``not be meeting Kyoto's targets.``
Yeah, but the ink on the Kyoto Accords has dried and he has committed Oz land to it.
Yeah, but the ink on the Kyoto Accords has dried and he has committed Oz land to it.
The Poor are the victims of Kyoto etal.
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
The point I was trying to illustrate is, you can make just about anything look good economically if you don't include all the data, and you should take such assurances of economic booms with a grain of salt.
Recent report I heard, the top 1% of income earners in the US take in 14% of all earned income, and pay 34% of all income tax.
Seems they're already doing more than their share.
Right, I'm aware of the grain of salt analogy. That should go without saying. Do you actually think that more jobs is a bad thing? Governments love to brag about job creation, but by and large, that's a symptom of a good market. Governments can actually create jobs here, because legislating efficiency gains, and promoting efficiency as an equal par to profit creates incentive for more jobs, it's a new market.
Green collar jobs are something North America's economy would excel at. High tech research and implementation is the bread basket of North American industry. Why not put that to use to solve a problem, another feather in the North American cap?
Hot air and human healthDecember 17, 2007
By Philip Stevens
It seems that polar bears and penguins are not the only victims of global warming. As climate talks wrap up in Bali, we heard from the World Health Organization that rising temperatures are also making humans less healthy as malaria spreads northward and heatwaves become more common.
The WHO is using such claims to justify stinging cuts in carbon emissions in order to stabilize global temperatures. But if the aim is actually to improve health - particularly in poor countries - they would be hard pushed to get it more wrong.
The relationship between climate and disease is less marked than is often claimed. On Monday, Margaret Chan, the head of WHO stated that rising temperatures could lead to the re-emergence of malaria in the U.S. But this fails to take into account the vast range of human and ecological factors that determine the incidence of this disease.
According to Professor Paul Reiter, an expert on vector-borne diseases and former contributor to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "there is no evidence that climate has played any role in the burgeoning tragedy of this disease." Reiter points out that malaria was endemic throughout northern Europe until the second half of the 19th century, when changes in agricultural practices, improved drainage and better human dwellings led to a spontaneous decline of the disease, as mosquitoes had fewer opportunities to bite people - even while records show temperatures rose in this period.
Effective control policies involving the use of pesticides like DDT saw the near-eradication of malaria in tropical countries such as Sri Lanka but, as health authorities have taken their eye off the ball, it has re-emerged. Either way, it is unclear how cutting carbon emissions in the hope of stabilizing temperatures would have any impact on the potential range of the disease. Climate alarmists, including the WHO, have also claimed that global warming will lead to more deaths from heatwaves but perspective is also needed here. Professor Bill Keatinge, an expert on the effects of temperature on human physiology, has shown that deaths do increase in the first few days of a heatwave, but most of these are very sick people who were likely to die shortly anyway. Mortality actually decreases during the later stages of heatwave. Moreover, humans have developed a range of ways coping with high temperatures, from siestas to air conditioning. In fact, cold weather is far more harmful to human health than hot weather, because of the increased risk of respiratory infections, heart attacks and strokes. A country like Britain has only 1,000 heat-related deaths every year, compared to 40,000 cold-related. So it may be that the benefits of rising global temperatures will far outweigh the costs.
Complete article: http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/bulletins.php?bulletin_id=1197902325
By Philip Stevens
The WHO is using such claims to justify stinging cuts in carbon emissions in order to stabilize global temperatures. But if the aim is actually to improve health - particularly in poor countries - they would be hard pushed to get it more wrong.
The relationship between climate and disease is less marked than is often claimed. On Monday, Margaret Chan, the head of WHO stated that rising temperatures could lead to the re-emergence of malaria in the U.S. But this fails to take into account the vast range of human and ecological factors that determine the incidence of this disease.
According to Professor Paul Reiter, an expert on vector-borne diseases and former contributor to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "there is no evidence that climate has played any role in the burgeoning tragedy of this disease." Reiter points out that malaria was endemic throughout northern Europe until the second half of the 19th century, when changes in agricultural practices, improved drainage and better human dwellings led to a spontaneous decline of the disease, as mosquitoes had fewer opportunities to bite people - even while records show temperatures rose in this period.
