[jdonn]

luke warm, on Nov 19 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

awm, on Nov 19 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 19 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

assume for a moment that we do absolutely nothing.. what grave situation do you foresee?

Well let's see....

More severe hurricane seasons hitting the southeast coast of the US. Already starting to happen?

More severe drought conditions in a number of areas. Yup, seeing that too?

Melting glaciers causing problems in Alaska (mostly for wildlife, but to some degree for people too).
Also happening, but maybe we don't care about those alaskans?

In the longer term, serious flooding as the water levels rise. Hasn't really happened yet, but an awful lot of major cities would be below sea level with a rise of just a couple inches...

have any of those things happened in the past? say in a cyclical fashion? if so, what caused it? i do know (well, not personally - i've read it) that co2 levels dropped from an atmospheric high of about 80% to about 20 or 30% over the course of a few thousands of years... do you think that during this long drop there were periods of drought, killer hurricanes, etc? i'm just asking

The argument you are implying looks a lot like "I don't believe we should try to prevent murders because so many people die of natural causes anyway and there is nothing we can do about that."

In other words, I have also read things like you point out have happened in the past. I do not consider that an excuse to not try to improve the situation, even perhaps at great cost that comes in other forms.

[awm]

While there have always been hurricanes hitting Florida and Louisiana (almost every year) and there have occasionally been very bad hurricanes, it's worth noting that we have now had several "bad" years in rapid succession.

Similarly, it is true that people occasionally die in car accidents, and that this has been so ever since we have had automobiles. But that doesn't mean we should give up on auto safety laws, or that we shouldn't take note if a particular vehicle has an unusually high incidence of deadly accidents.

The number of serious, expensive hurricanes has been on a fairly dramatic rise, and this is not just because of one really bad one (Katrina).

[TimG]

awm, on Nov 19 2008, 07:26 PM, said:

The number of serious, expensive hurricanes has been on a fairly dramatic rise, and this is not just because of one really bad one (Katrina).

I don't know the answer to this: has the average severity of hurricanes increased significantly, or have people just put more things in their way so that they do more damage?

[luke warm]

cherdano, on Nov 19 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

Jimmy, a "revenue neutral tax change" means raising some taxes (carbon tax) while lowering others (say, VAT). So you would pay more at Walmart for products with high energy costs, and less for products with low energy costs (maybe high labor costs).
[Did you intentionally shift the discussion back from "higher prices at Walmart hurting all of us" to "higher costs associated with trucking"?]

i thought that's what i was saying all along, that a carbon tax would hurt everyone because of the cost of getting goods and services to their various outlets... and really i don't mean to be obtuse but i honestly don't know what tax would or could be correspondingly cut to make the carbon tax revenue neutral... sales tax? state or federal income tax? maybe so, but i somehow doubt it

jdonn, on Nov 19 2008, 07:20 PM, said:

The argument you are implying looks a lot like "I don't believe we should try to prevent murders because so many people die of natural causes anyway and there is nothing we can do about that."

In other words, I have also read things like you point out have happened in the past. I do not consider that an excuse to not try to improve the situation, even perhaps at great cost that comes in other forms.

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 20 2008, 02:19 PM, said:

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

Comment 1: Conditions on Earth have certainly changed in the past without any help from humans. Conditions on Earth will undoubtedly change dramatically at some point in the future without any kind of action by mankind.

Comment 2: So what?

There is an awful lot in life that's outside our control. That doesn't mean that we should go out searching for ways to actively make things worse.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Nov 20 2008, 06:19 AM, said:

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

Everyone knows the earth has undergone cyclic changes in the past.

Few, though, consider that a reason to flood the atmosphere with billions of tons of heat-trapping gasses per year, when we know for a fact that doing so will cause tremendous calamities for our children and grandchildren.

[Al_U_Card]

And what if they kept the high gas prices but instead of generating multi-billion dollar profits for the oil companies, they earmarked that money for the development of alternate energy sources and cleaner more efficient vehicles? Nothing like $5/gal gas to make you switch to a hybrid (and make it economical).

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on Nov 20 2008, 09:32 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 20 2008, 06:19 AM, said:

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

Everyone knows the earth has undergone cyclic changes in the past.

Few, though, consider that a reason to flood the atmosphere with billions of tons of heat-trapping gasses per year, when we know for a fact that doing so will cause tremendous calamities for our children and grandchildren.

Or save them from the next ice age? Or provoke the next ice age?

The speculation notwithstanding, it never hurts to do something sensible. Our tendency is to be profligate and selfish. The only way to beat our own nature is to make things that appeal to our enlightened self-interest....THAT is the challenge.

