[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Lomborg has some interesting things to say, but he's not an economist. I am.

Shhhh - after the recent meltdown, I'm not sure I'd want to admit that. Harper is also called an economist, with his "if we were to have a recession we'd have had it by now."

Loborg's point, I believe is not that we have immediate alternatives to carbon energy, but that we'd do better investing in developing alternate sources. And, I think going with nuclear in the short term might make sense as well. But, IMO, with 7 billion people on the planet and counting, all wanting to use oil, we're going to have to develop alternatives mighty quick, or a lot of people are going to starve.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Lomborg has some interesting things to say, but he's not an economist. I am.

Shhhh - after the recent meltdown, I'm not sure I'd want to admit that. Harper is also called an economist, with his "if we were to have a recession we'd have had it by now."

That's a great approach to make friends here, slagging others' professions. As for Harper being an economist, we've tread that path here many times, newb, and Harper's not an economist.

andyt andyt:

Loborg's point, I believe is not that we have immediate alternatives to carbon energy, but that we'd do better investing in developing alternate sources. And, I think going with nuclear in the short term might make sense as well. But, IMO, with 7 billion people on the planet and counting, all wanting to use oil, we're going to have to develop alternatives mighty quick, or a lot of people are going to starve.

That's got nothing to do with the choice between taxation and tradeable permits as potential methods for reducing carbon emissions, but go ahead and change the topic if you'd rather not carry on with what you started.

[ManifestDestiny]

Anything George Soros is pushing is a scam!!!

Funny the guy came from nothing yet he wants to hold every one else's head under water.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Lomborg has some interesting things to say, but he's not an economist. I am.

Shhhh - after the recent meltdown, I'm not sure I'd want to admit that. Harper is also called an economist, with his "if we were to have a recession we'd have had it by now."

That's a great approach to make friends here, slagging others' professions. As for Harper being an economist, we've tread that path here many times, newb, and Harper's not an economist.

If you're trying to shut down argument because you see yourself as the expert, I guess you've got to expect some of that. When a field can have so many opposing views, and be so spectacularly wrong, it certainly doesn't deserve to call itself a science, IMO.

I don't think anybody's saying that cap and trade can't possibly work, only that it leaves itself open to abuse. Even well meaning abuse - like doing things that don't actually have much effect on atmospheric carbon at all. I looked into carbon sinks in the 70's - it's been a while, but I seem to remember that they were few and far between. Just trading emissions around the world, with an increasing population ever more hungry for carbon based products and energy isn't going to be helpful either. But I guess it will make us feel good that we're doing something.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

If you're trying to shut down argument because you see yourself as the expert, I guess you've got to expect some of that. When a field can have so many opposing views, and be so spectacularly wrong, it certainly doesn't deserve to call itself a science, IMO.

You're just talking out your arse now. You said that economists should be embarassed to admit their profession because of the recent recession. That's like blaming rain on the weatherman. I didn't, out of hand, dismiss one of the viable tools for reducing carbon, you did. If you haven't the grounding to discuss economcis, don't. But don't turn it back on me for calling you when you spew nonesense.

[andyt]

@Lemmy - he's what the economist in the story had to say:

$1:

Last week, Daniel Golding, a risk analyst with Lloyd’s of London insurer Chaucer Syndicates Ltd., warned clients on the company’s website (www.lloyds.com), that “the potential collapse of the carbon credit market” is one of the biggest risks facing investors in 2010 and beyond.

As the Lloyd’s publication 360 Risk Insight put it: “On the subject of cutting CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions, Golding is concerned that carbon credits are being packaged into increasingly complex financial products, similar to the 'shadow finance’ around sub-prime mortgages which triggered the recent economic crash.” Got that? Golding added carbon credit trading, while providing a cash bonanza for industry, doesn’t lower emissions.

“As recession slashes output,” he warned, “companies pile up permits they don’t need and sell them on. The price falls, and anyone who wants to pollute can afford to do so. The result is a system that does nothing at all for climate change but a lot for the bottom lines of mega-polluters.”

If I"m less qualified to make the point than you, maybe he isn't?

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You're just talking out your arse now. You said that economists should be embarassed to admit their profession because of the recent recession. That's like blaming rain on the weatherman.

No it's like blaming the weatherman for not predicting the rain. Lots of people do. But since economics is a strictly human enterprise, causing the "rain" does seem to lie at the foot of economists as well.

[Annihilator]

Carbon credits are the eco-religion's indulgences.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But don't turn it back on me for calling you when you spew nonesense.

What nonsense? A lot of your fellow brethren would back me up that taxes are far superior to cap and trade. And I see an added benefit to taxation - it puts money in govt hands that's sorely needed. It reduces carbon use, which is a good thing all on it's own, never mind global warming. From peak oil (ie running out) to the physical and social problems created by automobile use, etc, it's good if we reduce our carbon footprint, even if AGW (er Anthropogenic Global Warming) turns out to be a bust.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

What nonsense? A lot of your fellow brethren would back me up that taxes are far superior to cap and trade. And I see an added benefit to taxation - it puts money in govt hands that's sorely needed. It reduces carbon use, which is a good thing all on it's own, never mind global warming. From peak oil (ie running out) to the physical and social problems created by automobile use, etc, it's good if we reduce our carbon footprint, even if AGW (er Anthropogenic Global Warming) turns out to be a bust.

[Zipperfish]

Well you both make excellent points, but I think the critical aspect you're missing here is that you're wrong and I'm right.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well you both make excellent points, but I think the critical aspect you're missing here is that you're wrong and I'm right.

I'm not sure I've made a point yet, except that someone's talking about something they know nothing about.

[andyt]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well you both make excellent points, but I think the critical aspect you're missing here is that you're wrong and I'm right.

I'm not sure I've made a point yet, except that someone's talking about something they know nothing about.

Since you consider yourself the expert on this topic (despite all the economists who favor carbon taxes) I guess you'll just be talking to yourself, since the rest of us know nothing about it.

[Lemmy]

andyt andyt:

Since you consider yourself the expert on this topic (despite all the economists who favor carbon taxes) I guess you'll just be talking to yourself, since the rest of us know nothing about it.

I never said anything about "the rest of you", just YOU. Whether one "prefers" taxes over permits (or any number of other policies) depends on a lot more specific detail about any particular scheme than just we've discussed here. There aren't, as you're trying to suggest, 2 camps of economists (one that prefers taxes and one that prefers permits). In some cases, taxes are prefered. In other cases, other solutions work better.

When you say things like there are "economists who favo[u]r carbon taxes" you're talking out your ass. There isn't an economist in the world worth his weight that would take such a general position as you suggest.