Effective control policies involving the use of pesticides like DDT saw the near-eradication of malaria in tropical countries such as Sri Lanka but, as health authorities have taken their eye off the ball, it has re-emerged. Either way, it is unclear how cutting carbon emissions in the hope of stabilizing temperatures would have any impact on the potential range of the disease. Climate alarmists, including the WHO, have also claimed that global warming will lead to more deaths from heatwaves but perspective is also needed here. Professor Bill Keatinge, an expert on the effects of temperature on human physiology, has shown that deaths do increase in the first few days of a heatwave, but most of these are very sick people who were likely to die shortly anyway. Mortality actually decreases during the later stages of heatwave. Moreover, humans have developed a range of ways coping with high temperatures, from siestas to air conditioning. In fact, cold weather is far more harmful to human health than hot weather, because of the increased risk of respiratory infections, heart attacks and strokes. A country like Britain has only 1,000 heat-related deaths every year, compared to 40,000 cold-related. So it may be that the benefits of rising global temperatures will far outweigh the costs.
Complete article: http://www.fightingdiseases.org/main/bulletins.php?bulletin_id=1197902325
A given government's unwillingness to create progressive legislation to accomplish a certain objective should not be taken as evidence that the objective will burden the poor.
In North America, many people enjoy the perverse universal cost of electricity: one rate for all customers. In Europe, energy is contracted. If your energy demands are low, you receive a low rate on your electrical bill. If your demands are high, you pay a heavy price for each kilowatt hour.
Since many advocates of progressive climate policy favor various forms of carbon tax, it would be necessary to implement a system much like the one which exists in Europe. So as opposed to burdening the poor, implementing Kyoto could, all things being equal, actually lower the cost of electricity for the poor. The reality of a progressive cost schedule would of course depend on the nation, its average cost of production, the dispersion of the demand distribution, and other regional factors.
Lack of imagination is not a proof of concept. An unwillingness to implement policy is not the same as impossibility.
In North America, many people enjoy the perverse universal cost of electricity: one rate for all customers. In Europe, energy is contracted. If your energy demands are low, you receive a low rate on your electrical bill. If your demands are high, you pay a heavy price for each kilowatt hour.
Since many advocates of progressive climate policy favor various forms of carbon tax, it would be necessary to implement a system much like the one which exists in Europe. So as opposed to burdening the poor, implementing Kyoto could, all things being equal, actually lower the cost of electricity for the poor. The reality of a progressive cost schedule would of course depend on the nation, its average cost of production, the dispersion of the demand distribution, and other regional factors.
Lack of imagination is not a proof of concept. An unwillingness to implement policy is not the same as impossibility.
By and large I agree with you here. "Green" technology is a booming and growing segment of the north American economy, and many of the technological developments will be great for reducing pollution and increasing efficiency. The problem is getting the government involved. Governments have a horrible track record when it comes to investing in and promoting industry. Generally they subsidize the failing industries at the expense of the successful ones and put a lot of extra cost on the taxpayer and consumer. Better to just let the market respond to demand.
And when talking about real cases, better to be honest, as in the case of Norway, where the increase in the economy and jobs is almost all in the oil and gas (CO2 producing) sector. Just the opposite of what was claimed.
Well there's some more common ground, government investment. A banner day Extra! I also agree government should not be picking and choosing technologies to support. Increased ethanol, bad news. Targeting clean energy incentives, like clean coal, bad news. I'd be perfectly happy if renewables were on an equal footing with the tried methods of producing energy.
What industry wants is clear messages, and a framework to work under. The market can do amazing things when given space to maneuver. That's what the recent call from 50 multinational corporations was all about. Give them some idea of what they can do, and watch the markets do their thing.
What is obvious though, is that leaving the market as it is is more confusing, and very little is getting done. As energy prices rise, so do the rates, and so do some dirty industries profits. It's almost the same problem with overfishing. Don't fish to the maximum sustainable yield, that's been shown to be false based on some assumptions. Fish to the maximum sustained profit. That's a different bag altogether. It puts efficiency ahead of short term interests, for the sake of long term interests. And that is where energy policy needs to move.
What industry wants is clear messages, and a framework to work under. The market can do amazing things when given space to maneuver. That's what the recent call from 50 multinational corporations was all about. Give them some idea of what they can do, and watch the markets do their thing.
