Fallout from Declaring CO2 a Pollutant (A Potential News Dispatch from a World Going Mad)
New York--Now that carbon dioxide has been declared a pollutant by the EPA, numerous local jurisdictions around the country, whose finances have been badly hammered by the current recession, are considering the imposition of "Exhalation Taxes."
New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are reportedly preparing a joint statement citing the legitimacy and inevitability of taxes on CO2 emissions in general and on human exhalations of CO2 in particular. Humans emit CO2 into the atmosphere and thus contribute to global warming every time they exhale, in other words, every time they let out their breath. Some studies have estimated that taking all human beings together their exhalations account for as much as 8 per cent of all human-caused CO2 emissions. This is more than the proportion emitted by all privately owned aircraft in the world and is thus an important and fruitful target for reduction.
The Obama Administration has until now preferred a system of "cap and trade" as the means of limiting CO2 emissions, rather than any direct tax on emissions. Under that system, the Federal Government will limit the overall total amount of permissible emissions but allow individuals to emit as much they wish by buying the emission rights of others. A high official in the New York City government, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the Mayor and the Governor have arranged for a joint task force, financed at the Mayor's expense, out of his personal fortune, to study the feasibility of adapting this system to human exhalations. A particularly troubling aspect of any adaptation, the source explained, is how to combine it with plans by the Federal Government gradually to reduce the overall total of permissible emissions.
Among the task-force's assignments are determining the extent to which people might use the oxygen they breath in more efficiently (oxygen-efficiency option), so that they would be able to correspondingly reduce their exhalations of CO2. Another potential solution under study is the possibility of sequestering the exhalations in jars and various other containers, so as to reduce the overall release of CO2 into the atmosphere (CO2 sequestration option).
No official estimates have been released as to what the average person might expect to have to pay in order to exhale in compliance with the law, but some insiders place it initially as working out to as little as 50 cents per day. According to polls conducted among individuals who identify themselves as environmentalists or as political moderates, the general consensus is that "we can live with that" and "it's a small price to pay, to keep the planet safe."
Support for higher exhalation taxes and/or more stringent cap-and-trade limitations is indicated by the reported brisk sale of bumper stickers urging "polluters" to stop exhaling altogether. The stickers say, "Stop Exhaling, You God-Damned Polluting Bastards." It is unclear whether the drivers of the vehicles which carry the stickers count themselves as polluters too.
In contrast to the extremist position expressed in such bumper stickers, key Obama Administration officials and Congressional leaders are reportedly prepared to guarantee that "no American will ever be allowed to be in a position in which he cannot afford to pay for all of his reasonably necessary exhalations." The Federal Government, they say, will provide whatever financial subsidies as may be necessary to assure everyone's right to exhale on terms that he can afford.
Copyright © 2009, by George Reisman. George Reisman, Ph.D. is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute. His web site is www.capitalism.net and his blog is www.georgereisman.com/blog/.
Bookmark/Share
|
Comments (75)
Comments (75)
kmeisthax
This sounds like something from The Onion.
Published: April 25, 2009 12:35 PM
Walt D.
Perhaps I can get a tax credit for my scuba rebreather?
http://www.divegearexpress.com/rebreathers/?gclid=CNuZ4fnJjJoCFSMSagodpRhJFg
Published: April 25, 2009 12:42 PM
Jonathan Finegold Catalán
Maybe they should tax plants for consuming CO2. I mean, the tax should be passed onto both the producer and the consumer, right?
Published: April 25, 2009 1:07 PM
Samuel G.
I'm all for this new tax. So long as it is only applied to politicians and public sector employees. Surely they account for up to 90% of the co2 produced by human beings.
And in a very ironic way, if Mr. Bernanke doesn't get a grip on things upstairs, the future will look very green indeed.
Published: April 25, 2009 2:16 PM
J Cortez
The very notion of an "Exhalation Tax" is completely insane. Can somebody else verify this? While I question environmentalists notion of reality, this is just too hard to take. They can't be this crazy, right?
Published: April 25, 2009 2:19 PM
BioTube
It's just satire, although the Obamanauts would probably back such an inane proposal.
Published: April 25, 2009 2:37 PM
Martin OB
Why an April's fool article when it's not April 1st?
Obviously, only CO2 from fossil fuels can produce a net increase in atmospheric CO2.
Published: April 25, 2009 2:39 PM
Kevin Hall
Beyond the brainless concept of taxing breath, the precedent of declaring a natural gas (CO2) a pollutant is more concerning in another way. There has been a big government movement around the world stating the need for population reduction, and this just plays right into that. The real threat here is not the tax, but the openness of government talking of population reduction or more appropriately, eugenics.
Published: April 25, 2009 2:48 PM
Nate
woohoo! Now I have a reason not to exercise, unless of course they decide to institute a fat tax.
Published: April 25, 2009 2:50 PM
Tim
People who think that exhaling contributes to environmental damage should stop exhaling. That way they can keep all the hot air inside themselves.
Published: April 25, 2009 4:18 PM
Taras Smereka
Funny. You don't seriously have this copyrighted though do you?
Published: April 25, 2009 4:49 PM
JC Butte
Clearly we must declare war upon the greatest source of CO2 pollution on the planet...the oceans. We must also declare war upon the source of this warming of ocean temperatures that produces all this pollution...the Sun.
At the same time, we must repeal Henry's Law and LeChatelier's principle. The phyics of pollution simply cannot be permitted to stand. The survival of the planet demands it.
