Do not send to know for whom the ice Tols, it clarifies for the economists.
H/t Foolish commenter at CA.
==============
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by kim
↧
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by Bart R
Joshua | July 26, 2013 at 11:51 pm |
In the free market, a rational seller will price their goods in such a way as to maximize return to investors in any sales cycle.
If the price goes a penny higher but the net return is even a penny lower, then that extra penny is the price rise not to take.
If the price goes a penny higher and the net return is even only a penny higher, that price hike is the right one to make.
Of course, pricing strategy is a bit more complex in the details, but that’s essentially it. The carbon fee should keep going up in a way that doesn’t disorder the market too much until it reaches a point of diminishing returns.
Every citizen per capita then obtains an equal share of the revenues directly. As the plan is to do this through the income tax or payroll tax system, there’s a ready-made avenue that will cost only a marginal amount to exploit already in place. The savings in tax churn alone will pay for the marginal cost of set-up. Plus, it sorta-kinda encourages people being paid under the table to declare their incomes and stop defrauding the rest of us.
Is this dividend income, therefore taxable at a fair rate? Sure, but so what? Overall, 70% of Americans — by and large the poorest 70% of Americans, but that’s just law of averages and the structural inequities of the current system being relieved at work — will be far ahead under this plan, if the lessons of British Columbia hold true.
20% of Americans will be about at par, until their changed behavior leads them to savings and lower waste of resources. The resultant increase in economic efficiency is a rising tide floating all boats.
About 10% of Americans would pay more for emitting carbon. They’re the ones who are free riders now. Do we not want to curtail free riding by 10% to benefit 90% of America economically?
This arrangement of the government enforcing the weights and measures of CO2E in the retail marketplace to ensure the owners are fairly paid by the users, this privatization, has been proven in a real world case very like a miniature model of the USA, so we know it will work and will make the US economy stronger.
That’s how a fair price is set, and what impacts we can expect.
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by kim
What’s behind the Green Door? Flood stage Alpheus and mucked up Peneus.
===============
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by ozzieostrich
Jim D,
“Physics says . . .” has as much authority as “97% of . . . agree. . . ”
You may be confusing physics with fisics, or even Physix.
Measurements say nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, the measurebators cannot even agree what it is they’re measuring, or where and how to measure it.
I invite you to go and stand on some exposed igneous rock (that which was originally molten), and tell me how much it has warmed.
In the meantime,
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by Bart R
manacker | July 27, 2013 at 12:02 am |
Exact details left to the legislative body of each jurisdiction.
In BC, it was a revenue neutral carbon tax.
In the USA, the Citizen’s Climate Lobby advocates a fee and dividend system.
I add onto these only three observations:
1. The Law of Supply and Demand is the proven best price-setting mechanism in the Market, and ought be used to set the price of CO2E emission.
2. Every penny of revenue ought go to every citizen per capita equally and in so direct a manner as feasible, if one is to take full advantage of the morale boosting effect of the restoration of fairness to the Market.
3. The broader the base and more inclusive the CO2E emissions covered by the privatization of lucrative exchanges, the less distortionate the change in the Market and the more efficient the influence.
↧
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by kim
Don’t forget to append that a warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life. Every comment, every thought, every impulse; on the beaches, in blog comments, to the barristas.
==================
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by kim
Dear Editor:
Attribution, she’s a bitch.
Puff the Magic Carbon
Lived by the CO2;
Nature turned and scratched him
Some place rich.
====================
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by kim
The Sun is grinning Cheshirely; what it augers even kim doesn’t know.
==========================
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by Jim D
ozzie, I find that when I challenge the 3% on their physics understanding it is sorely lacking, which I suspect is why they are in the 3% in the first place. They think the climate of 700 ppm is the same as the one of 280 ppm or even sometimes 190 ppm or 2000 ppm. Unbelievable.
↧
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by Tom Curtis Doesn’t Understand the 97% Paper » Climate Resistance
[…] It gets worse for the polarisers. Judith Curry echoes Hulme’s remark: […]
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Tom Curtis Doesn’t Understand the 97% Paper » Climate Resistance
[…] Judith Curry’s longer discussion about the consensus is here. […]
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by kim
My Pappy was wont to ask the waitress what colors of pie were available.
==================
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by mosomoso
Goodness, to think that Australia’s Black Thursday fire of 1851 – the world’s greatest known inferno – did it all without “climate change”. Of course, in 1871, the Great Lakes region of N. America pulled off fire conditions in the mid-autumn which would have to rank as “Superfranken” in any place or era, although it is only in recent years that learned types have recognised the value of baby talk in the description of weather events.