What is obvious though, is that leaving the market as it is is more confusing, and very little is getting done. As energy prices rise, so do the rates, and so do some dirty industries profits. It's almost the same problem with overfishing. Don't fish to the maximum sustainable yield, that's been shown to be false based on some assumptions. Fish to the maximum sustained profit. That's a different bag altogether. It puts efficiency ahead of short term interests, for the sake of long term interests. And that is where energy policy needs to move.
Extrafire said:
That is a myth popularized by the corporate elitists. But there isn't a shred of truth in it.
Consider how corporations pay next to nothing in taxes or how their overseas incomes are tax free ever since Reagan closed down the OIO division of the IRS. You've been on this forum for a couple of years so you undoubtedly remember that I am a former IRS agent and know all the insides of the tax industry. I can list all the tax free perks and many instances of corporate welfare that is enjoyed exclusively by the wealthy elites. But that is a subject discussed previously so I won't bother to repeat myself.
But what is a victim really? Do we even know what that word means? Or is it just some bullsh*t word that we bureaucrats made up to satisfy our own sense of self-importance? :roll:
Actually it was a recent survey, although I'm not sure of the exact numbers. I also used to have the exact numbers from Canada, and they were, if memory serves, somewhat similar, but they referred to "all" taxes rather than just income tax. Remember, there are a lot of consumption taxes, both hidden and open. The Canadian figures came from Statistics Canada.
I don't participate in much of this forum so I have no idea what you or most anyone else here does or didn't do.
Why should a corporation pay taxes to the overseas government where the income was earned, and then again domestically?
Couple of points I'd like to make. Corporations pay taxes on profit (I used to own one so I know) and if they're public companies, the shareholders also pay taxes on dividends, so they're taxed twice. Is it less than individual tax rate? Yes. But then corporations drive the economy. Taxing them more has the perverse effect of stifling business expansion and therefore job growth and wage increase as well, which means less net taxes to the government to provide the services that the populace demands. I'm no cheerleader for some of those manipulators who manage to give themselves humongous multi-million $ salaries and bonuses at the expense of their shareholders through proxy voting, nor am I a fan of those who buy, merge, split off, sell companies or portions thereof to reap a windfall profit without actually producing a good or service, but I would rather have them than a managed economy, something we all know has proved disastrous in the past.
Funny how any weather whatsoever, is "proof" of Global Warming:
Hotter=GW
Colder=GW
Drier=GW
Wetter=GW
Days of the week ending in "Y"=GW
The GW thingie has striking resemblance to Carl Sagan's fire breathing dragon that he had in his garage...
Hotter=GW
Colder=GW
Drier=GW
Wetter=GW
Days of the week ending in "Y"=GW
The GW thingie has striking resemblance to Carl Sagan's fire breathing dragon that he had in his garage...
When the new lefty gov't of Oz realized how much going green would raise electricity rates (and no matter how you try to disperse the cost, it will always hit the poor hardest) they promptly announced that they weren't about to implement Kyoto, even though they'd just signed on. See above post by Toro. And Europe is an example? Europe which scolds us and shakes it's fingers at us and boos us and cries "shame"? That Europe? The Europe where carbon taxes have resulted in economic downturn? The Europe that isn't going to meet it's own Kyoto targets is a good example? What have you been smoking?
Shhh...the natives don't like real world examples of Kyoto not working!!!! At least they're doing something...(someday that square peg will go in the round hole)
Alarmists wrong on global warming Reuters
A man scoops water into a barrel on the outskirts of Beijing. China’s water supplies are straining. However, experts say benefits of rising global temperatures will far outweigh the costs.
December 20, 2007: It seems that polar bears and penguins are not the only victims of global warming. After climate talks wrapped up in Bali, we heard from the World Health Organisation that rising temperatures are also making humans less healthy as malaria spreads northwards and heat waves become more common.
The relationship between climate and disease is less marked than is often claimed. Margaret Chan, the head of WHO, on Monday stated that rising temperatures could lead to the re-emergence of malaria in the USA. But this fails to take into account the vast range of human and ecological factors that determine the incidence of this disease.