Published: April 25, 2009 5:09 PM
JC Butte
Clearly we must declare war upon the greatest source of CO2 pollution on the planet...the oceans. We must also declare war upon the source of this warming of ocean temperatures that produces all this pollution...the Sun.
At the same time, we must repeal Henry's Law and LeChatelier's principle. The phyics of pollution simply cannot be permitted to stand. The survival of the planet demands it.
Published: April 25, 2009 5:09 PM
Tim
What we must declare war upon is the greatest source of CO2 pollution on the planet...CO2.
This will be achieved by firing copious amounts of guns, rockets and shells into the air and bombing the stratosphere.
Oh I'm sorry, but there's no end to where this silliness can be taken.
Published: April 25, 2009 5:29 PM
Dean
I can remember reading a science fiction short story, dealing with a colony on one of Jupiter's moons (if I'm not mistaken) that had been taken over by a dictator. Each person was forced to wear a collar that monitored their breathing (since oxygen was a scarce resource) and charged them for it. The collars were also able to be controlled by the dictators who could choke off a person's air supply when needed.
But it is such a small price to pay.......
Published: April 25, 2009 5:38 PM
Dennis
Yes, it is correct that humans (and all animals) emit CO2 every time they exhale. Given that there has been a tremendous increase in the human population over the past several hundred years, maybe it would be more efficient to deal with the CO2 exhaled by humans through a significant reduction in population. I am confident that some tactics previously utilized by the Nazis can guide the enlightened amongst us to achieve this goal. And less we forget, the lives of some are worth more than those of others, and the political apparatus will be able to make the specific determinations with omniscience.
Published: April 25, 2009 7:21 PM
JC Butte
I defer to a true terrestrial authority:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q3upFx4FcA
Published: April 25, 2009 7:37 PM
Allen Charles
The concept of a SIN tax has always been believed to induce the sinner to avoid the tax by avoiding the sin. This might be well and good if an addiction was not part of the sin, but it is not a very effective way to change behavior if the behavior cannot be avoided. This is especially true if the sin is not universally recognized as a sin.
A better way to approach this might be to really understand the best way around the problem. We need something that produces energy to sustain life as we have come to know it. If our energy we use now produces an unwanted by-product then maybe a use for the by-product should be looked for to change it from garbage to a valuable commodity. There was a time when gasoline was an unwanted by-product of kerosene production.which was being used to replace coal oil in oil burning lanterns. The gasoline was being burned in ditches to get rid of it. We all know the present use of gasoline.
My theory to work out the problem of the co2 is to use it in the production of something valuable making it valuable. Without co2 very little plant life would be able to exist. The simple answer is plant more vegetation, but not just any kind of vegetation and certainly not just anywhere. The question then is what do we plant and where could it be planted to solve the problem without becoming another problem. The best place to plant new vegetation would be somewhere that is very large in size and does not have very much already growing there. The first thing that we have in the world in a large amount is the deserts of the world, the next thing we have in very large amounts is seawater. So we need to plant something in a desert that can grow using salt water or seawater and it needs to decrease the need for the item that the new sin tax is supposed to reduce. The simple answer is an oil producing plant that can be watered using seawater and will produce oil to reduce the need for other fossil fuels and be produced economically thus completing the circle of life for co2 to be used by the plants and the plants create oxygen completing the circle returning a balance to nature. It might be called taking out the garbage just like we all do the day before the garbage truck come to pick it up and take it to be put it back into the ground.
http://www.seawaterfoundation.org/index.html has a very good story about what the point I was trying to make.
Published: April 25, 2009 7:58 PM
SailDog
George Reisman is largely irrelevant and his arguments ludicrous. His attempt at "humour" here is pathetic. The problem is not CO2 in itself, it the amount of CO2 that is at issue and we need a "Goldilocks" amount of it in the atmosphere, not to little and not to much. Too much; and it indeed is a pollutant.
There are no silver bullets that will fix our energy crisis. Perhaps the most effective of many solutions will simply be to use less. Wind, which the idiotic Reisman also recently criticized, is part of the solution as is solar and nuclear. He is an old man, maybe he should quietly retire and let our generation deal with our problems.
The key determinant of viable energy is EROEI - Energy Return on Energy Invested - or how much energy is required to procure the next joule of useable energy. It is measured as a ratio, for instance 8:1 (gasoline average).
The primary reason for the current recession is that our useable energy resources have been declining. While the headline number for barrels of oil, or tonnes of coal may have been static over the last few years, in fact the net energy output has been in decline as oil reserves become more difficult to find and overall average coal quality degrades.
Money is merely a proxy for EROEI; and the price of a particular energy type reflects not only the absolute number of joules embodied in it, but also its availability, transportability and usability. That is why oil tends to be valued highest.
Economically, as total usable energy available to society has declined, more resources have been devoted to procuring energy. That is why food prices have increased sharply; and it is at least one reason why lots of people couldn't pay their mortgages, thereby deceiving almost everybody into thinking we are in a financial crisis.
We face a massive reorganization of our economies. Oil production cannot increase; and coal production (in the US) has been declining in total joules even though tonnages have increased. Over the entire life-cycle the EROEI of nuclear is debatable; while wind is in the 20-30 range (perfectly acceptable).
George Reisman should limit his own exposure of his ignorance. Just as breathing will never be taxed, the wind does blows 100% of the time, somewhere. There is sufficient wind over the entire US every single second of every single day to power the whole country. You just need a smart grid and enough wind-turbines.
Published: April 25, 2009 8:09 PM
Poptech
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is inconsequential...
