From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02 Apr 2014, at 23:03, LizR wrote:
On 3 April 2014 05:56, Chris de Morsella <[email protected]> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
It is the belief that the scentists can be trusted to do the research they
are supposed to do in a scientifically responsible way, vs. the belief in
the conspiracy theory that the entire scientific field has been hijacked by
ultra left wing environmental pressure groups.
Saibal
A conspiracy theory that has become spread through massive funding by the
big holders of fossil carbon reserves -- seeking to protect the future
valuation of those reserves, which has a large impact on the current
valuation of their carbon holdings. An eminently rational (if cynical)
motive, for these narrow carbon interests, but one that has sowed confusion
and doubt, using the same "junk science" (and "left wing hijacked science")
accusations that were perfected by Big Tobacco in the preceding decades. It
worked then for Big Tobacco and this same strategy of sowing falsehoods, is
working now for the big carbon interests.
Exactly. It's even been making some headway in the interests of denying
evolution, for God (as it were) knows what reason.
That is why I don't think politics is possible as long as prohibition
continue. It has been used as a sort of Trojan horse for bandits, and they
will sell you what they want.
Stopping prohibition will not be enough. We must separate politics from
money.
Agreed, but I think there's a subtly here -- politics in necessarily about
money, because money is the fundamental tool that we have to manage
resources, unless someone figures out a way to make communism work. There's
nothing fundamentally good or evil about money, it's just a neutral tool
that can be used both ways.
I see the problem as more one of managing incentives. People react to
incentives. I strongly believe that the pollution problem could be mitigated
quickly if the free market had the incentive to do so. Carbon credits are a
horrible idea, because they reinforce bad behaviours without creating the
incentives that can actually solve the problem.
>>If an objective cost can be calculated for the damage that certain
companies cause to the environment, then let's charge them for this and
re-distribute this money directly to the people, with no special rules or
distinctions. Just a simple division. None of this money should ever fall
under the control of politicians. Then the companies have an incentive to
solve the problem, and less people have an incentive to lie.
I have long held a similar view. The proceeds from any disincentive tax -
say a carbon tax paid for at the pump or added to a utility bill to cover
that electricity's carbon content, but also a tax on alcohol, cigarette or
other drugs.. Whatever is being levied against - should all go into a
general fund that gets disbursed evenly amongst all citizens, without any
interdiction on this fund, whatsoever, by the greedy lobby-beholden hands of
politicians and preferably in some spread out manner - say by paying out the
annual dividend, on a person's birthday.
However this approach does not address the need to mandate certain
standards. For example catalytic converters for cars. It can get into a grey
area, where in some cases a mandated approach is more effective than one
driven by cost disincentives.
Chris
This should be purely handed by the police and the courts, in the same way
that they are used to place a cost on other undesirable behaviours. If
instead this money falls under the control of politicians, we now have two
problems.
Best,
Telmo.
We should vote on ideas and not humans. We should find a way to prevent
democracies against propaganda, if not corporatism.
The green should be ally with the antiprohibitionists. I do think that
"prohibition" is the deep reason of possible climate perturbation, and
economy.
Like the abandon of rationality in the "spiritual" is the deep reason of why
the non-sensical prohibition has seem conceivable today.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