According to Paul Reiter, an expert on vector-borne diseases, “there is no evidence that climate has played any role in the burgeoning tragedy of this disease.”
Prof Reiter points out that malaria was endemic throughout northern Europe until the second half of the 19th century, when changes in agricultural practices, improved drainage and better human dwellings led to a spontaneous decline of the disease as mosquitoes had fewer opportunities to bite people — even while records show temperatures rose in this period.
Effective control policies involving the use of pesticides like DDT saw the near eradication of malaria in tropical countries such as Sri Lanka but, as health authorities have taken their eye off the ball, it has re-emerged.
Either way, it is unclear how cutting carbon emissions in the hope of stabilising temperatures would have any impact on the potential range of the disease.
Climate alarmists, including the WHO, have also claimed that global warming will lead to more deaths from heat waves, but perspective is also needed here.
Bill Keatinge, an expert on the effects of temperature on human physiology, has shown that deaths do increase in the first few days of a heat wave, but most of these are very sick people who were likely to die shortly anyway.
Mortality actually decreases during the later stages of heat wave. Moreover, humans have developed ways of coping with high temperatures, from siestas to air conditioning.
In fact, cold weather is far more harmful to human health than hot weather, because of the increased risk of respiratory infections, heart attacks and strokes.
A country like Britain has only 1,000 heat-related deaths every year, compared to 40,000 cold-related. So it may be that the benefits of rising global temperatures will far outweigh the costs.
Moreover, the cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions would have drastic implications for human health. According to calculations by UK consultancy Lombard Street Research, a new treaty that would stabilise the climate at today’s temperatures would cost a total of $20 trillion — or 45 per cent of the world’s current annual economic output.
Much of the disease burden in developing countries is a direct result of poverty, not climate change. Diarrhoea, chest infections caused by burning wood and dung indoors and malnutrition are the biggest killers of children. European countries eliminated malaria as a by-product of prosperity.
People could afford windows in houses, separate barns for cattle, and farmers adopted practices such as tillage and field drainage which deprived the mosquito of feeding opportunities. It is no coincidence that malaria is currently confined to the poorest parts of the world, because these areas are the least able to afford such improvements.
Mandatory caps on carbon emissions would be a betrayal of the sick in the world’s poorest regions, because they would undermine the one mechanism — economic growth — which allows people to move beyond the primitive living conditions that encourage the spread of such diseases. Some NGOs claim this circle can be squared by increasing aid. But this is not a viable solution.
If WHO is serious about improving the health of the poor, it should stop trying to push emissions caps and focus on the real barriers to good health, such as taxes on medicines.
Stevens is director of policy at International Policy Network.
A man scoops water into a barrel on the outskirts of Beijing. China’s water supplies are straining. However, experts say benefits of rising global temperatures will far outweigh the costs.
December 20, 2007: It seems that polar bears and penguins are not the only victims of global warming. After climate talks wrapped up in Bali, we heard from the World Health Organisation that rising temperatures are also making humans less healthy as malaria spreads northwards and heat waves become more common.
The relationship between climate and disease is less marked than is often claimed. Margaret Chan, the head of WHO, on Monday stated that rising temperatures could lead to the re-emergence of malaria in the USA. But this fails to take into account the vast range of human and ecological factors that determine the incidence of this disease.
According to Paul Reiter, an expert on vector-borne diseases, “there is no evidence that climate has played any role in the burgeoning tragedy of this disease.”
Prof Reiter points out that malaria was endemic throughout northern Europe until the second half of the 19th century, when changes in agricultural practices, improved drainage and better human dwellings led to a spontaneous decline of the disease as mosquitoes had fewer opportunities to bite people — even while records show temperatures rose in this period.
Effective control policies involving the use of pesticides like DDT saw the near eradication of malaria in tropical countries such as Sri Lanka but, as health authorities have taken their eye off the ball, it has re-emerged.
Either way, it is unclear how cutting carbon emissions in the hope of stabilising temperatures would have any impact on the potential range of the disease.
Climate alarmists, including the WHO, have also claimed that global warming will lead to more deaths from heat waves, but perspective is also needed here.
Bill Keatinge, an expert on the effects of temperature on human physiology, has shown that deaths do increase in the first few days of a heat wave, but most of these are very sick people who were likely to die shortly anyway.
