Gyroscopic Investing

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: The problem with global warming as a problem is that it's not really noticeable yet. Instead, we have to get people to tell us what it's supposedly responsible for. This is an extremely weak motivator. It will simply have to get worse before it gets better if people are to take notice and gin up the personal and political wills to change things.

What if it doesn't get worse? If the problem with the problem is that it's not noticable is it a problem?

If it's a problem that it's not a noticeable problem is it a problem if it never gets worse and becomes a noticable problem?

What's your plan for somehow getting the citizens of the United States to stop fighting and get on board? I hear a lot of things like "we need a carbon tax!" but not a lot of things like "here's how we pass a carbon tax and stop it from immediately getting repealed, undermined, watered down, or becoming riddled with exceptions, exemptions and loopholes, and here's our transition plan for all the people in fossil fuel-related industries who will otherwise vote us out of office during the next election cycle."

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: The problem with global warming as a problem is that it's not really noticeable yet. Instead, we have to get people to tell us what it's supposedly responsible for. This is an extremely weak motivator. It will simply have to get worse before it gets better if people are to take notice and gin up the personal and political wills to change things.

What if it doesn't get worse? If the problem with the problem is that it's not noticable is it a problem?

If it's a problem that it's not a noticeable problem is it a problem if it never gets worse and becomes a noticable problem?

LOL. It's a problem to people who want government to change the laws, because its lack of noticeability is a major contributor to people not taking it seriously or even believing that there is a problem. This is something I don't think I've ever gotten a real answer on from the people who advocate more government involvement. I shall repeat myself:

doodle wrote: Look, I dont care if the entire human race is extinguished or goes on to dominate the entire universe.

doodle wrote: Most environmental problems are not noticeable to people living in suburbia. Are you intimately aware of the acerage that is being slashed and burned in the Amazon rainforest from your suburban front yard? I guess it isnt happening then.

Have you ever wondered why people get upset when you leave the water running in the kitchen and walk away, but dont seem to care so much when you leave the lights and AC running when you leave the house? Its because humans are dumb creatures.

Tyson Degrasse brought up a good point in cosmos. If there were a way to color the gases that we emit into the atmosphere so that they were noticeable, humans would likely be shocked into action when they SAW what they were emitting.  If green gas poured out from your light fixtures and AC units when they were on people would be more apt to realize the effects of their actions.

Pointedstick wrote: Of course it's often less fun to talk about nitty-gritty political nuts-and-bolts of getting political change implemented, but if the subject you're discussing has said political change as an integral element, you can't really avoid it.

Pointedstick wrote: It's sort of interesting to me how left-leaning people seem to cherish representative governance so much while at the same time wishing for top-down policies implemented by elites and experts. I suspect that the former is simply historical coincidence as such people realize that technocracy really is the only method of getting "the right people" in charge.

doodle wrote: I dont think the effects of transitioning to a cleaner economy would be as disasterous as you economy doom-porners suggest.

doodle wrote: At the end of the day, Im not 100% certain that this is happening...but, I do know that emissions from burning fossil fuels are unhealthy for humans and that there are alternative means of generating energy. Im simply saying that looking at a risk benefit analysis I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I dont think the effects of transitioning to a cleaner economy would be as disasterous as you economy doom-porners suggest.

Mountaineer wrote: doodle,

For someone who is a nihilist, you sure display a lot of faith in the unknown, perhaps moreso that most.  Puzzling.  Why "climate change" and not "Christianity" or "fairies"?  Serious question.

... Mountaineer

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: At the end of the day, Im not 100% certain that this is happening...but, I do know that emissions from burning fossil fuels are unhealthy for humans and that there are alternative means of generating energy. Im simply saying that looking at a risk benefit analysis I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I dont think the effects of transitioning to a cleaner economy would be as disasterous as you economy doom-porners suggest.

I don't think so either but it's also frustrating when people pretend that it will be cost-less. To give you an example, Germany is now generating about 30% of their electricity from solar PV, but the cost per kilowatt there is about $0.36. By contrast, it's about $0.10 where I live.

Imagine there was a national ballot with the following question:

"Would you like 30% of our nation's electricity to be generated by clean, sustainable solar power at the cost of more than tripling the retail price of electricity?"

How many people do you think would vote for that?

IMHO nuclear power represents the most realistic way to get off fossil fuels, but environmentalists don't seem to like it very much.

doodle wrote: That direct cost increase to the consumer though is tricky....for example, how much is the cleaner air worth in terms of diminished health costs? How much is energy security and independence worth? We spend billions every year funding a military to keep oil supply channels open.

doodle wrote: Also, greater efficiency of use could make that initial increase of cost disappear. Maybe by raising the cost people learn to turn off AC, lights and appliances when they leave the house and end up saving money on electricity despite paying a higer rate.

moda0306 wrote: But Tyler isn't talking about what an individual should concentrate on.

