Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
The Cycle of Global Warming 42
- Thread starter CajunCenturion
- Start date
- Status
moltenmetal
Chemical
LCruiser: Greg Locock was the one who brought "car safety" into this, not me. He's the one who asked me how many dead children I'd trade to save a gallon of gasoline. I merely pointed out the inaccuracy of his hyperbolic statement.
Our responsibility as engineers doesn't merely extend to giving people what they ask for and parking our values and brains at the door. What people want and can "afford" is subject to economic analysis AND value judgment, and we engineers have a responsibility to educate people so they see the larger technological picture.
The economic argument doesn't work unless the consumer pays the entire cost of their consumption, and that's just not the case with fossil fuels whether or not you believe in greenhouse-gas induced global warming. There are so many costs which our societies' bear for this consumption which do not show up at the pump. The economic equation can and should be adjusted by taxation so that non-consumers aren't bearing part of the costs of others' consumption. Taxing "pollution" is great in concept but troublesome in practice. It's better to tax consumption- there are fewer loopholes that way.
As to whether or not CO2 is harmful pollution rather than merely plant food, that's a matter of probabilities rather than certainty. If we waited for certainty we'd never get ANYTHING done as engineers, but that's no excuse to carry on regardless. We don't deal in certainties, nor do we blunder blindly into the unknown- we do HAZOP reviews and FMEA and manage risk based on probability, frequency, severity of impact and potential means of mitigation at our disposal. Global warming is no different than any other possible or probable risk with enormous and irreversible potential consequences: ignoring the risk and proceeding until we "know more" is simply not an option worthy of consideration.
Our responsibility as engineers doesn't merely extend to giving people what they ask for and parking our values and brains at the door. What people want and can "afford" is subject to economic analysis AND value judgment, and we engineers have a responsibility to educate people so they see the larger technological picture.
The economic argument doesn't work unless the consumer pays the entire cost of their consumption, and that's just not the case with fossil fuels whether or not you believe in greenhouse-gas induced global warming. There are so many costs which our societies' bear for this consumption which do not show up at the pump. The economic equation can and should be adjusted by taxation so that non-consumers aren't bearing part of the costs of others' consumption. Taxing "pollution" is great in concept but troublesome in practice. It's better to tax consumption- there are fewer loopholes that way.
As to whether or not CO2 is harmful pollution rather than merely plant food, that's a matter of probabilities rather than certainty. If we waited for certainty we'd never get ANYTHING done as engineers, but that's no excuse to carry on regardless. We don't deal in certainties, nor do we blunder blindly into the unknown- we do HAZOP reviews and FMEA and manage risk based on probability, frequency, severity of impact and potential means of mitigation at our disposal. Global warming is no different than any other possible or probable risk with enormous and irreversible potential consequences: ignoring the risk and proceeding until we "know more" is simply not an option worthy of consideration.
- Thread starter
- #43
CajunCenturion
Computer
I'm not suggesting that we ignore the risk, but rather that we crawl before we start running, and that we not jump to conclusions about what we should do until we do know more. We fool ourselves into thinking that we know enough about the situation to make intelligent decisions, when at best, they are elementary guesses. It's true that we can only act based on what we know, but we need to realize how little that is. How many times has man done something with the best of intentions and for all the right reasons, and ended up screwing up some ecosystem because we simply didn't know as much as we thought we did?
Of course we need to good stewards of the environment and practice reasonable conservations and so forth, I have no quarrel with that. I'm amazed at how many people continue to claim the sky is falling, when in truth, we really don't know.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Of course we need to good stewards of the environment and practice reasonable conservations and so forth, I have no quarrel with that. I'm amazed at how many people continue to claim the sky is falling, when in truth, we really don't know.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
GregLocock
Automotive
So the answer, moltenmetal, is that you can't or won't answer me.
I was attempting to point out that in the real world we can only sell the cars that people will buy. The #1 consideration in most people's mind is purchase cost. In order for us to make cars and stay in business, we have to match the content of the car to that cost. If our customers do not value child seat anchorages, which cost say $10, and weigh say 1 kg, then that is 1 kg and $10 that we will never get back. If we had put that money into the engine, we might reduce the fuel consumption by 0.1% and the weight reduction would also help. That, whether you like it or not, is a direct trade-off between safety and fuel consumption.
Blowing hard about some idealised world where children travel on mass transit will not move the needle. The world we live in TODAY is the one creating the problems we'll see tomorrow, and in today's environment, that means cars, not mass transit, and it means free choice for the purchaser, not rhetoric-inspired safety and economy features.