[FrancesHinden]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 20 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

And what if they kept the high gas prices but instead of generating multi-billion dollar profits for the oil companies, they earmarked that money for the development of alternate energy sources and cleaner more efficient vehicles? Nothing like $5/gal gas to make you switch to a hybrid (and make it economical).

If you think that the oil companies make "multi-billion dollar profits" as a consequence of high gas prices, you don't understand the economics of the oil industry.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Nov 20 2008, 06:19 AM, said:

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

I realize as usual you are asking questions instead of committing to a statement. That does not make it any less obvious what the conclusion is that you hope the answerer reaches...

The argument that seems to be up if you want to respond is "it doesn't matter what the answer to your question is." Thoughts about the topic?

[PassedOut]

More great news today: Waxman topples Dingell for key panel chair

Quote

Dingell has been the top Democrat on the panel for 28 years and is an old-school supporter of the auto industry. Waxman has complained that the committee has been too slow to address environmental issues like global warming.

Even though I now live in Michigan and Dingell has worked hard to protect Michigan industries (as all representatives do for their districts), I'm pleased that the new US congress will work toward broader goals.

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Nov 20 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

More great news today: Waxman topples Dingell for key panel chair

Quote

Dingell has been the top Democrat on the panel for 28 years and is an old-school supporter of the auto industry. Waxman has complained that the committee has been too slow to address environmental issues like global warming.

Even though I now live in Michigan and Dingell has worked hard to protect Michigan industries (as all representatives do for their districts), I'm pleased that the new US congress will work toward broader goals.

Always nice to see the funniest looking dude in congress make something of himself.

[Al_U_Card]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 20 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Nov 20 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

And what if they kept the high gas prices but instead of generating multi-billion dollar profits for the oil companies, they earmarked that money for the development of alternate energy sources and cleaner more efficient vehicles?  Nothing like $5/gal gas to make you switch to a hybrid (and make it economical).

If you think that the oil companies make "multi-billion dollar profits" as a consequence of high gas prices, you don't understand the economics of the oil industry.

Gee Frances, high prices: big profits....now where would I get a silly idea like that?

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Nov 20 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 20 2008, 06:19 AM, said:

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

I realize as usual you are asking questions instead of committing to a statement. That does not make it any less obvious what the conclusion is that you hope the answerer reaches...

The argument that seems to be up if you want to respond is "it doesn't matter what the answer to your question is." Thoughts about the topic?

huh?

Al_U_Card, on Nov 20 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 20 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Nov 20 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

And what if they kept the high gas prices but instead of generating multi-billion dollar profits for the oil companies, they earmarked that money for the development of alternate energy sources and cleaner more efficient vehicles?  Nothing like $5/gal gas to make you switch to a hybrid (and make it economical).

If you think that the oil companies make "multi-billion dollar profits" as a consequence of high gas prices, you don't understand the economics of the oil industry.

Gee Frances, high prices: big profits....now where would I get a silly idea like that?

if you sell lemons nationwide (at a, let's say, 8% profit margin) to retailers who have lemonade refineries and who in turn sell this lemonade to neighborhood lemonade stands, do you make more or less money if the lemonade stands have a price war, resulting in lower prices per cup? how about if the stands raise their price? now let's say that there are people who speculate on the future price of lemons, leading LPAC (a lemon producing conglomerate made up of several southern states who can slow or speed up the number of lemons that hit the market) to raise the price they charge for a barrel of lemons... you in turn raise the price of the lemons you sell to the lemonade refineries to maintain your 8% profit margin, the refineries raise the price of their lemonade to the neighborhood lemonade stands... has the price increase of the stands caused you to make more money?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Nov 20 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 20 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 20 2008, 06:19 AM, said:

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

I realize as usual you are asking questions instead of committing to a statement. That does not make it any less obvious what the conclusion is that you hope the answerer reaches...

The argument that seems to be up if you want to respond is "it doesn't matter what the answer to your question is." Thoughts about the topic?

huh?

Let me clarify.

The answer to the question you asked does not particularly matter. What do you think about that?

[awm]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 20 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

If you think that the oil companies make "multi-billion dollar profits" as a consequence of high gas prices, you don't understand the economics of the oil industry.

Well, the oil prices were high until recently, and the oil companies have been turning in record profits. There is some question of what causes what here of course. My impression is the following:

(1) Oil prices have to be high because of supply and demand. If oil prices were low, then we would simply run out of oil (because we cannot produce it fast enough to meet the demand).

