Monday, July 6, 2009
Thom Hartman gets Schooled by Myron Ebell
While it takes more time to tell to tell the truth, it is definitely worth doing, especially considering that Climate Change policy is designed to control every aspect of human existence.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Carbon Credits – Where Does the Money Come From?
Carbon Credits – Where Does the Money Come From?
As congress moves forward with sweeping climate legislation, many groups are preparing plans and gearing up for the promised windfall profits they will supposedly be eligible to receive. Groups in Washington, DC and throughout the country are working feverishly to stake their claim on carbon credit money, but few have actually taken the time to ask themselves where this money is coming from.
The first thing that people should know about carbon credits is that they represent transfer payments and not new money. Aggregate wealth can not be created out of thin air no matter what carbon credit trading advocates tell you.
The money generated by a cap-and-trade program is money that is taken from covered industries such as coal-fired power generation and steel production. These industries are forced by government regulation to purchase the right to emit carbon dioxide. If the story ended here, many credit seekers would simply shrug and say “So what?”. The problem is the story doesn’t end here because these industries can easily pass along the costs of purchasing emission permits to their customers. The net affect of credit seeking behavior is a realization that the increased cost of electricity and certain carbon intensive goods have been paid for by you and your neighbor in the form of increased utility bills and more expensive machinery.
There are those within the greater agricultural community who have been seduced by the promise of carbon credit payments for basically continuing to operate their business as usual. While I fully support the right for people to earn their own living, one can hardly claim that receiving carbon credit payments is “making money”. Mandatory carbon trading, specifically for agriculture is nothing but a system of wealth transfer from the very industries farmers rely on for their livelihood. While farmers may receive a credit for no-tilling their land, this payment will likely be completely offset if not out right exceeded by an increase in transportation, fertilizer, irrigation and machinery costs.
So where do carbon credits come from? The answer is staring you in the face as you look in the mirror. You are subsidizing this credit trading scheme by paying increased costs on the products you use the most. Carbon credits ARE transfer payments, but many people fail to see that this transfer is happening in their own wallet.
As congress moves forward with sweeping climate legislation, many groups are preparing plans and gearing up for the promised windfall profits they will supposedly be eligible to receive. Groups in Washington, DC and throughout the country are working feverishly to stake their claim on carbon credit money, but few have actually taken the time to ask themselves where this money is coming from.
The first thing that people should know about carbon credits is that they represent transfer payments and not new money. Aggregate wealth can not be created out of thin air no matter what carbon credit trading advocates tell you.
The money generated by a cap-and-trade program is money that is taken from covered industries such as coal-fired power generation and steel production. These industries are forced by government regulation to purchase the right to emit carbon dioxide. If the story ended here, many credit seekers would simply shrug and say “So what?”. The problem is the story doesn’t end here because these industries can easily pass along the costs of purchasing emission permits to their customers. The net affect of credit seeking behavior is a realization that the increased cost of electricity and certain carbon intensive goods have been paid for by you and your neighbor in the form of increased utility bills and more expensive machinery.
There are those within the greater agricultural community who have been seduced by the promise of carbon credit payments for basically continuing to operate their business as usual. While I fully support the right for people to earn their own living, one can hardly claim that receiving carbon credit payments is “making money”. Mandatory carbon trading, specifically for agriculture is nothing but a system of wealth transfer from the very industries farmers rely on for their livelihood. While farmers may receive a credit for no-tilling their land, this payment will likely be completely offset if not out right exceeded by an increase in transportation, fertilizer, irrigation and machinery costs.
So where do carbon credits come from? The answer is staring you in the face as you look in the mirror. You are subsidizing this credit trading scheme by paying increased costs on the products you use the most. Carbon credits ARE transfer payments, but many people fail to see that this transfer is happening in their own wallet.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Precautionary Principle
Ned Ludd is alive and well today in the modern environmental movement. As our world changes and societies develop, the need for advanced technology to help solve or mitigate our problems becomes increasingly apparent. Though Luddites openly expressed their hatred of technology, the neo-environmentalist uses half-truth and psudo-science to hide this aversion. This relatively new way to deride technology is called the Precautionary Principle.
The Precautionary Principle, a bi-product of the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-Safety, simply states “that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” On the surface, the Precautionary Principle may seem reasonable, but one must only look below the surface to see that mere speculation is enough to trigger its application.
Let us forget for the time being that the Precautionary Principle asks advocates of technology to prove a negative (a logical impossibility) and concentrate on its intended purpose. Proponents of the Principle create an impossible situation whereby anything new can be rejected on the basis that any amount of evidence is insufficient to show no harm.
For example, if a new technology is shown to increase food production but concern about its effects are voiced, one must prove that such an application does not have negative long-term effects in order for it to be utilized. In simple terms, advocates of precaution are baring the use of a technology based on speculation. This both hampers the process of gathering evidence, and ensures that new introductions of technology face insurmountable opposition.
Conversely, the Precautionary Principle can be use by supporters of a specific action to bolster their claims of a need to act. Take Global Warming for instance. Like it or not, the debate is NOT over and scientific consensus has NOT been met and this simple fact is not overlooked by precautionary advocates. Using a lack on scientific consensus as the catalyst, the Precautionary Principle will induce action.