"Our responsibility as engineers doesn't merely extend to giving people what they ask for and parking our values and brains at the door. What people want and can "afford" is subject to economic analysis AND value judgment, and we engineers have a responsibility to educate people so they see the larger technological picture. "
Really? Please do tell what platform we have that is so effective at modifying public opinion. I am all ears. I'd be interested to hear good examples where engineering opinion was opposed to public opinion and yet we argued them round to our way of thinking.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
I was attempting to point out that in the real world we can only sell the cars that people will buy. The #1 consideration in most people's mind is purchase cost. In order for us to make cars and stay in business, we have to match the content of the car to that cost. If our customers do not value child seat anchorages, which cost say $10, and weigh say 1 kg, then that is 1 kg and $10 that we will never get back. If we had put that money into the engine, we might reduce the fuel consumption by 0.1% and the weight reduction would also help. That, whether you like it or not, is a direct trade-off between safety and fuel consumption.
Blowing hard about some idealised world where children travel on mass transit will not move the needle. The world we live in TODAY is the one creating the problems we'll see tomorrow, and in today's environment, that means cars, not mass transit, and it means free choice for the purchaser, not rhetoric-inspired safety and economy features.
"Our responsibility as engineers doesn't merely extend to giving people what they ask for and parking our values and brains at the door. What people want and can "afford" is subject to economic analysis AND value judgment, and we engineers have a responsibility to educate people so they see the larger technological picture. "
Really? Please do tell what platform we have that is so effective at modifying public opinion. I am all ears. I'd be interested to hear good examples where engineering opinion was opposed to public opinion and yet we argued them round to our way of thinking.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
To me (mr. nobody) it is just a matter of common sense. Take 100M years accumulation of condensed energetic hydrocarbons and release the resulting by-products of the combustion in an accelerating manner over 500 years (or 0.0005% of the time it was required for them to accumulate), and there will be an effect. Almighty humans are not that different than bacteria, give them enough food and they will self reproduce until the point at which they die from the toxic effects of their own waste. I just love the Rush Limbo mentality that there is no problem until the problem becomes pandemic, at which point the "American ingenuity" will solve the problem.
-
1
- #46
Common sense is not much help when a problem is very complicated. Why would there be an effect just because we burn oil faster than it was formed? Shouldn't you compare the quantity of CO2 formed by burning oil with the total quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, and shouldn't you put the effect of CO2 emissions (if we know what those are) in the global context of climatological effects on a scale of many centuries back and ahead, to be able to draw any conclusion whatsoever?
Why would the human race die just because the temperature increases by a few degrees if it increases? And why wouldn't we be able to address the problem if it becomes a problem?
The climate change story begins to sound like the millennium bug story, only there is no 1 Jan 2000 0:00 coming up soon to verify if it is true or not.
Why would the human race die just because the temperature increases by a few degrees if it increases? And why wouldn't we be able to address the problem if it becomes a problem?
The climate change story begins to sound like the millennium bug story, only there is no 1 Jan 2000 0:00 coming up soon to verify if it is true or not.
The cue for someone to mention the "butterfly flapping its wings" and we can all treat complexity and chaos the same.
JMW
JMW
Is not the main risk the possibility of a positive feedback
event in the climate.
Maybe we won't do anything until it is too late.
One of the greatest challenges facing society is the
unrestrained free market idealism that is the fashion now.
The problem is that it is not in any one person or groups
interest to assign assets to the cause.
In this situation the free market cannot by itself prevent
a catastrophy. As population density grows it becomes more
important that limits be put on behavior for the good of
all.
Note this does not mean you cannot use the free market as
a stick or carrot. Like penalizing polution by fines. But
this would have be done by a government.
event in the climate.
Maybe we won't do anything until it is too late.
One of the greatest challenges facing society is the
unrestrained free market idealism that is the fashion now.
The problem is that it is not in any one person or groups
interest to assign assets to the cause.
In this situation the free market cannot by itself prevent
a catastrophy. As population density grows it becomes more
important that limits be put on behavior for the good of
all.
Note this does not mean you cannot use the free market as
a stick or carrot. Like penalizing polution by fines. But
this would have be done by a government.
jmw,
re the butterfly...
now WHY is the climate predictable when you think the temperature is going up,
but unpredictable when you think it's not? That's not fair, is it..?