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a natural part of Earth's Atmosphere (NASA)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen from 0.028% to 0.038% (380ppm) over the past 100 years (IPCC)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not toxic until 5% (50,000ppm) concentration
- Any detrimental effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) including chronic exposure to 3% (30,000ppm) are reversible
- OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% (5,000 ppm) Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
- Humans can only claim responsibility for 3.4% of the Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere annually
- U.S. Carbon Emissions Fell 1.3% over the last few years
There is no energy crisis, only one brought about by government regulators. Wind Power is a joke...
- Wind Power represents only 0.3% of all energy consumed in the United States
We generate our electricity from...
- 49% of U.S. electrical generation comes from coal (22% Natural Gas, 19% Nuclear, 6% Hydroelectric, 2.5% from "Renewables" and 1.5% from Oil)
EROIE is irrelevant...
Thermodynamics and Money (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT)
"The economic value of energy just doesn't depend very strongly on raw energy content as conventionally measured in British thermal units. Instead it's determined mainly by the distance between the BTUs and where you need them, and how densely the BTUs are packed into pounds of stuff you've got to move, and by the quality of the technology at hand to move, concentrate, refine and burn those BTUs, and by how your neighbors feel about carbon, uranium and windmills. In this entropic universe we occupy, the production of one unit of high-grade energy always requires more than one unit of low-grade energy at the outset. There are no exceptions. Put another way, Eroei--a sophomoric form of thermodynamic accounting--is always negative and always irrelevant. "Matter-energy" constraints count for nothing. The "monetary culture" still rules. Thermodynamics And Money."
SailDog, you show your economic and energy ignorance with each post. Please stop watching the hysterical peak oil propaganda videos.
Published: April 25, 2009 9:17 PM
damocles
Since the Sierra Club has discovered that exercise results in increased CO2 exhalation, it is recommending that "if you take a walk they tax your feet." The Obama administration is studying the proposal.
Published: April 25, 2009 9:31 PM
Dean
"if you take a walk they tax your feet."
So George Harrison 'was' prophetic.
Published: April 25, 2009 9:53 PM
SailDog
"Eroei--a sophomoric form of thermodynamic accounting--is always negative and always irrelevant." - wrong, the author hasn't bothered to understand the concept. Ratios are never negative, just for starters. And Poptech - you clearly also have quite a lot to learn. But Reisman won't tell you anything useful.
Wind is not irrelevant. Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from wind. Wind (and solar) are growing exponentially. Or at least they were until the recession hit. After the unpleasant and useless Bush, the US has a very long way to catch up.
Natgas has plugged the gap in the US, but production is in decline, especially now so many rigs have been withdrawn from service. Coal plants aren't being built because of the EPA ruling that is at the base of this discussion; and that isn't going to change. Clean Coal is BS and the US grid is way past its design life. So, sorry, but there is an energy crisis, but you are welcome to believe there isn't. "Ignorance is bliss", I think is how the saying goes.
Published: April 25, 2009 10:20 PM
newson
"there's one for me, nineteen for me"
let's not underrate harrison's prescience, soon to be revealed in many countries around the globe.
Published: April 25, 2009 10:21 PM
Gil
Saildog - is makes a valid point. After all, if water is a necessity to human living then there's no such thing as drowning, right? The greater point is whether people should be allowed to stop other from doing what they want. In other words, those who build coal-fired power stations believe the positive results (people who have access to electricity have a higher standard of living) outweighs the negatives (air and mercury pollution). The articles written by G. Reisman and L. Rockwell suggest they aren't concerned about the state of the environment in the least - they are anti-environmentalists. In other words, all human progress has been the result of transforming the natural and untamed into human habitation. Hence they don't want any environmental standards - period. People can sue for damages if they can prove who dumped waste provided it was their private property was affected but that' s about it.
Published: April 25, 2009 10:28 PM
newson
cap-and-trade is a back-to-work-scheme for merchant bankers. just think of the carbon derivatives that will need to be marketed and traded. no wonder bloomberg is onside.
Published: April 25, 2009 10:28 PM
newson
people like gil who implicitly favour a pre-industrial world must also embrace the vast reduction in human numbers that de-industrialization implies.
Published: April 25, 2009 10:39 PM
SailDog
Newson - the world isn't black and white. I too do not favour cap and trade, though do understand Market Based Instruments and I am prepared to acknowledge the success of MBI's in some schemes such as for SO2 in power generation in the US.
A carbon tax that replaces dollar for dollar tax on labour/income would be much easier to collect and much more effective. Note I am not advocating higher taxes, just different taxes that overall should be as low as possible.
I also do not want to cast us back to the dark ages (literally) - I am very interested in finding solutions. Those solutions will be low carbon and will include a wide range of technologies, including conservation, wind and next generation nuclear.
That is if we are smart and are prepared to give up the old ways that are no longer appropriate.
Published: April 25, 2009 11:44 PM
thesprot
Nate.
Fat people will be taxed, for emitting more CO2 than non fat people. http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/global-warming-fat-47042001. If i where you i would keep on exercising. BTW this is for real, not satire or anything.
So now we have Cows and fat people being taxed, next on the list should be gypsies, and hippies, and last but not least Ron Paul supporters who are already on the list as domestic terrorists http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/03/17/miac-report-ron-paul-supporters-labeled-domestic-terrorists/
It is becoming hard to distinguish between satire and real nowadays. There is no red pill in the world that helps.
Published: April 26, 2009 12:23 AM
Poptech
"wrong, the author hasn't bothered to understand the concept."
