Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote: Original post by Diodor
So you have tiny fields where it's hard to disprove any result

Example of a result that's hard to disprove?

Quote: manned by people self selected to care about the environment and to want to save the planet

Either the science is good or it's bad. Attack the science, if you can. Speculating about the biases of the scientists is a distraction from the science.

And if you can't access the science, should you ignore climate change as an issue during elections? If that's what you advocate, that would be a compromise I could sign on to.

If it's not unreasonable to vote green because a million scientists can't all be wrong (which it isn't IMHO), it's not unreasonable to point out that there are a few dozen scientists doing temperature reconstruction and they peer review each other's work, and if they're wrong and temperatures today are not unprecedented the whole crisis goes away right there: nothing will happen that's worth making a disaster movie about.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

That's funny because any solution that could begin to affect the man made component of climate change translates to energy poverty, which is a very exact synonym of poverty which in turn is an antonym to every single one of the listed points in that cartoon, maybe excepting the "green jobs" one.

I lie, it is not impossible to give up on burning coal, there is one example of a first world country that has achieved that.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Your obligatory (and silly) "gunplay" rhetoric aside, even when put that way, to "pass a law" entails ALL of the research/analysis/debate that I already mentioned.

Of course it's obligatory, it's meaningful(and likely predictable and a bit boorish but it bares saying every time lest you forget your own penchant for tyranny).Your one size fits all is ever thus. The scope of your imagination is to pass a law. Who cares what the inputs are? We know what the output is going to be. No matter how sophisticated you feel the process is, we both know your idea for the solution. Pass a law.

Quote:
Your "find a way" is likely more accurately written as "wait indefinitely for some brilliant capitalist to find a way"*.... which we all are smart enough to recognize as really boiling down to "do nothing, sit and wait."

Not at all. Rothbard outlines an approach. Hoppe has done a lot of work on it as well. So has Kinsella, and Caplan. The approach is to essentially monetize pollution in the justice system and to make what government has made an externality back into a cost of production. This makes clean energy more competitive with coal and green energy more attractive in the marketplace. It also provides market incentives to develop cleaner technology.

I'd recommend educating yourself on the subject and then pretending you were we'll read on it when you dismiss it out of hand without addressing the context, that seems to make you happy.

Quote:
Those who know a bit about an-cap types also recognize that the "sit and wait" approach is the suggestion they make regardless of the problem, pretty much the definition of "one size fits all." As contrasted to an approach whose solutions must be tailored to the specific issue at hand.

Your appeal to the peanut gallery and attempt to label me are a common sense confession you're uncomfortable debating the details.

"Those who know a bit about appeals to the peanut gallery, and attempting to label the person speaking instead of addressing his points reasonably will recognize this as compensating for the weakness of your argument."

Quote:
* a profit-driven approach to air pollution is an especially farcical idea since anarcho-capitalists require strong property rights and it's almost certain that no one in our modern age can enforce private claims of ownership on the air/atmosphere effectively.

This statement is directly refuted in the link above as well as the huge amount of work on the issue by the authors I listed above. Thus I'd claim your mastery of the subject to be farcical, and in need of revision.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
Your obligatory (and silly) "gunplay" rhetoric aside, even when put that way, to "pass a law" entails ALL of the research/analysis/debate that I already mentioned.

Of course it's obligatory, it's meaningful(and likely predictable and a bit boorish but it bares saying every time lest you forget your own penchant for tyranny).

The silly gunplay rhetoric is completely meaningless. Hell, you quote an essay below in which Rothbard approves of "plugging people." You may indulge your blind spot for it, but anarchocapitalists embrace gunplay just as any other society. That libertarians engage in some special pleading for their justifications, gives them absolutely ZERO moral highground on the issue.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Your one size fits all is ever thus. The scope of your imagination is to pass a law. Who cares what the inputs are? We know what the output is going to be. No matter how sophisticated you feel the process is, we both know your idea for the solution. Pass a law.

And passing a law requires a tailored approach to a specific problem ... quite unlike "wait until the markets handle it."

