I'd have to go with lots of this Sam. Sadly, we need wider recognition of just how dud current economics is.
On 10 Sep, 06:07, "Sam Carana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I dislike rules too, and if we don't change our ways soon, we may > indeed nurture the very circumstances that will feed the rise of one > or more dictators who seek to impose global rules upon the world with > the sole intent to cement their grip over society, rather than to put > in place the effective policies that we need instead. > > Yes, we need a global commitment to reduce emissions. I see that as a > given, but this doesn't mean global dictatorship. Instead, it means > that we need to agree on reduction targets and establish ways to deal > with disputes between countries. I suggest to have an arbitration body > to turn to for disputes, much like the WTO now handles trade disputes. > There actually are negotiations on this, to be completed in Copenhagen > in 2009. > > At the same time, I believe that local communities should decide the > technicalities of how exactly they are going to reduce their emissions > and meet their targets. There are many ways to, say, produce clean and > safe energy; wind turbines may be attractive in some areas, solar > energy may become more prominent elsewhere, while yet another area may > predominantly exploit geothermal power; many areas may also prefer to > import electricity. Similarly, hydrogen may well become the dominant > way to power ships, while cars will predominantly drive on battery > power in future. Instead of prescribing a specific technology, > government should merely insist that alternatives be clean and safe. > > In my view, a framework of feebates is the most effective way to > facilitate reductions. Feebates have a double impact, by imposing a > fee on whatever needs to be discouraged, while using the proceeds to > fund rebates on better alternatives. Market mechanisms can best sort > out which products deserve to get rebates. Feebates respect consumer > choice and optimize market mechanisms, which further increases their > effectiveness. > > Feebates are most effective when applied locally, i.e. by using the > proceeds of fees collected in an area to support the better > alternatives that are supplied in that same area. That way, most money > will be used to make changes where they are needed most. Finally, > fees are best calculated as a percentage of the price charged by the > retailer to the consumer, This increases the effectiveness of the > policy by minimizing bureaucratic administrative overhead. > > Over the years, I have proposed a number of feebates, including: > > - a 10% fee on sales of new gasoline cars, with proceeds used to fund > local rebates on zero emission cars; > - a 10% fee on sales of fossil fuel, with proceeds used to fund > rebates on purchase and installation of local facilities that produce > energy in safe and clean ways; > - a 10% fee on sales of building and construction work that used > polluting concrete (i.e. that contributes to global warming), with > rebates on local purchases of clean concrete; > - a 10% fee on sales of fertilizers, with rebates on local sales of > agrichar (or biochar); and > - a 10% fee on sales of meat, with rebates and vouchers on > vegan-organic meals served in local restaurants. > > Furthermore, government support for polluters must be terminated - > instead, government should support clean and safe alternatives. There > are many things government could change, e.g. town planners could help > to set up vegan-organic restaurants in communities without roads. > Also, deregulation of taxi services would allow more cars to take > paying passengers on board. Remember that, not in the previous > century, but the century before that, there already were electric > taxis in New York! The electric grid should welcome people who get > electric cars and who install solar panels, by introducing > differential pricing and two-way metering. > > Each community should be discussing what policies work best for them > and work on that. Such policies do not impose a single system of rules > - instead, they celebrate diversity and that's what makes such > policies so effective! > > Cheers! > Sam Carana > > > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:04 AM, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think, very sadly, we need new rules Sam. I dislike rules quite > > often, but we can't go on playing stupid 'tragedy of the commons' > > games under some false spirit of anything goes and diversity being > > made more important than common cause. > > > On 7 Sep, 04:42, "Sam Carana" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Diversity constitutes reality, we know that for a fact. > > >> Those who have shared my epistemological contemplations will be > >> familiar with the fact that I believe that DIVERSITY is fundamental to > >> everything that exists. In short, diversity constitutes reality, as it > >> always has and as will always be the case. > > >> Those who are smart and new here may ask how I can know this for a > >> fact. Indeed, how can diversity be rhymed with the singularity > >> inherent in facts? Indeed, how can I write the word "fact" in above > >> sentence, before even mentioning diversity? > > >> In fact, I have always accepted facts, I actually like to start with > >> the facts and focus on reality. What I do NOT accept is the idea that > >> facts were inherently singular and therefore excluded diversity. Those > >> who know me, know that I do start with the facts and stick with the > >> facts, while all the time believing that diversity is fundamental to > >> reality. But let's have a look at an example, perhaps that will > >> clarify things. > > >> Imagine a motorcycle driver, young and reckless, stupid and brave, > >> driving fast through the night on a lonely country road. The driver > >> chases a car that manages to just stay ahead, by similarly driving at > >> speeds far too fast for such a windy road. At the next curve, as the > >> motorcycle starts overtaking the car, two lights appear from the > >> opposite direction. The motorcycle driver has only a split-second to > >> decide to either slow down or keep overtaking. Naturally, the > >> motorcycle driver, in such a crucial decision, will resort to the > >> facts. > > >> What do the facts say? Fact is that motorcycle drivers are prone to > >> fatal accidents, a good many of which are head-on collisions. Fact is > >> that it's dangerous, often even prohibited to overtake a car in a > >> curve. Fact is that motorcycles constitutes a small minority of > >> vehicles, so the chance is small that the two lights approaching from > >> the opposite direction are two motorcycles. The chance is even smaller > >> that two motorcycle would - stupidly - drive next to each other on a > >> windy country road in the night, instead of one behind the other. > > >> So, what goes through the head of the motorcyclist while overtaking > >> the car? There may be a tiny chance that the approaching two lights > >> are of two motorcyclists. So, there is a tiny chance to continue to > >> overtake the car, and stay in between these two motorcyclists without > >> causing accidents. But the probability is low, in fact, there's a > >> bigger chance that the two lights from a car, or even a bus or a > >> truck. > > >> Was there an emergency that justified taking such risks? What exactly > >> are the odds and the risks? Is there time to contemplate such > >> questions when one's survival depends on a split-second decision? Of > >> course, we all know the answer and any mature motorcycle driver knows > >> it too. We know what to do, not so much because we were in possession > >> of all the facts, We know what to do, not so much because we did > >> explore all alternatives, exhaustively testing them and proved them to > >> be wrong. Instead, we know what to do, because experience and maturity > >> tells us what to do. > > >> Similarly, we've got to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We > >> know that for a fact. Global warming is a fact and there IS no > >> alternative but to reduce emissions. This conclusion is not in > >> conflict with the diversity that is inherent to reality. We simply do > >> not have the luxury to first explore the alternative and await proof > >> that temperatures will indeed rise with catastrophic results. We do > >> not have that option. We know that global warming is taking place and > >> we know that we must act now. That conclusion is fully in agreement > >> with the principle that diversity is fundamental to reality. We know > >> that we must act now to reduce emissions, we know that for a fact - > >> wisdom, experience and maturity tells us so. > > >> Cheers! > >> I am Sam Carana, and I like to start with facts and focus on reality.- > >> Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
