according to the scientist on the video there is no accurate way to measure water vapor in the atmosphere, and he said thats the only true measure on more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? So they are going to make a currency out of something that they cannot measure the resultant of?
It's confronting to see the value of credit derived from the trading in CO2 being passed off as a sound(er) basis for money than that derived from a bunch of people in an ivory tower somewhere just making it up. A theoretical argument about the relative saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere being the basis from which a den of thieves and traders that manipulate Libor, Gold and every other market on the planet will be able to determine the value of credit is just plain stupid. No sugar coating intellectualisms, it's just pathetic that a living breathing human being can even contemplate that the worth of a person be tied to a measure of the pollution they are allowed, when that measure is tied to the very breath they are required to make. How much will it cost to breathe? What happens when you run out of credit? Will the right to breathe be the new welfare? Give me Glen Stevens, the RBA and the Federal Reserve System with fractional reserve banking up the wazoo, over credit tied to anything remotely associated with any aspect of my physical existence and metabolic function. Get a grip!
Wow, that spreadsheet sure does put things in perspective, doesn't it? Probably not the kind you were intending. Australia's CO2 emissions per capita are currently about 19 tonnes per year, so assuming that is the average rate over the course of the person's entire life, they'd be responsible for 1542.8 tonnes of CO2 entering the atmosphere over the course of their 81.2 year lifetime. This means the 24.84 tonnes emitted by breathing represents 1.61% of a typical Australian's lifetime carbon emissions. I know this is drawing a long bow, but maybe we should be focusing on the other 98.39% of our emissions if we're going to look at monetising them. It's not like we couldn't somehow squeeze that 1.61% into some sort of tax-free threshold now, is it? That's the "tax on life" problem solved.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the convoluted rationalisation for the Big Australian Democracy's right to charge you for breathing. Unbelievable!
No. But it is an optional extra isn't it. it's the convoluted argument that justifies the principle of the right to tax my breathing that I find offensive as much as the gaul of anyone thinking they can decide to put a price on my breathing. Big AD, my first post on this site was in response to you promoting the cause of a carbon tax. At the time, I pointed out that it was setting the base for putting a price on breathing and here you are almost 2 years later arguing even more strenuously for the principle. I find it ignorant of all the virtues of existence. It's the reason I left the Greens and it is nothing other than a pillar in a broader, immoral population control agenda. As I have said to you before, you are on the wrong side of history, my friend. These small minded controlling paradigms are ending, not getting stronger.
Well, at the very least I'm glad I prompted you to join the discussion (I've genuinely enjoyed some of your posts, especially some of the news items you've linked to). That said, I still don't see how a carbon tax or and emissions trading scheme has anything to do with our breathing. Breathing is responsible for a tiny portion of the carbon we release into the atmosphere and we can safely release quite a lot of CO2 without mucking up the planet's equilibrium. The problem is that we're currently releasing a more CO2 than it is safe for us to release and a lot of that CO2 isn't absolutely essential for our existence like the CO2 we exhale is. It isn't a hippy dippy tree-hugging fantasy, it has always been about economics. The Earth's capacity to absorb CO2 is a limited resource, but we're pretending the capacity is infinite because in the cute little artificial system we've set up rewards consumption and ignorance. It isn't that different to fiat currencies. Everything is fine, provided you don't ask too many questions about how it all works. And my thinking is the exact opposite: it simply isn't possible for the world to using artificial systems that promote exponential growth while ignoring the limits of nature. We can't keep using currencies that aren't backed by something with natural scarcity. Whether its an excess CO2 emissions permit or a water allowance or an area of land or a combination of gold and silver, we have to start valuing real things more than 1s and 0s that can be conjured up at the whim of the bankers. For me at least, part of being a stacker is about recognising the inferiority of artificial systems to natural ones. Don't you think its interesting that for thousands of years we've been able to use a monetary system provided to us by nature?
You think there are limits to growth but there really aren't. This argument has been put forward for almost 200 years now and continues to fail. We move to new paradigms. We'll go beyond Earth to get more minerals when we need to. Energy use is becoming naturally more efficient over time without govt intervention because it is more cost-effective. Just look at the possibilities in the other thread with construction and the projected decrease in energy use and CO2 production (if you are concerned about that). I also think we should figure out Nuclear Fusion before the century is up. I can't imagine it will take more than 100 years. And as for monetary system provided by nature, you are exactly right. By nature, not government. Government is not the natural way of things. Centralization is not the natural way of things. The world is moving gradually and inexorably, if you take history as a whole, towards more freedom, not less. Granted there are a lot of missteps and bad ancient traditions (slavery, subjugation of women, government, etc), but we're gradually purging these bad ideas.
