Question for anti-Cap & Trade people

[WaltM]

I'll grant you that either global warming is untrue, or that it's not caused by CO2, or that cap & trade won't do anything to stop it.

In fact, I'll even grant you that cap & trade will hurt our economy.

Is there ANYTHING that would EVER justify cap & trade? Or a direct carbon tax?

In fact, cap & trade isn't a global warming measure, it's a measure to decrease carbon emissions, if your belief is "forget the climate" or "global warming actually CAUSES CO2 to increase" is there no good reason to decrease CO2 anyway?

What harm must CO2 do (not counting that of climate and temperature) to justify capping and taxing carbon emissions?

[Dr.3D]

The more CO2, the more plant growth takes place thus balancing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, when the oceans warm up, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases because the oceans give off CO2 as they warm. It is much like the CO2 contained in a bottle of soda pop. As the liquid warms up, it can not hold as much CO2. This would account for an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. As the plant growth increases, because of the additional CO2, it will again begin to balance out the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

From what I understand, Cap and Trade has been designed to distribute money from the industrious countries to those who have little industry. It is classic socialism, disguised as some kind of climate protection scheme.

[YumYum]

I'll grant you that either global warming is untrue, or that it's not caused by CO2, or that cap & trade won't do anything to stop it.

In fact, I'll even grant you that cap & trade will hurt our economy.

Is there ANYTHING that would EVER justify cap & trade? Or a direct carbon tax?

If we had a choice of different alternative fuels to choose from, including nuclear, and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that C02 caused global warming, then yes, any kind of deterrent to reduce pollution would be warranted.


In fact, cap & trade isn't a global warming measure, it's a measure to decrease carbon emissions, if your belief is "forget the climate" or "global warming actually CAUSES CO2 to increase" is there no good reason to decrease CO2 anyway?

Yes, to reduce carbon monoxide/smog. I don't know how people live in that shit.


What harm must CO2 do (not counting that of climate and temperature) to justify capping and taxing carbon emissions?

When there is so much C02 that it reduces the oxygen levels. It has happened before.

[RedStripe]

I'll grant you that either global warming is untrue, or that it's not caused by CO2, or that cap & trade won't do anything to stop it.

In fact, I'll even grant you that cap & trade will hurt our economy.

Is there ANYTHING that would EVER justify cap & trade? Or a direct carbon tax?

In fact, cap & trade isn't a global warming measure, it's a measure to decrease carbon emissions, if your belief is "forget the climate" or "global warming actually CAUSES CO2 to increase" is there no good reason to decrease CO2 anyway?

What harm must CO2 do (not counting that of climate and temperature) to justify capping and taxing carbon emissions?

Good questions. My personal take on it is that the system (state capitalism) is simply unable to effectively resolve the problems it creates, such as ecological damage, poverty, etc. The incentive structures are too perverse at this point, such that if global warming were real it would not be possible for a concerned public and/or scientific community to do anything to stop it (using channels officially available to them) but instead would be co-opted and/or used as a pretext for furthering the powerful corporate interests which dominate the power structure of society.

Even if an asteroid that would kill 90%+ of humans was hurdling towards Earth, I think there would still be some factions of the power elite who would rather use the power of the system simply to protect themselves and their interests rather than viewing it as a common threat to all humanity that we should all be concerned about. I could be wrong - maybe the system has enough basic humanitarianism and a diverse enough network of economic and political interests that coalitions could be formed to change policy to address large-scale problems, but I think it's reasonable to be skeptical.

[WaltM]

The more CO2, the more plant growth takes place thus balancing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.


If that was remotely true, CO2 wouldn't be increasing faster than it could be consumed.

If you can actually show me a study where CO2 increase is coupled with a consistent O2 increase, we can actually have a discussion.




Of course, when the oceans warm up, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases because the oceans give off CO2 as they warm. It is much like the CO2 contained in a bottle of soda pop. As the liquid warms up, it can not hold as much CO2. This would account for an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. As the plant growth increases, because of the additional CO2, it will again begin to balance out the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.


you just repeated what you said, and what I said.

So are you saying, there's NEVER EVER going to be ANY good reason to cap carbon emissions?




From what I understand, Cap and Trade has been designed to distribute money from the industrious countries to those who have little industry. It is classic socialism, disguised as some kind of climate protection scheme.

Ok, let's separate the scheme from the advertised intention.

If Capping and taxing carbon wasn't designed for anything other than incentivizing a decrease in carbon emissions, and to reduce carbon emissions, would that still be a problem?

Or are you against any form of redistributing money regardless of the benefits?

[RedStripe]

From what I understand, Cap and Trade has been designed to distribute money from the industrious countries to those who have little industry. It is classic socialism, disguised as some kind of climate protection scheme.

I guarantee you that no policy ever adopted by the US Congress was ever designed to benefit the poor at the expense of the rich unless the very stability of the system was at stake (in which case, it was still a pro-rich policy, but in the long term rather than the short).

[WaltM]

If we had a choice of different alternative fuels to choose from, including nuclear, and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that C02 caused global warming, then yes, any kind of deterrent to reduce pollution would be warranted.


We DO have alternatives to choose from, not all equally cheap.

And what if CO2 wasn't causing GW, but CO2 is itself harmful upon increasing accumulation?



Yes, to reduce carbon monoxide/smog. I don't know how people live in that shit.


thanks.

So looks like you don't need CO2 to cause global warming at all.



When there is so much C02 that it reduces the oxygen levels. It has happened before.

So regardless of climate change, you'd agree that if it can be shown CO2 increase will threaten our future lives, you'd be willing to cap, tax and restrict carbon emissions?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I guarantee you that no policy ever adopted by the US Congress was ever designed to benefit the poor at the expense of the rich unless the very stability of the system was at stake (in which case, it was still a pro-rich policy, but in the long term rather than the short).

What do you call welfare? We all know that intent.

[Mini-Me]

By "those who have little industry," maybe Dr.3D was referring to Al Gore and friends, who have positioned themselves to benefit greatly at everyone else's expense from the whole [completely unproductive] "carbon credit" market. ;)

[Dr.3D]

By "those who have little industry," maybe Dr.3D was referring to Al Gore and friends, who have positioned themselves to benefit greatly at everyone else's expense from the whole [completely unproductive] "carbon credit" market. ;)

What I meant was those countries who have little industry would benefit from those industrious countries giving them money. This is a global socialist idea to redistribute money from the richer nations to the poorer ones.

[RedStripe]

What do you call welfare? We all know that intent.

Read the last half of the sentence you quoted.

You do realize that the progressive, so-called "reforms" of the early 1900s and the New Deal package of social insurance were responses to periods of extreme social unrest in this country, right? Hell, that's the period in which true, populist, individualist American-style Anarchism was at its peak - people were fed up with a system of state privilege which accumulated wealth in the hands of a few (who made money from money and monopoly) while the masses toiled in relative poverty. The progressive era reforms accomplished two goals for the capitalists: appease the growing demand for reform (or much worse, revolution!) and cartelize their industries to guarantee them safe and steady profits.

The welfare state is just the safety valve on the lower classes, a way of making them dependent on the very state-capitalist system that has exploited them, robbed them of their wealth, and terrorized them for generations. The rich have owned and operated the US government since it's inception, and have used it for their economic benefit ever since. No sane and educated person can deny this.

[YumYum]

We DO have alternatives to choose from, not all equally cheap.

Let's assume they are cheap for the purpose of discussion. Currently, we have no other choices except fossil fuels, so our hands are tied. But if we had multiple sources of clean energy that was affordable, punishment or some type of restraint would be warranted; whether by a court of law or a lynch mob in a Free market environment. I don't trust governments, so I am not to hip on any tax for any reason.


And what if CO2 wasn't causing GW, but CO2 is itself harmful upon increasing accumulation?

Yes, if it has an effect on the oxygen levels. In that case, we would all die.


So looks like you don't need CO2 to cause global warming at all.

My concern isn't so much about global warming. It is more about carbon monoxide poisoning/smog which is killing people who breathe that stuff daily. The whole cap 'n trade thing should focus on carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide.



So regardless of climate change, you'd agree that if it can be shown CO2 increase will threaten our future lives, you'd be willing to cap, tax and restrict carbon emissions?

Yes, but in a Libertarian World, where it would be handled by a court and not a government. You blow smog in my face, I'll sue you.

[WaltM]

Yes, but in a Libertarian World, where it would be handled by a court and not a government. You blow smog in my face, I'll sue you.

that's absurd.

that's like saying as long as the entity is a private corporation, you'd have no problem.

as if magically public and private and always mutually exclusive and their good/evil is defined without mistake.

Tell me, in a libertarian world, how does a court (private or otherwise) have any authority to do anything? (all the answers Ive heard from fantasy land have been either they cannot violate property, or they must rely on voluntary participation, both of which are useless against corporations)

[YumYum]

The welfare state is just the safety valve on the lower classes, a way of making them dependent on the very state-capitalist system that has exploited them, robbed them of their wealth, and terrorized them for generations. The rich have owned and operated the US government since it's inception, and have used it for their economic benefit ever since. No sane and educated person can deny this.

Wouldn't you say that LBJ created the Great Society to appease the blacks, instead of paying reparations to descendants of slaves for our country's liability for allowing slavery?

[WaltM]

The welfare state is just the safety valve on the lower classes, a way of making them dependent on the very state-capitalist system that has exploited them, robbed them of their wealth, and terrorized them for generations. The rich have owned and operated the US government since it's inception, and have used it for their economic benefit ever since. No sane and educated person can deny this.

The rich have owned and operated the US gov't, I assume you don't mean it as a bad thing.

As for a welfare state being a safety valve, if the alternative is the lower classes dying of starvation, is than an acceptable or preferable alternative to wasting money to save them?
(please try to answer with a YES, NO, MAYBE, IDK, not IF, BUT, INANIDEALWORLDTHATDONTEXIST)

[amy31416]

CO2 absolutely increases plant growth, which would, in turn, increases oxygen levels. It's the effects of increased temperature and a shift in the quality of soil/change in rainfall that may effect plant growth (for better or worse, depending on the combinations.)

There's about a zillion studies on this on the web. Look it up.

Why is there an imbalance in CO2/O2 levels? Probably a lot of reasons. A few guesses:

1. Burning fuels in areas where only limited plant life is capable of growing, despite the other favorable conditions (deserts, extreme cold, etc.)
2. Deforestation of some of the most plant-dense areas in Africa, South America, Asia.
3. Agriculture. When you harvest, industrial farms often cut the plant's life short, and use carbon-producing fuels to do so. Extensive herbicides cut down on normal weed levels.
4. The combination factor listed above--extensive rain causes a lot of plants to rot and/or washes nutrients out of soil.

