|
|
Post by John Humphreys on Sept 29, 2005 17:09:29 GMT 10
In my opinion, there is evidence to suggest the world is getting warmer. On the balance of probabilities (though admitting the evidence isn't comprehensive) I think that human activity may be one cause of this.
However, at this stage, I don't think there is any need for serious government action regarding global warming.
Besides the relative uncertainty about what exactly is happening -- there seems to be no policy suggestios that pass a benefit-cost analysis and it seems likely that technological advancements will solve the problem long before politicians can.
For discussion...
|
|
|
|
Post by L. von Mises on Sept 29, 2005 17:20:49 GMT 10
Key in this argument is that while there appears to be empirical evidence that the world is getting warmer, the causal effects of this are completely unknown. The fact is, the earth's climate system has never been stable - there is irrefutable evidence that at various times in the world's history, there have been incredibly hot periods, as well as ice ages. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine currently has an online petition signed by 17,000 environmental scientists (downloadable here: www.oism.org/pproject/) claiming that although the earth is getting warmer, mankind is not the cause of this. Scientific debate aside, John is correct in that no serious attempt has been made (or probably can be made) to measure the economic cost of global warming. Thus, attempts to implement carbon trading permit schemes, or providing government subsidies to petroleum producers to research biofuels, is likely to result in an inefficient allocation of mankind's existing resources. Governments across the world are foolishly trying to establish markets for pollution-abatement using pricing mechanisms, when there are no empirical estimates of the marginal costs or benefits of participating in the market. That is ultimately why these markets (such as carbon trading permits) would not exist without government intervention. |
|
terje
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by terje on Sept 29, 2005 19:03:02 GMT 10
Interesting technologies include:- 1. Hybrid Electric cars. 2. Solar Tower. www.enviromission.com.auI think that we need to clean up our act when it comes to Smog. I think wind farms ultimately lead to a less stable power network. |
|
|
|
Post by L. von Mises on Sept 29, 2005 19:10:37 GMT 10
I agree - wind farms are rubbish in terms of replacing base-load power. This solar tower idea seems interesting, but their website doesn't even have a picture of one yet....
Pollution is nothing more than a 'bad' in the economy. Given enforceable property rights (for example over air or bodies of water), Coase theorem suggests that bargaining will lead to an efficient market based solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Humphreys on Sept 29, 2005 19:12:54 GMT 10
"...Coase theorem suggests that bargaining will lead to an efficient market based solution"
IF you can identify the culprit. That is why CO2 emmissions are a little different and potentially a rationale for a pigouvian pollution tax similar to our current fuel excise.
|
|
|
|
Post by L. von Mises on Sept 29, 2005 19:19:57 GMT 10
Hmmm, that is true. Coase theorem requires the clear identification and assigning of property rights to be effective.
|
|
terje
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by terje on Sept 29, 2005 20:45:36 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by L. von Mises on Sept 29, 2005 21:24:06 GMT 10
Thanks, couldn't find the pictures before. They look very interesting. Will have to do some further reading on them....
|
|
terje
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by terje on Sept 29, 2005 23:58:27 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by c8to on Oct 3, 2005 21:06:18 GMT 10
apparently during the 70s the big issue in the headlines was global cooling (source ultimate resource 2 by julian simon)
i dont think man is having any effect on the temperature...were simply too puny. we obviously have an effect on air quality where we live, and this can be handled by simple pollution taxes, which we basically already have.
on the energy issue, im led to believe that nuclear is cleaner and safer than all other forms of energy generation.
|
|
terje
Junior Member
Posts: 72
|
Post by terje on Oct 4, 2005 6:28:41 GMT 10
I have no doubt that we effect the temperature. The questions in my mind are all about magnitude and impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sukrit Sabhlok on Oct 4, 2005 18:09:10 GMT 10
Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton, writing as someone who has studied the issue for the past 3-4 years:
“Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better.”
“I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird.”
“There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century.”
“Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made.”
“Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess – the only thing anyone is doing, really – I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C.”
|
|
|
|
Post by John Humphreys on Oct 4, 2005 18:49:50 GMT 10
I agree with Terje. I think we (humans) effect the temperature. I like Crichton's guess... I might add my own: 1.4197673 degrees C warming over the next century, of which 0.4549382 degrees C is caused by humans.  |
|
gcs15
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by gcs15 on Oct 21, 2005 11:51:05 GMT 10
I've seen images of solar collectors that are roof panels. IMHO they looked quite good. Whilst not a panacea they would lighten the load (no pun intended).
|
|
