"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 10:53 PM 6/23/01 -0700 Kristin A. Ruhle wrote:
> >> I am - surprisingly :-) - noticing a lack of good spiritedness which I
> >> remember as a hall mark of the list. I guess this isn't quite what I was
> >> expecting when I restarted my mail from here....
> >>
> >Its just a reflection of the arrogance of the man in the White House and
> >how he has pissed off world opinion.
>
> So George W. Bush has taken away your good-spiritedness? Are you kidding me?
I wonder if GWB has set up some sort of progressive happiness tax, so
that the happiest people pay the most misery?
(okay, that was lame)
> For example, I think that there is broad consensus today among economists
> that fossil fuel consumption should be taxed to reimburse governments for
> the damage done by fossil fuel emissions to the atmosphere. Now some of
> these economists might think, as I do, that the revenues collected from
> this tax should be offset by across-the-board reductions in the income tax,
> but that doesn't change the consensus on the matter.
How would that work, John? I mean, wouldn't reducing the income tax to
compensate for the raise in fuel tax only give people who pay large
amounts of income tax a break, and give no net benefit in terms of
monies recieved by the government? No new money coming in would mean
that the new money raised by increased fuel taxes would be quickly
shifted from their eco-uses towards covering for any shortfall from the
income tax, while poor people would bear the burden of increased fuel
costs.
> Indeed, Kristin, there is an entire branch of economics known as
> "environmental economics" that studies how human societies make their
> decisions in regards to the environment.
Wasn't part of "Guns, Germs, and Steel"'s premise along similar lines?
> Likewise, in Yellowstone, environmentalist groups
> were basically given responsibility for the reintroduced wolves there, and
> are required to compensate nearby property owners for any damage caused by
> the wolves. If the number of wolves in the Park gets out of hand, then
> the environmentalists will be forced to reduce the number of wolves to a
> more reasonable level.
Really? I can't imagine any "environmentalists" hanging out of the side
of a helicopter "reducing" wolves; aren't park officials (rangers?) or
their agents responsible for that?
> >Yes, stopping global warming and reversing the trends threatening us today
> >WILL Do economic damage!!!! so no one can accept them . Huaman nature
> >seems incapable of the hard choices and sacrifices that will be necessary
> >to save future generations. Therefore we are doomed.
>
> But, economic damage happens all the time Kristin! And we all accept
> them. For example, every time you drive your car, your car grows older,
> and more likely to suffer an equipment failure. Indeed, every time you
> drive your car, you accept the risk of being struck by a drunk driver and
> being killed. That risk most certainly constitutes econoimc damage. Thus,
> we all accept economic damage every day.
To continue with the car analogy, why on earth would ANYONE EVER buy a
new car? its one of the biggest economic losing propositions anyone can
get themselves into legally (except for buy dot com stock... oh wait,
no, I didn't say that - I can't comment on dot.com stocks anymore...)
=j=