Yes, people blamed everything from comets to somebody’s cow for Chicago-Peshtigo (though we know better). This was, presumably, all achieved without “climate change”. Imagine if they’d had “climate change” back then. They could really have been contenders – and no consensus needed, thanks all the same!
↧
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by Girma
Nonetheless, the combination of imperfect data, overlapping explanations, and continued uncertainty mean that scientists cannot discount the possibility that they have overestimated the climate’s “sensitivity” to additional greenhouse gas emissions. For Held, the last 10 to 15 years “make it more plausible that the size of climate response to greenhouse gas increase is on the lower side of what models have been projecting over the last 10 or 20 years rather than over the high side.” Held is not alone.
http://www.newrepublic.com/node/113533/print
A very big tick mark for sceptics.
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by Girma
Steven
Human contribution to global warming may well be less than 5%.
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by manacker
Bart R
My earlier question was not a loaded one. I seriously want to know how you envision this "privatization of the carbon cycle" through a“fee and dividend system” to work in practice.
You write:
<blockquote>1. The Law of Supply and Demand is the proven best price-setting mechanism in the Market, and ought be used to set the price of CO2E emission.</blockquote>
This is too vague for me, Bart. <em>Who</em> sets the price of “CO2E emissions” and on what basis? {AFIAK there is no “law of supply and demand” covering this.) The current price of “CO2E emissions” is zero.
And what is a CO2E emission and how is it measured/established on a day-to-day basis?
<blockquote>2. Every penny of revenue ought go to every citizen per capita equally and in so direct a manner as feasible, if one is to take full advantage of the morale boosting effect of the restoration of fairness to the Market.</blockquote>
I do not see any source of “revenue” here, Bart, but rather a “tax” imposed on everyone according to each person’s energy consumption (or “CO2E emission”), so I do not see any “handouts” to anyone. Do you? If so, where do these come from and how are they calculated? Who collects the tax and administers the distribution of the collected funds?
<blockquote>3. The broader the base and more inclusive the CO2E emissions covered by the privatization of lucrative exchanges, the less distortionate the change in the Market and the more efficient the influence.</blockquote>
Sounds good in theory, but what is missing is the specific details on calculation and implementation of the “CO2E emission” tax. Who pays and how much? For example, how much would be your net payment, as a consumer of energy? Does the Federal government (a major CO2 emitter) pay itself a tax?
Bart, this is all too “hairy-fairy” for me. You apparently expect to <em>receive</em> money under this scheme, rather than pay for your individual “CO2E emission”. Why? You (like everyone else in the world) have a “carbon footprint” (i.e. a “CO2E emission”). Why shouldn’t you have to pay for yours like everyone else?
This does not sound like a well-thought-out scheme, Bart. Too many open questions.
But maybe you can get more specific and answer some of the open questions.
Max
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by kim
Oh, c’mon, Max; it makes perfect sense to him. Now roll the dice; I’m sittin’ here with all four railroads and hotels on Park Place and Broadway.
===================
↧
↧
Comment on The 97% ‘consensus’ by tlitb1
@Willard 3:08 pm
“Now, tell me, dear tlitb1: do you think our beloved Bishop meet the criterium emphasized?”
Thanks for leaving off at the first sentence of Cooks paper to decide criteria to apply a test. If you don’t mind I have read all the other sentences too right up to the conclusion that starts with a clear declaration of the papers goal:
“The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Dinget al 2011).”
So it seems to me that even if the Bish only qualifies as a member of the public Cook, (and you?), should be overjoyed that the work is done with this one; as he declares inclusion in the belief system defined by the paper already. You can’t get a clearer declaration that his “perception” matches the goal of the paper.
You see the paper is not just one thing, only a tool for measuring scientists; it has a goal for educating public perception. Do you think your disdain for mere member of the public who expresses agreement with the scientists helps this goal?
Let’s say a similar paper was used to promulgate HIV AIDS perception in South Africa and then when a member of the public said, I too believe HIV causes AIDS, would you then say Ah! but you are not a scientist so your opinion is worthless?
Like the Sparta picture though personally I think a Roman era “I’m Spartacus!” picture would be more appropriate ;)
Sorry to hear you have had your runs in with Mr Pile.
“Let’s hope for Mr. Pile that Tom Curtis is busy.”
Gosh, sounds ominous! But no turns out Tom’s not too busy, he’s replied (indirectly) to Ben Pile . Tom said:
“Apparently [Pile] has never heard of the principle of charity in criticisms, ie, that in interpreting the works of others you construe them as consistent if it is possible to do so.”
I am going to call this the Blanche DuBois defence ;)
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by kim
Gates sniffs at the gem instead of gazing into its cool, limpid, and lucid depths, hinting of millenial scale changes during the Holocene.
==========================
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Chief Hydrologist
You’re snide bs notwithstanding you mean?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