He's saying that the science is bunk and our government shouldn't push the issue.

doodle wrote: Kshartle,

Is confining my ability to move freely over the Earth's surface by chopping it up into a series of private plots of land that are defended by a mighty government also not a form of control? Yes

If you support the first and reject the government part, then defacto you are just saying that private plots of land are only okay for those who are strong enough to defend it. No I'm not. I'm saying it's wrong for people to steal from others. Almost everyone agrees with that. You don't need to be strong enough to defend your property to avoid having it be stolen, we've been over this so many times it's unbearable. Other people will want to help you because they will want their property defended from thieves. This is how you protect.....through cooperation, not creating a special class and giving them violation rights.

I dont know why you dont acknowledge that every system involves some level of force and control.

As far as the free market and the environment....the issue is that environmental problems are generally long term issues with consequences that are hard to undo and the market operates on a very short time horizon. The market is not an effective way to deal with issues that develop over many decades. Short of placing a cost on pollution, it is very difficult if not impossible for the market to deal with environmental issues. That's because every problem is a nail to you and so the solution must be a hammer. People much smarter than you or I will figure out solutions if you let them pursue profit doing so. Buinesses will want cost-effective ways of reducing polution and other humans will provide it. If polution reduction is valued by consumers (it is), business who polute more than competitors will lose market share. The incentives for clean energy already exist, the government stifles them by making us poorer.

Curious.....do you support placing a cost of businesses for the pollution that they admit? If not, isnt this a free rider problem? There already is a cost. Pollution is a waste and displeases other people. The reality is that because of government people are powerless to do anything about it. The government eliminates polution liability by assigning blame to legal fictions like "businesses" that only exist because of government. It also makes violent threats against humans who choose to defend their environment by means other than petitioning the masters. 

Kshartle wrote: People much smarter than you or I will figure out solutions if you let them pursue profit doing so. Buinesses will want cost-effective ways of reducing polution and other humans will provide it. If polution reduction is valued by consumers (it is), business who polute more than competitors will lose market share. The incentives for clean energy already exist, the government stifles them by making us poorer.

Tyler wrote:

moda0306 wrote: But Tyler isn't talking about what an individual should concentrate on.

He's saying that the science is bunk and our government shouldn't push the issue.

You misunderstand. 

When discussing religion, people are comfortable with the concept of agnosticism.  Once can be openly unsure about the existence or non-existence of a deity or claim, especially when it is impossible to provide tangible evidence one way or another directly measurable to the five senses.  However, that does not make him without morals, and agnostics are fine people who can appreciate the societal benefits of religion.

For whatever reason, when discussing climate people can't handle that.  You're either a true believer or a knuckle-dragging denier of the one true God of catastrophic man-made global warming.  Anyone who doesn't stake out a claim on either extreme is just a lazy dope, a selfish capitalist, or hasn't been properly educated yet.

Well I'm a global warming agnostic.  I certainly don't deny that climate change exists or that humanity plays some role in it.  But I also don't believe that we're on the precipice of imminent doom and must all repent from our sinful carbon-emitting ways because judgment is at hand.  However, I agree with many individual environmental causes held by warming believers, and appreciate the societal benefits of conservation and efficiency. 

If warming evangelists could be more like Pope Francis than a militant Imam or greedy televangelist when it comes to outreach, I think they'd get a lot more traction with people like me.

Mountaineer wrote: The issue, to me, is having something crammed down our throats by someone or some entity that thinks they know what is better for me than I do.  To me, that raises my hackles severely and really, really pisses me off (but my home state motto is "mountaineers are always free" - maybe it is inborn in me to resist totalitarian, elitist appearing, authority).

doodle wrote: Tonights Cosmos series is putting out a pretty strong argument that humans are responsible for climate change. Neil Tyson Degrasse is one guy who (like Carl Sagan) I really admire for his ability to cut through a lot of bullshit and get people to think logically and rationally about information. In tonight's episode he does a great job of explaining how we are affecting the climate and explaining why things like volcanos, the sun etc etc, are not responsible for the changes we are seeing. The evidence really is quite overwhelming. I'll post link to episode as soon as it's up on you tube for anyone interested.

MachineGhost wrote:

doodle wrote: Tonights Cosmos series is putting out a pretty strong argument that humans are responsible for climate change. Neil Tyson Degrasse is one guy who (like Carl Sagan) I really admire for his ability to cut through a lot of bullshit and get people to think logically and rationally about information. In tonight's episode he does a great job of explaining how we are affecting the climate and explaining why things like volcanos, the sun etc etc, are not responsible for the changes we are seeing. The evidence really is quite overwhelming. I'll post link to episode as soon as it's up on you tube for anyone interested.

This, I got to see...

"The Burning Issue Trap is the belief that there are compelling social issues that require your participation. ... During recent years they have included such things as pollution, civil rights, overpopulation, drugs, conservation, communism, consumerism, women's liberation, poverty, organized crime, law and order, disappearnance of animal species, the sexual revolution, governmental solvency, pornography, educational problems, mental illness, privacy, high taxes, the Vietnam War, campus riots, the military-industrial complex, police brutality, and disarmament. Perhaps a dozen more I've overlooked, plus a few more that have become issues since I wrote this.
[...]

"Look back over the past twenty-five years. Can you think of a single social issue of the magnitude and popularity of those just listed that has been successfully resolved?"