Number 1 Must know Fact (a response post)

Karea and Company,



I know that you wanted to close the thread on Global Warming, but I Hadn’t had a chance to respond before it was sealed. Please give me that opportunity right now, b/c this is a great discussion.



Karea, I think this was a great thread to start, you should not apologize for putting it up here.



I really enjoyed reading this thread on Global Warming. And I believe that you should discuss politics, religion and the like with your friends. Yes, many do have conclusions they cling to, but if they really are worthy of being your friends then they aren’t going to discredit YOU b/c you have differences, they will listen to what you have to say and think about it. Also recognize that emotional reactions are not permanent nor personal, they’re a person’s way of defending they’re beliefs, you may have touched something in them that was a sore spot in the past.



I’m just as susceptible to this as anyone.



I did want to put some input on here concerning the original topic: Global Warming.

In College and Graduate School, I actually focused on environmental economics, b/c it was the most interesting to me. From Air Pollution, to Toxic Waste, Global Warming and endangered species, I thought I might have a positive contribution to make since this is something I’ve actually studied.



Both sides present very compelling cases depending on how they package their data.



The most interesting publication (IMO) I found on this is titled “The True State of the Planet” by Ronald Bailey. He actually edits the publication and it is an accumulation of a number of scientists’ work. This was not in any way a politically motivated study.



Even though IMO I’m in disagreement with conventional global warming theory (i.e., as being a direct result of gases coming from human activity), if it is true, there are several areas that should be addressed.



Myth #1: Business only cares about profits not the environment. For some reason there is a drive to make all businessmen appear selfish. The mantra goes that they only care about the bottom line and not the environment. Yet there are hundreds and hundreds of business leaders in the US that yearly contribute hundreds of billions of dollars out of charity to find solutions to environmental problems and clean up pollution. They give their moneys to groups like Sierra Club and Greenworks.



Even those business owners who don’t care about the environment actually benefit it unknowingly when they attempt to cut costs. Selfish energy business owner Smith is thinking: How can I make more $$$? Well one way he does it is by getting more energy out of each unit of resource, that actually means cutting back on consumption. If I can find a way to produce 10 gigawatts of power per unit of coal vice 2 gigawatts, I’m going to try to do that. The worst polluters ( of air pollution and green house gases) today are not the US and Europe, whose indigenous populations are actually in decline, they are countries that are still developing: China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and many countries in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The reason is that they are going through their own industrial revolutions right now. Being in a nice non-polluted environment is not something that can just happen overnight, it doesn’t happen b/c someone passes a law. It is something that comes from ingenuity, hard work, risk and an advancement in a countries’ capital base and standard of living. This is something that escapes most mainstream debates on the topic: Lack of air pollution/greenhouse gases is far more proportional to relative wealth in a society than to numbers of environmental regulations. But if we really want to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, then an INCREASE in overall wealth is what we really want, not impoverishment. An increase in wealth also tends to lead to what everyone seems to want: Less people on earth. While I personally would like to see more people on earth, the very steps that those wanting to increase population control would implement are counterproductive to their goal. If you want less people, do everything you can to increase the personal wealth of your people.



Government Regulations and the like do not hurt those that are already rich…those rich snobby elitists we all love to hate. They hurt those trying to become rich, those entrepreneurs taking risks with their own or other people’s money to create an improvement in a quality of life that is measureable.



Myth #2: Government regulations will save us from global warming. There is also a belief that more laws somehow make us healthier and smarter. The more oversight, the more we regulate business then the more standardized, fair, and less polluted we will be. Seems pretty simple doesn’t it?…if we have a lot of Co2 lets pass a law so we have less.



It isn’t this simple though. Laws passed with the very best of intentions change incentive structures in the market, very similar to water simply flowing around a large rock dropped in a running stream. Simply passing a law to say “each powerplant will install a smokestack scrubber to reduce Co2 emissions” is simple , but incredibly complicated and expensive when it comes to implementation. Who installs it? Everyone? Only those plants of a certain size? What about location, does that play a role? What about the need for the energy sources’ reliability?, etc., etc. These are details that are usually glossed over by congressional aides who form the details of a bill while it is in subcommittees, simply b/c they don’t have time to research it themselves. Usually they rely on the opinions of friends or experts they trust to help them make monumental decisions affecting millions of people.



These laws also tend to shield the regulated business from tort. Why? B/c a business can’t be held responsible for “damages” to neighbors if it is following the law. This is the primary reason why big business (though not small business) LIKES to be regulated, or “forced” to take certain steps, because then if pollution (including greenhouse gases) they emit harms others, they have limited liability.



