Elon Musk discusses making Mars more habitable by nuking the poles

On 10/4/2015 1:35 PM, Alain Fournier wrote:
Why would the damages by greenhouse gas emissions
need to be quantified in order to tax them?

They don't, but then let's not pretend it has anything to do with
"saving the climate" either.

Dave

On 10/4/15 3:19 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 10/4/15 12:18 AM, David Spain wrote :

Damages that are nearly impossible to quantify let alone monetize.
It's a shell game of a tax on the developed world, dressed up in the
guise of a market. At least I know what my nuke decommissioning fee is
going to be spent on and how it will work.


Why would you need to quantify the damages?


Because if you're trying to 'full cost' something, you need to know
what the full cost is.

Is the government trying to full cost something when they make me pay
income taxes? Why do you have to full cost something if you charge
a carbon fee?


Alain Fournier

On 10/4/15 6:06 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 10/4/15 3:19 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 10/4/15 12:18 AM, David Spain wrote :

Damages that are nearly impossible to quantify let alone monetize.
It's a shell game of a tax on the developed world, dressed up in the
guise of a market. At least I know what my nuke decommissioning fee is
going to be spent on and how it will work.


Why would you need to quantify the damages?


Because if you're trying to 'full cost' something, you need to know
what the full cost is.

Is the government trying to full cost something when they make me pay
income taxes? Why do you have to full cost something if you charge
a carbon fee?


I'm sorry you're stupid.

Stupid, wow, I'm impressed by the quality of your argumentation.


Alain Fournier

On 10/5/15 2:33 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 10/4/15 6:06 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 10/4/15 3:19 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 10/4/15 12:18 AM, David Spain wrote :

Damages that are nearly impossible to quantify let alone monetize.
It's a shell game of a tax on the developed world, dressed up in the
guise of a market. At least I know what my nuke decommissioning fee is
going to be spent on and how it will work.


Why would you need to quantify the damages?


Because if you're trying to 'full cost' something, you need to know
what the full cost is.

Is the government trying to full cost something when they make me pay
income taxes? Why do you have to full cost something if you charge
a carbon fee?


I'm sorry you're stupid.


Stupid, wow, I'm impressed by the quality of your argumentation.


Did you read what I wrote (including the bit you don't include)? Did
you understand it? Could you have someone explain it to you using
small words?

Here, let me put it back for you.

"Because if you're trying to 'full cost' something, you need to know
what the full cost is.

I am not trying to full cost anything.

If you merely want to try to enforce some social engineering goal via
the tax code, then you just make it arbitrarily expensive. But no one
but you is talking about that approach."

I'm not sure what you mean by that. It is false that no one but me is
talking about putting a price on carbon emissions. Some jurisdictions
already have implemented carbon pricing. What do you mean by making
it arbitrarily expensive? Yes, those jurisdictions just picked a number
that seemed reasonable to them and set the price of carbon emissions
that way. So we can say the price was set arbitrarily. It doesn't seem
to have negative impacts to do so when the price, though arbitrary, is
reasonable.

Note also that the same approach is applied here for tobacco and
alcohol. The government chose a number and decided people would
pay that in taxes when they buy alcohol, another number for tobacco.
Neither for alcohol nor for tobacco is the government trying to
full cost anything. They just think that alcohol and tobacco can
suffer a little taxation. That works out just fine.

Note the second paragraph? Now, your response was:


Is the government trying to full cost something when they make me pay
income taxes? Why do you have to full cost something if you charge
a carbon fee?


I'll refer you again to my second paragraph for your answer.


And I'm not that sorry you're stupid.

The quality of your argumentation is stable.


Alain Fournier

David Spain explained :
On 10/4/2015 11:32 AM, bob haller wrote:


Damages that are nearly impossible to quantify let alone monetize.
It's a shell game of a tax on the developed world, dressed up in the
guise of a market. At least I know what my nuke decommissioning fee is
going to be spent on and how it will work.


Alain Fournier


Dave


so what will the cost be if your unlucky enough to have a fukashima like
meltdown caused by anything?

What will be the cost of me getting injured by a meteor strike? I'd say the
odds are about the same....

certinally not only has the power company taken a hit in japan, but so has
the government.

at last report defueling clean up etc, is going to take 60 years and no one
really knows the costs.

worse anyone who gets cancer anywhere near there will blame it on that
failed power plant and get damage money.

just imagine for a moment what the total costs will be........


9 trillion dollars! How's that for imagination? And that's all that is. I
can't speak to the gross incompetence of Fukushima/Daiichi both in design and
operation. So I won't. I won't speak of the tort system in Japan because I
don't understand it. It could be those displaced get a new home somewhere
else paid for by the government or maybe not. Maybe they won't get a dime for
their losses or health issues. I don't know. Anything else would be baseless
speculation on my part...

Yeah nuclear is dangerous, so is LNG (liquified natural gas) in a *lot* more
spectacular way if mishandled. Your point?

An LNG explosion is over and done with in one shot. Nuke cleanup is
forever. Not quite, but as close to it as optical infinity.

Do you know how carbon credits will be assessed and on what basis? Darts
thrown at a dart board? Emails exchanged in secret? Data that was massaged
over and over by politicians and "scientists" beholding to same for their
lively-hood?

As opposed to "scientists" beholden to mining companies and power
companies? Didn't we go through all that already with Big Tobacco?

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

On 10/6/2015 2:09 AM, Snidely wrote:
Yeah nuclear is dangerous, so is LNG (liquified natural gas) in a
*lot* more spectacular way if mishandled. Your point?

An LNG explosion is over and done with in one shot. Nuke cleanup is
forever. Not quite, but as close to it as optical infinity.

Let's compare numbers. People injured or killed in chemical & gas
explosions vs nuclear accidents. Throw in Chernobyl for the worst case.
And our nuke plants are nothing like Chernobyl.

Do you know how carbon credits will be assessed and on what basis?
Darts thrown at a dart board? Emails exchanged in secret? Data that
was massaged over and over by politicians and "scientists" beholding
to same for their lively-hood?

As opposed to "scientists" beholden to mining companies and power
companies?

At least those "scientists" are willing to let the market regulate the
price as opposed to proposing rationing my energy use by artful
inflation of its price based on faulty computer climate model
projections that are all running hotter than measured. When we've
achieved REAL formal verification of climate sensitivity to CO2, via
direct measurements, then let's talk.

Didn't we go through all that already with Big Tobacco?

We are certainly going through all that with Big Government. Try
searching #Rico20. First time in history a serious proposal sent to the
POTUS and AG to go after dissent with Organized Crime Law, by taxpayer
supported "scientists"! Outrageous. Well except whoops! A little problem
with mens rea on the part of the accusers...

We've passed the point where Climate Science can take place strictly
based on the merits. There's too much money and political power at
stake, now. Besides, assuming the science is settled what's left to
fund? Shouldn't we move on to funding engineering mitigation
technologies instead of science research? If the science is settled then
all that's left to do is just the simple straightforward engineering of
the solution based on the existing science, no?

OK, said all I want to say. Sorry I hijacked the thread, but OTOH you
can see just from this alone with real honest disagreement over Earth's
own climate, how much further we have to go before anyone should take
terraforming another planet's climate seriously....

I'd be far more worried about fascist scientists trying to convince
governments into signing a treaty declaring all planets off-limits to
humans for risk of contaminating their native environment. You may think
that's silly right now, but the pot is starting to simmer over Mars
water. Trying to put boots on the ground near those salt deposits may
cause a boil over!

Dave