Mortality actually decreases during the later stages of heat wave. Moreover, humans have developed ways of coping with high temperatures, from siestas to air conditioning.
In fact, cold weather is far more harmful to human health than hot weather, because of the increased risk of respiratory infections, heart attacks and strokes.
A country like Britain has only 1,000 heat-related deaths every year, compared to 40,000 cold-related. So it may be that the benefits of rising global temperatures will far outweigh the costs.
Moreover, the cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions would have drastic implications for human health. According to calculations by UK consultancy Lombard Street Research, a new treaty that would stabilise the climate at today’s temperatures would cost a total of $20 trillion — or 45 per cent of the world’s current annual economic output.
Much of the disease burden in developing countries is a direct result of poverty, not climate change. Diarrhoea, chest infections caused by burning wood and dung indoors and malnutrition are the biggest killers of children. European countries eliminated malaria as a by-product of prosperity.
People could afford windows in houses, separate barns for cattle, and farmers adopted practices such as tillage and field drainage which deprived the mosquito of feeding opportunities. It is no coincidence that malaria is currently confined to the poorest parts of the world, because these areas are the least able to afford such improvements.
Mandatory caps on carbon emissions would be a betrayal of the sick in the world’s poorest regions, because they would undermine the one mechanism — economic growth — which allows people to move beyond the primitive living conditions that encourage the spread of such diseases. Some NGOs claim this circle can be squared by increasing aid. But this is not a viable solution.
If WHO is serious about improving the health of the poor, it should stop trying to push emissions caps and focus on the real barriers to good health, such as taxes on medicines.
Stevens is director of policy at International Policy Network.
Yes, Europe is an example of an economy with a progressive energy cost schedule, the irrelevancies you quote notwithstanding. The economy here is faring the subprime crisis much better than many others, so I have no idea what economic downturn you are talking about. Try to stay on subject with actual examples as opposed to baseless assertions, I find your attitude exceptionally ignorant and disrespectful. Especially disrespectful given my history as a recovered drug addict.
Given any demand distribution I can always create a new price schedule which will cost more money in total but save the poor money. Give me the poverty line and watch me set y = mx + b, so that for x small y is is smaller than current yet the integrated price is high. It is trivial when the previous cost schedule is constant, say k0. Your inability to see this reality in no way changes that fact. So here is some math for you.
Total energy cost = int(k0*f(x),x=0..x_max)=k0*f_average
where f(x) is the demand distribution ( f = number of people demanding x units), and f_average is the average demand
New total energy cost = int ((m*x+b)*f(x),x=0..x_max) = m*x_max^2*f(x') + b*f_average
for some x' in [0,x_max] by the mean value theorem.
Now we want m*x_pov+b < k0, so m*(x_pov+1)+b = k0 achieves this and m=(k0-b)/(x_pov+1)
So, new cost = (k0-b)/(x_pov+1)*x_max^2*f(x') + b*f_average > (k0-b)*x_max*f(x') +b*f_average = k0*x_max*f(x') + b*(f_average - f(x')*x_max)
We still have complete freedom to choose the price schedule and we are merely showing the existence of a single policy, so let b=0.
Then new cost > k0*x_max*f(x')
Since demand for electricity (in units of kilowatt hours) is always greater than the number of people demanding it (a person needs more than 1 kilowatt hour) , x_max > f_average in particular and multiplying by f(x') > 1 implies x_max*f(x') > f_average.
Thus we have shown that with m chosen as above and b equal to zero, the new price schedule will always satisfy
Total cost > k0*f_average = old cost.
The assumption being that demand for electricity is not heterogeneous to the cost of that electricity, which is false for electricity used to power luxuries but true for electricity used for necessities, which is all we care about in a welfare analysis in any case. My statement is nothing more than the fact that given a linear functional representing total cost of necessary electricity for price schedule, C[p], which maps L2 functions to real numbers and the domain of C_pov being less than C, and a previous cost schedule (L2 function) p, I can find a new function, p_new so that p_new < p for x < x_pov and C[p_new]>C[p]. The proof is trivial in the mathematical sense for x<x_pov, and a constant price outside of the domain of [0,x_pov] can be used with the mean value theorem to prove the second inequality.