Now lets assume that a perfect law was passed making every powerplant install a scrubber to reduce Co2. The powerplant owner now has an economic incentive to burn more polluting coal, or dirty coal, vice clean coal. It’s cheaper and dirtier, but the scrubber gets rid of the same polluting material. This is the very thing that happened in the late 70s as a result of the initial clean air act amendments. The sulphur and carbon from the dirtier coal had to be cleaned out of the powerplants and deposited SOMEWHERE…the EPA approved it to be dumped on public lands, where in some cases it ended up contaminating ground water.



Where am I going with all this?



Like I said, I don’t want this to appear as a political appeal. I actually dislike both major parties in the US. I’m trying to increase the scope of the discussion here, it’s not just a simple good guy v. bad guy stand-off.



Market incentives generally create the cleanest environment. This sounds far-fetched at first, it did to me too. But the more evidence I examined, it always appeared that pollution was a problem resulting from the tragedy of the Commons…unowned, or public property or areas. No one “owns” the atmosphere, so how can one eliminate execessive release of Co2?



No one cares if you dump pollution somewhere else. They are concerned if you dump it on them or their property. The more privatized a market tends to be, the more stewardship exists in its resources b/c someone owns them. There is a fantastic debate taking place among free market environmentalists about creating real incentives for people to protect the environment, all based in the tradition of property rights, rule of law, and civil action to protect person and belongings (as defined by the Common Law system that we in the States and our friends in Europe share).



How do we incentivize small business and those developing countries to use less greenhouse gas polluting materials without creating huge inefficiencies and improverishment that almost always accompany government regulation?



There are several approaches to this, but my post is already too long. If there is still interest in this discussion, let me know and I’ll put more links up here with some of the approaches that some social scientists have proffered.



Take a look at the former Soviet Union…as a Communist state it had one of the most stringent forms of environmental regulations on earth, yet at the beginning of the 1990s is was an ecological catastrophe!



Just for the record, I really like hearing what everyone has to say about this. Karea, I have not viewed your video yet, but I will.



Here are some links to some of the publications and articles I’d mentioned, including a poorly written one by me when I was a young writer in a previous age (it’s a little off topic since it deals more with air pollution and less with global warming). Hope you guys enjoy it or get something out of this.



We’re all on the same side here, b/c we’re all about helping each other.



Guess I’ve got too much time on my hands if I’m writing about this stuff and not sarging chicks.



I am very jealous of all you right now. I’m trapped on a ship in the middle of the Coral Sea.



Success,

Av



Free Market Environmentalism defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism



A Free market Environmentalist website:

http://commonsblog.org/free_reading.php





The True State of the Planet:

http://www.ebookmall.com/ebooks/earth-report-2000-revisiting-the-true-state-of-the-planet-bailey-novak-ebooks.htm



My article:

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=63

I'm an ass man, so I have ass all the way, but dont get me wrong if she got nice tits I aint complainin'.

Actually now That I think about it I dont blame Karea too much for this.

The thing is... I seriously think that Europe is becoming too politically correct or politically one-sided. People who dont go along with the political correctness or status quo over in Europe are painted as Nazis or uneducated ignorants. The result as we saw is that you only get one side of the issue most of the time, so how is the majority to know if information not presented on an equal basis. The political climate here in the US is not so that its one-side. People can get away with disagreeing with the major political climate in the US at least more often than not.

I dont mean to stir another debate here. All I want to do is point out that just becuase we Americans can sometimes have a different way of seeing things doesnt mean were a bunch of ignorant hillbillies, as maybe some of you Euro or otherwise assumed that we were. We dun gots owr own edumecation so's we can be as itelligunt as you all over dar.

dip my toes in one more time

ALL countries slant their perspective. Not just the US. I have travelled and watched news in the Middle East, Europe, Carribean, Canada, Mexico and I find that what you say Karea, is true to a certain extent. You most definitely get a different perspective. However that persective is slanted to gain favor for the political views of that country. In the US the news trashes each side of the political spectrum. It depends on which station you watch.

You have travelled much further and wider than most of us and some of us have different experiences in life. That does not discount either perspective in those experiences.

I get rather incensed when someone trashes any country in a general wave of mass inaccurate or partially accurate political wranglings. The education systems in most countries are what you personally make of them. It is possible to get a good education most places but it is also possible to walk away ignorant in the most successful school programs. To state a person is stupid or ignorant or to state you are superior just because you went to school in a particular country is to place yourself among the elite and discount others. I cannot do that, but I do have perspective.