LMAO! Sure yes of course he graduated from MIT with a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and doesn't understand the concept? Please. It is more like you don't understand the concept of money.
Denmark? They have not been able to shut down one conventional power plant even with all their windmills slicing up birds. Denmark has 5.5 Million people, a third less than New Jersey. What a freaking joke!
They have demonstrated the Dangers of Wind Turbines.
Saildog I find it interesting you ramble on about government subsidized energy (wind and solar) that have no competitive market value against competing energy sources. Why do you endorse government subsidized energy? I am not sure what is worse your delusions or ignorance on where our energy comes from.
Give up the old ways? Are you mad? Why are they not appropriate? Because you do not understand what you are talking about?
Again, the only way any energy crisis can happen is through government regulations. The free market is more than sufficient to provide us with how ever much energy we need.
I love the hysteria. The grid is so bad that the power reliability to my house gets better every year! With less and less blackouts, brownouts ect... Amazing!
Published: April 26, 2009 1:34 AM
Inquisitor
"People can sue for damages if they can prove who dumped waste provided it was their private property was affected but that' s about it."
What more should one be able to do? Have a global state enforce "environmentally friendly" policies on the world, with some little green Fuehrer at the top? Please... They're anti-stupidity. Not anti-environment. And being anti-environmentalist does not equate being anti-environment.
Published: April 26, 2009 2:08 AM
newson
to saildog:
ease of collection of a carbon tax is exactly what worries me - at least the luxury car tax or sin taxes can allow people to modify their consumer choices to escape the grasping hand of government.
a tax of energy punishes all sectors of the economy, and robs australia of one of its few national competitive advantages. the gst exercise shows the hazards of change in the fiscal regime (ratchet-effect in the wrong direction).
wind and solar face diseconomies of scale (being diffuse sources), whereas coal/nuclear/gas offer economies of scale (concentrated energy sources).
china adds 100gigawatts of coal-fire electricity generation every year, so the future is definitely a carbon one, just with us sidelined. but don't believe me, throw up a chart of new hope coal, macarthur, or felix resources against the all-ordinaries index and tell me why coal is a sectorial star.
Published: April 26, 2009 2:14 AM
newson
...or a sectoral star, as they say in english.
Published: April 26, 2009 2:19 AM
SailDog
As I said Poptech - ignorance is bliss. The market cannot sort this out, not least because the air and the oceans (and arguably the worlds mineral resources) are "The Commons" and nothing can change that.
And government is a fact of life and all the ardent blogging on this site and others isn't going to change that. As I said; a carbon tax, that effectively internalizes (a concept you likely don't accept, even if you do understand it), all of the costs and scarcity value of oil and coal, will sort this issue out with the minimum of government interference.
BTW, your MIT Ph.D., if he claims EROEI is negative clearly does not understand the concept. It can be less than 1, but it can never be less than 0. You don't understand it either.
Published: April 26, 2009 2:20 AM
Inquisitor
"As I said Poptech - ignorance is bliss. The market cannot sort this out, not least because the air and the oceans (and arguably the worlds mineral resources) are "The Commons" and nothing can change that.
And government is a fact of life "
How about you demonstrate less apodicticity?
Published: April 26, 2009 2:25 AM
Gil
Wow! Where did you pull that non-sequitor from, newson? I did imply that technological progress does seem to come from 'ruining the environment'. Is this a bad thing? Does anyone really want to go back to nature. Was Michael Crichton right in that people want to go on a camping trip every blue moon with their insect repellant to reside in a cabin with screened windows? People might abide by planting trees, shrubs and flowers in their backyards and have a few pets but that's it. No one really wants the biodiversity of a rainforest which include the dangerous and life-threatening plants and animals.
But of couse where do you imply that the human optimum population is some 6 to 7 billion? Why should people create more technology to accomodate the babies who others keep making because they can't use a condom? Or, for that matter, does a declining birthrate imply more poverty? Why can't people in the future have fewer babies in a way that the world population does slowly decrease to world population of 2 - 3 billion because they don't see where more people should automatically equal more wealth?
But the big grand question is - does it matter what is happening to the global environment? If there's no global warming or cooling then, so what? If there's a mild warming trend and it's going to make the world a better place then, so what? Do you not agree that the conversion of the untamed environment into cities and suburbs has been a boon to the human race? Therefore any talk of the restoring the 'environment' can only mean a threat to humanity therefore environmentalists are a terrorist group? There can be no talk of moderation with environmentalists? Either you support human progress or threaten human progress so that l'il woodland critters have a place to call home? Talk of cap&trade and so forth amount to government environmental to restore the untamed natural order?
Or maybe the greatest question is - should people be anti-environmentalists - they must despise talk of the environment in favour of human progress and prosperity? That people should at no point consider lowering their standards of living so that some leftover hippies can feel warm and fuzzy about some 'untouched' plants and animals.
Published: April 26, 2009 2:26 AM
SailDog
Coal is a sectoral star because of its value in generating electricity in a fiscal environment that subsidizes the massive externalities involved in burning coal.
China is also adding huge resources of wind and nuclear. They also recognize and accept global warming for the danger that it represents, not least to mega cities such as Shanghai. They have to balance that off (I guess) against the possibility that their populace will revolt unless living standards are lifted rapidly.