Honestly, can anyone explain what would be so dramatic about the expected consequences of global warming if it exists? A couple degrees higher average temperature year-round doesn't shock me, on the contrary...
re the butterfly...
now WHY is the climate predictable when you think the temperature is going up,
but unpredictable when you think it's not? That's not fair, is it..?
Honestly, can anyone explain what would be so dramatic about the expected consequences of global warming if it exists? A couple degrees higher average temperature year-round doesn't shock me, on the contrary...
It is not clear to me that the bulk of the climate change is due to CO2 or some other "natural " cycle. Regardless of the cause, it is occurring slow enough that humans can adapt, hysically by moving from tropic areas to cooler areas, and politically the normal social amnesia that occurs as each generation is supplanted by the next generation. So catastrophe or shock to hman structures is nto the main issue- but there may be significant ecological issues to species that cannot adapt.
We already are destroying ecosystems in manners completely independent of activities that cause increases in CO2 accumulations- the wholesale destruction of deep ocean fisheries is one example- the damage to fisheries due to climate change is insignificant to that caused by overfishing. Ditto the effect we have on groundwater and underground aquifers, and the wholesale conversion of rainforest to soy producing fields is another such case.
My own guess is that the global warming phenomena, and associating it with burning of fossil fuels, will provide an excellent forum for adding a carbon use tax , and it may be used as a proxy for reducing the rate of consumption of depleted fossil fuels whiel also providing funds for other pork barrel projects.
We already are destroying ecosystems in manners completely independent of activities that cause increases in CO2 accumulations- the wholesale destruction of deep ocean fisheries is one example- the damage to fisheries due to climate change is insignificant to that caused by overfishing. Ditto the effect we have on groundwater and underground aquifers, and the wholesale conversion of rainforest to soy producing fields is another such case.
My own guess is that the global warming phenomena, and associating it with burning of fossil fuels, will provide an excellent forum for adding a carbon use tax , and it may be used as a proxy for reducing the rate of consumption of depleted fossil fuels whiel also providing funds for other pork barrel projects.
- Thread starter
- #51
CajunCenturion
Computer
==> In this situation the free market cannot by itself prevent a catastrophy.
Sounds like you're assuming that a catastrophy will occur if we do nothing. Maybe, but maybe not. Perhaps you could start by showing how man's activities of the last hundred years or so will cause a catastrophy in climatological system that's been operating for several billion years.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Sounds like you're assuming that a catastrophy will occur if we do nothing. Maybe, but maybe not. Perhaps you could start by showing how man's activities of the last hundred years or so will cause a catastrophy in climatological system that's been operating for several billion years.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
I wonder if part of the problem with the Global Warming Scenario (real or not) is that it isn't necessarily going to be universally bad.
Just as with the El Nino event and with some other events, maybe there will be winners and losers.
Maybe it won't be an "extinction level event" for the whole of mankind. That's going to make it a difficult sell if the winners are expected to give up their winnings and pay for it.
I leave to you all to figure out the response of the winners and losers depending on who they are; e.g. if the US is a net winner and some pacific island with a population of 5000 is a net loser; or visa versa.
It won't be pretty to see how attitudes would vary under such different circumstances.
So, the question I'd like asked and answered is "Does Global Warming (if it can be proven to be a real phenomena) bring a net benefit or a net loss to the world?
Who are the expected winners and loser?
So far this seems to be being presented as purely "catastrophic" and catsastrophic for everyone.
Is this the case and can we know yet based on the "evidence"?
Dare one even ask if GW might even be desirable?
For example, suppose we really are on the cusp of a new mini-ice age, which seems to have more supporting evidence than GW, perhaps this is a positive.
Or maybe we want a mini-ice age?
Wouldn't that cause sea levels to drop?
In case anyone wonders, I certainly agree that we should always seek to be more responsible.
Not swallowing the GW scenario hook line and sinker doesn't mean that I like being a polluter or that I shouldn't be doing something constructive when and where and how I can, or that i don't care.
NOT believing in GW or even just being sceptical isn't cause for castigation.
It is a call for the proponents to show cause and justify there case that:
(a) it is/will happen and the evidence is sound
(b) it is a wholly bad thing
(c) that we can and should do something about it.
(d) that what we do won't, as so often the case, make things a dang site worse.
JMW
Just as with the El Nino event and with some other events, maybe there will be winners and losers.
Maybe it won't be an "extinction level event" for the whole of mankind. That's going to make it a difficult sell if the winners are expected to give up their winnings and pay for it.
