:51 AM

Quote :

"But surely you do not advocate we simply throw up our hands and say it is nature taking its course and obfuscate the roles and responsibilities of human activity."

Not at all, but ill advised policies, feel good sweeping treaties that can't be met in reality, and horribly thought out laws without regard for reason (banning incandescent light bulbs for example), and policies which serve to grow the level of federal government control over our lives are not the alternative.

Quote :

"If it turns out that climate change isn't caused by humans, fine. But do yourself and other libertarians a service, and stop fucking preaching about it!"

IOW, submit to the authorities and shut up about it. A good policy to live life by.

2/23/2009 8:16:53 AM