Originally posted by WajomaHmm . . . so I don't know that, but I do understand the economics behind regulation, cap and trade, and carbon taxation. I can also produce highly technical analysis on the issue.
Just as I thought, you don't know, or the difference is so embarassingly small (especially when offset against the effort, resources required to promote and police it i.e. more carbon) that you'd wear out your '0' key trying to relate it.
You also don't know the difference, and aren't even weakly informed on the mechanics of the various policies.
Wow, score one for Team Crazy then!
Originally posted by telerionNot 'emmissions', you slippery twisty...twisty thing.
1) Has some merit. When any specific carbon tax legislation or CandT legislation comes up for a vote, it should include an estimate of its effect on emissions. The rest of your point is total exaggeration.
2) Unless demand is perfectly inelastic with respect to price and no one is borrowing constrained, taxes do deter behavior (bad or otherwise). The remainder of your post makes no sense.
The difference it will make to tjhe climate.
For such a clever clogs posting links to multi page economics spiel you sure have trouble understanding direct, succinct posts.
Originally posted by WajomaDuh . . . I got your point. Even acknowledged it several posts ago. Like I said, I advocate these policies as efficient ways to reduce emissions. The assumption is that the reducing emissions by a large amount will have a positive effect on climate change. That's an assumption, and it could be wrong, but that is something to take up with scientists who specialize in the study of climate. Again, as I made clear, assuming that the goal is to reduce emissions, carbon taxes and cap and trade are good policies.
Not 'emmissions', you slippery twisty...twisty thing.
The difference it will make to tjhe [b]climate.
For such a clever clogs posting links to multi page economics spiel you sure have trouble understanding direct, succinct posts.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyWell that's a more reasonable way to ask a question. Your other post was ambiguous, slippery slope nonsense.
What "good" has cap and tax had on Europe and the world?
Seems like the EU's big mistake came in the way rights to pollute were initially distributed. Politicians as usual took a sound economic idea and completely screwed it up by giving the permits away (and creating too many by the way). Cap and trade doesn't work if you set the cap so high that trade becomes unnecessary.
If you are really concerned about the effect of cap and trade on the poor, then you should look at that CBO link I offered up. A textbook way to do the initial permits is to auction them off (rather than just give them away to your favorite industries), and then use a portion of the proceeds to help offset the cost increases for low income households.
Originally posted by telerionA carbon tax is not going to help consumers realize anything but that they are getting taxed more. They will remain clueless to the amount just as they have been. That is because the math eludes them. People tend to think short term and not long term.
Originally posted by Metal Brain
[b]Electrical devices may increase in price but the savings in electricity costs will more than make up for it. The technology already exists and is affordable, but there is little incentive for manufacturers to make more efficient products when people look at the price and not the Energy Star label. If people crun ...[text shortened]... ink!
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9134/04-24-Cap_Trade_Testimony.1.1.shtml
Lower price leads to more consumption. Sure, that is a factor. It does not always lead to more miles though. I was not even talking about automobile fuel efficiency so much. I was talking about electricity because coal is the primary fuel for generating electricity. Coal is carbon heavy. Natural gas is light on carbon. A carbon tax would inhibit competition from electric cars to compete with petroleum powered cars as well. The oil companies benefit. Think about it.
Originally posted by Metal Brain
A carbon tax is not going to help consumers realize anything but that they are getting taxed more.
So consumers do not reduce consumption as price rises? Ok . . .
Lower price leads to more consumption.
But consumers do increase consumption as price falls? See the contradition?
If you re-read our little exchange you will see that I first pointed out that making electrical devices more efficient may not reduce (NOTE: I said "may not" not "does not" ) the amount of coal used because people will increase their consumption in response to the reduced marginal cost. Whether the increase in consumption is enough to increase coal usage depends upon the price elasticity of demand for electricity and the amount of coal used to produce electricity. In short, my point was that the effect of your policy proposal on coal usage is ambiguous.
Now by your own admission, you did not understand this point, so I used cars and gasoline as an example of the same principle. This was made abundantly clear in the post. Now you seem to understand the concept (at least a little better than before) so the example has served its purpose.
A carbon tax would inhibit competition from electric cars to compete with petroleum powered cars as well. The oil companies benefit. Think about it.
The oil companies cannot benefit from the policy unless consumers increase fuel consumption in response to a carbon tax. Unless we're talking potatoes in Ireland in the 1840's, that's silly. I see your point that if a carbon tax increases the price of electricity, then this would discourage electric car production. However, you have been arguing that the principle way to reduce emissions is by reducing the use of coal via reducing electricity consumption. So why would you be worried about fewer electrical cars? Is it because electricity consumption is actually a secondary concern relative to petroleum usage?
Originally posted by telerionSo you are saying people will use more electricity because their electric bill is lower?
Originally posted by Metal Brain
[b]A carbon tax is not going to help consumers realize anything but that they are getting taxed more.
So consumers do not reduce consumption as price rises? Ok . . .
Lower price leads to more consumption.
But consumers do increase consumption as price falls? See the contradition?
If you re- ...[text shortened]... ause electricity consumption is actually a secondary concern relative to petroleum usage?[/b]
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe tendency will be for people to use more; lower prices will increase their de facto wealth. Maybe they will use more air conditioning to be more comfortable, for example. But they may also spend some of that increased wealth elsewhere: maybe they’ll eat an extra meal out. There are substitution effects and income effects.
So you are saying people will use more electricity because their electric bill is lower?
Subsitution effect: keep the house cooler and eat more meals comfortably at home (eating out less: substituting in favor of the relatively less expensive good).
Income effect: keep household electrical use the same, and eat out more with the freed-up money.
There is likely to be some combination.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt is true to an extent, but most people I know use the electricity they need and worry about the electric bill later.
Of course...
If their electrical appliances become more efficient and the electric bill is lowered I doubt people will use more electricity just because they are using less than they were.
They are still using what they need, so why find ways to use more than they typically do?
Originally posted by vistesdSo perhaps this crappy economy is good for reducing carbon emissions.
The tendency will be for people to use more; lower prices will increase their de facto wealth. Maybe they will use more air conditioning to be more comfortable, for example. But they may also spend some of that increased wealth elsewhere: maybe they’ll eat an extra meal out. There are substitution effects and income effects.
Subsitution effec ...[text shortened]... e the same, and eat out more with the freed-up money.
There is likely to be some combination.
Lets hope the economy never recovers. LOL!
Originally posted by sh76There's an estimated 100 Trillion dollars of oil still in the ground that hasn't been pumped out yet.
In the US, there's a gas guzzler tax, but the cap and trade bill seems to be on ice for the moment.
Obviously, Australia in a vacuum wouldn't matter much, but precedents are important so that other countries can follow suit.
Carbon taxes can work. Economic incentives always have the potential to work. Personally, I'd rather see more of an emphasis on enco ...[text shortened]... ative sources of energy is the only viable long term solution to the CO2 emissions problem.
There is no way alternative energies will ever be able allowed to compete until the multi-nationals have sucked that money out of the ground.