I leave to you all to figure out the response of the winners and losers depending on who they are; e.g. if the US is a net winner and some pacific island with a population of 5000 is a net loser; or visa versa.
It won't be pretty to see how attitudes would vary under such different circumstances.
So, the question I'd like asked and answered is "Does Global Warming (if it can be proven to be a real phenomena) bring a net benefit or a net loss to the world?
Who are the expected winners and loser?
So far this seems to be being presented as purely "catastrophic" and catsastrophic for everyone.
Is this the case and can we know yet based on the "evidence"?
Dare one even ask if GW might even be desirable?
For example, suppose we really are on the cusp of a new mini-ice age, which seems to have more supporting evidence than GW, perhaps this is a positive.
Or maybe we want a mini-ice age?
Wouldn't that cause sea levels to drop?
In case anyone wonders, I certainly agree that we should always seek to be more responsible.
Not swallowing the GW scenario hook line and sinker doesn't mean that I like being a polluter or that I shouldn't be doing something constructive when and where and how I can, or that i don't care.
NOT believing in GW or even just being sceptical isn't cause for castigation.
It is a call for the proponents to show cause and justify there case that:
(a) it is/will happen and the evidence is sound
(b) it is a wholly bad thing
(c) that we can and should do something about it.
(d) that what we do won't, as so often the case, make things a dang site worse.
JMW
moltenmetal
Chemical
Greg: If you presuppose that the solution has to permit the status quo to continue, you've eliminated the possibility of any solution to the problem other than sticking our fingers in our ears and saying "Na na na, everything's fine!". If you believe that to be the case, why bother talking about this issue at all, since the only possibility is to keep doing what we're already doing?
Again, if you actually care about moving kids around safely, stats clearly show that public transit is the way to do this. It also happens to be the most energy-efficient way to do the job, which is also beneficial to the kids' health. Making cars heavier is of dubious benefit, since it will protect only the kids travelling in those cars, and then only if the cars are made heavier in the right ways.
As sick as it sounds, "the market" can only really properly value kids' health if it puts a dollar value on sick, injured and dead kids and then feeds that back into the full price of the things that sicken, injure and kill them! Short-sighted, narrow economic analyses which equated people's lives to the cost to the car companies in lawsuits are legendary as examples of the stupidity of using cost-based risk analysis to make design decisions!
Yeah, people don't care about fuel economy when they're buying gasoline at de-facto subsidized rates. That's an indication that gasoline is far too cheap at the pump, not that people won't accept more fuel-efficient vehicles when there's an economic driving force pushing them in that direction! The market has proven that it WON'T provide that driving force in adequate measure, so taxation and regulation MUST.
Taxation and regulation are legitimate roles of government. These are the way that the people through their governments impose their values on the economic equation, to tell both buyers and sellers in the market that certain things are not as cheap as they seem when all the costs are added up, and some things may be cheap but are unacceptable because of the harm they cause.
We engineers have a responsibility to inform government and the people at large of the consequences of their decisions or indecision. We must have a hand in directing public policy. And if public policy is not directed by an ideal of what we want our society, our environment and our futures to look like, it's aimless and destined to failure, global warming or no.
Again, if you actually care about moving kids around safely, stats clearly show that public transit is the way to do this. It also happens to be the most energy-efficient way to do the job, which is also beneficial to the kids' health. Making cars heavier is of dubious benefit, since it will protect only the kids travelling in those cars, and then only if the cars are made heavier in the right ways.
As sick as it sounds, "the market" can only really properly value kids' health if it puts a dollar value on sick, injured and dead kids and then feeds that back into the full price of the things that sicken, injure and kill them! Short-sighted, narrow economic analyses which equated people's lives to the cost to the car companies in lawsuits are legendary as examples of the stupidity of using cost-based risk analysis to make design decisions!
Yeah, people don't care about fuel economy when they're buying gasoline at de-facto subsidized rates. That's an indication that gasoline is far too cheap at the pump, not that people won't accept more fuel-efficient vehicles when there's an economic driving force pushing them in that direction! The market has proven that it WON'T provide that driving force in adequate measure, so taxation and regulation MUST.
Taxation and regulation are legitimate roles of government. These are the way that the people through their governments impose their values on the economic equation, to tell both buyers and sellers in the market that certain things are not as cheap as they seem when all the costs are added up, and some things may be cheap but are unacceptable because of the harm they cause.
