S0 I’m actually getting to where I feel better about things and have begun looking at actual data. Then I ran across this.
It is a call to action to limit black carbon emissions, a far more sensible thing to attack than CO2, but the article is so insane that I simply refuse to accept that anyone in the world believes it has any attachment to reality.
Tropospheric ozone and black carbon (BC) contribute to both degraded air quality and global warming. We considered ~400 emission control measures to reduce these pollutants by using current technology and experience. We identified 14 measures targeting methane and BC emissions that reduce projected global mean warming ~0.5°C by 2050. This strategy avoids 0.7 to 4.7 million annual premature deaths from outdoor air pollution and increases annual crop yields by 30 to 135 million metric tons due to ozone reductions in 2030 and beyond. Benefits of methane emissions reductions are valued at $700 to $5000 per metric ton, which is well above typical marginal abatement costs (less than $250). The selected controls target different sources and influence climate on shorter time scales than those of carbon dioxide–reduction measures. Implementing both substantially reduces the risks of crossing the 2°C threshold.
You have got to be completely insane to imagine that a 0.5C warming or the associated pollution will kill a minimum of 700,000 people per year. This is what passes for peer review?!
Jesus…
There is simply no shame in these people’s makeup. Have you ever witnessed such incredibly blatant and false scare tactics? This actually went into a journal.Perhaps if this is the standard for the AAAS science magazine, it should rename itself Charmin.
the Air Vent 
premature deaths …. Does that mean that they die
– before the scheduled day of their death? Or
– before being mature? Or
– before actually dying?
In their defense, I think they are referring to premature deaths from the direct effects of air pollution, such as lung cancer, emphysema, etc. not to potential indirect effects vis-a-vis global warming. There is no doubt that the air pollution conditions in places like Beijing aren’t good for one’s health and one could easily surmise that long-term exposure to such levels of air pollution would result in some fairly high numbers of premature deaths. I doubt very much there are many, if any, premature deaths from air pollution in countries such the US, which have decent pollution control requirements.
“The study, which was conducted under NASA, included an international team,”. These clown reporters somehow believe that referencing foreign participation makes the results more believable.
Well the worst thing about this mitigation study is that it is the reasonable one. The fake claims that it will save lives aside, they apparently attempt to look at what makes more sense.
Still a pack of extremist idiots though.
I know it’s easier to just call people idiots instead of actually bothering to read their study and its methodology, but if you had bothered you’d find a section in their online supplementary material titled “Health Impacts” that says this:
“We include PM mortalities due to cardiopulmonary illness and lung cancer calculated using relative risk estimates from (73) and ozone mortalities calculated using relative risk estimates for respiratory disease from a two-pollutant model (74)…. Using this methodology, we estimate 220,000 deaths could be avoided each year in India due to reduced indoor air pollution if all BC measures were implemented. In China, we would see a reduction of 153,000 deaths per year.”
73. D. Krewski et al., “Extended follow-up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer
Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality” (Health Effects Institute,
2009).
74. M. Jerrett et al., Long-Term Ozone Exposure and Mortality. New Engl. J. Med. 360, 1085
(2009).
75. C. A. Pope et al., Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to
fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287, 1132 (2002).
{PM=particulate matter, primarily (in this case) PM2.5}
Anonimess,
I don’t have free access to the papers but can get them from friends. Rather than ask my friends to waste their time, I chose to tell people what this piece of TP propaganda was. You would have to be a complete extremist to accept that 700000 people will die each year if we don’t make these changes — on the LOW end. 4 million times 40 years!!
Stupid beyond reason. — I would like them to scrub their emissions though. Having been to China, the skies are hideous.
I also note that you have not responded regarding your last critique on significant figures.
Jeff – you’re obviously unaware of the heavy toll on children due to indoor (cooking) fires. I find their estimates plausible. Yes it’s that bad, and all the worse as people fly around the world to control CO2 when black carbon is killing people as we speak.
Maurizio,
I haven’t read the paper, are you saying they are fighting the good fight against unventilated cooking fires? The abstract doesn’t seem to say that. There is a huge difference between carbon from a power plant and the concentrated smoke of a cooking fire in a small room with no ventilation?
To somehow cram methane with it into a single paper and claim these numbers of lives will be saved/lost is beyond insane. There is no basis whatsoever by which such an abstract could be supported.
The abstract is conflating things, yes. I hope we can have a look at those 14 solutions
I don’t have free access to the papers but can get them from friends.
Them get them from friends. Subscribe to the magazine. Read it at the library. Check the authors Web sites. Or write to them and ask for a copy. How would you like if people criticized your blog who had never read it?
You would have to be a complete extremist to accept that 700000 people will die each year if we don’t make these changes — on the LOW end. 4 million times 40 years!!
Really? Do you think everyone lives in a sparkling American kitchen? Do you think there are no health effects from ground-level ozone?
What does your analysis find for this number?
Anonimess,
I’m not that interested in this paper, sorry. When I realize obvious BS is afoot, that is what I call it.
“What does your analysis find for this number?”
We are discussing the significant figures here? That was on the other thread. I assume that you have given a few seconds to what should be a more serious study and hope that I will do your homework?
Seriously – Not enough effort.
I am looking at sea ice data today. My discussion with Carrick has re-invigorated my interest.
Anonimess,
If you want everyone to live in ‘sparkling’ kitchens, then you should be very supportive of industry, free-markets etc..
Maurizio,
If you really want the paper, send an email and I will ask around.
700,000 may not be that far off of a number for excess mortality associated with pollution compared to other sources. Totally annual deaths are around 50 million, so this is a little more than a 1% increase. (WHO gives global numbers closer to 2 million annual deaths.)