The Precautionary Principle is an unscientific method of constructing an argument so that advocates of precaution have an unfair advantage. Thankfully, this advantage only works in the court of public opinion since neither science nor fact really matter. The true danger lies in the invariable inclusion of public opinion into decisions that should be left to those who value logical, fact based and scientific discourse.
The Precautionary Principle, a bi-product of the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-Safety, simply states “that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.” On the surface, the Precautionary Principle may seem reasonable, but one must only look below the surface to see that mere speculation is enough to trigger its application.
Let us forget for the time being that the Precautionary Principle asks advocates of technology to prove a negative (a logical impossibility) and concentrate on its intended purpose. Proponents of the Principle create an impossible situation whereby anything new can be rejected on the basis that any amount of evidence is insufficient to show no harm.
For example, if a new technology is shown to increase food production but concern about its effects are voiced, one must prove that such an application does not have negative long-term effects in order for it to be utilized. In simple terms, advocates of precaution are baring the use of a technology based on speculation. This both hampers the process of gathering evidence, and ensures that new introductions of technology face insurmountable opposition.
Conversely, the Precautionary Principle can be use by supporters of a specific action to bolster their claims of a need to act. Take Global Warming for instance. Like it or not, the debate is NOT over and scientific consensus has NOT been met and this simple fact is not overlooked by precautionary advocates. Using a lack on scientific consensus as the catalyst, the Precautionary Principle will induce action.
The Precautionary Principle is an unscientific method of constructing an argument so that advocates of precaution have an unfair advantage. Thankfully, this advantage only works in the court of public opinion since neither science nor fact really matter. The true danger lies in the invariable inclusion of public opinion into decisions that should be left to those who value logical, fact based and scientific discourse.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
On Food Marketing
Food companies spend billions of dollars every year to convince us that their product is better than the next guy. Coke is better than Pepsi, McDonalds is better than Burger King. The end result of this campaign of confusion is that people make decisions based on catchy jingles or special effects filled commercials rather than what the product truly is.
If Coca Cola advertised their product as caramel colored sugar water, do you think the psychological effect would be as substantial as millions of dollars spent on creating an animated commercial staring a warm lovable polar bear cub sharing a Coke with a baby penguin? Of course not! Coca Cola created this image to evoke feelings of camaraderie where even mortal enemies can put their differences aside and enjoy a nice cold Coke.
Or how about McDonalds? Would they have much economic success if they made commercials staring anyone of the 54% of obese Americans shoveling yet another double cheese burger into their mouth as they slurp down a nice cold caramel flavored sugar water drink while they use greasy salt covered fingers to cram more French fries into an already full belly?
Wake up people!!! These commercials are designed to hide the true nature of the products we thoughtlessly consume on a daily basis which are slowly but surely destroying our bodies, health care system and our children’s future. Of course, food companies defend themselves by saying they are simply making products that people want. In reality they are doing everything in their power to convince you that you want what they are making. To do this, food companies employ armies of marketing professionals and Dr’s of Psychology in order to create fancy marketing campaigns with statistically high levels of success.
I can’t blame food companies for their clever money-making schemes. However, I can blame each and every person who refuses to see past these gimmicks and allows their body be poisoned slowly but surely by unhealthy food engineered to keep you coming back for more.
As a free market capitalist, maybe I should invent the healthy whole-grain Twinkie infused with powerful antioxidants or the 100% natural Ding Dong with real Acai berry filling. If people are going to continue to be duped into eating garbage, I might as well make a few bucks off it.
If Coca Cola advertised their product as caramel colored sugar water, do you think the psychological effect would be as substantial as millions of dollars spent on creating an animated commercial staring a warm lovable polar bear cub sharing a Coke with a baby penguin? Of course not! Coca Cola created this image to evoke feelings of camaraderie where even mortal enemies can put their differences aside and enjoy a nice cold Coke.
Or how about McDonalds? Would they have much economic success if they made commercials staring anyone of the 54% of obese Americans shoveling yet another double cheese burger into their mouth as they slurp down a nice cold caramel flavored sugar water drink while they use greasy salt covered fingers to cram more French fries into an already full belly?
Wake up people!!! These commercials are designed to hide the true nature of the products we thoughtlessly consume on a daily basis which are slowly but surely destroying our bodies, health care system and our children’s future. Of course, food companies defend themselves by saying they are simply making products that people want. In reality they are doing everything in their power to convince you that you want what they are making. To do this, food companies employ armies of marketing professionals and Dr’s of Psychology in order to create fancy marketing campaigns with statistically high levels of success.
I can’t blame food companies for their clever money-making schemes. However, I can blame each and every person who refuses to see past these gimmicks and allows their body be poisoned slowly but surely by unhealthy food engineered to keep you coming back for more.
As a free market capitalist, maybe I should invent the healthy whole-grain Twinkie infused with powerful antioxidants or the 100% natural Ding Dong with real Acai berry filling. If people are going to continue to be duped into eating garbage, I might as well make a few bucks off it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