We engineers have a responsibility to inform government and the people at large of the consequences of their decisions or indecision. We must have a hand in directing public policy. And if public policy is not directed by an ideal of what we want our society, our environment and our futures to look like, it's aimless and destined to failure, global warming or no.
GregLocock
Automotive
Every decision made when designing an aircraft or a passenger car ultimately has an effect on the cost vs safety equation. Nader et al pretend to be mortified when this point is made, yet it is, and should be, standard practice.
The dollar value on a USAn kid is around 6 million, an Australian kid is around 1 million. That's how the sums are done.
You have still completely failed to answer my questions.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
The dollar value on a USAn kid is around 6 million, an Australian kid is around 1 million. That's how the sums are done.
You have still completely failed to answer my questions.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
Agree with Greg
You HAVE to eventually compromise between safety (or environment) and cost, otherwise you'd spend every penny you have on safety (and die of famine).
This means that the scope of possible solutions to a global warming problem (if it is a problem) or any other safety/environmental problem is limited by the amount of money that the public is willing to spend on it.
Moltenmetal says we engineers have a responsibility toward the rest of the world in the sense that (if I understand correctly) if "they" don't want to pay for e.g. fuel-efficient vehicles, we'd have to educate them any build fuel-efficient vehicles anyway, because we know (we think) it's better for all of us.
I think this would be a valid point for e.g. seat-belts, which many people think are useless, but are put into every car because it makes the world a better place (excuse me for this pathetic expression in this context).
However global warming is such a complex phenomenon and certain solutions might impact on people's lives so dramatically, that I don't think that this is an engineers playground uniquely. This is a problem for everybody (if it is a problem, once again) and decisions should have sufficient support i.e. should be taken in a democratic way, not be imposed by engineers.
You HAVE to eventually compromise between safety (or environment) and cost, otherwise you'd spend every penny you have on safety (and die of famine).
This means that the scope of possible solutions to a global warming problem (if it is a problem) or any other safety/environmental problem is limited by the amount of money that the public is willing to spend on it.
Moltenmetal says we engineers have a responsibility toward the rest of the world in the sense that (if I understand correctly) if "they" don't want to pay for e.g. fuel-efficient vehicles, we'd have to educate them any build fuel-efficient vehicles anyway, because we know (we think) it's better for all of us.
I think this would be a valid point for e.g. seat-belts, which many people think are useless, but are put into every car because it makes the world a better place (excuse me for this pathetic expression in this context).
However global warming is such a complex phenomenon and certain solutions might impact on people's lives so dramatically, that I don't think that this is an engineers playground uniquely. This is a problem for everybody (if it is a problem, once again) and decisions should have sufficient support i.e. should be taken in a democratic way, not be imposed by engineers.
Re "extinction of mankind" due to GW...
I think we underestimate the flexibility of nature. I have a palm tree in my garden. He made a funny face when he was covered with 10 inches of snow a couple of weeks ago. But he's been there for 20 years and he's OK. It's not his natural habitat - so what does that mean? That means there have never been other palm trees in the area that have produced my palm tree. But that doesn't he wouldn't survive. Somebody planted it and there it went. There are no tigers in Africa. Wouldn't they survive? Of course they would but they just don't live there.
If the average temperature in France rose a couple degrees, it would start to look more like Spain or maybe Algeria. We'd still be making wine (like in Spain and Algeria), cheese, cars and planes, so problem. There'd be more swimming pools in the north and more forest fires in the south (too bad but we'd deal with it). The French would continue to live.
Re rising sea levels, please don't make me believe that that is an unmanageable problem.
I think we underestimate the flexibility of nature. I have a palm tree in my garden. He made a funny face when he was covered with 10 inches of snow a couple of weeks ago. But he's been there for 20 years and he's OK. It's not his natural habitat - so what does that mean? That means there have never been other palm trees in the area that have produced my palm tree. But that doesn't he wouldn't survive. Somebody planted it and there it went. There are no tigers in Africa. Wouldn't they survive? Of course they would but they just don't live there.
If the average temperature in France rose a couple degrees, it would start to look more like Spain or maybe Algeria. We'd still be making wine (like in Spain and Algeria), cheese, cars and planes, so problem. There'd be more swimming pools in the north and more forest fires in the south (too bad but we'd deal with it). The French would continue to live.
Re rising sea levels, please don't make me believe that that is an unmanageable problem.
moltenmetal
Chemical
Greg: I realize that you can only sell cars that people will buy. That's indisputable. But that's not what I'm arguing.