Remember these numbers associated to the increased risk of airborne illnesses associated with pollution exposure, but they also incorporate poorer health care. China’s totally excess mortality associated with air pollution according to an WHO estimate is around 660,000 by itself. By comparison, Canada’s annual excess mortality is around 4000.
Jeff Id said
I’m not that interested in this paper, sorry.
I understand. It’s much easier to just heckle and whine rather than do the hard work of understanding an issue in-depth in order to present quality data and information. That’s what blogs are all about, right?
“700,000 may not be that far off of a number for excess mortality associated with pollution compared to other sources”
Carrick,
aside from the ice issues we were discussing that I now hope to resolve, this paper claims that as a minimum number of lives saved. You sure that sounds reasonable?
Anonimess,
No substance?
Jeff Id wrote:
If you want everyone to live in ‘sparkling’ kitchens, then you should be very supportive of industry, free-markets etc..
Who said I wasn’t?
By the way, what do you mean by a “free” market? Is that one where the user of a product pays its full costs, including paying for its impact on the property of others, or one where the seller reaps the profits while socializing the waste, health impacts, and environmental damage?
Carrick and Maurizio,
excess deaths due to pollution based on indoor cooking fires with dung and other interesting fuels are very understandable and have been happening for centuries at least. Excess deaths in the US or even most areas of Western Europe are based on sloppy statistics to be polite. Mitigation will have no affect on westernized nations and do NOTHING for those poor stuck with medieval conditions unless we increase our generation and distribution of energy from Nuclear, Clean Coal, Gas… Then we also need to provide stoves and other devices to allow its use.
Actually the spread of solar ovens has probably had a real effect compared to what this paper suggests. Their mentioning of Methane I especially like for its timely arrival AFTER thae paper on methane output from the Siberian Arctic!!! What a CROCK!!!
Carrick,
I’ve been thinking about our ice discussion. There is satellite data of sea ice velocity and concentration on a gridded scale. I’ve re-downloaded the arctic sea ice data over the last day – it does take a long time – and am thinking of a first experiment.
We both agree that the dominant effect is the drain, we don’t have any numbers to back it up yet but what if I place a couple of linear width markers on the drains in the video and measure the width of the sea ice flow over time? If I can then overlay sea ice motion – which I don’t know if the drains are included in – that would give us some flow estimates. We could look at the flow differences in terms of time.
First, I’m going to rejuvinate the sea-ice video plots. Then I’m intending to download and plot flow vectors. After that we can see what can be determined.
My premise is that the bering strait water inflow made a big difference in 2007. If that is the case, i hope to locate gridded ocean surface flow data to also overlay.
Anyway, it should keep me busy for a while.
Jeff ID:
Parse what I said carefully —- and all I said was a) it isn’t inconsistent, and the excess mortality rate they are talking about is around 1%.
I’m never sure about reasonableness in these studies. They tend to be self-serving policy driven results.
It probably wouldn’t result in 700,000 lives lost, because eventually it is excess mortality related to illness that is the culprit not pollution, and it’s purely an epidemiologically based conclusion that pollution is leading to that increase in airborne disease related mortality. It may well be a combination of life style (including cleanliness which relates to public health education), availability of clean water, access to good health care etc. that leads to the lower mortality rate in e.g. the US and Canada from these diseases.
Looking forward to seeing your data studies!
“Looking forward to seeing your data studies!”
Me too. It has been far too long and I’m tired of the political crap flowing from reputable journals. Your critique has inspired my effort and it will be fun to find out if my thoughts are verifiable. I do hope to do the project from a visualization standpoint initially which may be less satisfactory than a stats based one but I’ve never seen the flow, temperature and sea ice combined in a visual presentation. I believe we can cram thickness into it later on as well and see if total outflow volume is calculable.
PM deaths are a gross exaggeration caused by idiots and their models.
Ask Ross McKitrick.
“How plausible are these claims? If correct, they imply that wood-burning fireplaces cause 520 deaths per year, etc. But that is nothing compared with the implied effects from people driving on unpaved roads. According to Environment Canada, dust from unpaved roads in Ontario puts a whopping 90,116 tonnes of PM2.5 into our air each year, nearly 130 times the amount from coal-fired power generation. Using the Clean Air Alliance method for computing deaths, particulates from country-road usage kills 40,739 people per year, quite the massacre considering there are only about 90,000 deaths from all causes in Ontario each year. Who knew? That quiet drive up back country roads to the cottage for a weekend of barbecues, cozy fires and marshmallow roasts is a form of genocide.”
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/05/16/ontarios-power-trip-the-failure-of-the-green-energy-act/
Carrick: “Canada’s annual excess mortality is around 4000.”
More like an imaginary 40,000 in Ontario alone (if you are gullible).
The measure that matters is person-years lost not excess mortality. It makes a big difference if age at death is reduced by 6 days, 6 months, or 6 years due to local air pollution. if 700,000 excess deaths results in three days shorter lifetime (on average) that is not so important. The ‘excess deaths’ measure is inadequate to judge the importance of the health effects. (Same applies to EPA excess deaths data, BTW.)
So this study uses some numerical models? Which ones, I wonder? The abstract doesn’t say anything, but merely states the conclusions.
Hold it. This was a GISS study? Phhhhhhhhhhhht.
How do “deaths from outdoor air pollution” include the “heavy toll on children due to indoor (cooking) fires”.
has anyone noticed that Anonimess writes in a very similar veing to Grzgor Staniak?
Using this methodology, we estimate 220,000 deaths could be avoided each year in India due to reduced indoor air pollution
Burning fertilizer indoors is unhealthy. This has been known for a long time. Generally, INCREASING economic output is the answer. And to do that….
Is that one where the user of a product pays its full costs, including paying for its impact on the property of others, or one where the seller reaps the profits while socializing the waste, health impacts, and environmental damage?