If there is any good news in all of this it is that things are moving rapidly now. We will see this drama unfold in the next 10-20 years. The rapidly disappearing Wilkens ice shelf could lead to the grounded (below sea level) West Antarctic ice sheet collapse more quickly. A sea level rise in 20 years of even 1 metre will wreak havoc on the world. The entire ice sheet is worth 5m. Then there is Greenland.....Oil production will continue to decline (there are no substitutes - sorry!) and coal faces a problematic future because of global warming.
We live in interesting times!
Published: April 26, 2009 2:34 AM
newson
no, coal is a star because the chinese are still avid resource buyers, and in spite of the sword of damocles that hangs over the australian electricity-generation industry (already factored into prices).
as for rising sea level, i'm still waiting for the smart money to dump beachfront properties at firesale prices. when that happens, i'll start to give these hypotheses more credence.
Published: April 26, 2009 2:52 AM
Luis Mauricio
Global warming caused by coal is a hoax, of course there is a warming but is originated by the SUN, this is a natural and predicted process that evil people like Al Gore, Margaret Thatcher and the money changers uses to enslave and create stupid debt, and stupid government spending like green jobs, there is NO GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY COAL, and it is very estrange that Russia and China are the victims of this false accusations, I foreseen future disputes between the US vs Russia and China.
Published: April 26, 2009 3:03 AM
newson
to gil:
you're familiar with the libertarian credo: people are free to do as they please subject to the non-aggression principle. disapproval of another's behaviour is not enough, material harm must be proved.
if the coal plant is producing noxious fumes, it's likely the effects will be most intense in the immediate vicinity. people who choose to live in the area after the power plant is in existence do so having balanced the risks and benefits and tacitly accepted the health hazard. those who preceded the coal plant have a claim for damages, but must substantiate their loss.
claims from the distant, wider community face almost insurmountable probatory difficulties.
life is not perfect, and some things just must be accepted as a trade-off. if i move to the big town, then breathing smog is the price i pay.
Published: April 26, 2009 3:09 AM
SailDog
An excellent resource on wind power can be found here: http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm
That is if the experience of a country only 2/3 the size of NJ is of any interest.
Published: April 26, 2009 3:22 AM
SailDog
Newson - I think you will find with a little research that ocean front property values in Australia are already impacted by rising sea levels. The government of Tuvalu has effectively conceded defeat and is looking for another country to absorb its population of 11,000. Low lying land in the Carteret Islands, Bangladesh and many other places is similarly being lost. The population of Bangladesh is $150m, many of whom live at sea level.
What is the market solution to millions of people migrating because they have been flooded out?
Published: April 26, 2009 3:56 AM
SailDog
Newson - I think you will find with a little research that ocean front property values in Australia are already impacted by rising sea levels. The government of Tuvalu has effectively conceded defeat and is looking for another country to absorb its population of 11,000. Low lying land in the Carteret Islands, Bangladesh and many other places is similarly being lost. The population of Bangladesh is 150m, many of whom live at sea level.
What is the market solution to millions of people migrating because they have been flooded out?
Published: April 26, 2009 3:57 AM
Ansury
"The problem is not CO2 in itself, it the amount of CO2 that is at issue and we need a "Goldilocks" amount of it in the atmosphere, not to little and not to much. Too much; and it indeed is a pollutant."
Ahh, I understand now. In other words, H2O also "becomes a pollutant" when an area floods more than X amount (which should be under government regulation, of course). Or, for example, humans will "become a pollutant" once we reach X population level (according to government regulation), at which point the UN will need to deal with that problem as well.
Plants may be a little upset at the choice of terms, though. Perhaps the government should fund a study to try and communicate with the trees, and ask them what the *correct* "Goldilocks ratio" for the Earth is? Of course, we'd have to be sure to ask modern trees, since ancient foliage and such would give us a different answer entirely, and everyone knows that today's climate is the CORRECT climate for the Earth, and anything other would kill all life on the planet instantly.
Oh yes, and I'm sure that the "primary reason" for our recession is due to the energy crisis--I mean, energy prices are SKY high all the sudden aren't they? And besides, the energy crisis only just started a year ago. So obviously it couldn't have had anything to do with government policy--no way! Move on, everyone, nothing to see here!
Published: April 26, 2009 4:01 AM
Marc Sheffner
The Market Ticker asks, when can he expect a tax reduction for his 3/4 acre of lawn? Bend Over: Here it Comes (Carbon Taxes). I'm sure he's holding his breath (tax reduction for that, too, please).
Published: April 26, 2009 4:06 AM
anon
Thanks, SailDog - for giving much material to chew upon, even if I don't entirely agree with you. I'm willing to entertain alternative theories regarding "climate change", but the energy crisis - if real - would be a serious one (and perhaps we can expect more foreign policy adventures in this regard). We live in a finite world with finite resources after all, and as it is there's already a quarter of humanity lacking proper access to electricity.
Published: April 26, 2009 4:19 AM
newson
saildog:
many of the pacific islands are sinking as the crust moves, not the sea water level. i'm not sure about bangladesh, but tidal flows, erosion etc can have localized effects.
the beachside property market is only coming down concomitantly with the overall residential market. beach/harbour/river still is more expensive than hill/inland.
Published: April 26, 2009 4:23 AM
anon
SailDog:
"A carbon tax, that effectively internalizes (a concept you likely don't accept, even if you do understand it), all of the costs and scarcity value of oil and coal, will sort this issue out with the minimum of government interference."
The problem is any carbon taxation rate is arbitrary. And it's not as if the funds would go to technology research, or resource exploration. Instead it would be use to fund the welfare state.