This is nothing new. Anybody who knows what a "progressive" cost schedule actually is will understand the basic idea without needing to see such math. Give me the freedom to institute green energy policy and set the price of energy and I will save the poor money and simultaneously increase the cost. The fact that someone is ignorant of this reality doesn't make it less real and the fact that someone may be opposed to this reality does not make it impossible. Higher energy prices need not increase the cost of life for those below the poverty line.
Last edited:
"The poor are victims of Kyoto" what rot! The poor have always been victims of the upper crust. Kyoto may be seen to be an insturment of bankers and a torment of the poor, it wouldn't be the first time a chicken bone was served on gilded dinner ware. Koyoto is seen for the most part as benevolent intention, it's naysayers and adherants alike are a strange brew of interests. I'm suspicious, how can the system that caused imbalance and thrives on it be employed to fix anything or even trusted to define the problem.
Head Spin .. What ya talking about Willis?
Thats probably a conservative reaction lol.
Here is a head shake. Harper stood in a salvation army depo for toy Mountatin and made an announce on CTV.
Behind the scenes he held up volunteer work for Toy mountain, and many parents that had an appointment to pick up the toys that would have been ready if harper did not come. Many
poor families who struggle to get there toys for their children were told to come back. Most
only had a trip for the one trip.
Harper did not make a donation!
Harper did not have over 50 people at the time with him, volunteer a toy mountain.
Harper needs to be visted by the three Ghosts of Christmas!
If you have time please volunteer of Toy mountain at the distribution centre, help get the toys out to the families that can not pick up their toys because they can not afford a second trip there.
Thats probably a conservative reaction lol.
Here is a head shake. Harper stood in a salvation army depo for toy Mountatin and made an announce on CTV.
Behind the scenes he held up volunteer work for Toy mountain, and many parents that had an appointment to pick up the toys that would have been ready if harper did not come. Many
poor families who struggle to get there toys for their children were told to come back. Most
only had a trip for the one trip.
Harper did not make a donation!
Harper did not have over 50 people at the time with him, volunteer a toy mountain.
Harper needs to be visted by the three Ghosts of Christmas!
If you have time please volunteer of Toy mountain at the distribution centre, help get the toys out to the families that can not pick up their toys because they can not afford a second trip there.
I posted the following in another thread:
And the rebuttal which I added some emphasis to for your edification:
And where is Norway on its Kyoto commitment after all that effort? 25% OVER 1990 levels, 30% OVER its target. What a pity, all that effort for nothing.
Respect is something that must be earned. Thus far you have failed to do that. As for your history, I have no idea what it is, nor do I care. It is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
You can devise formulas and plans all you want, but it will always hurt the poor. You could forcibly convert the economy to a marxist system with the purported goal of helping the poor but you would only hurt them, since without income earners, wage earners, entrepreneurs, corporations, there is no wealth generated that the poor benefit from. All those grandiose schemes to "help" the poor inevitably fail when confronted with reality.
Last edited:
Actually, civil society is founded on the principle that everyone deserves respect until they show otherwise, that is the basis for common courtesy. That you disagree with something and immediately become insulting and happen to make a comment which is particularly insensitive due to my personal history (which you really couldn't know about) should convince you of the importance of basic manners, which I accuse you of lacking. Don't replace the golden rule with "Treat others like garbage until you think you like them."
The argument you present is essentially: Because a few countries have tried and failed, all countries must fail. But empirical examples can only invalidate, never prove, regardless of how many white swans you have shown me, you haven't proven that a black swan doesn't exist.
I have explicitly shown that this is false, I have shown you one black swan, albeit an ugly one. I could in fact invent an infinity of policies which would succeed, just by monkeying around with the cost schedule. You assert without evidence that any such system, or at least a "Marxist" system, will destroy the economy and thereby hurt the poor. The fact that an energy pricing system exists in Germany, Italy and France which has a higher cost of electricity than Canada or the US and yet gives a lower price to the poor is empirical proof that a progressive pricing schedule, need not be disastrous to the economy or "Marxist" given the private nature of their energy providers, and one should keep in mind the robustness of their unified economy in the face of the current crisis. Our tax system in Canada is progressive and this has in no way lead to widespread economic collapse.