OK. What does my eating a Big Mac (when I can afford one) cost you? Show your work.
SteveF, it does depend on what you’re looking at. Excess wintertime mortality looks at the seasonal effect of winter on mortality rate for example. But that’s a relatively easy thing to do because you’re comparing apples-to-apples (same population group, different stressors).
Comparing China to the US is much more difficult to do well, and I’m not defending any particular number, just pointing out that the this article gave was within the range of other studies.
Anonimess said
January 15, 2012 at 6:23
Most of these ‘deaths’ would seem to be due to localized environmental conditions, appropriately addressed by local administration. Tying this to ‘global warming’ is a shameless shot in the dark — or perhaps more accurately, shameless pandering for further funding.
Ah, arguments from incredulity made without reading the paper on a completely unknown subject. Is there anything they can’t do?
M. Simon said
January 16, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Is that one where the user of a product pays its full costs, including paying for its impact on the property of others, or one where the seller reaps the profits while socializing the waste, health impacts, and environmental damage?
“OK. What does my eating a Big Mac (when I can afford one) cost you? Show your work.”
—
Well, when you start producing methane due to your consumption of big macs, then the
earth’splanet’s temperature will warm by an unprecedented 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 C! We should therefore BAN ALL BIG MACS! Cuz the sea levels will rise! Glaciers will melt! The Arctic will unfreeze! Crop failures! Pestilence! Chaos! Panic! AIGGGHHHHHHHHH!!/anonimess
“Ah, arguments from incredulity made without reading the paper on a completely unknown subject. Is there anything they can’t do?”
I did it with a fish shrinking paper too. Even wrote the main author to tell him he should be ashamed.
Toto:
I assume you’re speaking to your own ignorance, and projecting on everybody else. As usual.
Carrick: “Comparing China to the US is much more difficult to do well, and I’m not defending any particular number, just pointing out that the this article gave was within the range of other studies.”
So, all the numbers were generally equally stupid?
Bruce, probably. Within population epidemiological studies probably work OK, but I really don’t know how you control for the enormous differences between China and the US, when trying to assign an underlying cause to an increased rate of mortality associated with airborne illnesses (for example) in China.
I was more interested (bemused actually) in how many different groups were willing to put their names on a particular range of guestimates of mortality rate associated with poorer pollution controls in China & India.
The less you can prove, the more you know, it seems.
Aren’t these contradictory?
“We identified 14 measures targeting methane and BC emissions that reduce projected global mean warming ~0.5°C by 2050.
“This strategy avoids 0.7 to 4.7 million annual premature deaths from outdoor air pollution and increases annual crop yields by 30 to 135 million metric tons”
Warmer = longer growing season … right? In the real world?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8996412/Climate-change-will-boost-British-farmers.html
Bruce, there are more factors to consider than just warmer temperatures. Black carbon soot can diminish sunlight and reduce photosynthesis.
M. Simon said
OK. What does my eating a Big Mac (when I can afford one) cost you? Show your work.
These things can certainly be estimated, and have been: the CO2 and CH4 emissions per kilogram of beef, the CO2 footprint of an hectare of wheat, etc. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but they’re easily found if you really want to know them. Then, with a price on carbon, you simply multiply, and each Big Mac has an associated cost added to it. That cost (such as a carbon tax) then
(1) can be used for R&D or mitigation efforts, or given back to all individuals in equal proportions via the tax code, and
(2) provides an incentive for the production of noncarbon forms of energy production.
Instead of taxing things we want (such as savings and investment), we should taxing the things we don’t want (such as pollution).
Anonimess,
Too many things are labeled pollution arbitrarily by the enviromovement. Too many enviro’s don’t realize that the other taxes are here to stay. Your politicians don’t have your best interests at heart. The world isn’t sweet enough to coddle your intent. Instead it will use your intent for other, far more selfish, reasons.
Carrick #30,
What I was trying to say was that measures like seasonal differences in rate of death are not very informative of the ‘true’ cost of winter. Yes, more people die in the winter months, but my guess is that most who die due to seasonal stress (including respiratory infections) were probably not very well to begin with, and maybe not far from death, independent of the stresses associated with cold weather. A number like ‘excess wintertime deaths’ just doesn’t accurately convey the true cost, if most of those who die “because of the cold” were so unwell that they would have died within a few months in any case. Ditto for EPA estimates of reductions in ‘deaths associated with air pollution’ for regulation X,Y, or Z. If pristine air adds 2 weeks to average life span, then the number ‘excess deaths’ associated with air pollution may not have a lot of meaning.
In general, you are correct, Steve, though “independent of the stresses” is not entirely accurate. As you imply, it may merely knock some time off of an already doomed individual’s lifespan, largely inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but that alone removes “independence” from the equation. It merely hastens the demise.
Of course, we are all going to die anyway, so you have to wonder, when does hastening demise matter? A month, a year, a decade? It is a philosophical argument, isn’t it? 🙂
Jeff: you know as well as I that once a tax is taken, rarely is it given back. Bans implemented “for the good of the children/people” are rarely lifted (prohibition an obvious exception, but even that was not completely rescinded in actuality – many, if not most, counties in the US are still dry, particularly in the midwest). Control is rarely, if ever, ceded. Collectivism is a patient disease, foisted on the many, by the few, in the name of the many, though benefiting only the few.
Mark
Instead of:
“As you imply, it may merely knock some time off of an already doomed individual’s lifespan, largely inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but that alone removes “independence” from the equation.”
I probably should have said:
“As you imply, it may merely knock some time off of an already doomed individual’s lifespan, or it may weaken such an individual’s resistance to things that would result in his demise, largely inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but the latter would remove “independence” from the equation.