Published: April 26, 2009 4:29 AM
newson
saildog:
the free-market solution to bangladesh's inundation (if in fact it does occur) is the only sensible one - move! were it not for state borders, this could occur with the least possible upheaval for all concerned. as it is borders will slow, but not prevent refugees.
concerned first-world citizens can only intervene productively by supporting charities working on the ground in the affected country.
depositing taxpayers' money into swiss bank accounts won't help bangladeshis.
Published: April 26, 2009 4:36 AM
SailDog
The Bangladeshi coast line has large annual losses where people lose the land their families have owned for generations. This is a well documented current problem.
Sea level rise is also well recorded all around the world and ocean front property values have been impacted as far apart as Australia and Florida. In both instances some property is also uninsurable.
The Thames flood barrier is also operating much more: "Before 1990, the number of barrier closures was one to two per year on average. Since 1990, the number of barrier closures has increased to an average of about four per year. In 2003 the Barrier was closed on 14 consecutive tides" (Wikipedia).
Maybe the earths crust is uniformly sinking globally!
Anon - start reading energybulletin.net and theoildrum.com.
Published: April 26, 2009 5:07 AM
Gil
"Ahh, I understand now. In other words, H2O also 'becomes a pollutant' when an area floods"
Well Ansury - DUH! Any other liquid that flooded an area and destroyed would be considered a pollutant too.
Published: April 26, 2009 5:13 AM
newson
saildog:
hypotheses/modeling aside, is there any real evidence for rising sea levels?
Published: April 26, 2009 5:45 AM
newson
...and of course, no agw story would be complete without the tabloid quote, this time from former head of the international commission on sea level change, dr nils-axel mörner.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
Published: April 26, 2009 6:27 AM
SailDog
"Current sea level rise has occured at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century, and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4[3] to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year (1993-2003)" (Wikipedia).
The article presents a lot of evidence. Read it for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Published: April 26, 2009 7:05 AM
Poptech
Of course markets can sort out our energy needs. What ever is the most cost effective energy source will always be used. Basic price discovery of each commodity takes care of it.
Private property rights sorts out who owns what minerals. REAL pollution is already regulated under the clean air act and the air is getting cleaner all the time.
Unbelievable you come to a free market site and spew propaganda about command and control being more efficient than markets.
You might want to read the article again. EROEI is used as propaganda to mislead the average person. You are not using the same energy source to extract the same energy. You are using another energy source such as Nuclear or Natural Gas to extract oil sands for transportation fuel. Why? Because the monetary value makes it worth it. You are in effect consuming more energy to extract less but the monetary value of the what you are extracting is worth more than the energy you are using to extract it with. The reason is simple. Hydrocarbon liquids make better transportation fuels and thus in the market demand a higher monetary value. By your delusions the energy of the coal used to make your electricity cannot be negative, it always is.
Coal is used because it's energy content and market value is greater than all other sources of energy. The only industries heavily subsidized are "renewables" such as solar, wind and biofuels. None would exist without government at this time.
Saildog, you are a clueless alarmists of the highest order. Nowhere is anyone claiming the collapse or even melting of the west Antarctic Ice sheet for thousands of years. Even the ridiculous IPCC makes the following claims...
- Global mean sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)
- Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal gauge data) (IPCC)
- No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC)
- "Computer Models" project a sea level rise of only 7-23 inches (0.18-0.59m) in the next 100 years. (IPCC)
There is plenty of oil left. The amount of oil tied up in oil sands and oil shale will last for hundreds of years.
Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
- 1.8 to 6 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Oil-Shale Reserves (DOE)
- 986 Billion barrels of oil are estimated using Coal-to-liquids (CTL) conversion of U.S. Coal Reserves (DOE)
- 173 to 315 Billion (1.7-2.5 Trillion potential) barrels of oil are estimated in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada (Alberta Department of Energy)
- 100 Billion barrels of heavy oil are estimated in the U.S. (DOE)
- 90 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the Arctic (USGS)
- 89 Billion barrels of immobile oil are estimated recoverable using CO2 injection in the U.S. (DOE)
- 86 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (MMS)
- 60 to 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in U.S. Tar Sands (DOE)
- 32 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in ANWR, NPRA and the Central North Slope in Alaska (USGS)
- 31.4 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the East Greenland Rift Basins Province (USGS)
- 7.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the West Greenland–East Canada Province (USGS)
- 4.3 Billion (167 Billion potential) barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana (USGS)
- 3.65 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Devonian-Mississippian Bakken Formation (USGS)
- 1.6 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Eastern Great Basin Province (USGS)
- 1.3 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Permian Basin Province (USGS)
- 1.1 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Powder River Basin Province (USGS)
- 990 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Portion of the Michigan Basin (USGS)
- 393 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. San Joaquin Basin Province of California (USGS)
- 214 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Illinois Basin (USGS)
- 172 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Yukon Flats of East-Central Alaska (USGS)
- 131 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Southwestern Wyoming Province (USGS)
- 109 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Montana Thrust Belt Province (USGS)
- 104 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Denver Basin Province (USGS)
- 98.5 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Bend Arch-Fort Worth Basin Province (USGS)
- 94 Million barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Hanna, Laramie, Shirley Basins Province (USGS)
Published: April 26, 2009 7:21 AM
Poptech
Saildog, Denmark has not been able to close one conventional power plant because Wind cannot provide the baseload power 100% of the time. It is intermittent and unreliable.
Loss of Wind Causes Texas Power Grid Emergency (Reuters)
Wind energy supply dips during cold snap (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Published: April 26, 2009 7:27 AM
Poptech
Wind power is a complete disaster (Financial Post, Canada)
"Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)."
