| | But you refer to the "eco-myth of human created global warming." I'm no expert on this, and you may be right that it is a myth, but even if it isn't (and there does seem to be some evidence that human beings are contributing to it)
The evidence on it is not conclusive. I'm currently reading a book by Ron Bailey, science contributor to Reason magazine titled "Global Warming and other Eco-Myths". Although Humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, it is estimated to be less than 1% of all greenhouse gases. Water Vapor is the largest greenhouse gas. It would be stretching it to say the least that rise in global temperature, which that in itself is in doubt, is a result of human produced greenhouse gases. If we accept current measurements of mean global temperature (which there are some problems with that data as well), we see depending on who's data we're interpreting, between 0.5 to 1 degree farenheit increase in global mean temperature over a century. Since the burden of proof is on environmentalists to prove humans are causing global warming, they must prove both that global warming is occurring, and that humans are causing it. The burden has not been met. And with numbers that are less than one percent as their proof, it's certainly not conclusive.
these environmental regulations are not going to make much of a difference. My understanding is that even if we brought all industrial production to a halt and thereby created untold misery and death among most of the world's population, we wouldn't put a dent in global warming for another century. So, even if it is caused by human beings, human beings can't fix it in the foreseeable future, and even if they could, it wouldn't be worth the price, which is a point that gets lost on most people when they discuss this issue.
That is absolutely true. Which is why the Kyoto treaty was a terrible idea and I'm glad Bush didn't sign it.
John, I don't follow your reasoning here. You say, "I understand there will be an equilibrium effect whereby decreased prices for luxury goods will yield an increase in demand and thereby increase price..." Here you appear to be confusing demand with what economists refer to as "quantity demanded." Decreased prices for luxury goods will yield an increase in quantity demanded, not an increase in demand. An increase in demand occurs when consumers are willing to purchase more of a good at the same price, not at a lower price. The willingness to purchase more at a lower price is referred to as an increase in quantity demanded. But an increase in quantity demanded will not yield an increase in price; only an increase in demand will.
Yes Bill, you are absolutely right. I misspoke when I said increase in demand. I should have said increase in quantity demanded as you pointed out. I should've also said instead of increase in price, increase in revenue as a result of increase in quantity demanded. (I work in hotels, so I deal with fixed inventories, so an increase in quantity demanded does in fact yield an increase in price) Would I was trying to convey was that an increase in fuel cost yields a shift in the supply curve, so a new equilibrium between supply and demand occurs. Because it takes time for this new equilibrium to happen, in the mean time while some people benefit others suffer. Oil companies benefit, companies that sell luxury items suffer until we reach this new equilibrium. Which is what I referred to as lag.
In the mean time we will see some businesses go bankrupt as a direct result of this environmental hysteria. There's no reason any businessman should suffer this.
I agree, but you know that worship of the environment - Mother Earth, Gaia and all that - has become another religion like the worship of the sacred cow in India. It has literally taken over the minds and hearts of our educated citizenry. Objectivism has its work cut out for it.
Bill you speak the truth. My current obsession is the fallacy of the environmental movement. The fruits of which has already caused immense pain and misery, mostly in the third world. The environmental movement is credited for banning DDT, a pesticide spray used to kill mosquitos and inhibit the spread of malaria. Since its banning, according to the WHO 1 million to 3 million people die every year from malaria. The current death toll is estimated to be anywhere from 30 million to 90 million dead since DDT was banned here in the US. Because of the banning of DDT in the US, third world countries that received aid and or did trade with the US was urged to place a ban on DDT as well as it was erroneously thought to be a carcinogen and harmful to the environment.
To put this into better perspective, Sri Lanka reported 2.8 million malaria deaths in 1948. After a robust program of DDT spraying that number fell to only 17 by 1963. After DDT was banned in Sri Lanka the number quickly rose to 500,000 after almost wiping out the disease in 1963.
I don't know what else to call that other than mass murder. Environmental activists have blood on their hands.
|
|