Jeff again: interestingly, Orwell, who embraced socialism himself, apparently did not see that the circumstances surrounding 1984 are precisely what would be required for socialism (or any collectivist fantasy) to “work” in the first place – complete government control over public lives.
Mark
Mark T #43,
Well, sure, how much a change in life span matters to society is indeed a philosophical/moral judgment. But as a practical matter, most people recognize that a decade of reduced lifespan has potentially large societal impacts, while a week difference in lifespan is only about 1/520 as important as a decade. Justifying large increases in costs for reduced air pollution from coal fired power plants (as is the EPA’s want), needs to be justified based on a meaningful metric like a change in average life span, not some number which hides as much as it explains. .
SteveF:
What you’re describing there is “displacement” which indicates shortening of life by a few weeks or months. If one didn’t catch the flu during the wintertime flue season, the point is you generally don’t catch the flu (since it is heavily seasonal), and you probably live at least another year after that, even with a weakened immune system.
Anonimess said
“By the way, what do you mean by a “free” market? Is that one where the user of a product pays its full costs, including paying for its impact on the property of others, or one where the seller reaps the profits while socializing the waste, health impacts, and environmental damage?”
The full pricing of externalities and pareto optimality. How do we distinguish between the existing taxes and costs etc and what incremental taxes might be required? How do we know whether the existing taxes on petrol (gas) or MacDonalds don’t already fully cover the full externatilies associated with their use? Do we have an externatlity by externatility analysis from a zero base or are we just saying that because we don’t like or agree with the outcome that the taxes/costs etc should be higher or lower? How do you know that the existing taxes paid by businesses etc dont already cover the cost associated with their production? What if the level and incidence of existing taxation was itself creating adverse outcomes? You can’t just say because people keep using too much of a product from your persective or that X is going to cost the government more in the future etc that it is mis-priced. If only it was so easy, if only we could all be dictators.
Anonimess: “Black carbon soot can diminish sunlight and reduce photosynthesis”
Do you have any evidence? And if you did, are the numbers big enough to counteract the positive effect of longer growing seasons?
Bruce: You, too, need to read the paper before criticizing it. This is from its Supplementary Material:
“Agricultural Impacts:
Ozone-related crop yield changes were calculated for wheat, rice, maize and soybeans
following (68). The ozone exposure indicator used was the seasonal mean daytime ozone
concentration, indicated as M7 for the 7 h mean (09:00–15:59) or M12 for the 12 h mean (08:00–
19:59), depending on which had been reported for the particular crop. These metrics were
calculated for the crop-specific growing season (with a standard duration of 3 months) depending
on location. The methodology for the definition of the growing season makes use of multiple
data sources, including temperature data, reports describing the growing season for major crops,
and location of different climate zones, as described in (68).
We note that the concentration-response relationships are ‘pooled’ based on a variety of
cultivars that are grown in the US and Europe. They are considered to reliably represent the
average response of the commonly grown cultivar population on national or regional level in
those regions. Small-scale individual studies indicate that Asian cultivars for winter wheat and
rice are equally or more sensitive to ozone damage than the US cultivars (69), hence our results
applying the US-derived exposure–response relationship are likely to be on the conservative
side.
As described in more detail in (68), the spatial distribution of crops and their production
numbers are calculated on a 1°x1° grid resolution, based on crop suitability indices for each of
the crops considered. Crop suitability grid maps are taken from (70). In particular, national
production numbers (obtained from the FAO) are distributed over ‘suitable’ crop production grid
cells with a weight defined by the appropriate crop suitability index. The ozone metrics are
calculated for each grid cell, hence crop production loss is obtained at grid cell resolution, and
afterwards aggregated to national totals. All base crop production levels are present-day rather
than projections for 2030.
The uncertainty range in the crop yield losses comes from both concentration-response
function uncertainties and differences between the ECHAM and GISS modeled ozone. For the
methane measures, these two factors have comparable uncertainties, while for the BC [black carbon] measures
the model-to-model differences in ozone responses are dominant. We also note that the effects of
increasing CO2 on ozone-related crop damage (71) have not been included here, but these may
lessen the impact of future ozone-related crop yield losses and merit further analyses.”
It is clear the authors have put a great deal of thought and work in the issue. Criticize them if you want, but be aware of what they actually did, first.
Jeff Id said
Too many things are labeled pollution arbitrarily by the enviromovement. Too many enviro’s don’t realize that the other taxes are here to stay. Your politicians don’t have your best interests at heart. The world isn’t sweet enough to coddle your intent. Instead it will use your intent for other, far more selfish, reasons.
So what? So then we shouldn’t try to address any of its problems?
There has been a concerted effort by some conservatives to convince people of each of your points, for the purpose of enriching their true constituents (wealthy and corporate funders). Unfortunately, you bought just what they were selling.
Taxes do not always stay. Didn’t the wealthy in the US get two big tax cuts in 2001 and 2003? The Congressional Research Service estimated they were worth $2.9 trillion, over 10 years.
So it seems taxes can indeed be cut.
I am so impressed with that study.
“So what? So then we shouldn’t try to address any of its problems?”
You talk as if there is a huge economic/social cost to not implementing your political solution, but any predictions of such are actually complete speculation.
You talk as if there is no economic/social cost attached to the implementation of your political solution, when in fact the cost would be great, likely destabilizingly so.
You are selling snake oil.
Neill said
You talk as if there is a huge economic/social cost to not implementing your political solution, but any predictions of such are actually complete speculation.
Hardly. They are based on the same scientific methods that are routinely used in other fields like medicine and engineering to evaluate and assess risks. You just don’t like what the science says — and, as I’ve shown here, almost none of you even read it before you start dismissing it.
You talk as if there is no economic/social cost attached to the implementation of your political solution, when in fact the cost would be great, likely destabilizingly so.