It's not as simple as any one or two factors. One part of the globe may experience fantastic results from an increase, another part may suffer. I'm not convinced that the "experts" know enough yet, nor am I convinced that they're researching independently and scientifically.

If there really were as much of an issue as some people say, wouldn't they be pushing for a worldwide gathering of data from everyone? From the lowliest gardener to the high-level agricultural companies? If you believe what the global warming folks are yelling about, all hell's just about to break loose (for the last 40 or so years.)

I'll hold my breath for that, just as I will for the end times.

[Mini-Me]

The rich have owned and operated the US gov't, I assume you don't mean it as a bad thing.

As for a welfare state being a safety valve, if the alternative is the lower classes dying of starvation, is than an acceptable or preferable alternative to wasting money to save them?
(please try to answer with a YES, NO, MAYBE, IDK, not IF, BUT, INANIDEALWORLDTHATDONTEXIST)

If you actually tried to create non-loaded questions that weren't framed as false dilemmas, maybe people would start answering them more directly.

[RedStripe]

Wouldn't you say that LBJ created the Great Society to appease the blacks, instead of paying reparations to descendants of slaves for our country's liability for allowing slavery?

Thanks for bringing that up. The Great Society followed the exact same formula as the progressive era and the New Deal: during period of massive social unrest, the corporate elite (or the more intelligent factions thereof) institute policies which serve to quell the discontent but do not, in any significant way, alter societal power relations which gave rise to the conditions which served as the impetus for the social unrest itself.

[YumYum]

that's absurd.

It is absurd, but we have 20,000 Libertarians reading this thread who hate government. So, if I say, "yes, have the government tax them", I will be viewed as a socialist.


that's like saying as long as the entity is a private corporation, you'd have no problem.

No,no,no. I hate corporations. In my Libertarian world there will be no corporations. No shields from liability. You screw up, you pay.


as if magically public and private and always mutually exclusive and their good/evil is defined without mistake.

I'll let AED debate you on that. I think that is getting away from your original question. Regardless of who imposes the punishment, those who impose on others private property should pay the price.


Tell me, in a libertarian world, how does a court (private or otherwise) have any authority to do anything? (all the answers Ive heard from fantasy land have been either they cannot violate property, or they must rely on voluntary participation, both of which are useless against corporations)

I don't know, I have asked the same question and I have been called a communist. I think the Free Market Utopia is a great idea, I just don't see how you can prevent the greedy rich from taking control. Those who have all the money rule. Even Heaven has roads paved with gold.

[WaltM]

CO2 absolutely increases plant growth, which would, in turn, increases oxygen levels. It's the effects of increased temperature and a shift in the quality of soil/change in rainfall that may effect plant growth (for better or worse, depending on the combinations.)


So you admit, it depends on situations, not 100% of the time.

Not to mention, if plants and forestation were DECREASING, CO2 wouldn't be consumed fast enough.




There's about a zillion studies on this on the web. Look it up.

Why is there an imbalance in CO2/O2 levels? Probably a lot of reasons. A few guesses:

1. Burning fuels in areas where only limited plant life is capable of growing, despite the other favorable conditions (deserts, extreme cold, etc.)
2. Deforestation of some of the most plant-dense areas in Africa, South America, Asia.
3. Agriculture. When you harvest, industrial farms often cut the plant's life short, and use carbon-producing fuels to do so. Extensive herbicides cut down on normal weed levels.
4. The combination factor listed above--extensive rain causes a lot of plants to rot and/or washes nutrients out of soil.

It's not as simple as any one or two factors.


No shit.

So my question is, why isn't that a reason to decrease CO2 emissions until we can say "we need more"?

Isn't it pretty obvious that creating CO2 is much easier than creating O2?



One part of the globe may experience fantastic results from an increase, another part may suffer. I'm not convinced that the "experts" know enough yet, nor am I convinced that they're researching independently and scientifically.


that's actually the EXACT argument from AGW alarmists, that GW is only a symptom of the overall problem, the fear is NOT merely temperature increase, but instability of climate, which is hard to predict and imbalance in rain, droughts, CO2, O2 that'll ultimately be disastrous (oh, it only needs to happen locally once a year in completely remote places to affect the lifestyle of remaining countries).




If there really were as much of an issue as some people say, wouldn't they be pushing for a worldwide gathering of data from everyone? From the lowliest gardener to the high-level agricultural companies? If you believe what the global warming folks are yelling about, all hell's just about to break loose (for the last 40 or so years.)

I'll hold my breath for that, just as I will for the end times.

wait, you mean there's nobody pushing for data collection on people?

What if industrial emissions was substantially higher than average people, such that starting with industrial emissions is much more cost effective than monitoring humans?

By your logic, why not monitor every forest?

[WaltM]

If you actually tried to create non-loaded questions that weren't framed as false dilemmas, maybe people would start answering them more directly.

What 3rd option did I miss?

Oh, yes, I said it, thefantasylandthatdoesntexist.

Is letting people starve dead not a possible scenario worth answering for?

[treyfu]

No action that is based on the initiation of the use of violence and coercive force can be considered moral. So no, from a moral standpoint, nothing can ever justify cap and trade. Pollution in any form can only be solved by voluntarism and the protection of property rights.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No action that is based on the initiation of the use of violence and coercive force can be considered moral. So no, from a moral standpoint, nothing can ever justify cap and trade. Pollution in any form can only be solved by voluntarism and the protection of property rights.

Chile and Costa Rica have amazing private conservatory parks. In fact, the owners of Northface & Patagonia Clothing have bought and run the largest private conservatory in the world. Those damn rich bastards! :D

[WaltM]

It is absurd, but we have 20,000 Libertarians reading this thread who hate government. So, if I say, "yes, have the government tax them", I will be viewed as a socialist.



No,no,no. I hate corporations. In my Libertarian world there will be no corporations. No shields from liability. You screw up, you pay.



I'll let AED debate you on that. I think that is getting away from your original question. Regardless of who imposes the punishment, those who impose on others private property should pay the price.



I don't know, I have asked the same question and I have been called a communist. I think the Free Market Utopia is a great idea, I just don't see how you can prevent the greedy rich from taking control. Those who have all the money rule. Even Heaven has roads paved with gold.

looks like we're in the same boat.

we have to pretend like we're opposed to taxes to avoid being called socialist.

we have to pretend the free market utopia is different than Marx's utopia to avoid being called communist.

And I differ, I don't hate corporations, I don't see a world (unless extremely incompetent, poor and regulated) hypothetical or realistic, where corporations do not exist.

No ancap or libertarian has been able to answer : how can a private court (OR ANYBODY) settle things if it doesn't violate property and use force?

[WaltM]

Chile and Costa Rica have amazing private conservatory parks. In fact, the owners of Northface & Patagonia Clothing have bought and run the largest private conservatory in the world. Those damn rich bastards! :D

How is that not corporatism or corporate monopoly?

Or are you against corporatism at all?

[WaltM]

No action that is based on the initiation of the use of violence and coercive force can be considered moral. So no, from a moral standpoint, nothing can ever justify cap and trade. Pollution in any form can only be solved by voluntarism and the protection of property rights.

so you believe pollution is never a crime, since it's never an initiation of force, and polluters would never voluntarily subject themselves to jurisdiction and control.

the "they want to be good for business" is bullshit, because that assumes people only do things for money.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

looks like we're in the same boat.

we have to pretend like we're opposed to taxes to avoid being called socialist.

we have to pretend the free market utopia is different than Marx's utopia to avoid being called communist.

And I differ, I don't hate corporations, I don't see a world (unless extremely incompetent, poor and regulated) hypothetical or realistic, where corporations do not exist.

No ancap or libertarian has been able to answer : how can a private court (OR ANYBODY) settle things if it doesn't violate property and use force?

You should ask third party arbiters...Besides you confuse the issue, which is decidedly what you always do. No one is against the use of force per se, what we are against is the INITIATION of force/aggression. I know philosophical views are nuanced, and above you, but seriously be honest at least. As for private courts, I'm pretty sure we have monolithic volumes to answer your question.

Sort of like how do you have contracts without violation of property. Well thats a stupid question don't you think? Read some Anthony de Jasay please.

[RedStripe]

The rich have owned and operated the US gov't, I assume you don't mean it as a bad thing.

Hmm. Yes, I do view it as a bad thing... but not because it is objectively bad, but because I'm not in the ruling class.. and anyone who is not in the ruling class should be pissed that they are being exploited.


As for a welfare state being a safety valve, if the alternative is the lower classes dying of starvation, is than an acceptable or preferable alternative to wasting money to save them?
(please try to answer with a YES, NO, MAYBE, IDK, not IF, BUT, INANIDEALWORLDTHATDONTEXIST)

Absolutely not. Clearly, by any humanitarian standard there's no question that a welfare state is preferable to people starving in the street. I mean, if this sort of black-and-white (and thus unrealistic) hypothetical is designed merely to test my allegiance to the typical right-wing libertarian dogma, it would have easier to simply ask.

Frankly, the hypothetical choice you've offered is as unrealistic as the free-market utopias. The fact is, faced with starvation, people would simply take the things necessary for survival (and I would support their "moral" right to do so). Even as a skeptic of charity, I think it's fair to say that without a welfare state I think it's unlikely that many people would starve to death in the United States (except for those who did not seek help, or those of extremely unusual circumstances).

On the contrary, the very fact that a significant portion of the population faces starvation might provide the stimulus needed for a more fundamental reform of the system which gave rise to such gross and unjustifiable disparity of means. This would not actually happen because the wealthy ruling class would make just those concessions necessary (as they have) to alleviate the current pain, without disrupting the true sources of the problem. And here we are again!

[amy31416]

So you admit, it depends on situations, not 100% of the time.

Not to mention, if plants and forestation were DECREASING, CO2 wouldn't be consumed fast enough.




No shit.

So my question is, why isn't that a reason to decrease CO2 emissions until we can say "we need more"?

Isn't it pretty obvious that creating CO2 is much easier than creating O2?



that's actually the EXACT argument from AGW alarmists, that GW is only a symptom of the overall problem, the fear is NOT merely temperature increase, but instability of climate, which is hard to predict and imbalance in rain, droughts, CO2, O2 that'll ultimately be disastrous (oh, it only needs to happen locally once a year in completely remote places to affect the lifestyle of remaining countries).




wait, you mean there's nobody pushing for data collection on people?