Published: April 26, 2009 7:32 AM
SailDog
Poptech - it is you that is clueless. It is not the quantum of estimated "reserves" that matters, it is how much can be produced, or what is known as flows. Lots of things impact flows, including geology, politics, war, hurricanes, investment, etc etc. The net effect is that production is a race between bringing on new production and declining production at existing fields. And the race is being lost, especially new investment has been drastically reduced in response to the recession. Peak Oil is now past tense.
Net energy contribution is the ultimate objective of any energy source and thus the quality of production is also important; and this is where EROEI comes back in. Corn ethanol has an EROEI of 1.1 and is thus useless. It is useless for many other reasons too. Tar sands have an EROEI of between 1.3 and 3, which is too low. Even the most optimistic forecast the Canadian tar sands will max out at 3m barrels per day (a flow) in 10 years or so. Production declines will be double that this year alone. Shale is shale and not oil and no one has yet worked out how to produce it because it takes too much energy (and water). Even if someone worked it out it will take years to establish a meaningful flow. And so it goes for all the other so called resources you listed in the widely discredited USGS 2000 study.
Published: April 26, 2009 7:45 AM
Poptech
Investment is based on supply and demand.
Wrong again, Oil Sands have an EROEI between 5.0-7.2.
Again it doesn't matter how much energy it takes, it matters how much the energy costs of the energy invested vs what is extracted. You learn nothing. You keep thinking you are using Shale oil to extract Shale Oil and not Nuclear or Natural Gas to extract Shale Oil. Natural Gas from Shale is now in abundance.
You are a knee jerk propagandist. I did not list any USGS study, those are my compiled resources from VARIOUS DOE and USGS sources. Typical alarmist propaganda, you just declare something "widely discredited" to sound good. You sir are a laughing stock of epic proportions.
Now I will contine to debunk the rest of your propaganda...
Published: April 26, 2009 8:09 AM
Bruce Koerber
So here we have it:
Tax disincentives to make people abstain from all vigorous exercise that would release more CO2 and then more government programs to combat obesity!
Published: April 26, 2009 8:09 AM
Poptech
Bangladesh gaining land, not losing: scientists (AFP)
"New data shows that Bangladesh's landmass is increasing, contradicting forecasts that the South Asian nation will be under the waves by the end of the century, experts say.
Scientists from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) have studied 32 years of satellite images and say Bangladesh's landmass has increased by 20 square kilometres (eight square miles) annually."
Tuvalu floods, but it's not sinking (Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Science)
Since instrumentation was installed in 1993 on Tuvalu's main island Funafuti, sea level has shown no discernible trend. There is some inundation evident on islands in Tuvalu, but global warming is not the cause.
It is the result of erosion, sand mining and construction projects causing an inflow of sea water.
Other factors are also involved.
Excessive use of freshwater for irrigation also causes destruction of underground freshwater reservoirs. A consequence is seawater encroachment into vegetable growing pits is occurring, but is not due to sea level rise."
LMAO!! Please Saildog go back to the Michael Simmons propaganda sites and leave the facts to us here at Mises.
Published: April 26, 2009 8:17 AM
Poptech
"In both instances some property is also uninsurable"
Looks like Saildog just discovered a market mechanism to persuade people how to deal with any sea level rise.
We knew you could do it Saildog!
Published: April 26, 2009 8:26 AM
Bruce Koerber
Will the imbeciles ever regard imperialistic wars as harmful?
"Don't confuse me with the facts," they reply!
Published: April 26, 2009 8:42 AM
Poptech
Let's Get Real About Renewable Energy (The Wall Street Journal)
"We can double the output of solar and wind, and double it again. We'll still depend on hydrocarbons."
The World Has Plenty of Oil (The Wall Street Journal)
"What are the global resources in place? Estimates vary. But approximately six to eight trillion barrels each for conventional and unconventional oil resources (shale oil, tar sands, extra heavy oil) represent probable figures -- inclusive of future discoveries. As a matter of context, the globe has consumed only one out of a grand total of 12 to 16 trillion barrels underground."
Published: April 26, 2009 8:50 AM
Bruce Koerber
Education and Ethics
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The CO2 Police Value Garbage More Than Humans.
Will the deceitful statisticians ever confess that it costs more money, and uses more energy, to implement the government sponsored recycling program than without such a program?
How does the extra CO2 generation from this energy wasteful and economically unsound program avoid the scrutiny of the CO2 police who want to penalize humans for breathing?
How ethical or just is it to value garbage more than humans?
Published: April 26, 2009 9:40 AM
Inquisitor
It is certainly amusing to see Poptech eviscerate the ecofundamentalist dogma that is fashionable online.
Published: April 26, 2009 10:51 AM
Jönnee
Three cheers for Poptech!
Published: April 26, 2009 7:17 PM
SailDog
"eviscerate"? - big word Inquisitor. But sorry - I do not feel eviscerated at all. But I will take my toys and go and play elsewhere.
This is not a forum where a discussion can take place, minds are closed and positions entrenched. New learning is not possible.
Certainly it is a disappointment to me to see someone as mediocre as Reisman published here. As I said, his views are irrelevant and meaningless. Thank God it is only only on sites like this, where he preaches to the converted, that he gets published.
So Adios one and all. You can all nod earnestly at each others ludicrous view points. I am sure you won't miss me one little bit!
Published: April 26, 2009 10:31 PM
geoih
Quote from Saildog: "So Adios one and all. You can all nod earnestly at each others ludicrous view points. I am sure you won't miss me one little bit!"