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Your "find a way" is likely more accurately written as "wait indefinitely for some brilliant capitalist to find a way"*.... which we all are smart enough to recognize as really boiling down to "do nothing, sit and wait."

Not at all. Rothbard outlines an approach. Hoppe has done a lot of work on it as well. So has Kinsella, and Caplan. The approach is to essentially monetize pollution in the justice system and to make what government has made an externality back into a cost of production. This makes clean energy more competitive with coal and green energy more attractive in the marketplace. It also provides market incentives to develop cleaner technology.

I'd LOVE to hear how any of these ideas would actually be implemented within a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist society which has already been established but then finds itself suffering this problem. Something tells me you'd have another artful dodge at the end of this line of discussion. We'll see....

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
I'd recommend educating yourself on the subject and then pretending you were we'll read on it when you dismiss it out of hand without addressing the context, that seems to make you happy.

You pretend to know me, and it's as amusing as your indoctrination by capitalists whose rhetoric has an emptiness made painfully evident every year by their continued failure to successfully put together even a small-scale vision of their supposed ideals.

How sad is it for Rothbard's fans that the philosophy driving North Korea has more of a real-world legacy in our modern times than the extremist libertarian "vision."

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 13, 2009 2:07:26 PM]

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
Those who know a bit about an-cap types also recognize that the "sit and wait" approach is the suggestion they make regardless of the problem, pretty much the definition of "one size fits all." As contrasted to an approach whose solutions must be tailored to the specific issue at hand.

Your appeal to the peanut gallery and attempt to label me are a common sense confession you're uncomfortable debating the details.

Last we delved into discussion, I'm fairly sure it was you who could not present a solution to the question I asked of anarcho-capitalist theory. Obviously, I have no problem delving into details. In fact, I relish it.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
"Those who know a bit about appeals to the peanut gallery, and attempting to label the person speaking instead of addressing his points reasonably will recognize this as compensating for the weakness of your argument."

I guess this would be relevant, had you actually made any points. Now that you have, let's see what you've given us.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote:
* a profit-driven approach to air pollution is an especially farcical idea since anarcho-capitalists require strong property rights and it's almost certain that no one in our modern age can enforce private claims of ownership on the air/atmosphere effectively.

This statement is directly refuted in the link above as well as the huge amount of work on the issue by the authors I listed above. Thus I'd claim your mastery of the subject to be farcical, and in need of revision.

Rothbard devised a way to enforce claims on air? Oh this I've GOT to see.

I haven't even gotten to the glorious revelation of Rothbard's solution, and I've already run across flaws in his argument. I guess we'll see if they are relevant to whatever "solution" he might have here.


(I guess I shouldn't hold out much hope since you make it pretty clear these are just people who have only done "a lot of work on it.")

Anyways, at least Rothbard did manage to lay out a pretty clear case for why anarcho-capitalism continues to encounter serious difficulty in addressing the problem of air pollution.

Quote: This is the case, provided that: (a) the polluter has not previously
established a homestead easement; (b) while visible pollutants or
noxious odors are per se aggression, in the case of invisible and
insensible pollutants the plaintiff must prove actual harm; (c) the
burden of proof of such aggression rests upon the plaintiff; (d) the
plaintiff must prove strict causality from the actions of the defendant
to the victimization of the plaintiff; (e) the plaintiff must prove
such causality and aggression beyond a reasonable doubt; and
(f) there is no vicarious liability, but only liability for those who actually commit the deed.

With these principles in mind, let us consider the current state of
air pollution law. Even the current shift from negligence and
“reasonable” actions to strict liability has by no means satisfied the
chronic special pleaders for environmental plaintiffs. As Paul
Downing says, “Currently, a party who has been damaged by air
pollution must prove in court that emitter A damaged him. He must
establish that he was damaged and emitter A did it, and not emitter B.
This is almost always an impossible task.” If true, then we must
assent uncomplainingly. After all, proof of causality is a basic
principle of civilized law, let alone of libertarian legal theory.