What if industrial emissions was substantially higher than average people, such that starting with industrial emissions is much more cost effective than monitoring humans?

By your logic, why not monitor every forest?

The difference between you and I is that I believe it should be backed by as much hard science as possible, I'm not going to listen to hysterical eco-nazis and that the data collection should be voluntary. You seem to like to enforce everything with government and guns--that's your answer for almost everything.

This data collection has not been promoted or done. Until then, Cap & Trade appears to be a big scheme that won't do anything but make a few enterprising individuals rich, from what I've read, it sure as shit won't improve the environment.

Oh, and "no shit" to you too...it's a much better idea to blindly deforest areas and tax carbon. :rolleyes:

Your immediate hostility shuts down any potential for debate or discussion, you're tedious. And I find the "line by line" debate style to be obnoxious--especially when you make a claim about my logic, while entirely missing the point.

(It's not "easier" to create CO2 than O2--the plants do it for us......you follow?)

[RedStripe]

Chile and Costa Rica have amazing private conservatory parks. In fact, the owners of Northface & Patagonia Clothing have bought and run the largest private conservatory in the world. Those damn rich bastards! :D

God Bless our benevolent and far-sighted capitalist kings!

[Petar]

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/8165/triumphofthespam.jpg

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

God Bless our benevolent and far-sighted capitalist kings!

I'm just wondering who Northface have exploited. ;)

Why do you hate philanthropy so much?

[RedStripe]

Spam Hitler's married! Grats!

[WaltM]

You should ask third party arbiters...Besides you confuse the issue, which is decidedly what you always do. No one is against the use of force per se, what we are against is the INITIATION of force/aggression.


Oh, I know that.

Except, there's no universally accepted definition of "initiation of aggression" so you can always say "I approve this because I wasn't the initiation" and "they can't do that, that's initiation".



I know philosophical views are nuanced, and above you, but seriously be honest at least. As for private courts, I'm pretty sure we have monolithic volumes to answer your question.

Sort of like how do you have contracts without violation of property. Well thats a stupid question don't you think? Read some Anthony de Jasay please.

So you admitted that violation of property is essential to a society that values and intends to protect property?

Or, more candidly, violence is essential to a society which seeks to prevent violence?

[WaltM]

(It's not "easier" to create CO2 than O2--the plants do it for us......you follow?)

yes, it is.

It's easier to burn carbon than it is to wait for a plant to reverse it.

Please provide a counter example.

[amy31416]

yes, it is.

It's easier to burn carbon than it is to wait for a plant to reverse it.

Please provide a counter example.

Civility! I'm so shocked, I just might piss myself.

Ask yourself how you get that carbon to burn (coal, oil, gas, etc.). If you know anything about drilling or mining, you'll realize that it's an enormous undertaking.

Now, how difficult is it to grow a weed or a tree? We put forth ZERO effort for plants to do what they do naturally (this, of course, does not include artificial constructs such as agriculture and various forms of gardening, which does take a lot of effort and often pollutes the environment.)

Sure, it's easier to burn a gallon of gas that's in a container sitting in front of you if you have a match, but there was a ton of effort that went into getting that fuel. The weeds that grow on my lawn took zero effort.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Oh, I know that.

Except, there's no universally accepted definition of "initiation of aggression" so you can always say "I approve this because I wasn't the initiation" and "they can't do that, that's initiation".



So you admitted that violation of property is essential to a society that values and intends to protect property?

Or, more candidly, violence is essential to a society which seeks to prevent violence?

Yes. I still don't understand how you jump from that to the legitimacy or authority of the State however. Why must we give monopoly to territorial regimes? Theres a subtle understanding that the violation of property is only just and moral when the owner of such property has himself violated anothers property. In that regard, he has essentially given up his right to absolute property rights. This can be accomplished on purely voluntary grounds. Again, I harken back to a more utilitarian approach that you may find more amiable by Anthony de Jasay.

The only people who don't understand the concept and definition of initiation are complete imbeciles. You aren't a complete imbecile are you? Even five year olds understand the concept. "But, he started it!" Of course he did little one and you were fully justified to respond in kind. :D Unlike other species though, we learn from experience. It's why when bullies get confronted they tend to not keep bullying.

Only in your mind the State is the logical approach to this issue.

[awake]

There is absolutely no need for a tax system of government redistribution to help so called victims of climate change, co2, or pollution. If these wrongs are indeed wrongs then individuals can pursue it as an aggression of property through the courts. There must be a burden to prove it.

A man may work and save so he may choose his own adaptations to his changing environment. This is the power of society; many individuals following the same principle choosing for himself and his family the best way to protect themselves. The best choices lead the way. This has made humanity thrive in the face of challenging events. This is what unmolested capitalism is; the saving of labor through higher forms of production yielding greater means to sustain life for when it is most needed.

All forms of government interference and schemes to prevent this accumulation of capital burdens this process. Taxation is theft of the power to sustain life. Government can not claim a divine purpose to cure poverty when it is itself the exacerbation of the condition.

It is incalculable the amount of capital of past generations that has been thrown away in needless government induced wars and welfarism to bribe people to go along with evil, now when that power is needed most, it can not be recalled as it has been squandered.

[RedStripe]

I'm just wondering who Northface have exploited. ;)

Northface is a profit-making agency of the United States Government. It was created by a state government, which receives a share of its profits. It also shares some of its profits with the federal government. It has been granted the privilege of limited liability by legislative fiat. The taxes levied upon the dividends of corporate stock discourage investors from investing in new ventures, and encourage the accumulation of capital into Northface and Northface's reinvestment (and thus malinvestment) in it's own ventures. The roads, bridges, ports, tunnels, canals, ferries, airports and rail lines which provide the infrastructure for all of its shipping needs are paid for by the government, and, disproportionately by individual taxpayers (relative to the use). The communication infrastructure it relies on to efficiently manage its global enterprise was generously developed by the federal government using taxpayer money. This includes the internet, satellites, the postal service, intercontinental communication cables, telephone, and more. All were subsidized by or direct creations of the federal government. Government-enforced intellectual property grants Northface monopoly rights on dozens, if not hundreds, of different ideas, logos, and processes which enable it operate with less competition. The fact that the people who labor in it's factory have been deprived, by government, of alternate methods of self-employment means that the labor costs for Northface have been subsidized.

This could go on. How have most corporations benefited from the credit monopoly (Federal Reserve), various regulatory schemes, tariffs, land monopolization (directly related to the rise of the mall/strip malls which currently offer the "products" of Northface), etc, etc.

But, you see, none of this matters to the corporate apologist school. Everything is the fault of the government, the "bad god" came out of - seemingly - nowhere and corrupted this fair planet! The poor businesses just did their best to adapt to this "bad god." :(:(:(

It's like creationism versus evolution. The corporate apologist wants to ignore the history of how the economy came to be as it is just as the creationist wants to ignore the history of how life came to be what it is. Instead, a story which appeals only to the infantile intellect is proposed as the setting for their fictional novel.



Why do you hate philanthropy so much?

Within your question is a implied assertion that I do, in fact, hate philanthropy. It's so crass and beneath you, even, to dodge the issue and make such a thinly-veiled assertion (based on nothing) that I wonder if it is an indication that you actually have no better response to my statement than such a pathetic retort. It's pathetic, in the same respect, as a welfare-statist who claims that one does not care for the poor if he questions the wisdom of the welfare state. "Are you then an opponent of charity?!?" And to think that both insinuations have been made in the same thread!

[awake]

I'll grant you that either global warming is untrue, or that it's not caused by CO2, or that cap & trade won't do anything to stop it.

In fact, I'll even grant you that cap & trade will hurt our economy.

Is there ANYTHING that would EVER justify cap & trade? Or a direct carbon tax?

In fact, cap & trade isn't a global warming measure, it's a measure to decrease carbon emissions, if your belief is "forget the climate" or "global warming actually CAUSES CO2 to increase" is there no good reason to decrease CO2 anyway?

What harm must CO2 do (not counting that of climate and temperature) to justify capping and taxing carbon emissions?


They have yet to prove that co2 is harming anything but cartelists trying to use the government to screw consumers. If they can actually prove something, than that can be taken up in the courts.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Northface is a profit-making agency of the United States Government. It was created by a state government, which receives a share of its profits. It also shares some of its profits with the federal government. It has been granted the privilege of limited liability by legislative fiat. The taxes levied upon the dividends of corporate stock discourage investors from investing in new ventures, and encourage the accumulation of capital into Northface and Northface's reinvestment (and thus malinvestment) in it's own ventures. The roads, bridges, ports, tunnels, canals, ferries, airports and rail lines which provide the infrastructure for all of its shipping needs are paid for by the government, and, disproportionately by individual taxpayers (relative to the use). The communication infrastructure it relies on to efficiently manage its global enterprise was generously developed by the federal government using taxpayer money. This includes the internet, satellites, the postal service, intercontinental communication cables, telephone, and more. All were subsidized by or direct creations of the federal government. Government-enforced intellectual property grants Northface monopoly rights on dozens, if not hundreds, of different ideas, logos, and processes which enable it operate with less competition. The fact that the people who labor in it's factory have been deprived, by government, of alternate methods of self-employment means that the labor costs for Northface have been subsidized.

This could go on. How have most corporations benefited from the credit monopoly (Federal Reserve), various regulatory schemes, tariffs, land monopolization (directly related to the rise of the mall/strip malls which currently offer the "products" of Northface), etc, etc.

But, you see, none of this matters to the corporate apologist school. Everything is the fault of the government, the "bad god" came out of - seemingly - nowhere and corrupted this fair planet! The poor businesses just did their best to adapt to this "bad god." :(:(:(

It's like creationism versus evolution. The corporate apologist wants to ignore the history of how the economy came to be as it is just as the creationist wants to ignore the history of how life came to be what it is. Instead, a story which appeals only to the infantile intellect is proposed as the setting for their fictional novel.



Within your question is a implied assertion that I do, in fact, hate philanthropy. It's so crass and beneath you, even, to dodge the issue and make such a thinly-veiled assertion (based on nothing) that I wonder if it is an indication that you actually have no better response to my statement than such a pathetic retort. It's pathetic, in the same respect, as a welfare-statist who claims that one does not care for the poor if he questions the wisdom of the welfare state. "Are you then an opponent of charity?!?" And to think that both insinuations have been made in the same thread!

I wanted to have a little fun at the end. It can be such a bore being so serious all the time.

[RedStripe]

I wanted to have a little fun at the end. It can be such a bore being so serious all the time.