The political argument, much like the religion argument is dangerous because many factors. One constant that I have observed is below for whatever my opinion is worth.
When a person truly is convinced of something they look for facts, figures, stories, other people etc, to prove thier point. Rarely are they able to be open minded enough to observe all factors and rarely can a person find all these true facts without truly being open minded. ( yeah that might sound like I talk in circles to some but I can support those beliefs with FACTS LOL)

Open mindedness is difficult. An example....If I could prove to you there is a liquid in your home that is one of the most dangerous substances on earth and it contributes to more deaths and destruction than any other substance...it would stand to reason you should remove it from your home wouldn't it? Yes I can support those facts with many many documents to show how dangerous this is and yet this substance without bias of age, race, religion or political affiliation kills thousands per year....would you want to know what it is?

Of course it is a silly argument....it is water. But the facts remain don't they?

This is the major issue I have with religions. I am convinced there are higher powers. However, I am not yet convinced that any religion on this earth has all the facts. I have seen some rather amazing conclusions from what seemed to be sound proof. However those proofs rarely stand up to the counter points.

Countries and aliances simularly use facts to support their beliefs. I think there is no pure political stand in this world All of them have selfish motives.

I think the US like all major world powers will fall or slip lower and lower and another power will rise above. My opinion is that it will be the European Union. I think most Americans will agree that the state of the world should be addressed by the world as a whole. However, there are zealots in this world that make reasoning impossible.

I want to apologize if any were offended by my comments on the other thread, most of those comments were tongue in cheek and meant to bring a chuckle. However there is a perspective from all angles and really ANY war can be argued to death. We should not come to that point as humans but it has always happened and it always will and the world is shaped by those wars.

Now I will try to reserve my comments to respond to seduction rather than religion or politics from now on....however these are deep seated feelings in all of us.

I know this is off topic, but my oppinion as an avid history buff is that empires or great civilizations tend to have the same life cycles.

Its my oppinion as well as other that Ive read that the US is only at dawn of it power as a total global force similar to the Roman empire, who has not yet reached its zenith. If this continues we could a achive an era of Pax America a golden age of total global democracy, although it may face a few major bumps along the way before it actually gets there. If this were to happen we could actually achieve true global world peace for at least a few hundred years much like the Pax Romana brought two centuries of peace within the borders of the whole Roman empire. Although this will not happen anytime soon.

I believe the EU will not rise to power in the long term, in the short term maybe, but they will not surpase the US. Their problem is two-fold, they have a shrinking population, coupled with Muslim immigration whose population growth will outstrip native Europeans within the next 50 to 100 years changing the face of Europe entirely, since these peoples lifestyle is completely opposite their European host without the willingness of the majority to assimilate into that culture. Creating a culture within that will eventually outstrip the original culture population-wise. The other big problem which most people dont know is that they could be looking at Radical United Islamic Empire within 20 years or so willing to face down the West, and they will be right next door to Europe, the US has the Atlantic as a natural barrier.

Private. You must be a registered member to view this post.

The US has this problem but the immigration is mainly economic not based on something as strong as ideaoly or religion. Assimilation is easier for this people.

Im not saying they are not equal, they are.

Im saying that their belief is ideologically opposite (for the most part) from that of how we see things here in the West. Remember that Mohammed cartoon thing a year ago or so. History shows that you cannot have two opposing cultures next to each other eventually one will have to give way.

Beisides Im not worried about most Muslims, they simply want to go about thier bussiness. What you need to look out for is how much the influence of radical Islam will affect the these people. Radical Islam and Western ideals cannot coexist whatsoever, it will invitably war and conflict.

Private. You must be a registered member to view this post.

But the main difference with the picture is you still have the right to make fun of the holocaust if you want to, as bad as it is. But with Islam you have no right whatsoever to be able to post those pictures no matter what (if you do you face death). Big fundamental difference if you didnt notice. And that was what all the stink was about, and also why the Dutch government didnt back down. It wasnt a matter of respecting space, it was a matter of what rights do you have.

Private. You must be a registered member to view this post.

I actually agree with you here. Im hoping that Islam somehow moderates itself, before its too late. That more moderate elements & leaders take over and do away with the radicals influence. Right now as it stands it could go either way. I also agree we are going completley off topic. And I'll agree not to reply if you don't... hehe.

Actually NONE of the stuff we talk about here is even close to being as important and pales in scope and comparison to the news of Paris Hilton's jail time. The news coverage of this is so much more massive and beyond anything we have so far witnessed as human beings.

Private. You must be a registered member to view this post.

She not beautiful but definately very atttractive. I think shes famous for being famous, for lack of a better explanation. I think the enterainment press simply latched on to her becuase theres always something happening or some juicy gossip surrounding her.

Iv been asking myslef the exact same thing.

To try and keep this thread on topic, you will be please to know that there was a general consencus at the G8 summit that pollution needs to be addressed. And a 5 year plan to reduce emitions will be put in place. How effective that will be i dont know, but at least its a start.

At last years summit all George Bush could say is that " Americans are addicted to oil" and left it there. At least he has realised its something that needs attention this time around.

Riddler