The prevalence of multiple sources of pollution emissions is a
problem. How are we to blame emitter A if there are other emitters or
if there are natural sources of emission? Whatever the answer, it must
not come at the expense of throwing out proper standards of proof,
and conferring unjust special privileges on plaintiffs and special
burdens on defendants.
(pp157 - 158)



While the situation for plaintiffs against auto emissions might
seem hopeless under libertarian law, there is a partial way out. In a
libertarian society, the roads would be privately owned.
(pg 161 -- Note here that Rothbard tells us how the
"partial" solution is something that has no known applicability to air.)



....because the injuries are multiple and separate, it is then up to
the plaintiffs to show a rational and provable basis for apportioning
the damage among the various defendants and causative factors. If
this rule is properly and strictly adhered to, and proof is beyond a
reasonable doubt, the plaintiffs in air pollution cases generally will
be able to accomplish very little. (pg 165)

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 13, 2009 8:12:18 PM]

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Not at all. Rothbard outlines an approach. Hoppe has done a lot of work on it as well. So has Kinsella, and Caplan. The approach is to essentially monetize pollution in the justice system and to make what government has made an externality back into a cost of production. This makes clean energy more competitive with coal and green energy more attractive in the marketplace. It also provides market incentives to develop cleaner technology.

Isn't that basically cap and trade?

Quote: Original post by Kaze

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Not at all. Rothbard outlines an approach. Hoppe has done a lot of work on it as well. So has Kinsella, and Caplan. The approach is to essentially monetize pollution in the justice system and to make what government has made an externality back into a cost of production. This makes clean energy more competitive with coal and green energy more attractive in the marketplace. It also provides market incentives to develop cleaner technology.

Isn't that basically cap and trade?

Cap and trade certainly is one way of creating incentives, but I'd be awfully surprised if Rothbard would have suggested a "(legislated) cap."

Quote: Original post by caffiene
water vapour is a significant positive feedback mechanism, so it will actually amplify the "tiny change" that the CO2 makes. "Natural" water vapour is created as a direct consequence of even a tiny temperature rise due to CO2, which in turn creates more "natural" water vapour, and so forth.

This is something that worries me a bit about fuel cells. A lot of hope seems to be put into fuel cells as being environmentally friendly since the only exhaust is water vapor. Less CO2 in the atmosphere, so there's less of that greenhouse gas and less acidic rain, but more H2O in the atmosphere, so there's more of that (more potent) greenhouse gas, and perhaps more humidity (= more air conditioning?) and more rain. Of course, it could lessen our oil dependence and there's plenty of other unpleasant stuff coming out of our cars so it could still be an overall win.

Quote: Original post by Way Walker

Quote: Original post by caffiene
water vapour is a significant positive feedback mechanism, so it will actually amplify the "tiny change" that the CO2 makes. "Natural" water vapour is created as a direct consequence of even a tiny temperature rise due to CO2, which in turn creates more "natural" water vapour, and so forth.

This is something that worries me a bit about fuel cells. A lot of hope seems to be put into fuel cells as being environmentally friendly since the only exhaust is water vapor. Less CO2 in the atmosphere, so there's less of that greenhouse gas and less acidic rain, but more H2O in the atmosphere, so there's more of that (more potent) greenhouse gas, and perhaps more humidity (= more air conditioning?) and more rain. Of course, it could lessen our oil dependence and there's plenty of other unpleasant stuff coming out of our cars so it could still be an overall win.

The hydrogen would be collected from the environment so its not actually producing anything. The disadvantage of course is that since you need to manufacture fuel its not a energy source but a way to make other energy sources mobile, ex. fuel cell cars are more practical than wind or nuclear cars.

Quote: Original post by Kaze
The hydrogen would be collected from the environment so its not actually producing anything. The disadvantage of course is that since you need to manufacture fuel its not a energy source but a way to make other energy sources mobile, ex. fuel cell cars are more practical than wind or nuclear cars.

If the hydrogen is collected from water vapor then there would be no net change in the water vapor in the air globally, we'd just be concentrating it in urban centers. If it's collected from liquid water, then we're working at increasing the total amount of water vapor. If it's collected from methane, then we're creating more water.

I don't really consider it being an energy vector instead of an energy source to be a disadvantage. It seems no worse than using rechargeable batteries to power a laptop, camera, or even a car.