Don't worry, he'll be back. Only next time he'll bring his posse of government buddies, demanding their way with guns. Zealots know there's more than one way to create converts.
Published: April 27, 2009 6:26 AM
Poptech
Please Saildog take your "toys" (propaganda) and go talk to the uneducated who do not have the facts.
Dr. Reisman, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University, has forgotten more about economics than you will ever hope to know.
Here are some excellent articles explaining how environmentalism is a Religion...
Environmentalism as Religion (Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard)
What Evangelical Environmentalists Do Not Know About Economics (Ludwig von Mises Institute)
Published: April 27, 2009 7:11 AM
Gil
But poptech & friends - let's take a simple analogy - saving the whales. Under libertarian theologythinking whales cannot be private property as they cannot be homesteaded. I believe homesteading means people having to do something pro-active to earn the right to unowned resources before they can declare "mine". But, even today, there's no way to homestead whales. Whale-watching is obvious and tagging doesn't do anything either. On the other hand, whalers can homestead the whale in the sense they convert the whale to various items (oil and meat) therefore they have property rights in those products. A non-Libertarian alternative is a treaty between governments to stop their citizens to engage in whaling.
Does this mean it's wrong to even consider 'saving' the whales? Or do some find it laughable that some want to 'save the whales'. If some like to declare 'environmentalism a religion' do they mean environmentalism is a form of insanity or homicidal mania? What can it mean when Michael Crichton declared 'environmentalism has caused some 30 millions death thus far'? Does this mean environmentalism is as dangerous as Communism? Environmentalism isn't 'cutesy' wrong but extremely dangerously wrong? "You may feel bad that whales are being hunted but any attempt at impeding whalers is initiation of aggression and will be treated as such so tough luck buddy." By the same alternative 'save the rainforests' is wrong as it's not anyone's to save. Alternatively, even if dangerous global warming (or cooling) turns out to be true (and we know that it isn't) there's no Libertarian method for change as it's occurring in the 'commons' anyway. "It's not 'your' atmosphere hence you have no right to control our emissions."
Published: April 27, 2009 8:33 AM
Gil
But poptech & friends - let's take a simple analogy - saving the whales. Under libertarian theologythinking whales cannot be private property as they cannot be homesteaded. I believe homesteading means people having to do something pro-active to earn the right to unowned resources before they can declare "mine". But, even today, there's no way to homestead whales. Whale-watching is obvious and tagging doesn't do anything either. On the other hand, whalers can homestead the whale in the sense they convert the whale to various items (oil and meat) therefore they have property rights in those products. A non-Libertarian alternative is a treaty between governments to stop their citizens to engage in whaling.
Does this mean it's wrong to even consider 'saving' the whales? Or do some find it laughable that some want to 'save the whales'. If some like to declare 'environmentalism a religion' do they mean environmentalism is a form of insanity or homicidal mania? What can it mean when Michael Crichton declared 'environmentalism has caused some 30 millions death thus far'? Does this mean environmentalism is as dangerous as Communism? Environmentalism isn't 'cutesy' wrong but extremely dangerously wrong? "You may feel bad that whales are being hunted but any attempt at impeding whalers is initiation of aggression and will be treated as such so tough luck buddy." By the same alternative 'save the rainforests' is wrong as it's not anyone's to save. Alternatively, even if dangerous global warming (or cooling) turns out to be true (and we know that it isn't) there's no Libertarian method for change as it's occurring in the 'commons' anyway. "It's not 'your' atmosphere hence you have no right to control our emissions."
Published: April 27, 2009 8:36 AM
Poptech
Rothbard addressed the concerns of the environment using free market solutions.
Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution (PDF) (Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Economics)
As for rainforests...
No Convincing Evidence For Decline In Tropical Forests (University of Leeds, UK)
Published: April 27, 2009 11:04 AM
filc
Tax the animals! They breath too! Come on team we're all in this together! The commune!
Published: April 27, 2009 1:20 PM
(8?»
I don't get it. Other than being an incoherent statist, just what is Reisman's problem here?
Talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
From his book, Capitalism:
Too bad he doesn't understand the principle of violence known as government. Then he might not waste his time thinking about an abstraction "acting intelligently." Also, does human action not really exist outside of "countries" and "citizens?" Can he really be so blind as to equate the problems (government action) as solutions? Would he believe his ideas to be realistic if the word mafia were substituted for government?
As soon as I came across that paragraph, my nice new book was tossed into the corner. IMO, Reisman is no different than Greenspan. They seem to understand one thing, yet act completely opposite. Quite simply, like Greenspan, I don't trust his motives. There is nothing about capitalism that requires a gun to be put to my head. Yet to Reisman, it is a necessity.
Too bad Reisman broke with Rothbard instead of Rand. He might've actually learned something of value, and I might have had a book worth reading.
Instead, we get the cult of Objectivism dressed up as laissez-faire.
REISMAN'S REPLY: I'm curious to learn your opinion of Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand. Do you believe that they were statists? Like myself, they advocated a policy of laissez-faire. Do you think that laissez-faire capitalism is statism?
Do you recognize that government intervention into the peaceful pursuits of private individuals is arguably the leading problem of our time and that it is overwhelmingly based on mistaken ideas about economics and will not be stopped until people's ideas about economics change? I wrote my book in order to help bring about that change, so that people would understand what is wrong with government intervention and then put an end to it.
George Reisman
Published: April 27, 2009 6:09 PM