You are selling snake oil
The economy needs the exact opposite of what you are selling. Research what steps President Harding took to great effect to lift the country out of depression in the early 1920s.
Neill said
You talk as if there is no economic/social cost attached to the implementation of your political solution, when in fact the cost would be great, likely destabilizingly so.
I haven’t said anything of the sort. What I’ve said is that the person who gets the benefit of a product or service should also pay for its associated costs.
Someone is paying these costs, and they are already destabilizing. How is it unfair that it should be the person creating them, and not others?
Would you approve of me reducing my garbage pickup costs by instead dumping my trash over the fence and into your yard? It would save me a lot of money.
“Small-scale individual studies indicate that Asian cultivars for winter wheat and
rice are equally or more sensitive to ozone damage than the US cultivars (69), hence our results
applying the US-derived exposure–response relationship are likely to be on the conservative
side…….
The uncertainty range in the crop yield losses comes from both concentration-response
function uncertainties and differences between the ECHAM and GISS modeled ozone. For the
methane measures, these two factors have comparable uncertainties, while for the BC [black carbon] measures
the model-to-model differences in ozone responses are dominant. We also note that the effects of
increasing CO2 on ozone-related crop damage (71) have not been included here, but these may
lessen the impact of future ozone-related crop yield losses and merit further analyses.”
= Modeled Speculation.
“Someone is paying these costs,….” Who?
” and they are already destabilizing.” Not true.
Anonimess: “It is clear the authors have put a great deal of thought and work in the issue.”
I’ll ask one more time. Where do they provide evidence black carbon causes crop yields to drop when the growing season is longer?
Well, it seems Anonimess has shown his/her colors. Big surprise.
“The full pricing of externalities and pareto optimality. How do we distinguish between the existing taxes and costs etc and what incremental taxes might be required? How do we know whether the existing taxes on petrol (gas) or MacDonalds don’t already fully cover the full externatilies associated with their use?”
Insane and tiresome. ‘cover the full externalities’ as estimated by a pile of leftists who have made a business of underestimating the importance of profit and its own associated externalities. You know this is the same discussion again. Anonimess has made up his mind and that is that. No amount of pointing out the successes of capitalism will change that. Just like no amount of pointing out that capitalism created the middle class which socialist policy is destroying will ever convince them otherwise. It doesn’t matter what hit you in the head obvious information they see.
“Do we have an externatlity by externatility analysis from a zero base or are we just saying that because we don’t like or agree with the outcome that the taxes/costs etc should be higher or lower? How do you know that the existing taxes paid by businesses etc dont already cover the cost associated with their production? ”
Because sir, I OWN the businesses and pay huge taxes. I pay more damned taxes than I take home by multiples. We also pay dozens of peoples salaries, health care, vacations etc..
“What if the level and incidence of existing taxation was itself creating adverse outcomes? You can’t just say because people keep using too much of a product from your persective or that X is going to cost the government more in the future etc that it is mis-priced. If only it was so easy, if only we could all be dictators.”
It is not your decision – yet – whether people use too much product. Thank god. People are amazingly good at deciding which product they want. We don’t need you to help us think.
Do you realize you are spouting the same policies of Socialist Russia or is it sneaking up on you?
Government control sounds great on paper but you forget that the government has individuals with motivations differing from the whole. It is a complex concept that conservatives embrace yet liberal socialists ignore. You are creating the strife you claim to despise.
Government control actually fails on paper unless you assume either a) no free will or b) everyone has the exact same wants and needs and the labor force is capable of meeting those wants and needs exactly, which essentially amounts to no free will.
Mark
Bruce said:
I’ll ask one more time. Where do they provide evidence black carbon causes crop yields to drop when the growing season is longer?
I’ll ask one more time. Have you read the paper and Supplementary Material?
Mark T said
Government control actually fails on paper unless you assume either a) no free will or b) everyone has the exact same wants and needs and the labor force is capable of meeting those wants and needs exactly, which essentially amounts to no free will.
Everyone certainly has the same needs regarding clean air and clean water.
A generalization like “government control fails on paper” is absurd. Look through history: our current age of robust governments is the safest, most secure, most affluent time humans (on average) have know. And also the freest. Countries around the globe with robust, democratically elected governments are much better places to live than almost all countries that don’t have them. (A place like Qatar might be the exception, and even there government is robust.) You liberties aren’t being threatened because of the insistence that the user pays for his pollution or because energy needs to be produced in a carbon-free manner, but because (if you’re an American) the US government now maintains the right to assassinate its citizens, hold them without trial, read your email and listen to your phone without a warrant, secretly send you to another country and torture you, etc. You should be angry, but you are barking up the wrong tree.
Jeff Id said
No amount of pointing out the successes of capitalism will change that.
Baloney. I’m well aware of the successes of capitalism. I’m also aware of its failures, which you choose to ignore. In particular I’m aware of how it privatizes profits and socializes waste — capitalists dump most of their wastes into and onto the property of others, and often get very wealthy doing so.
Why are you OK with people dumping their crap on your property for free?
Neill said
= Modeled Speculation.
Also baloney. It’s a reasonable methodology. What would you do differently (besides deny the problem exists)?
And by the way, *all* science is a model.
Wow… you really arent paying attention. Whatever freedom we have now is a result of capitalism and is slipping away along with any remnants of capitalism with it.
Capitalists dump their waste no more than others and, in reality, their methods are ultimately less wasteful in the long run (which means less waste) – there would be no clean technology of any sort without capitalism. Sure, sure our air is clean because of government control, stated slyly without noting how in every other aspect capitalism succeeds, yet somehow, innovation stops there.
Myopic is the politically correct way to describe you though moron is more fitting.
Mark
“And by the way, *all* science is a model.”
Which is why it must be, and should be, subjected to the utmost skepticism — not the least.