I hope your life consists of more than posts on the internet!

[WaltM]

Yes. I still don't understand how you jump from that to the legitimacy or authority of the State however.


I'll show you.

a) use of force is sometimes justified
b) the state is composed of humans
c) I don't hold the State to a higher standard
d) so the state is legitimate as long as it uses force no more often and no less justified in frequency then I'd tolerate all others.



Why must we give monopoly to territorial regimes?


where did I say that?



Theres a subtle understanding that the violation of property is only just and moral when the owner of such property has himself violated anothers property.


In other words, there's an understanding to hurt a person if they hurt you first.




In that regard, he has essentially given up his right to absolute property rights.


So basically as long as I don't like something you did, I can say you did it to me and I can do the same to you.




This can be accomplished on purely voluntary grounds. Again, I harken back to a more utilitarian approach that you may find more amiable by Anthony de Jasay.

The only people who don't understand the concept and definition of initiation are complete imbeciles. You aren't a complete imbecile are you? Even five year olds understand the concept.


If I am, I am.



"But, he started it!" Of course he did little one and you were fully justified to respond in kind. :D Unlike other species though, we learn from experience. It's why when bullies get confronted they tend to not keep bullying.


So by your definition, if you were born after the State was founded, it's not the State's fault that you landed on them. and they cannot be considered "initiators".




Only in your mind the State is the logical approach to this issue.

I never said the State is a logical approach to anything, at most I've considered it an acceptable option.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I hope your life consists of more than posts on the internet!

When I'm not at work sucking the life out of the economy, yep. Besides, given your definition of exploitation above, it seemingly encompasses every activity within the US. I hope you don't take such broad generalizations as fact, right?

[RedStripe]

Walt I think you're a swell guy and want to know what you think about my answer to the question you posed to me.

e: going to bed for now, but still interested on your take

[WaltM]

Civility! I'm so shocked, I just might piss myself.

Ask yourself how you get that carbon to burn (coal, oil, gas, etc.). If you know anything about drilling or mining, you'll realize that it's an enormous undertaking.


those aren't the only things you can burn.

I can burn trees if all I wanted to to create CO2.



Now, how difficult is it to grow a weed or a tree? We put forth ZERO effort for plants to do what they do naturally (this, of course, does not include artificial constructs such as agriculture and various forms of gardening, which does take a lot of effort and often pollutes the environment.)

Sure, it's easier to burn a gallon of gas that's in a container sitting in front of you if you have a match, but there was a ton of effort that went into getting that fuel. The weeds that grow on my lawn took zero effort.

weeds growing on your lawn took zero effort, but how long do those weeds take to reverse the effect of O2-CO2?

do weeds grow everywhere? is there anywhere outdoors, above sea level, that's not in the himalayas, that carbon can't burn?

Are you seriously denying that if we wanted to create CO2, it'd be easier than if we wanted to create O2?

(granted, you can create O2 with electrolytizing water)

[RedStripe]

, given your definition of exploitation above, it seemingly encompasses every activity within the US. I hope you don't take such broad generalizations as fact, right?

Um yea, the entire US economy is based upon (willingly or not) some degree of exploitation. Sorry if this bursts your bubble but it's the way things actually are.

[sratiug]

I guarantee you that no policy ever adopted by the US Congress was ever designed to benefit the poor at the expense of the rich unless the very stability of the system was at stake (in which case, it was still a pro-rich policy, but in the long term rather than the short).

But policies are routinely put into place that benefit the poor (or claim to) at the expense of the middle class. The middle class are the arch enemies of the global elite. The Creature From Jekyll Island explains this well, and how the environment was picked a long time ago to replace the Soviet threat to continue the scare tactics allowing totalitarianism to flourish.

CO2 is not our enemy and even pretending that is so is just ridiculous. When people get scared enough of CO2, they'll stop cutting down trees and start planting them again instead. Problem solved. Big fucking deal. It will take a lot longer to undo damage from nuclear meltdowns than to grow trees.

[WaltM]

Hmm. Yes, I do view it as a bad thing... but not because it is objectively bad, but because I'm not in the ruling class.. and anyone who is not in the ruling class should be pissed that they are being exploited.


Thanks for being honest, I'm with you.



Absolutely not. Clearly, by any humanitarian standard there's no question that a welfare state is preferable to people starving in the street.


thanks again.



I mean, if this sort of black-and-white (and thus unrealistic) hypothetical is designed merely to test my allegiance to the typical right-wing libertarian dogma, it would have easier to simply ask.


I apologize, it's not always that easy, because if I asked, people jump around and ask for examples, forcing me to give an extreme one, then they still don't answer. I thank you for being honest and straightforward.




Frankly, the hypothetical choice you've offered is as unrealistic as the free-market utopias. The fact is, faced with starvation, people would simply take the things necessary for survival (and I would support their "moral" right to do so).


Even what you can take, is quite limited. Depending on what part of the world you live in.

Just think of the recent earthquakes and floods.



Even as a skeptic of charity, I think it's fair to say that without a welfare state I think it's unlikely that many people would starve to death in the United States (except for those who did not seek help, or those of extremely unusual circumstances).


I take it you've not seen people starve to death even WITH the welfare state today, but there's no easy way to know whether they actually chose to.





On the contrary, the very fact that a significant portion of the population faces starvation might provide the stimulus needed for a more fundamental reform of the system which gave rise to such gross and unjustifiable disparity of means.


usually, that's the groundwork for communist revolution.




This would not actually happen because the wealthy ruling class would make just those concessions necessary (as they have) to alleviate the current pain, without disrupting the true sources of the problem. And here we are again!

yes, exactly.

because nobody likes violence unless it's necessary. people try best to keep the rest calm, so everybody can be safe and happy.

[legion]

If carbon did turn out to be a problem I would advocate a carbon tax, not "cap and trade."

Cap and trade would only encourage speculation in production and would cause bubbles.

If this really is a problem we should just tax it like we tax land, not create an imaginary market for it. Creating imaginary markets where there is not a natural one encourages abuses.

Because people are advocating creating a market in carbon suggests to me that the people proposing the regulation don't take it very seriously themselves and are out for their own profit, and have already speculated heavily in this "green" industry mess.

[WaltM]

If carbon did turn out to be a problem I would advocate a carbon tax, not "cap and trade."


Why not?

Isn't cap & trade just a more subtle carbon tax or carbon fine?

If carbon tax isn't used to a more productive alternative, wouldn't trading make more sense?



Cap and trade would only encourage speculation in production and would cause bubbles.


Good point.



If this really is a problem we should just tax it like we tax land, not create an imaginary market for it. Creating imaginary markets where there is not a natural one encourages abuses.

Because people are advocating creating a market in carbon suggests to me that the people proposing the regulation don't take it very seriously themselves and are out for their own profit, and have already speculated heavily in this "green" industry mess.

must everybody take things seriously by working for free?

[silverhandorder]

This is nonsense. If it damaging anyone then go and sue them.

RedStripe how would you achieve your perfect society? What would you do to end the exploitation of the corporations. I am suspicious that your answer might be something like more taxes and regulations on them.

[WaltM]

This is nonsense. If it damaging anyone then go and sue them.


If I lived in US, and Swedish polluters harm me, what court do I sue in?

Must every single person file an individual suit?




RedStripe how would you achieve your perfect society? What would you do to end the exploitation of the corporations. I am suspicious that your answer might be something like more taxes and regulations on them.

lol

[YumYum]

This is nonsense. If it damaging anyone then go and sue them.

RedStripe how would you achieve your perfect society? What would you do to end the exploitation of the corporations. I am suspicious that your answer might be something like more taxes and regulations on them.

Why do we need corporations in the Free Market Utopia? In the Free Market Utopia, aren't individuals held accountable for their actions? Isn't the Free Market Utopia all about individualism?

[YumYum]

Must every single person file an individual suit?

Who in the Hell has time to be in court all the time? How many courts per ca-pita will there be in Free Market Utopia?

[WaltM]

Why do we need corporations in the Free Market Utopia?


just because we dont need them doesnt mean they can't or shouldn't exist



In the Free Market Utopia, aren't individuals held accountable for their actions? Isn't the Free Market Utopia all about individualism?

ya, what does that have to do with corporations?

[WaltM]

Who in the Hell has time to be in court all the time? How many courts per ca-pita will there be in Free Market Utopia?

uhhhh. my point exactly?

[silverhandorder]

If I lived in US, and Swedish polluters harm me, what court do I sue in?

Must every single person file an individual suit?

Swedish polluters would have to worry about Swedish citizens coming after them. CFCs were a real problem and got phased out instantly. CO2 is nonsense that people are trying to make money from. I am in the industry and profited from it first hand.

[silverhandorder]

Why do we need corporations in the Free Market Utopia? In the Free Market Utopia, aren't individuals held accountable for their actions? Isn't the Free Market Utopia all about individualism?

We don't need corporations but what do you propose we do to get to market utopia. Wait let me guess regulations and taxes.

[WaltM]

Swedish polluters would have to worry about Swedish citizens coming after them.


and?

no other victims matter?



CFCs were a real problem and got phased out instantly. CO2 is nonsense that people are trying to make money from. I am in the industry and profited from it first hand.

what is your industry?

how was CFC phased out?

[amy31416]

those aren't the only things you can burn.

I can burn trees if all I wanted to to create CO2.



weeds growing on your lawn took zero effort, but how long do those weeds take to reverse the effect of O2-CO2?

do weeds grow everywhere? is there anywhere outdoors, above sea level, that's not in the himalayas, that carbon can't burn?

Are you seriously denying that if we wanted to create CO2, it'd be easier than if we wanted to create O2?

(granted, you can create O2 with electrolytizing water)

Burning trees is carbon neutral. Each plant has different efficiencies in producing O2--there are specific plants that are particularly good at it.

Weeds grow (almost) everywhere--and I already addressed the factor of inhospitable locations. I'm not saying that it's easier for humans to create O2, I'm saying that it's easy (far easier) to allow plants to do their thing, but we keep cutting them down. If you wanted me to make a little factory, one that produced CO2 vs. one that produces O2, I could easily allow plants to grow like mad--I can't produce any more CO2 than I already do, unless I start drilling, mining or possibly burning random shit. Animals expel CO2 during respiration, so obviously it's easier for us to produce CO2, but now we're getting into the realm of ridiculousness. If I wanted to produce CO2 via that method, I'd have to farm animals, which is obviously a lot more work than just allowing a jungle or forest to be what it is.

What's your ultimate point? Tax the crap out of everyone rather than try a scientifically proven way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere that actually improves the environment?

