[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to.[/quote]

Again I agree with everything you’ve said, but it all goes back to my original point that it’s impractical to think that all countries can implement the same plan. In an ideal world all countries would be on the same playing field and a universal plan would make sense. But not all countries put out the same amount of CO2 (whether you use the total output or per capita). It only makes sense that the countries who put out the most CO2 should have to work harder to reduce their output than those countries who put out less CO2. It is a heck of a lot easier for developed countries to transition towards cleaner technologies than it is for developing countries. You see these types of improvements as an unfair expense on the developed countries, but to me it’s only fair to pay for what you put out. I guess our definition of “fair” is what differs here.

As for whether tax dollars should be used, I say yes. Either the problem is too big for the private sector to solve — think the Interstate Highway system, or putting a man on the moon — or it is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to consider. I think that in this situation we have a little of both. The whole point of public investment is to drive down the initial costs to the point that the private sector can jump in and take the ball and run with it — for example the Internet, researched and developed by our precocious tax dollars (I’d say that was a good investment). Another example: satellite technology. Clearly developed by taxpayer investment, but currently used to generate billions in the private sector. I think people tend to believe that public/private operate at the extremes, but there are many examples where they have worked together in a strange synergy with amazing results.

Otherwise, why would private industry ever even consider environmental improvements when all it does is harm their bottom line? At what point is the environment destroyed enough so that private industry puts the well being of the environment above company profits? It never does, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a case in history where it ever has. The whole point of private industry is to make money — not protect the environment. And if private industry won’t protect the environment, who will? The government will — it’s their job.

I think where you and I will both agree is that the optimal setup is to be able to protect the environment and make money doing it. Unfortunately I don’t think that private industry has the foresight or the will to get that ball rolling. It just needs a little push from the mean old taxman to get it started. Sucks for us, but hopefully it will pay off in the long run — like the expensive Interstate Highway system and satellite technology of yore.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to.[/quote]

Again I agree with everything you’ve said, but it all goes back to my original point that it’s impractical to think that all countries can implement the same plan. In an ideal world all countries would be on the same playing field and a universal plan would make sense. But not all countries put out the same amount of CO2 (whether you use the total output or per capita). It only makes sense that the countries who put out the most CO2 should have to work harder to reduce their output than those countries who put out less CO2. It is a heck of a lot easier for developed countries to transition towards cleaner technologies than it is for developing countries. You see these types of improvements as an unfair expense on the developed countries, but to me it’s only fair to pay for what you put out. I guess our definition of “fair” is what differs here.

As for whether tax dollars should be used, I say yes. Either the problem is too big for the private sector to solve — think the Interstate Highway system, or putting a man on the moon — or it is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to consider. I think that in this situation we have a little of both. The whole point of public investment is to drive down the initial costs to the point that the private sector can jump in and take the ball and run with it — for example the Internet, researched and developed by our precocious tax dollars (I’d say that was a good investment). Another example: satellite technology. Clearly developed by taxpayer investment, but currently used to generate billions in the private sector. I think people tend to believe that public/private operate at the extremes, but there are many examples where they have worked together in a strange synergy with amazing results.

Otherwise, why would private industry ever even consider environmental improvements when all it does is harm their bottom line? At what point is the environment destroyed enough so that private industry puts the well being of the environment above company profits? It never does, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a case in history where it ever has. The whole point of private industry is to make money — not protect the environment. And if private industry won’t protect the environment, who will? The government will — it’s their job.

I think where you and I will both agree is that the optimal setup is to be able to protect the environment and make money doing it. Unfortunately I don’t think that private industry has the foresight or the will to get that ball rolling. It just needs a little push from the mean old taxman to get it started. Sucks for us, but hopefully it will pay off in the long run — like the expensive Interstate Highway system and satellite technology of yore.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again in the real world I believe it doesn’t work out how you want it to.[/quote]

Again I agree with everything you’ve said, but it all goes back to my original point that it’s impractical to think that all countries can implement the same plan. In an ideal world all countries would be on the same playing field and a universal plan would make sense. But not all countries put out the same amount of CO2 (whether you use the total output or per capita). It only makes sense that the countries who put out the most CO2 should have to work harder to reduce their output than those countries who put out less CO2. It is a heck of a lot easier for developed countries to transition towards cleaner technologies than it is for developing countries. You see these types of improvements as an unfair expense on the developed countries, but to me it’s only fair to pay for what you put out. I guess our definition of “fair” is what differs here.