“US government now maintains the right to assassinate its citizens, hold them without trial, read your email and listen to your phone without a warrant, secretly send you to another country and torture you, etc. ”
The tinfoil hat has now been officially donned by Anonimess. Seems fitting, though, for a typical (and boring) CAGW believer.
Mark T said
January 18, 2012 at 12:33 am
“Wow… you really aren’t paying attention. Whatever freedom we have now is a result of capitalism and is slipping away along with any remnants of capitalism with it.”
Don’t worry Mark – I’ll be fighting for freedom and capitalism, and this November everything is going to change for the better!
Mark T:
The point that is a “free market” means “freedom to enter and exit the market” (government does not try to control supply and demand) and not “freedom from regulation”.
Free markets must be well regulated to be optimal. That means books must be kept honest, salaries set fairly, the market must not trounce on the rights of others including their own workers as well as the population (e.g. pollution control), etc etc etc.
But none of that is socialism. Well-regulated markets does not imply socialism.
Socialism implies control of the means of production (even the ownership) and often attempts to control demand too (via price control). (And in my opinion it is a dead economic theory. The most successful aspects of Chinese economic expansion are cabalistic adaptations, the least successful is government control of sectors of the market.)
Anonimess is mistaking free markets for laissez faire markets. Like socialism, which was born about the same time, this is an economic system that has long ago been proven to be non-functional. But it is not the same as a free market. It’s a pity that socialists never learn any real economics, otherwise they’d never be able to be socialists.
So?
Nonsense. Barring obvious infringements on rights (fraud, for example), as long as those participating in the market have the right to enter or exit at their whim, it is already optimal.
In a true free market, consumers can opt to not purchase products/services from companies that refuse to do so. It is nobody’s business what a companies books look like – their profit is their business. Such an attitude opens the doors for companies that are willing to share such information, i.e., a market is created (onnce they do, however, then they must be above board or fraud laws apply).
Forcing private companies to open their books to the government is nothing more than a means of control, and ultimately one of the many sources of corruption.
Fair is determined by demand, not you, nor me, nor Anonimess. If a monkey can do the job, then expect a monkey’s salary.
Consumers have the ultimate rederess: do not purchase products/services from companies that are attempting to trounce on their rights, and sue if they actually succeed.
Pretty simple, yet somehow, even intelligent people such as you would prefer to cede liberty in favor of security. It is sad, and IMO, the reason people will be in perpetual slavery to those that seek power over our lives.
Mark
Should have read
Mark
By whom? Socialists, Keynesians? Pfft.
Neither have most people that call themselves capitalists.
Mark
Jeff, at #58 I am not sure if you are adding comments to my reply to Anonimiss or disagreeing with my response to him/her? For the purpose of clarity I was pointing out in a perhaps obscure way that the concept of fully pricing externalities, whilst theoretically appealing is extremely difficult to apply, especially when existing prices are already subject to taxes, duties etc and we collectively pay taxes to cover health, environment etc. To the extent that costs can be clearly identied and user or causer can too I do not have a problem with user pays. The problem is always the clear identification of cause and effect. Hence my reference to if only it was so easy, of course if we were all dictators, we would only be dictators of ourself 🙂
Mark T:
So private companies don’t need to pay taxes?
By reality. Unregulated markets don’t work for the same reason socialism doesn’t work. It ignores human nature.
I’ll leave the rest of your rants to yourself. Better things to do than argument with ideologues.
Especially ideologues who espouse 19th century economic theories.
Carrick,
I agree with what you are saying but the current system of taxation and regulation is very much anti-growth and anti-free market. It is a controlled market these days where we spend much of our time negotiating for small and complicated tax advantages as the government picks winners and losers. Less government, simpler rules will lead to better living for society at this point. Anonimess’s comments on the damage that a product provides, are a sign of yet another layer of political nonsense which is outside of what government can realistically control. Those in control will have different incentives than those who imagine the control. Gas prices are a good example of an attempted control where people with a different view of free markets overestimate damage. The same people use words like overconsumption which simply does not exist in my economic vocabulary.
Free markets also means free to purchase what you want, not just to enter. CFL and LED lights are examples where people make the right decisions based on their need completely without help from the government.
Anyway, once you have crossed the line where more control limits the quality of life, discussion of even more government regulation becomes irrational yet that is what is seen as reasonable in the face of a horrid economic situation.
Jeff ID:
In the technical sense that I meant it in, “free to purchase what you want” has exactly the same meaning as “freedom to enter the market”. (Hypothetical;: The US outright bans the sell of incandescent light bulbs, because you are no longer free to “enter the market” to sell your incandescent bulbs, it is technically no longer a free market.
(The arms market is a non-free market, that I think we all agree there should be limits on… you shouldn’t be able to sell tanks or nuclear missiles with MIRV warheads for example.)_
Also note I used the term “well-regulated market”. That has specific meaning in economics too.
Anybody who wants to look at the effects of poorly or unregulated markets, just needs to do a bit of history reading.
Child labor abuse.
Environmental damage from clear cutting, uncontrolled pollution.
The lack of sanitary regulations in hospitals.
Theft of private property by crocked accountants.
The list is practically endless.
(By the way, for the record the US has never had a true laissez faire market. Even our founding fathers opposed it.)
Carrick,
I think we agree on all of that. Unfortunately, the market controls have kept coming as people all think pulling another lever to save the world is a good idea.
“Then, with a price on carbon,”
Would that be from a CO2 exchange? Or the coal mine price? Anthracite or Bituminous?
And if CO2 is net beneficial? Will I get a discount off the price of my burger?
Carrick said
Like socialism…this is an economic system that has long ago been proven to be non-functional.