C6H12O6 + 6O2 --> 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy <------ respiration
6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy --> C6H12O6 + 6O2 <------ photosynthesis

[silverhandorder]

and?

no other victims matter?



what is your industry?

how was CFC phased out?

Other victims can pick up guns and go fight Swedish dudes. I don't understand your proposition because either way this is what it will come down to if Swedish do not cooperate whether it is WaltM's world or Silverhandorder's world.

I do basic research in a CUNY. We got a grant of 5 million $ to work on biofuels. Most of the money is spent in furthering projects that gov't has no interest in. Both professors are making money on the side through books and when they are done will go out and patent it for them selves.

[YumYum]

just because we dont need them doesnt mean they can't or shouldn't exist



ya, what does that have to do with corporations?

We as Libertarians hate collectives. Collectives are bad. Individual is good. Corporations are collectives that shields the owners from any liability that they may be responsible for. In Free Market Utopia, everybody will be held accountable for their actions, and will be found guilty in one of the 10 billion courts that will be available. No hiding behind a corporation.

If the person who was found guilty does not make restitution to the plaintiff, he/she will be taken to another court, a court called "You Better Pay Court".

The only reason you would have corporations in Free Market Utopia would be to not have any liabilities when the product you manufactured with your .50 cent an hour labor blows up and kills hundreds of people. If you, as the owner, are liable, you would lose your home and car and bank account in Free Market Utopia. You would have to get in line and start over. Corporations are bad.

[silverhandorder]

Actually YumYum you present a bad argument for free markets. First of all the size of the firm (corporation) depends on market and technological conditions. Sometimes it means big business and sometimes it swings in the favor of small business.

Also be careful in assuming that the market will reaffirm your morals.

Lastly a system of mutual insurances is a more likely outcome then courts. By that I mean you take out an insurance against being defrauded. If there is fraud and you incur damages you get paid out by your insurance. The people who commit fraud will be blacklisted by any insurance that wants to make money. As such you would incur higher prices or even risk losing your coverage if you go and do business with someone on the black list.

[WaltM]

Burning trees is carbon neutral.


as in it produces no new CO2?



Each plant has different efficiencies in producing O2--there are specific plants that are particularly good at it.


Ok, so let's say I wanted to hire you to produce O2, what is your choice of weapon?



Weeds grow (almost) everywhere--and I already addressed the factor of inhospitable locations. I'm not saying that it's easier for humans to create O2, I'm saying that it's easy (far easier) to allow plants to do their thing, but we keep cutting them down.


Oh, I'm well aware that plants do it much easier than humans.

But address my question, if you wanted to produce CO2 vs O2, what's faster?

Do weeds grow on sandy beaches? How about in cities? How about in deserts?
Hey guess what? I can burn carbon in all these places!




If you wanted me to make a little factory, one that produced CO2 vs. one that produces O2, I could easily allow plants to grow like mad--I can't produce any more CO2 than I already do, unless I start drilling, mining or possibly burning random shit.


I think you're wrong.

If I wanted to produce CO2 (ignoring byproducts), I can burn anything I like, paper, plastic, trash, just to name the few.

O2 as a fuel is "free" to use if I wanted to waste it,



Animals expel CO2 during respiration, so obviously it's easier for us to produce CO2, but now we're getting into the realm of ridiculousness.


No we're not.

It's an obvious fact that CO2 is easier to produce than O2 if humans intended one over the other. You're the one who tries to argue otherwise.



If I wanted to produce CO2 via that method, I'd have to farm animals, which is obviously a lot more work than just allowing a jungle or forest to be what it is.


which is why I proposed burning trash to begin with.



What's your ultimate point? Tax the crap out of everyone rather than try a scientifically proven way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere that actually improves the environment?


Glad you finally asked.

No, not tax people for no reason. But if CO2 were a problem (whether harmful, dangerous or otherwise unnecessary), would it not be a justification to tax for reduction?




C6H12O6 + 6O2 --> 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy <------ respiration
6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy --> C6H12O6 + 6O2 <------ photosynthesis

Yeah, I think you also know that photosynthesis is very costly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency

If humans wanted to produce O2?
We can't beat plants.

If humans wanted to produce CO2?
We can probably beat animals, with less cost too!

That's my point, if there's risk of having too much CO2, we should be more cautious than if we were in danger of CO2 shortage.

[WaltM]

Other victims can pick up guns and go fight Swedish dudes. I don't understand your proposition because either way this is what it will come down to if Swedish do not cooperate whether it is WaltM's world or Silverhandorder's world.


If you admit that, you can't say "in my world it'll be better".




I do basic research in a CUNY. We got a grant of 5 million $ to work on biofuels. Most of the money is spent in furthering projects that gov't has no interest in. Both professors are making money on the side through books and when they are done will go out and patent it for them selves.

I see.

[Knightskye]

It would be an involuntary transfer of wealth from people to well-connected corporations, like GE.

[devil21]

I'll grant you that either global warming is untrue, or that it's not caused by CO2, or that cap & trade won't do anything to stop it.

In fact, I'll even grant you that cap & trade will hurt our economy.

Is there ANYTHING that would EVER justify cap & trade? Or a direct carbon tax?

In fact, cap & trade isn't a global warming measure, it's a measure to decrease carbon emissions, if your belief is "forget the climate" or "global warming actually CAUSES CO2 to increase" is there no good reason to decrease CO2 anyway?

What harm must CO2 do (not counting that of climate and temperature) to justify capping and taxing carbon emissions?

Weird thread. Shouldn't the bolded part pretty much end your thread before it even started? You start with that but basically end up advocating for Cap and Tax anyway throughout the rest of the thread. Strange. You really strike me as a liberal trolling this forum for ideas on how to sell nonsense like Cap and Tax to intelligent people, WaltM. Anybody else get this feeling about WaltM?

On topic...let's dissect: (all quotes are WaltM unless otherwise stated)

If that was remotely true, CO2 wouldn't be increasing faster than it could be consumed.


Who says CO2 is increasing? Source please. You ask for proof from others while providing none yourself. There is much conflicting data regarding CO2 levels and no appreciable increase registered since the start of the industrial revolution.
http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/44622-co2-levels-stable-since-1850
Anything sourced from computer models and/or the IPCC should be ignored as they have already proven to be dishonest.


Yes, to reduce carbon monoxide/smog. I don't know how people live in that shit.

Did you just call CO2 "smog"? Oh boy. Carbon DIOXIDE is CO2, Carbon MONOXIDE/Smog is CO. Are you just confused or are you misleading intentionally? They are completely different molecules. What's next? You'll tell us about Carbon Dioxide poisoning?


And what if CO2 wasn't causing GW, but CO2 is itself harmful upon increasing accumulation?

Define "harmful" and at what level is CO2 "harmful". Actually, CO2 concentrations below 5,000ppm are not considered harmful at all. Ambient air is 300ppm. Do the math. Nevermind that there's never been any study to determine what, if any harmful effects of locally emitted CO2 and at what levels. Your question is so faulty it's not even funny.



So regardless of climate change, you'd agree that if it can be shown CO2 increase will threaten our future lives, you'd be willing to cap, tax and restrict carbon emissions?

Fuck no, because it's simply not true and would be plain fearmongering to further an agenda. The sheer amount of CO2 increase necessary to bring about your "threaten our future lives" would require a CO2 increase of thousands upon thousands of percentage points over our current levels. That's just plain fantasy. Im not even going to bother with the math because it's so laughable.

Screw it. Im not going to waste any more of my time beating up your posts on this thread. It reeks of an intelligence gathering mission to determine what new fearmongering method could get people to forget the whole AGW lie and accept the global socialist taxation scheme anyway.

NO there's nothing that would make me accept Cap and Tax or Carbon Taxes or any other such nonsense.

[WaltM]

Weird thread. Shouldn't the bolded part pretty much end your thread before it even started? You start with that but basically end up advocating for Cap and Tax anyway throughout the rest of the thread. Strange. You really strike me as a liberal trolling this forum for ideas on how to sell nonsense like Cap and Tax to intelligent people, WaltM. Anybody else get this feeling about WaltM?

NO there's nothing that would make me accept Cap and Tax or Carbon Taxes or any other such nonsense.

so why did you ask for sources, ask me to define harmful, and tell me CO2 is not at a dangerous level if nothing would make you accept cap or tax on carbon anyway?

why are you afraid I might get ideas to sell Cap & Trade? Don't you have the truth on your side?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

so why did you ask for sources, ask me to define harmful, and tell me CO2 is not at a dangerous level if nothing would make you accept cap or tax on carbon anyway?

why are you afraid I might get ideas to sell Cap & Trade? Don't you have the truth on your side?

Well the burden of proof is on you to prove that a system of Cap & Trade would actually solve the hypothetical problem of CO2 accumulation. You don't start off with an assumption that it does.

[WaltM]

Well the burden of proof is on you to prove that a system of Cap & Trade would actually solve the hypothetical problem of CO2 accumulation. You don't start off with an assumption that it does.

I DO have the burden of proof, which is why I ask what would convince you.

Some are honest enough to say "nothing would ever satisfy me" so I don't try.

Also, is the inability to fully solve the problem the justification for doing nothing?

Do you believe crime should never be fought just because it can't be eliminated?

[devil21]

so why did you ask for sources, ask me to define harmful, and tell me CO2 is not at a dangerous level if nothing would make you accept cap or tax on carbon anyway?

Whether I accept it or not has nothing to do with calling out the baseless assertions and poor logic in your posts. You still didn't answer my questions either.



why are you afraid I might get ideas to sell Cap & Trade? Don't you have the truth on your side?

You're pretty obvious.


I DO have the burden of proof, which is why I ask what would convince you.

LOL. That's like a prosecutor going to trial and asking the jury "Please tell me what it would take to convict the defendant and I'll make sure I say it."

[WaltM]

Whether I accept it or not has nothing to do with calling out the baseless assertions and poor logic in your posts. You still didn't answer my questions either.

You're pretty obvious.

NO there's nothing that would make me accept Cap and Tax or Carbon Taxes or any other such nonsense.

This means your questions don't need answers.

Just like this guy :


PopularTechnology.net webmaster :
A change in temperature no matter the amount does not justify AGW and thus cannot justify AGW alarmism. (but I wasted hours pretending like I cared about peer review science and called people liars)

I talk to people who actually care about data, and know where the line is.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I DO have the burden of proof, which is why I ask what would convince you.

Some are honest enough to say "nothing would ever satisfy me" so I don't try.

