- #1
- 207
- 0
There are those that posit that global warming can only be tamed via government regulations. On the other hand you have people saying that it can be tamed through free market economics. What do you guys think?
So what is the optimal temperature and why?everyone needs to face the facts and realize this it IS a real problem.
I think the real problem with a potential climate change is that our current society is sliced up in nation states with territories, and that a general move of populations is made impossible by this structure. Moreover, nation states which are wealthy and which are becoming wealthy have to thank their wealth to economic structures which are not very resistant to any climate change, which would imply a total change in habits and habitats. Those that had sweet water and good agriculture might become desert-like, those that were adapted to dry climates may become flooded etc... All this overhauls the fragile social and economic structures of our society. This will result in too much social and economical strain, and might result in a lot of conflicts amongst nation states.Are we so self-centered that we think what is ideal for humans is ideal for earth?
I'm sorry, I don't buy any of this. It has never been easier or cheaper to move goods and people than it is now. And I have no idea in what way you think a huter-gatherer society is more robust than our current society, particularly wrt climate change.I think the real problem with a potential climate change is that our current society is sliced up in nation states with territories, and that a general move of populations is made impossible by this structure. ... In as much as a climate change might not have affected too much our early ancestors before the switch to agriculture, it will hugely affect our current, fragile society which is absolutely not designed to adapt to such feats.
There are those that posit that global warming can only be tamed via government regulations.
global warming can only be tamed via government regulations.
government regulations.
To me, that sounds suspiciously like attempting to use science to bring political change howe you want it.government regulations.
You mean, like, people who find that they are living in an economically unfriendly environment have no difficulties to go geographically there where it is economically more prosperous ? Because *this* is the solution to climate change for a group of people: to go to where climate will be nice to them (and hence lets them to be economically prosperous).I'm sorry, I don't buy any of this. It has never been easier or cheaper to move goods and people than it is now.
If it is slow climate change, then they can walk (as they did) to where it is better for them. Nowadays, you can't do that anymore. You cannot walk from, say, Sudan to Germany with your entire tribe.And I have no idea in what way you think a huter-gatherer society is more robust than our current society, particularly wrt climate change.
To illustrate what natural climate changes can do:The earth has been through periods of warming and periods of cooling. Who is to say what is right? Maybe a shift back to the warmer era which had rich forestation in Antartica? Lush vegetation in Greenland? Perhaps these are the norms and we're trying to preserve an unnatural climate?
Someone please tell me what the natural climate for the earth is. Not what we as present day humans have experienced.
Is the present climate really the best for the earth? Wasn't a warmer worldwide climate better at sustaining more vegetation and life forms than our current temperature?
Are we so self-centered that we think what is ideal for humans is ideal for earth?
Note that the last Interglacial, the Sangamonian or Eemian was about 120,000 years ago. But rather unusual conditions for a present day, high arctic tundra....To evaluate the consequences of possible future climate changes and to identify the main climate drivers in high latitudes, the vegetation and climate in the East Siberian Arctic during the last interglacial are reconstructed and compared with Holocene conditions....
...Our pollen-based climatic reconstruction suggests a mean temperature of the warmest month (MTWA) range of 9–14.5 °C during the warmest interval of the last interglacial. The reconstruction from plant macrofossils, representing more local environments, reached MTWA values above 12.5 °C in contrast to today's 2.8 °C.
In other words, during the coldest part of the last glacial period, the last glacial maximum, there was not a trace of an ice sheet, right in the middle of the area you would expect one.Glaciations had a profound impact on the global sea-level and particularly on the Arctic environments. One of the key questions related to this topic is, how did the discharge of the Siberian Ob and Yenisei rivers interact with a proximal ice sheet?....
...Furthermore, the existence of the channel–levee complexes is indicative of unhindered sediment flow to the north. Channels situated on the shelf above 120-m water depth exhibit no phases of ponding and or infill during sea-level lowstand. These findings denote the non-existence of an ice sheet on large areas of the Kara Sea shelf.
Free market economics requires cause and effect. The markets only respond to changes that affect the bottom line, so I don't see how the long term impact of GW would motivate change in the markets today. What is driving most companies to use green technologies is the price of energy.There are those that posit that global warming can only be tamed via government regulations. On the other hand you have people saying that it can be tamed through free market economics. What do you guys think?
I see your point, you are making a political statement, not a technological or economical statement. I was primarily making an economic statement, but I also disagree with your political claim.You mean, like, people who find that they are living in an economically unfriendly environment have no difficulties to go geographically there where it is economically more prosperous ? Because *this* is the solution to climate change for a group of people: to go to where climate will be nice to them (and hence lets them to be economically prosperous).
I guess that's why the US is watching closely its border with Mexico, and that's probably why so many Africans pay crazy sums to hide underneath a vehicle just to cross the Mediterranean. Why don't they simply buy a normal boat ticket, 100 times cheaper ?