Socialism is nonfunctional? That would be a surprise to many states around the world that have constructed affluent societies via (various degrees of) democratic socialism — in Denmark, Canada, FInland, the Netherlands, etc. Nine European countries have a higher per-capita GDP than the US — all socialist countries. And others like the UK, Austria, France, Germany are very close to the US. They offer extensive government services — medical care, public transportation for the poor, generous unemployment income, and retirement benefits — and have higher economic mobility, too.
Yes, they have problems. So does the US (which already has more socialism than many will admit). Including the socialism of pollution.
“They offer extensive government services….” / “Yes, they have problems.”
Yes – they’re all going bankrupt…I wonder why?
Anonimess said
January 17, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Bruce: You, too, need to read the paper before criticizing it. This is from its Supplementary Material:
Uh. Bruce was discussing black carbon soot. In reply we got a dissertation on ozone.
Anonimess said
January 18, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Evidently you are unaware of the problems socialism is causing the countries you mentioned. Have you looked at the health of the Euro lately?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-final-countdown
North Korea versus South Korea…where would Grzgor prefer to live?
The per capita argument never seems to recognize the huge taxes on all products in those places allow people to own far less. If your dollar cannot buy as much, you don’t really have as many of them.
Economic nonsense but hey you make more than the average American and someday, if you save, you might just be able to buy 1 car. No thanks.
M. Simon said
Evidently you are unaware of the problems socialism is causing the countries you mentioned. Have you looked at the health of the Euro lately?
Exactly how are these problems caused by socialism? Many of the countries in Europe are doing just fine, especially Germany and Norway. Everything I’ve read says the root of the other’s problems is their inability to utilize monetary policies, since they no longer control their currency or have a national central bank….
M. Simon says.
Bruce was discussing black carbon soot. In reply we got a dissertation on ozone.
Did you go and read the Supplementary Material? (I only quoted a piece of it.) (Be honest.) Do you miss this sentence? “For the methane measures, these two factors have comparable uncertainties, while for the BC measures the model-to-model differences in ozone responses are dominant.”
Jeff Id said
It is not your decision – yet – whether people use too much product.
It damn sure is if that product harms me or my property.
Why do you think you have a right to harm others? If government actions (say) harmed your property, you’d rant and rave about it. But you think you should be able to use any product you want even if it harms others or their property. I see a huge double-standard.
Anonimess said
Exactly how are these problems caused by socialism?
Did you read M Simon’s primary link ? Did you miss the section that starts “Rothbard identified the ways in which government can hobble the adjustment process:” ? Either your reading comprehension needs a lot of help or you have a very “progressive” standard of logical consistency and have decided that these rules of yours about reading things apply only to other people.
Jeff Id wrote:
The per capita argument never seems to recognize the huge taxes on all products in those places allow people to own far less.
Of course it recognizes that. But some people believe owning more and more stuff isn’t the be-all and end-all of life, or indicative of a healthy society. (Read “To Have or To Be” by Erich Fromm.) Some people think it’s more important that everyone in a society have access to health care and education than that some capitalists have 10 cars in their garage.
(And don’t kid yourself — there are plenty of rich people in Europe, too. What they don’t have are people lining up in fields to attend free health clinics, or people losing their homes and life savings because they got sick.)
Frank K. wrote:
“They offer extensive government services….” / “Yes, they have problems.” Yes – they’re all going bankrupt…I wonder why?
Do you ever check the facts before writing? Because you’re wrong. Here is a list of selected countries, with their 2010 public debts as a percentage of GDP:
Greece 142.70
Iceland 126.30
Italy 119.10
Belgium 100.70
Ireland 94.90
Portugal 93.00
Canada 84.00
Germany 83.40
France 82.40
United Kingdom 76.10
Austria 72.30
United States 62.90
Netherlands 62.70
Spain 60.10
Poland 52.80
Norway 49.70
Finland 48.40
Denmark 43.70
Sweden 39.70
Switzerland 38.40
Australia 28.80
New Zealand 27.50
Luxembourg 19.70
Source: The CIA World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
Looks like we fall right in the middle. So it looks like your simplistic idea that it’s all the fault of big, bad socialism is wrong and (as always) the truth is far more complicated.
Anonimess,
“Of course it recognizes that. But some people believe owning more and more stuff isn’t the be-all and end-all of life, or indicative of a healthy society”
No it doesn’t and owning stuff is a childish way of annotating ones ability to provide what one’s family needs to be comfortable and more importantly – to be free!
Make no mistake, freedom from society or government on this particular rock is dependent on wealth. Freedom is the point of wealth far more than food or TV’s. Freedom depends on wealth as does the middle class. Enviroleftists want to add layer after layer of cost to everyday life. Freedom is lost – all for our benefit. The same enviros regularly underestimate the loss of quality of life from their naive damage to global economies.
“Why do you think you have a right to harm others? ”
You seem to thing you have the right to harm me. I harm no one I am aware of. I pay them to work and make product – which just happens to sequester a lot of Carbon in plastic. You have arbitrarily assigned harm from CO2 and other items, yet no single incident of harm from CO2 rise has ever been reliably documented. Not one. Yet you don’t care that your equity of damage may be hugely in error, you are ready to make your best guess and damn the consequences to industry. Damaging us is fine as long as it suits the message.
You need to read more of the science and spend less time writing on the damage to the environment because people like yourself are causing great harm to the rest of us and as you said, you have no right.
Anonimess – Have you read the studies you cite in 5? If so please can you give us a summary of their strengths and weaknesses?
When govt intervenes in markets, that intervention distorts the healthy operation of the market. Case in point, CRA and forcing banks to make risky loans that ultimately led to the mortgage meltdown.
