Global warming?

[TheMercenary]

Another more realistic assessment.

Research and insights taken from the field of political economy suggest that institutions limit the extent to which efficient policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be adopted. High transaction costs among nations, as well as domestic constraints like voter xenophobia and distrust of markets in the United States and ineffective legal and economic institutions in China, discourage international agreement. The United States must focus on limiting economic harm from adopting poorly designed policies and developing strategies for adaptation or technology-driven geoengineering. Most importantly, the lessons of political economy must become central to the study of climate policy, including a healthy exchange of views between political economists and climate modelers.

Resident Fellow
Lee Lane
Ideas drawn from the works of Douglass North and those of other political economists suggest that institutions limit the extent to which efficient policies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are likely to be adopted. Most analyses of the costs of making steep GHG emission cuts conflict with these realities. Problems arise at both the international level and within nations.

Internationally, no third party institutions exist to enforce agreements, and nations differ widely in their interest in restricting GHG emissions. Therefore, high transaction costs will attend efforts to reach and maintain broad GHG controls. So far, those transaction costs have blocked agreement, and there seems little reason to expect that these constraints will soon vanish.

Institutional constraints also exist within key nations. In the United States, widespread voter xenophobia and distrust of markets contribute to adoption of cost-ineffective policy tools, and legislators' incentives to serve constituency interests further supports adoption of regulatory and subsidy programs that greatly increase costs of mitigation. China's legal and economic institutions could not currently apply an effective GHG cap-and-trade or carbon tax. These kinds of GHG controls require the full rule of law, market prices for energy, and market discipline for major industries. In China, the prospects for such a transformation remain highly uncertain.

The most likely course for future climate policy is drift and fragmentation. Some countries, including the US, may adopt GHG limits. One key question is whether this country will be able to make policy changes to limit the economic harm from adopting poorly designed policies. A second is whether it will be able to develop options for adapting to climate change or finding means that prevent warming despite continuing GHG emissions.

Exploring these options will require a new, broader focus for climate policy analysis. To achieve this wider view, the lessons of political economy must become central to the study of climate policy. An initial step toward this goal would be to encourage a systematic exchange of views between the climate modeling community and leading scholars in the traditions of political economy and institutional economics. . . .

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

A more realistic assessment.


http://www.earthscape.org/pmain/sites/cpc.html

We've been down this road before and I agree that there is not unanimity among the scientific community.

Because you find one assessment you like, doesnt change the broad, overwhelming consensus within the scientific community.....and you still cannot identify one credible national/international scientific body that would support your position.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

We've been down this road before and I agree that there is not unanimity among the scientific community.

Because you find one assessment you like, doesnt change the consensus....and you still cannot identify one credible national/international scientific body that would support your position.

You are a joke. You must have your hands over your ears. I have posted numerous links from credible sources. I feel no responsibility to go back and find them for you because you choose to ignore them. In your own words, "I agree that there is not unanimity among the scientific community." And in the very next sentance you contridict yourself.

LOL......the joke is on you, dude.

No contradiction.

To wait to act until there is unanimity is shortsighted and an appeasement to the oil industry that we saw for the last eight years.

And you still cannot identify one credible national/international scientific body that would support your position!

[TheMercenary]

A good discussion in this link shows the proposals and how they work.

This is a quote to the portion that makes my point:

But the problem here is the instantaneous cost that firms have to shell out in order to continue doing business in the year after the cap is established. Estimated costs for U.S. utilities alone—not counting greenhouse gas emitters in manufacturing or other sectors—are in the range of $40 billion per year using current permit prices as they are being traded in the European market. Not only will businesses scream bloody murder, the public will also, since most of that cost will immediately hit consumers’ wallets as the prices of energy, goods, and services rise and keep rising every year as the cap tightens. Not only will costs of everything increase, but the impact will be highly regressive, landing harder on the poorest of the population, who spend a greater percentage of their household income on energy than do the wealthier. Finally, there is the politically unacceptable transfer of wealth from coal states to natural-gas states such as California, where incomes are considerably higher.

http://www.american.com/archive/2009...tep-is-a-doozy

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

And you still cannot identify one credible national/international scientific body that would support your position!

I put my weight in the credible experts I have quoted, not some nameless faceless ex-lobbyist on a forum. Sorry to disappoint you.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

LOL......the joke is on you, dude.

No contradiction.

To wait to act until there is unanimity is shortsighted and an appeasement to the oil industry that we saw for the last eight years.

I know, do a poll.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

A good discussion in this link shows the proposals and how they work.

This is a quote to the portion that makes my point:


http://www.american.com/archive/2009...tep-is-a-doozy

That "research" is among the arguments that purposely misrepresent one particular MIT study and the authors of the research are outraged at the blatant misrepresentation.

"It's just wrong," said John Reilly, an energy, environmental and agricultural economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the report. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ht-switch-tax/

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Redux

Donations generally increase in presidential election years as opposed to off years.

The R donations didn't more than double. Spin it like a top baby!

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The R donations didn't more than double. Spin it like a top baby!

If its spin to note that the Ds only received 22% of oil/gas industry political contributions last year, I accept that.

IMO, industry contributions to Ds increasing from 18% to 22% does not change the scenario in any meaningful manner or to any significant degree.

The spin is to suggest that the oil/gas lobby has as much influence now as it did during the Bush/Republican majority years...which is how I interpreted Merc's "fantasy because of lobbyists" remark.

[TheMercenary]

American consumers can do more on their own.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122289755970595757.html

[Undertoad]

And next year it'll be 38% like it was last time Ds were fully incumbent... and despite the fact that the oil industries are in hard red states TX, OK and AK.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

That "research" is among the arguments that purposely misrepresent one particular MIT study and the authors of the research are outraged at the blatant misrepresentation.

"It's just wrong," said John Reilly, an energy, environmental and agricultural economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the report. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ht-switch-tax/

"He said, she said".

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

"He said, she said".

The author of the research vs those who have an agenda to misrepresent it.