(2) Gas prices are mostly a function of oil prices.

(3) It's not the case that the oil companies are gauging people for profit. They are forced to charge more or less what they charge since otherwise they could not fill their orders. Increasing the price reduces the number of oil purchases to a level where they can be filled.

(4) OPEC periodically updates the price of oil and tries to get oil-producers to produce more or less. But this is mostly a matter of supply and demand.

(5) On the other hand, the high price of oil (due to large demand) does mean more money for somebody in the supply chain. Generally a lot of this money does go to the oil companies.

So the oil companies are making record profits because the oil prices are high. But the oil prices are high because of supply and demand, not because "oil companies are evil."

The upshot of this is that it will be quite difficult to force oil prices down except by either increasing the supply or decreasing the demand, as these prices are being driven by the market and not by speculation or greed. While there is some potential to "drill for more oil" and thus increase the supply, our planet's untapped oil reserves are really not that plentiful. For example, if the US opened up all of its territory for oil exploration and drilling, it would only increase the country's supply by a few percentage points. So the real solution is to reduce demand. This means getting people to buy more fuel-efficient cars or use public transit, and also reducing the reliance of non-transportation power generation on oil (more solar, wind, nuclear, etc).

On the other hand, raising taxes on oil company profits might not increase the price of oil (since this price is driven by supply and demand and not by the oil company's production costs). So the net effect would be more money for the government at the expense of oil companies (and their shareholders) and not at the expense of consumers.

[jdonn]

awm, on Nov 20 2008, 07:36 PM, said:

(2) Gas prices are mostly a function of oil prices.

I heard on CNN a few months ago, right when the price of gas was at it's highest, that gas prices are about 50% a function of oil prices. I sort of assumed they were just simplifying, but amazingly after that I started keeping track and it was an amazingly accurate statement. Whenever the price of oil would go down by X%, the price of gas would go down by .5X%, I was actually astounded how well that held.

Quote

On the other hand, raising taxes on oil company profits might not increase the price of oil (since this price is driven by supply and demand and not by the oil company's production costs). So the net effect would be more money for the government at the expense of oil companies (and their shareholders) and not at the expense of consumers.

Obviously the way to do that would be to raise the gas tax. Of course it's hard to think of a potentially less popular policy proposal than that right now.

[awm]

jdonn, on Nov 20 2008, 07:46 PM, said:

Obviously the way to do that would be to raise the gas tax. Of course it's hard to think of a potentially less popular policy proposal than that right now.

Charging a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies would:

(1) Be more popular. Most people think of oil companies as "the bad guys."

(2) Be more direct, if the goal is to siphon off oil company riches rather than increase the gas price. It is possible that very little of this tax would end up being taken out of consumers' pockets, because the gas price is driven mostly by supply/demand and not production costs.

(3) Scale automatically -- if at some future time oil companies are not really doing very well, then the tax would be reduced. The gas tax is more of a fixed charge which the oil companies would be forced to pass on to consumers if their profit margins were to decline.

Of course, there is something to be said for increasing the gas price to encourage fuel economy, but this is a different goal than trying to recoup some of the massive oil company profits to invest them in alternative fuels.

[blackshoe]

awm, on Nov 20 2008, 08:52 PM, said:

Charging a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies would:

(1) Be more popular. Most people think of oil companies as "the bad guys."

Sure. After all, the oil companies are the ones who go and get the oil and refine it to produce the gasoline that we all crave so we can drive around wherever and whenever we want. So they must be bad guys.

Quote

(2) Be more direct, if the goal is to siphon off oil company riches rather than increase the gas price.

There is a quite probably untrue story about Willie Sutton, a rather infamous American bank robber of the 1920s. Asked why he robbed banks, he allegedly replied "that's where the money is". If we set a goal to "siphon off oil company riches" are we any better than Willie?

Quote

(3) Scale automatically -- if at some future time oil companies are not really doing very well, then the tax would be reduced. The gas tax is more of a fixed charge which the oil companies would be forced to pass on to consumers if their profit margins were to decline.

Why am I thinking of Morton's Fork here?

Quote

Of course, there is something to be said for increasing the gas price to encourage fuel economy, but this is a different goal than trying to recoup some of the massive oil company profits to invest them in alternative fuels.

Oil company executives aren't stupid. If they see alternative fuels in the handwriting on the wall, they'll invest in them themselves. Perhaps they already have.

I'm not saying that the oil companies don't make a lot of profit, just that I wonder at what point profit becomes "obscene" and subject therefor to confiscation - and who decides and what gives them the right to do so.