Also, is the inability to fully solve the problem the justification for doing nothing?

Do you believe crime should never be fought just because it can't be eliminated?

You haven't answered the question. I am saying if your scenario was actually true, why do you believe a Cap & Trade system would alleviate such problem? I'm tired of always being on the defensive. It's about damn time the Statist justifies his societal visions. If in the event it did not, would you promote a Primitivist viewpoint? I am wondering how far you would go to justify yourself.

[WaltM]

You haven't answered the question. I am saying if your scenario was actually true, why do you believe a Cap & Trade system would alleviate such problem?


I don't know.

I guess it would depend on how rigorous it's enforced and how other options come to replace carbon emissions.



I'm tired of always being on the defensive. It's about damn time the Statist justifies his societal visions.

I'm not an anarchist, so if I have to be a Statist, it's not the worst thing in the world.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't know.

I guess it would depend on how rigorous it's enforced and how other options come to replace carbon emissions.



I'm not an anarchist, so if I have to be a Statist, it's not the worst thing in the world.

You still haven't answered the question. I want you to be as rigorous with yourself as you are with market voluntaryists. I want you to fully describe your system and how it would work. How people would react to such a system, and how you would set it up and enforce it. I want to know the ins and outs of the system completely and why it would work.

[devil21]

I talk to people who actually care about data, and know where the line is.

It's a shame you haven't presented any.

Want to know why the answers to my questions don't matter? Because you don't have answers that make sense and that's why I asked them.

[WaltM]

It's a shame you haven't presented any.


You're not interested in hearing it.




Want to know why the answers to my questions don't matter? Because you don't have answers that make sense and that's why I asked them.

No, you said yourself 'NOTHING' would make you accept it, if you said "just show me _______ much CO2, and Cap & Trade will reverse the effects in ___ years", we might have a discussion.

Want to actually set a threshold?

Do you actually have a question where you're interested in the answer?

[WaltM]

You still haven't answered the question. I want you to be as rigorous with yourself as you are with market voluntaryists. I want you to fully describe your system and how it would work. How people would react to such a system, and how you would set it up and enforce it. I want to know the ins and outs of the system completely and why it would work.

I am neither a politician nor an industrialist, I'm not exactly a scientist either.

But I'll try my best.

If we can survey

a) how much carbon emissions are produced by industry each year
b) how much CO2 we're looking to reduce
c) what industries have carbon emissions that are replaceable by alternatives

We can then continue to survey,
d) are certain industries actually necessary?
e) are some industries artificially propped up by credit?
f) can & should some industries be hurt?

Now, we can do the same with pollution, either by fine or by reward.
I don't think BP's oil leak went unpunished or unnoticed.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I am neither a politician nor an industrialist, I'm not exactly a scientist either.

But I'll try my best.

If we can survey

a) how much carbon emissions are produced by industry each year
b) how much CO2 we're looking to reduce
c) what industries have carbon emissions that are replaceable by alternatives

We can then continue to survey,
d) are certain industries actually necessary?
e) are some industries artificially propped up by credit?
f) can & should some industries be hurt?

Now, we can do the same with pollution, either by fine or by reward.
I don't think BP's oil leak went unpunished or unnoticed.

How are you going to enforce this? What agency? How much is it going to cost? What happens if the alternative solutions produce results detrimental to standards of living and hence cause resistence? How will you stop the resultant corruption by picking a "winning" industry -- favor -- which gets Government subsidies? You speak in generalities. For all the hate you put on us market voluntaryists we give more indepth solutions than this. If you aren't willing to put the same rigor to your own views and solutions why do you hold us even higher?

[devil21]

Do you actually have a question where you're interested in the answer?

Im interested in your answers. Even if only for the comedic value. :)

I really want to hear you explain how ambient 300ppm CO2 levels will ever achieve scientifically proven fatal levels of 5000ppm and up, and by extension how Cap and Tax or similar would ever play into that fixing or reducing that. You did say it in so many words.

[WaltM]

How are you going to enforce this?
What agency?


Should BP be fined for the oil leak?

Who has the authority to do that?



How much is it going to cost? What happens if the alternative solutions produce results detrimental to standards of living and hence cause resistence?


How much does it cost to fine & regulate BP?

DOn't we know they'll just pass the bill to consumers?

Depends on what standards of living we're talking about.
(hard to answer without specifics)



How will you stop the resultant corruption by picking a "winning" industry


I can't.

I'm not talking about winning, I'm asking what would be acceptable to people like you, that if you can be in charge, what would you do (from today, not, if you lived in fantasyland these problems wouldn't exist to begin with).



-- favor -- which gets Government subsidies?


who today gets the subsidies?



You speak in generalities. For all the hate you put on us market voluntaryists we give more indepth solutions than this. If you aren't willing to put the same rigor to your own views and solutions why do you hold us even higher?

I don't hate market voluntaryists, I just don't think they're better at solving problems than the status quo.

[WaltM]

Im interested in your answers. Even if only for the comedic value. :)

I really want to hear you explain how ambient 300ppm CO2 levels will ever achieve scientifically proven fatal levels of 5000ppm and up


I don't know.

So I ask you. how close must be come to 5000ppm to justify regulation?

Let's say it's 300ppm today.

(in an extreme hypothetical case)
If the next 5 years, we see that it's been steadily increasing by 300ppm/year, would that be a problem?

If it only takes 16 years to reach 5000ppm, would that concern you?



, and by extension how Cap and Tax or similar would ever play into that fixing or reducing that. You did say it in so many words.

that depends on what fraction of the 300ppm increase can be attributed to industrial emissions, or controllable output.

[parocks]

I understood it that way as well.

However, the developed nations tend to support cap and trade.

The developing nations, the ones who desire to grow, are the ones against cap and trade. China, India, Russia, Brazil, all apparently against.

China, especially, thinks cap and trade is a plot to limit their future growth.
They very much would like to build many new power plants, and not be penalized in any way for doing so.

What the Chinese really think of 'Man Made Global Warming'
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100050359/what-the-chinese-really-think-of-man-made-global-warming/




The more CO2, the more plant growth takes place thus balancing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course, when the oceans warm up, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases because the oceans give off CO2 as they warm. It is much like the CO2 contained in a bottle of soda pop. As the liquid warms up, it can not hold as much CO2. This would account for an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. As the plant growth increases, because of the additional CO2, it will again begin to balance out the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

From what I understand, Cap and Trade has been designed to distribute money from the industrious countries to those who have little industry. It is classic socialism, disguised as some kind of climate protection scheme.

[awake]

I have said this before; cap and trade is a wonderful plan if it would be used to reduce the size of the government. Instead of prosecuting CO2 one could concievably cap the amount of legislation passed each year and reduce it every year after. Once you reach zero legislation emissions, you could begin negation of existing special interest driven legislation. Eventually you would end up at a free market over time.

Used otherwise It is only a convenient means to feed the tumor.

[YumYum]

Has any of the "experts" on this forum that make claims one way or another about global warming/C02 actually done any testing by taking core samples out of the glaciers in Antarctica, or measuring the C02 that is coming out of the melting permafrost in Alaska?

[treyfu]

so you believe pollution is never a crime, since it's never an initiation of force, and polluters would never voluntarily subject themselves to jurisdiction and control.

the "they want to be good for business" is bullshit, because that assumes people only do things for money.

The reality is that people in a free society will take whatever protective measures are necessary to protect their property from pollution. In addition, polluting someone else's property carries with it enormous risk of litigation, loss of business, and higher insurance premiums.

You are correct that there are other motives beyond the need to make money. Free society news media would work very hard to expose polluters to the people, and those pollution-conscious individuals can put enormous pressure on companies to keep them in line.

In fact, a free society would be much more strict on pollution, and in a much more efficient way, without the monopoly force of the state pointing a gun in the face of the masses.

The use of violence in an attempt to solve social problems is utterly immoral, and as we see time and again throughout both recent and distant history, it doesn't even work.

[amy31416]

as in it produces no new CO2?




Ok, so let's say I wanted to hire you to produce O2, what is your choice of weapon?



Oh, I'm well aware that plants do it much easier than humans.

But address my question, if you wanted to produce CO2 vs O2, what's faster?

Do weeds grow on sandy beaches? How about in cities? How about in deserts?
Hey guess what? I can burn carbon in all these places!




I think you're wrong.

If I wanted to produce CO2 (ignoring byproducts), I can burn anything I like, paper, plastic, trash, just to name the few.

O2 as a fuel is "free" to use if I wanted to waste it,



No we're not.

It's an obvious fact that CO2 is easier to produce than O2 if humans intended one over the other. You're the one who tries to argue otherwise.



which is why I proposed burning trash to begin with.



Glad you finally asked.

No, not tax people for no reason. But if CO2 were a problem (whether harmful, dangerous or otherwise unnecessary), would it not be a justification to tax for reduction?




Yeah, I think you also know that photosynthesis is very costly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency

If humans wanted to produce O2?
We can't beat plants.

If humans wanted to produce CO2?
We can probably beat animals, with less cost too!

That's my point, if there's risk of having too much CO2, we should be more cautious than if we were in danger of CO2 shortage.

Look up carbon neutral.

I think you're wrong, but I also don't really care, as a specific experiment would have to be designed in order to prove/disprove anything.

Either way, Cap & Trade is almost entirely bullshit for profit, not for CO2 reduction, and if you choose to buy into that--your choice.

[Dr.3D]

Source of Half Earth's Oxygen gets Little Credit (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html)


In the process of photosynthesis, phytoplankton release oxygen into the water. Half of the world's oxygen is produced via phytoplankton photosynthesis. The other half is produced via photosynthesis on land by trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants.

[osan]

The more CO2, the more plant growth takes place thus balancing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Um... no. Increased CO2 beyond a certain, now well established percentage actually stems growth. Atmospheric levels are not yet very close to that threshold.

[Dr.3D]

Um... no. Increased CO2 beyond a certain, now well established percentage actually stems growth. Atmospheric levels are not yet very close to that threshold.

Well duh...

I was making a generalized statement. I know many greenhouses inject CO2 into the atmosphere to increase the speed of plant growth. This is why they call CO2 one of the greenhouse gasses.

Can you point out a time the Earth's atmosphere ever had so much CO2 that it stemmed plant growth? Let's be realistic here.

[Old Ducker]

Source of Half Earth's Oxygen gets Little Credit (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html)

The oceans get little credit (or blame) for absorbing or releasing CO2 either. Look up LeChatelier's Principle.