I also realize that all design decisions represent trade-offs between various factors such as capital cost, operating cost, ease of maintenance etc. etc.- I'm an engineer just like you.
What I'm arguing is that it idiotic to expect that industry and the free market will control technology in the public interest. It's quite clear that the market alone is incapable of doing so.
Controlling technology and altering the market equation for goods and services for the public benefit via taxation and regulation IS a legitimate role of government. Governments decide that whether car companies or customers want them or not, cars will have seatbelts and child seat anchors etc. We engineers then solve the problem of how to incorporate these features for the optimum cost, with our employers determining how the optimum will be calculated.
But governments must not be left to make these regulatory and taxationdecisions without the input of engineers!
Engineers have a responsibility to inform governments and engage in the development of public policy so that it doesn't occur in a technological vacuum. We can't let public policy continue to be influenced only by hired business lobbyists and grass-roots ideological environmental groups.
Yes, epoisses, engineers cannot be the only voice around the table in regard to the debate around global warming, but we cannot be ABSENT from this debate either! Nor can we allow the lack of certainty in the science on this issue blind us to the fact that global warming is a probability, risk and mitigation issue like any other we encounter in engineering design.
Taxation and subsidy and regulation can be used to wean people and the economy off things that are not in our collective interest. If we don't do so, the outcome is certain: the market will just keep doing what it's already doing- selling us products for which we're only paying part of the real, true cost. People will suffer the consequences, and the ones suffering most won't be the ones doing most of the consuming.
I also realize that all design decisions represent trade-offs between various factors such as capital cost, operating cost, ease of maintenance etc. etc.- I'm an engineer just like you.
What I'm arguing is that it idiotic to expect that industry and the free market will control technology in the public interest. It's quite clear that the market alone is incapable of doing so.
Controlling technology and altering the market equation for goods and services for the public benefit via taxation and regulation IS a legitimate role of government. Governments decide that whether car companies or customers want them or not, cars will have seatbelts and child seat anchors etc. We engineers then solve the problem of how to incorporate these features for the optimum cost, with our employers determining how the optimum will be calculated.
But governments must not be left to make these regulatory and taxationdecisions without the input of engineers!
Engineers have a responsibility to inform governments and engage in the development of public policy so that it doesn't occur in a technological vacuum. We can't let public policy continue to be influenced only by hired business lobbyists and grass-roots ideological environmental groups.
Yes, epoisses, engineers cannot be the only voice around the table in regard to the debate around global warming, but we cannot be ABSENT from this debate either! Nor can we allow the lack of certainty in the science on this issue blind us to the fact that global warming is a probability, risk and mitigation issue like any other we encounter in engineering design.
Taxation and subsidy and regulation can be used to wean people and the economy off things that are not in our collective interest. If we don't do so, the outcome is certain: the market will just keep doing what it's already doing- selling us products for which we're only paying part of the real, true cost. People will suffer the consequences, and the ones suffering most won't be the ones doing most of the consuming.
moltenmetal -
You are correct in that policy should not be made in a technological vacuum, but to impose living conditions is not the role of government in a free society. Neither should we injudiciously tax or outlaw things to push for a shift - although it's done all the time - look at the mess we have in drug laws because Hearst and Mellon were afraid of the decorticator.
The problem with increased fuel taxation is that we don't *know* what the ultimate effects of a warmer environment will be, so how can we e.g. raise taxes on fossil fuels, when it will put a drag on productivity, and therefore lower our standard of living?
You are correct in that policy should not be made in a technological vacuum, but to impose living conditions is not the role of government in a free society. Neither should we injudiciously tax or outlaw things to push for a shift - although it's done all the time - look at the mess we have in drug laws because Hearst and Mellon were afraid of the decorticator.
The problem with increased fuel taxation is that we don't *know* what the ultimate effects of a warmer environment will be, so how can we e.g. raise taxes on fossil fuels, when it will put a drag on productivity, and therefore lower our standard of living?
-
1
- #60
OutToLunch
Electrical
"...altering the market equation for goods and services for the public benefit via taxation and regulation IS a legitimate role of government."
Wrong. Taxation should only be done to raise the proper amount of revenue for a government to function. It is NOT a legitimate role of government to tax particular products and/or services in order to alter the behavior of those being taxed.
Wrong. Taxation should only be done to raise the proper amount of revenue for a government to function. It is NOT a legitimate role of government to tax particular products and/or services in order to alter the behavior of those being taxed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