As for whether tax dollars should be used, I say yes. Either the problem is too big for the private sector to solve — think the Interstate Highway system, or putting a man on the moon — or it is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to consider. I think that in this situation we have a little of both. The whole point of public investment is to drive down the initial costs to the point that the private sector can jump in and take the ball and run with it — for example the Internet, researched and developed by our precocious tax dollars (I’d say that was a good investment). Another example: satellite technology. Clearly developed by taxpayer investment, but currently used to generate billions in the private sector. I think people tend to believe that public/private operate at the extremes, but there are many examples where they have worked together in a strange synergy with amazing results.

Otherwise, why would private industry ever even consider environmental improvements when all it does is harm their bottom line? At what point is the environment destroyed enough so that private industry puts the well being of the environment above company profits? It never does, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a case in history where it ever has. The whole point of private industry is to make money — not protect the environment. And if private industry won’t protect the environment, who will? The government will — it’s their job.

I think where you and I will both agree is that the optimal setup is to be able to protect the environment and make money doing it. Unfortunately I don’t think that private industry has the foresight or the will to get that ball rolling. It just needs a little push from the mean old taxman to get it started. Sucks for us, but hopefully it will pay off in the long run — like the expensive Interstate Highway system and satellite technology of yore.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we’ve solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That’s a ridiculous price, but if it weren’t for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn’t have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we’re smart, we’ll own these technologies. If not, who will? It’s inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? “Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We’ve also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers’ roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won’t have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is.”

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we’ve solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That’s a ridiculous price, but if it weren’t for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn’t have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we’re smart, we’ll own these technologies. If not, who will? It’s inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? “Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We’ve also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers’ roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won’t have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is.”

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we’ve solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That’s a ridiculous price, but if it weren’t for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn’t have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we’re smart, we’ll own these technologies. If not, who will? It’s inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? “Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We’ve also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers’ roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won’t have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is.”

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we’ve solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That’s a ridiculous price, but if it weren’t for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn’t have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we’re smart, we’ll own these technologies. If not, who will? It’s inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? “Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We’ve also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers’ roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won’t have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is.”

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

[afx114]

[quote=SD Realtor]Why can’t all countries implement the same plan?[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we’ve solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That’s a ridiculous price, but if it weren’t for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn’t have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we’re smart, we’ll own these technologies. If not, who will? It’s inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? “Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We’ve also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers’ roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won’t have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is.”

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

[afx114]

.

[afx114]

.

[afx114]

.

[afx114]

.

[afx114]

.

[afx114]

If you think China and India aren’t aware of the chaos — both political and humanitarian — that rising sea levels would have in their countries, you are kidding yourself. They have a lot more people living near sea level than we do.

I’m curious — if a giant meteor was on a path to Earth and the governments of the world said they had to tax each family to develop and deploy a device to destroy the meteor and save the planet, how much would you and your family be willing to pay?

Yes, it is an extreme analogy, and no, I’m not comparing climate change to a meteor. I’m just trying to figure out what price we would put on saving the only place in the universe that we are able to exist.

[afx114]

If you think China and India aren’t aware of the chaos — both political and humanitarian — that rising sea levels would have in their countries, you are kidding yourself. They have a lot more people living near sea level than we do.

I’m curious — if a giant meteor was on a path to Earth and the governments of the world said they had to tax each family to develop and deploy a device to destroy the meteor and save the planet, how much would you and your family be willing to pay?

Yes, it is an extreme analogy, and no, I’m not comparing climate change to a meteor. I’m just trying to figure out what price we would put on saving the only place in the universe that we are able to exist.

[Author]

Posts