[WaltM]

Has any of the "experts" on this forum that make claims one way or another about global warming/C02 actually done any testing by taking core samples out of the glaciers in Antarctica, or measuring the C02 that is coming out of the melting permafrost in Alaska?

no, but if one did, what would you say?

[Dr.3D]

The oceans get little credit (or blame) for absorbing or releasing CO2 either. Look up LeChatelier's Principle.

Precisely, here is an excellent article with that subject being part of it.
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

[WaltM]

The reality is that people in a free society will take whatever protective measures are necessary to protect their property from pollution. In addition, polluting someone else's property carries with it enormous risk of litigation, loss of business, and higher insurance premiums.


You assume they can, and government regulation isn't just a class action collective measure to protect them.

Litigation, loss of business and insurance is only as good as governments and courts can enforce it, so if you're on the right side of the power, you're less to worry.




You are correct that there are other motives beyond the need to make money. Free society news media would work very hard to expose polluters to the people, and those pollution-conscious individuals can put enormous pressure on companies to keep them in line.


So in today's context, how is that not true?

Are news media NOT trying to expose evil corporations? Yea, they are, at least they seem to be and claim to be, but pro-corporatists will turn around and say "yeah, but they just hate capitalism and will never allow any business, so don't listen to them".

So then, the people who watch news media want to "keep companies in line, either by direct tax or cap & trade". why then, is that wrong?




In fact, a free society would be much more strict on pollution, and in a much more efficient way, without the monopoly force of the state pointing a gun in the face of the masses.


So a free society gives less freedom to pollute? Thanks!





The use of violence in an attempt to solve social problems is utterly immoral, and as we see time and again throughout both recent and distant history, it doesn't even work.

I disagree.

[YumYum]

no, but if one did, what would you say?

I wouldn't say anything; I'd listen. Unless someone has done their own experiments and tests to determine as to what is the truth, the debate is meaningless.

[WaltM]

Look up carbon neutral.

I think you're wrong, but I also don't really care, as a specific experiment would have to be designed in order to prove/disprove anything.

Either way, Cap & Trade is almost entirely bullshit for profit, not for CO2 reduction, and if you choose to buy into that--your choice.

and if it WAS CO2 reduction, would you be for it?


What specific experiment does it take?

Seriously, when was the last time you heard somebody making oxygen using plants? Every time I've heard it, it was electro-separation of water.

When was the last time you heard somebody wanted to create CO2 and wasted money buying gas?

Can you point me to a source for carbon neutral? From what I can find, it sounds like it's a goal which takes external control (not a result from burning certain things per se). Burning trees creates CO2 UNLESS AND UNTIL you get something to compensate for it. Do you need me to tell you you can burn carbon without utilizing any of the heat or byproducts if all you wanted was CO2?

What would it take to convince you that production of CO2 is both faster and cheaper than production of O2?

[amy31416]

and if it WAS CO2 reduction, would you be for it?


What specific experiment does it take?

Seriously, when was the last time you heard somebody making oxygen using plants? Every time I've heard it, it was electro-separation of water.

When was the last time you heard somebody wanted to create CO2 and wasted money buying gas?

Can you point me to a source for carbon neutral? From what I can find, it sounds like it's a goal which takes external control (not a result from burning certain things per se). Burning trees creates CO2 UNLESS AND UNTIL you get something to compensate for it. Do you need me to tell you you can burn carbon without utilizing any of the heat or byproducts if all you wanted was CO2?

What would it take to convince you that production of CO2 is both faster and cheaper than production of O2?

You are on an entirely different subject now--intentional creation of gases vs. natural products of biological processes vs. industrial waste products.

And, for god's sake, why can't you look something up?


Greenhouse gases

Wood burning does not release any more carbon dioxide than the eventual biodegradation of the wood if it was not burned. Wood burning can therefore be considered "carbon neutral" - the CO2 released to the atmosphere by combustion is recycled continuously into new plant growth as part of the carbon cycle, while the energy released during combustion is simply a form of stored solar energy.

From Wikipedia. If you don't agree, edit it and find some source to back up whatever notion popped into your head. You don't seem to have actually read up on much of the science behind this stuff, and while I haven't gone into it extensively--to not know what carbon neutral means...well, you might want to keep researching if you really feel that strongly about this. It does seem that you're arguing desperately in order to justify what you want: the gov't to tax and control more (unless it's you, of course.)

What would it take to convince me that it's funner, cheaper and more exciting to produce CO2? A full-blown experiment that measured energy input vs. output, volumes of gases, human effort involved, unintended consequences--in other words, you'd have to make a biodome and collect data for years on end while disregarding your own bias. And I can't see that happening.

I don't care about convincing you of anything, because there's nothing that I can say to change your mind on the wonderfulness of taxation, repression, control and a police-state mentality.

Good luck.

[WaltM]

You are on an entirely different subject now--intentional creation of gases vs. natural products of biological processes vs. industrial waste products.

And, for god's sake, why can't you look something up?


I started with intentional creation of gases, asserting that it's easier to create CO2 vs O2, and you disagreed. I did my best to ask you why, and your best answer has been "because plants can do it", as if that's industrially efficient (compared to CO2)



From Wikipedia. If you don't agree, edit it and find some source to back up whatever notion popped into your head. You don't seem to have actually read up on much of the science behind this stuff, and while I haven't gone into it extensively--to not know what carbon neutral means...well, you might want to keep researching if you really feel that strongly about this.


You're the one who's telling me I'm wrong. I actually DON'T disagree with wikipedia on it.




It does seem that you're arguing desperately in order to justify what you want: the gov't to tax and control more (unless it's you, of course.)


No, I want to know, at what point is tax and control justified, is it ever?




What would it take to convince me that it's funner, cheaper and more exciting to produce CO2? A full-blown experiment that measured energy input vs. output, volumes of gases, human effort involved, unintended consequences--in other words, you'd have to make a biodome and collect data for years on end while disregarding your own bias. And I can't see that happening.


Fair enough.




I don't care about convincing you of anything, because there's nothing that I can say to change your mind on the wonderfulness of taxation, repression, control and a police-state mentality.

Good luck.

no, there is.

[pcosmar]

Question for Pro-Cap & Trade people

What the fuck is wrong with you?
Are you brain dead, or mentally handicapped?

:(

[WaltM]

Question for Pro-Cap & Trade people

What the fuck is wrong with you?
Are you brain dead, or mentally handicapped?

:(

I'm not pro-cap and trade. I'm looking to see if it can EVER be OK.

[pcosmar]

I'm not pro-cap and trade. I'm looking to see if it can EVER be OK.

NO.
It Can't.
It is a Flawed and Dishonest proposal from the concept.

[WaltM]

NO.
It Can't.
It is a Flawed and Dishonest proposal from the concept.

Ok.

So let's start over.


What's an acceptable alternative to regulating and reducing carbon emissions?
(or any type of pollutant)

What harm must CO2 pose to our lifestyle that would justify forced regulation to reduce it?

[pcosmar]

Ok.

So let's start over.


What's an acceptable alternative to regulating and reducing carbon emissions?
(or any type of pollutant)

What harm must CO2 pose to our lifestyle that would justify forced regulation to reduce it?

None, None whatsoever.
CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere. It is necessary for plant growth. As a farmer I would welcome an increase in CO2 as it would not harm me at all and would increase plant growth.

Carbon Dioxide is wonderful stuff. and as a carbon based life form, it is necessary to my survival.

Tax is not.
:mad:

[WaltM]

None, None whatsoever.
CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere. It is necessary for plant growth. As a farmer I would welcome an increase in CO2 as it would not harm me at all and would increase plant growth.

Carbon Dioxide is wonderful stuff. and as a carbon based life form, it is necessary to my survival.

Tax is not.
:mad:

so you'd let me lock you in a chamber and pump CO2 in?

No, at some point CO2 will harm you, even if it helps plants grow.

And what good is increase in CO2 if you don't have enough plants to consume it?

Just because CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere doesn't mean we can live if it's out of balance.

By your logic, if N2 is part of the atmosphere, could we live with 90% N2 & 10% O2?

[YumYum]

so you'd let me lock you in a chamber and pump CO2 in?

No, at some point CO2 will harm you, even if it helps plants grow.

And what good is increase in CO2 if you don't have enough plants to consume it?

Just because CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere doesn't mean we can live if it's out of balance.

By your logic, if N2 is part of the atmosphere, could we live with 90% N2 & 10% O2?

Man, when you're talking those kinds of levels, that's when people will be growing hair on their knuckles.

[devil21]

so you'd let me lock you in a chamber and pump CO2 in?

No, at some point CO2 will harm you, even if it helps plants grow.

And what good is increase in CO2 if you don't have enough plants to consume it?

Just because CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere doesn't mean we can live if it's out of balance.

By your logic, if N2 is part of the atmosphere, could we live with 90% N2 & 10% O2?

Your examples are getting pretty desperate. You could pump in a whole lot more CO2 than the ambient air holds before you'd have to worry about health concerns. Didn't I already bring this up earlier in the thread? You're going to severe extremes to keep this failed thread going. I have to wonder why?

[WaltM]

Your examples are getting pretty desperate. You could pump in a whole lot more CO2 than the ambient air holds before you'd have to worry about health concerns.


Granted, but the point is that everything is harmful at extreme levels.

So at what point would it warrant alarmism and regulation?



Didn't I already bring this up earlier in the thread? You're going to severe extremes to keep this failed thread going. I have to wonder why?

to get people to admit that extreme circumstances would either justify regulation, or some people would rather than freedom than life.

[YumYum]

Granted, but the point is that everything is harmful at extreme levels.

So at what point would it warrant alarmism and regulation?



to get people to admit that extreme circumstances would either justify regulation, or some people would rather than freedom than life.

You should have just asked us that in the beginning. You had me going, I thought this was going to lead to some new discovery or information. Some people are hypocrites. They will bitch and complain about government and regulations until something terrible happens in their lives and then they are the first to call the police, the fire department, the highway department, or their congressman,etc..

[pcosmar]

Granted, but the point is that everything is harmful at extreme levels.

So at what point would it warrant alarmism and regulation?



to get people to admit that extreme circumstances would either justify regulation, or some people would rather than freedom than life.

At some point far removed from reality.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/gas_comp.gif

Now, myself, I can comfortably live with much lower levels of O2,

Have you ever been in a paint booth while painting without a respirator. I have. And I did for years. 10% O2 is plenty for me.
And I can do it while breathing stuff much more harsh than CO2.
20% O2 is much more than you need or can possibly use. There is a comfortable excess of Oxygen in our atmosphere. CO2 however is a very small part of the whole, and a few percent increase would not harm anything, in fact an increase would be quite beneficial.

