4 ms·

Do you believe in the idea of externalities? If you do, doesn't it mean the cost you refer to is a finite number that can be approximately determined? And if so

Do you believe in the idea of externalities? If you do, doesn't it mean the cost you refer to is a finite number that can be approximately determined? And if someone just makes up a number, it might be larger or smaller than the correct one? Then, if one determines the externalities of burning a unit of fossil fuel to be a specific number, what do we do if charging the whole world that much is not enough to prevent climate change?

aurizon 6y ago
Adding externalities is at the mandate of the regulator, like a governor - too tight and it stops, too loose and we all get cooked in time. So there needs to be a 'tightening of the screw' proportionally to force people to get rid of cars - ending with zero ic cars are still allowed to run. We have to do this, the climate prognosis is stark if we carry on. I can see a time when gas/coal power plants become targets of cruise missiles that appear and do enough damage to make it shut down, repeat if needed.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  What I'm saying is, if the price of gasoline is raised to its "true" cost, according to projections of what unchecked warming will cost, what if that's not enough to eliminate gas powered cars or climate change in general? I'm not arguing that we can live with continued warming, but if we go and determine quantitatively two independent things without pre-judgement, we can't guarantee they will match. You think there should be zero IC cars, but what if properly priced gasoline isn't enough of a deterrent to get people to stop driving them? What if the true cost of gasoline is a lot higher than in the US, but not much higher than in the most taxed places right now? What I'm arguing is not should we do this or that, but that I suspect nobody is serious when they talk about externalities as they would not make decisions based on them. It seems reasonable to say the end of the world can't be converted to dollars. But the idea of externalities being priced in or not implies that the damage can be priced and then it is a logical possibility that charging for it isn't enough to bring it to zero. It bugs me when people are inconsistent and incorporate ideas into their arguments that they don't believe in, more for their aura. It's popular to sneer at forcing things into a one-dimensional quantitative straitjacket. Fine. But some arguments are inherently quantitative.
  - aurizon 6y ago
    Well, we know that the rich will pay $$ and have burning gasoline fountains - if they are allowed? Even there will be illegal fires. No? The rich killed off the Rhino via economic routes, Chinese and Arab richmen were sure it would enhance their erections. Even in the face of laws, this trade persisted. I believe killing endangered species should be a capital crime = death, as the perp is committing the ultimate crime = species death. So taxes will not deter the richmen - imprison the guiding hand, so a rich man can not escape by blaming hit chauffer = the guiding mind who pays gets the punishment. Punishment can not be vitiated by paying fine, they must be locked up.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

aurizon 6y ago

Adding externalities is at the mandate of the regulator, like a governor - too tight and it stops, too loose and we all get cooked in time. So there needs to be a 'tightening of the screw' proportionally to force people to get rid of cars - ending with zero ic cars are still allowed to run. We have to do this, the climate prognosis is stark if we carry on. I can see a time when gas/coal power plants become targets of cruise missiles that appear and do enough damage to make it shut down, repeat if needed.

perl4ever 6y ago
What I'm saying is, if the price of gasoline is raised to its "true" cost, according to projections of what unchecked warming will cost, what if that's not enough to eliminate gas powered cars or climate change in general? I'm not arguing that we can live with continued warming, but if we go and determine quantitatively two independent things without pre-judgement, we can't guarantee they will match. You think there should be zero IC cars, but what if properly priced gasoline isn't enough of a deterrent to get people to stop driving them? What if the true cost of gasoline is a lot higher than in the US, but not much higher than in the most taxed places right now? What I'm arguing is not should we do this or that, but that I suspect nobody is serious when they talk about externalities as they would not make decisions based on them. It seems reasonable to say the end of the world can't be converted to dollars. But the idea of externalities being priced in or not implies that the damage can be priced and then it is a logical possibility that charging for it isn't enough to bring it to zero. It bugs me when people are inconsistent and incorporate ideas into their arguments that they don't believe in, more for their aura. It's popular to sneer at forcing things into a one-dimensional quantitative straitjacket. Fine. But some arguments are inherently quantitative.
- aurizon 6y ago
  Well, we know that the rich will pay $$ and have burning gasoline fountains - if they are allowed? Even there will be illegal fires. No? The rich killed off the Rhino via economic routes, Chinese and Arab richmen were sure it would enhance their erections. Even in the face of laws, this trade persisted. I believe killing endangered species should be a capital crime = death, as the perp is committing the ultimate crime = species death. So taxes will not deter the richmen - imprison the guiding hand, so a rich man can not escape by blaming hit chauffer = the guiding mind who pays gets the punishment. Punishment can not be vitiated by paying fine, they must be locked up.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]