Now you want to tax companies to make them pay in advance for the “damage” their product will cause to somebodies. Who determines and quantifies this “damage”? I guess the Hockey Team could do it (when they get out of prison). So the idea is to arm bureaucrats for the ultimate intervention/distortion of the economy. How will this intervention in reality provide a person or peole or society with what benefit — and how will that benefit remediate the “damage”? Miniscule it will be as benefits go, and will pale by comparison to the economic damage wreaked by this massive intervention — which will dwarf the mortgage meltdown still being contended with.
“damage” similar to the the EPA endangerment finding regarding CO2?
Poor CO2 — never harmed noBODy, nowheres……..
Anonimess:
About 2/3s of the US budget is socialism related, so …
“Looks like we fall right in the middle. So it looks like your simplistic idea that it’s all the fault of big, bad socialism is wrong and (as always) the truth is far more complicated.”
Hmmm…so what happened to the socialists in Spain…let me think…let me think…oh yeah…
Spanish Voters Deal a Blow to Socialists Over the Economy
Heh. And their green socialism was doing SO WELL! The NERVE of those voters!!
By the way, invest heavily in the Euro…you can thank me later…
Oh – and that ““Looks like we fall right in the middle” part? You can thank president Obama for that.
All will change in November…
Frank K. wrote:
Oh – and that ““Looks like we fall right in the middle” part? You can thank president Obama for that.
Frank, you clearly are allergic to data.
Bush was handed a debt of $5.7 trillion and a balanced budget. When he left office the debt was $10.6 trillion and the economy had suffered the worse collapse since the Great Depression.
Naturally Obama can’t be held responsible for the large momentum of deficit spending Bush used to bail out the so-called free market. (You know, the one Republicans are in favor of until they start to lose money, when they go crying to Daddy for help.) One year into Obama’s term the debt was $12.3 trillion. It is now $15.2 trillion, and it look like the economy is starting to improve, probably to the chagrin of Republicans.
The absolute best way to balance the budget is economic growth, as happened in the Clinton years. Bush was the worst job creator in 70 years — even the WSJ said so. (Those tax cuts clearly didn’t help create jobs.)
It has taken time to clean up after someone as irresponsible as Bush Jr.
And next time — please check the data before you make any claims.
Frank H: Do you admit you were wrong?
Carrick said
About 2/3s of the US budget is socialism related, so …
Do you even know what the word “socialism” means? By most definitions it would include US defense spending, since defense has been socialized. So has crime protection, contract enforcement (law), mail delivery, road building and maintenance, libraries, public transportation, fire suppression, education, and more. Government does all these things because that’s how most people want it, because it was found that the private sector couldn’t do it as well.
You are a socialist if you approve of your taxes paying for a police force to protect your property. Why is that acceptable but other forms of socialism aren’t? Why should I have to pay for a police force to protect your property? Why aren’t you protecting your own property? Pay for guards if you have to, or stand there with a gun 24 hours a day, but don’t ask me to pay for police to go around and patrol your property or come to your aid if you’re a victim of crime. If something goes wrong deal with it yourself or hire people to deal with it — it’s not my problem, so stay out of my wallet.
anoniMESS = OLIGARCHIST
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Polis
Frank H: Do you admit you were wrong?
Who is Frank H.??? Heh…
More evidence of the SUCCESS of European socialism!!
Greece, creditors make little progress as clock ticks
“Kept afloat by bailout loans, Greece faces the threat of having to leave the euro zone and slumping into further economic and social misery if it fails to come to grips with its debt, including securing a deal with the private bond holders.”
Frank K. wrote:
More evidence of the SUCCESS of European socialism!!
Norway: GDP 2010 per-capita = $52,000 (PPP).
US: GDP 2010 per-capita = $48,000 (PPP)
More evidence of the SUCCESS of European socialism!!
Anonimess:
I do know what socialism means, thank you. And “most” don’t make socialism synonymous with any form of government spending let alone military spending, making me wonder why you bother going on with your puerile nonsense, when you don’t even know what socialism is. Assuming we’re as completely ignorant as you is a really bad assumption to make as a speaker.
See if you can find one well-sourced definition that says “defense spending” is any form of socialism. Bet you can’t.
(HInt for the observant reader: Infrastructural spending can occur in very non-socialistic governments.)
Carrick wrote:
See if you can find one well-sourced definition that says “defense spending” is any form of socialism.
The classical definition of socialism is state-ownership of the means of production.
The state owns the means of the production of the defense of the nation.
Q.E.D.
Exactly how are these problems caused by socialism?
Ever hear of Greece?
106 – Anonimess re: checking data and making claims – please can you respond to my 93?
M. Simon said
quote: Exactly how are these problems caused by socialism?
Ever hear of Greece?
Ever hear of Sweden?
Their debt/GDP is 40%.
Curious said
106 – Anonimess re: checking data and making claims – please can you respond to my 93?
When your doctor prescribes a medication, do you first read all the research literature on it before swallowing one?
109 – “When your doctor prescribes a medication, do you first read all the research literature on it before swallowing one?”
Have you got a point?
Umm, you do realize that Norway is an oil exporter, with a HUGE trade surplus, right? Got nothing to do with socialism, that’s all capitalism. What a moron.
Mark
The state does not own the means of production of defense. Q.E.D.
Mark
And, for the record, you left off part of the definition: of the economy.
Duh.
Mark
Mark T
Umm, you do realize that Norway is an oil exporter, with a HUGE trade surplus, right? Got nothing to do with socialism, that’s all capitalism.
Even socialists sell things, dummy. Norway considers their oil a state resource, and have established a “pension” (they call it) now worth about $380 billion. That’s 92% of their current GDP. They spend it on benefits for their citizens, like free education. Compare that to how we do things in the US — give the resource away for very small royalties and let a small number of people get rich.
Your country is being (and has been) stolen out from under you, and you don’t even seem to care. What a man.