[WaltM]

At some point far removed from reality.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/gas_comp.gif

Now, myself, I can comfortably live with much lower levels of O2,

Have you ever been in a paint booth while painting without a respirator. I have. And I did for years. 10% O2 is plenty for me.


You can do it time and time, but 24/7, for years?




And I can do it while breathing stuff much more harsh than CO2.
20% O2 is much more than you need or can possibly use. There is a comfortable excess of Oxygen in our atmosphere. CO2 however is a very small part of the whole, and a few percent increase would not harm anything, in fact an increase would be quite beneficial.

other than plant food, what else is it beneficial to?

[SteveR]

Money controls policy in this country. It is self serving. It does not care about the environment, people, cap and trade, etc., unless it serves their financial interest.
Until we change the dominance of corporate money over the politicians in Washington, we are all just people living in an illusional world created by corporate money, where fear, insecurity, and quiet desperation is the real way of life for the majority of people who continue to exist and suffer for the benefit of those who control the wealth and use it for their own selfish, egotistical interest.

[Dr.3D]

other than plant food, what else is it beneficial to?

The creation of lime stone.

[WaltM]

The creation of lime stone.

what is the benefit of creating limestone?

[YumYum]

Money controls policy in this country. It is self serving. It does not care about the environment, people, cap and trade, etc., unless it serves their financial interest.
Until we change the dominance of corporate money over the politicians in Washington, we are all just people living in an illusional world created by corporate money, where fear, insecurity, and quiet desperation is the real way of life for the majority of people who continue to exist and suffer for the benefit of those who control the wealth and use it for their own selfish, egotistical interest.

Exactly, and it is the extreme rich (who hide behind corporations) that keep us divided, and busy fighting, while they plunder the poor and destroy the Earth. I saw a few years back John Kerry on the O'Reilly Factor, where Kerry admits to Bill O'Reilly that both the Democrats and the Republicans were guilty for not pursuing alternative forms of energy because the oil companies have bribed our politicians. Read this interview. It backs up what you are saying.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6225

[pcosmar]

You can do it time and time, but 24/7, for years?

Yes, The human body only uses a percentage of the Oxygen you breath. You exhale the rest.
along with the Argon and Nitrogen and a small amount of CO2.



other than plant food, what else is it beneficial to?

Dry Ice ? Fire extinguishers? I use it for welding.
It is not plant food. Plants breath it, and release O2.

Try reading some real science sometime.

[WaltM]

Money controls policy in this country. It is self serving. It does not care about the environment, people, cap and trade, etc., unless it serves their financial interest.
Until we change the dominance of corporate money over the politicians in Washington, we are all just people living in an illusional world created by corporate money, where fear, insecurity, and quiet desperation is the real way of life for the majority of people who continue to exist and suffer for the benefit of those who control the wealth and use it for their own selfish, egotistical interest.

i don't understand the logic in holding corporations and governments to a higher standard, as if they're not humans.

[SteveR]

Corporate special interest groups, like corporate oil interests, do not care about the environment, cap and trade, people, etc. unless it serves their financial interests. As long as corporate lobbies dominate Washington politicians, very little is ever going to change in this country. The majority of people will continue to live in fear, insecurity, and quiet desperation, because they know they have liitle control over their individual freedom and liberty. So if you know a politician who can break up the dominance corporate special interest groups have over Washington politicians, please let me know.

[Dr.3D]

what is the benefit of creating limestone?

Well, first marine organisms convert CO2 to calcium carbonate (CaCO3). They have to do this in order to live and produce their shells. Coral is just one that depends on calcium carbonate to live. Once converted to calcium carbonate, it settles to the bottom of the ocean, essentially locking up the CO2. Bones are made of approximately 4 to 8 percent calcium carbonate.

Of course, without CO2, there wouldn't be any calcium carbonate and we would be in serious trouble.

The point here is that once the calcium carbonate is turned into limestone, the CO2 has essentially been locked up and is pretty much out of the system.

[awake]

The claim that C02 is a harmful is the fulcrum of the EPA and it's upcoming plans, if that big lie can be knocked down then the scam falls apart. This claim of killer C02 is the whole authority and justification for the Obamaunists using an administration department to directly manipulate the broader market. Everything conceivably emits some carbon so that the potential tax base is a real revenue generator for broke down bankrupt and corrupt federal governments all over the world.

Got crisis, need money. Same broken down model.

Walt, why try to salvage a nonstarter? The environmental movement has been rightly decimated by making the same tired claims. They belly ache that big oil some how stopped their stupid ideas because they had more money.

It couldn't be the asinine ideas they represent, no never.

[legion]

Why not?

Isn't cap & trade just a more subtle carbon tax or carbon fine?


No, it creates a pseudo commodities market through government enforced scarcity. The problem with this is the system is it can and has already been gamed. If we make a market in something fake its only a matter of time before a T Boone Pickens tries to corner the market and temporarily shoots the economy in the knee caps by trying to buy all the carbon credits and not letting the factories work.




If carbon tax isn't used to a more productive alternative, wouldn't trading make more sense?


I'm all for the powers of the free market, except when its not the free market. This is a casino economy. If carbon is a problem it should be taxed at a very high rate. No games.





must everybody take things seriously by working for free?

Imagine that scientists have calculated that a very large asteroid has a 1:100 (very very high in terms of asteroid collision) chance of smashing into the earth and destroying all human life in 5 years.

The "Cap and Trade" solution would be for the US government to make the books on a trillion dollar gambling pool, betting on if the asteroid destroys the earth or not. Clearly, then there would be a large incentive for a company to develop a way to divert the asteroid in secret and save the human race, right? Hooray, we'll all be saved by the market.

[pcosmar]

what is the benefit of creating limestone?

You could have probably done this if you had an honest question.
http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml



Uses of Limestone


Limestone is a rock with an enormous diversity of uses. It could be the one rock that is used in more ways than any other. Most limestone is crushed and used as a construction material. It is used as a crushed stone for road base and railroad ballast. It is used as an aggregate in concrete. It is fired in a kiln with crushed shale to make cement.

Some varieties of limestone perform well in these uses because they are strong, dense rocks with few pore spaces. These properties enable them to stand up well to abrasion and freeze-thaw. Although limestone does not perform as well in these uses as some of the harder silicate rocks it is much easier to mine and does not exert the same level of wear on mining equipment, crushers, screens and the beds of the vehicles that transport it.

Some additional but also important uses of limestone include:

Dimension Stone: Limestone is often cut into blocks and slabs of specific dimensions for use in construction and in architecture. It is used for facing stone, floor tiles, stair treads, window sills and many other purposes.

Roofing Granules: Crushed to a fine particle size, crushed limestone is used as a weather and heat-resistant coating on asphalt impregnated shingles and roofing. It is also used as a top coat on built-up roofs.

Flux Stone: Crushed limestone is used in smelting and other metal refining processes. In the heat of smelting, limestone combines with impurities and can be removed from the process as a slag.

Portland Cement: Limestone is heated in a kiln with shale, sand and other materials and ground to a powder that will harden after being mixed with water.

AgLime: Calcium carbonate is one of the most cost-effective acid neutralizing agents. When crushed to sand-size or smaller particles limestone becomes an effective material for treating acidic soils. It is widely used on farms throughout the world.

Lime: If calcium carbonate (CaC03 is heated to high temperature in a kiln the products will be a release of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) and calcium oxide (CaO). The calcium oxide is a powerful acid neutralization agent. It is widely used as a soil treatment agent (faster acting than aglime) in agriculture and as an acid neutralization agent by the chemical industry.

Animal Feed Filler: Chickens need calcium carbonate to produce strong egg shells so calcium carbonate is often offered to them as a dietary supplement in the form of "chicken grits". It is also added to the feed of some dairy cattle who must replace large amounts of calcium lost when the animal is milked.

Mine Safety Dust: Also known as "rock dust". Pulverized limestone is a white powder that can be sprayed onto exposed coal surfaces in an underground mine. This coating improves illumination and reduces the amount of coal dust that activity stirs up and releases into the air. This improves the air for breathing and it also reduces the explosion hazard produced by suspended particles of flammable coal dust in the air.

Limestone has many other uses. Powdered limestone is used as a filler in paper, paint, rubber and plastics. Crushed limestone is used as a filter stone in on-site sewage disposal systems. Powdered limestone is also used as a sorbent (a substance that absorbs pollutants) at many coal-burning facilities

[WaltM]

Yes, The human body only uses a percentage of the Oxygen you breath. You exhale the rest.
along with the Argon and Nitrogen and a small amount of CO2.


What would you say is the minimum to safely live. constantly?

5%, 1%?




Dry Ice ?


How many people use dry ice vs how many people need fossil fuels & electricity?



Fire extinguishers?


fire extinguishers store CO2? or dry power and chemicals that MAKE IT WHEN YOU NEED IT?



I use it for welding.


you got me there.



It is not plant food. Plants breath it, and release O2.

Try reading some real science sometime.

what if plants don't consume it fast enough?

[WaltM]

Well, first marine organisms convert CO2 to calcium carbonate (CaCO3). They have to do this in order to live and produce their shells. Coral is just one that depends on calcium carbonate to live. Once converted to calcium carbonate, it settles to the bottom of the ocean, essentially locking up the CO2. Bones are made of approximately 4 to 8 percent calcium carbonate.

Of course, without CO2, there wouldn't be any calcium carbonate and we would be in serious trouble.

The point here is that once the calcium carbonate is turned into limestone, the CO2 has essentially been locked up and is pretty much out of the system.

what you're basically saying is, limestone exists to reduce CO2.

so was sea life worse off before we added industrial CO2?

[legion]

what is the benefit of creating limestone?

Hydraulic Cement? Glass? Paper? Soap?

[pcosmar]

what if plants don't consume it fast enough?
What ? :confused:
It is a small, minuscule and only barely measurable fraction of the overall atmosphere.


industrial CO2?

WTF
This is why you are considered a troll.
Inane bullshit threads much like this one.

I'm done.

[Dr.3D]

what you're basically saying is, limestone exists to reduce CO2.

so was sea life worse off before we added industrial CO2?

Does it matter? There is such a small difference in the amount of CO2 from industry it makes little difference. The point is CO2 is locked up in limestone. Please check the rest of this thread to see some other uses for limestone.

If you want to study just a little, please read the paper I pointed to here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2868098&postcount=94).

It has a very good explanation of the carbon cycle and the role CO2 plays in it.