|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk discusses making Mars more habitable by nuking thepoles
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk discusses making Mars more habitable by nuking thepoles
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk discusses making Mars more habitable by nuking thepoles
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk discusses making Mars more habitable by nuking thepoles
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk discusses making Mars more habitable by nuking the poles
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk discusses making Mars more habitable by nuking thepoles
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Elon Musk discusses making Mars more habitable by nuking the poles | Rick Jones | Policy | 10 | October 6th 15 07:51 AM |
Elon Musk and Mars | Greg \(Strider\) Moore | Policy | 19 | August 3rd 13 06:43 AM |