If it is slow climate change, then they can walk (as they did) to where it is better for them. Nowadays, you can't do that anymore. You cannot walk from, say, Sudan to Germany with your entire tribe.
You think that a large fraction (say, 60% of the Mexicans) went to the US ? You think that 60% of the Africans are now in Europe ?I think that the idea that large populations cannot shift across national borders today is wrong. It certainly is not correct between the US and Mexico nor between Europe and the middle-east and africa.
Yes, it is a large fraction, about 20%. Consider the following, the largest urban population of Mexicans is Mexico City, the second largest is Los Angeles. Money sent back to Mexico from immigrants in the US is the second largest source of Mexican GDP. And the influx has been large enough to significantly change the demographic make up of the US to the point that in several states whites are no longer a majority.You think that a large fraction (say, 60% of the Mexicans) went to the US ?
There's also the interest of those companies that are selling green product, like the fluorescent bulb. Many companies, GE in particular, have a big stake in AGW being true, or at least believed, and thus forcing regulations requiring the use of their product.Free market economics requires cause and effect. The markets only respond to changes that affect the bottom line, so I don't see how the long term impact of GW would motivate change in the markets today. What is driving most companies to use green technologies is the price of energy.
In a sense nobody is considering anything else other than free markets any more, even the most adamant AGW. The only solution in play is carbon caps and trade - a free market approach with .gov giving out the credits which are then bought and sold. There's already a large and fast growing carbon trading exchange in Europe, principally founded by a US economist who's become wealthy as a result, interestingly. Fifty years ago governments would have indeed implemented an across the board one-emissions-standard-for-all regulation but no more.There are those that posit that global warming can only be tamed via government regulations. On the other hand you have people saying that it can be tamed through free market economics. What do you guys think?
Sure, IFvanesch said:How fast do you think climate has to change to "capture" a walking tribe? Assume they walk 10 km a day. In a year, they have walked 3000 km including some rest. Even if they only walk 1 km a day, they do 3000 km in 10 years.
Uh, in my book that's government regulation! This market wouldn't exist without any imposed CO2 quota (by the gouvernment - via international agreements).In a sense nobody is considering anything else other than free markets any more, even the most adamant AGW. The only solution in play is carbon caps and trade - a free market approach with .gov giving out the credits which are then bought and sold. There's already a large and fast growing carbon trading exchange in Europe, principally founded by a US economist who's become wealthy as a result, interestingly. Fifty years ago governments would have indeed implemented an across the board one-emissions-standard-for-all regulation but no more.
Wow, 20%. Didn't realise that. In any case, I can assure you that not 20% of the African population can come to Europe...Yes, it is a large fraction, about 20%. Consider the following, the largest urban population of Mexicans is Mexico City, the second largest is Los Angeles. Money sent back to Mexico from immigrants in the US is the second largest source of Mexican GDP.
Roughly 12,670 +/- 20 Calendar years BP, major changes took place in the Northern hemisphere, the start of the Younger Dryas. This codates with the sudden disapearance of the Clovis culture in America and the extinction of some of the mega fauna actually only the mammoths and the sabre-toothed cats. The horses, turtles, ground sloths, etc were already extinct while the Mastodon survived into the Holocene.How fast do you think climate has to change to "capture" a walking tribe? Assume they walk 10 km a day. In a year, they have walked 3000 km including some rest. Even if they only walk 1 km a day, they do 3000 km in 10 years.
No market would exist anywhere without a government enforced rule of law. Nor will you find any free market economist stating government has no role.Uh, in my book that's government regulation! This market wouldn't exist without any imposed CO2 quota (by the gouvernment - via international agreements).
FromIn theory, if properly designed and implemented, market-based instruments allow any desired level of pollution cleanup to be realized at the lowest overall cost to society, by providing incentives for the greatest reductions in pollution by those firms that can achieve the reductions most cheaply.
Rather than equalizing pollution levels among firms (as with uniform emission standards), market-based instruments equalize the incremental amount that firms spend to reduce pollution — their marginal abatement cost (Montgomery 1972; Baumol and Oates 1988; Tietenberg 1995).
Command-and-control approaches could — in theory — achieve this cost-effective solution, but this would require that different standards be set for each pollution source, and, consequently, that policy makers obtain detailed information about the compliance costs each firm faces. Such information is simply not available to government. By contrast, market-based instruments provide for a cost-effective allocation of the pollution control burden among sources without requiring the government to have this information.
This is a little exaggerated. Even in total tyrrany or complete anarchy there is some market activity. However, you are absolutely correct that the government involvement in things like enforcing contracts and private property rights greatly enhances market activity.No market would exist anywhere without a government enforced rule of law.