I have no problem with the collection of a carbon tax, it is how the money is spent that is the problem. Giving it back to the people with tax cuts etc is a waste. It should all go to paying for new clean energy generation (wind, wave, solar, thermal etc) and the infrastructure to connect all these to the national grid. It should also be spent on new public transport infrastructure: train lines in cities where new estates are going up, fast trains between cities etc Create an infrastructure where your electricity comes from the wind etc and it is possible to move around without a car and emissions will really drop
Sometimes I just have to shake my head at the obvious attempts to reframe your position. In your previous post, above, you were outlining just how you suppose the great big Goverment will be able to give me a tax-free threshold to allow my breathing, now you don't understand the relationship. Your intellectual theorising of how government might, in it's enlightened fairy tale type benevolence and wisdom, be able to centrally manage every aspect of our existence is simply without foundation and always contrary to the true experience of a government that has lost all capacity for preserving individual freedom. That said, I do appreciate the opportunity you provide to see so clearly the forces at play and hear the central planning view. It gives everyone the opportunity to contrast the wisdom of exponentially increasing complexity, privilege and power in the hands of a few, against the increasing frequency, scale and impact of the fraud and corruption of those in such positions. Personally, I can't relate to people that desire greater control be taken from the individual and placed into the hands of corruption and privilege. Thankfully there are few here that can.
Fantastic idea. Watch how fast I turn a couple of acres of trees + anything else I can get my hands on, into charcoal. Apparently good for the environment, and good for my hip pocket!
I'm not re-framing my position, I'm saying if you want to take a concept like monetising carbon emissions to it's logical extreme and say we can be taxed for breathing, there are already mechanisms within our taxation system to allow for taxation rates to be applied at activity levels above zero. In other words, we don't have to tax everything. There is no tax on the first $18,200 in income you receive. There is no GST on fresh fruit and vegetables. There doesn't have to be a carbon tax on breathing. Like I said before, based on your own figures, breathing accounts for something like 1.6% of our total emissions which is so small as to be a non-issue compared with coal-fired power plants and SUVs with MPG performance in the single digits. The whole point of monetising CO2 emissions is to start the process of re-valuing a natural system and reducing unnecessary, inefficient usage of it's capacity. Breathing is necessary and we can design a fair system where it isn't included.
Except I'm not one of you and reject any inclusion in "we". But as I understand your central planning tennent, that doesn't count. To impose such "solutions" requires my imprisonment witin your ludicrous mental abstractions. So while I appreciate the opportunity you present with these farcical arguments of creating a taxation or credit system that allows me to breathe for "free", I reject the notion or any inclusion with such a nightmare. That you calmly persist in presenting it while ignoring that fact demonstrates the virtue-less, immoral and utterly arragant nature of the central planning mindset. And even when it's pointed out again and again, that the boot heel of such policies is stomping on the throat of individual freedom, the central planner will crush the very life out of those individuals before acknowledging their hubris. A "system" that gives the government tacit power over the right to breathe ... and you continue to argue for it? Here we have a problem with empathy, a lack of emotional intelligence, a psychopathy even. There is definitely no me in "we".
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not talking about a government system, I'm talking about an economic system. Government (obviously) has a role in any economic system, but the system itself is defined by the people who use it. If government can create fiat currency and people figure out how to use it in order to achieve their own goals, why can't government create the framework for monetising carbon emissions and people figure out how to incorporate it into their lives? Are you forgetting that it was governments that formalised the classical gold standard that many of us here hold in high regard? Gold as virtually always been worth something but until it can be measured against some kind of standard its just an undefined lump of metal that isn't useful for trade and commerce. I appreciate where you're coming from on this, but I think my argument actually works in your favour: using natural systems and resources as the basis for a formal economic system actually reduces our reliance on government because it decreases governments' ability to just make stuff up when it feels like it. Government can just create a trillion dollars out of nothing but it can't bring a single ounce of gold into existence and it can't make a litre of oil appear out of nowhere and it can't safely stuff a gram more CO2 into a cubic meter of air than the air is able to hold safely. We don't use natural monetary systems much any more and we've ended up using a rigged fiat system instead.
Sorry to butt in, and i'll keep it brief but: There is a difference between 'preventing monopolies' and creating an artificial market altogether. If Govt didn't put a value against carbon, and legislate it, why would anyone else want to do it? It has to be 'forced', because it is exactly not a natural economic system. Gold was always valued, with or without Govt approval. It did not have to be 'forced'. That's all from me.
It is a natural system and there are economics involved, but they're very complicated and we choose to ignore them because we can make more profits in the short term by doing so. Its the same as wizz-kid MBAs who destroy companies by focusing on the next quarter earnings and ignoring long term strategy. "Yay, we're up 7%! Where's my bonus? Thnx K bye!" Sure, we can get "cheap" coal-fired electrical power now, but is that a good measurement of value if it gets too hot for crops to grow and there is less food to eat? What I'm saying that our current system is artificial because we've chosen to ignore certain factors that affect the way our economy works in the long term. What we think of now as "normal" isn't actually natural, in the same way that fiat currency is "normal" but we've only been using it for 40-odd years, compared to the thousands of years we've been using natural currency that comes out of the ground. I didn't say it was forced. All that happened is that those governments standardised weights and measurements. "1 piece of gold" is meaningless. "1 sovereign" is something you can work with. Likewise, "air pollution" doesn't mean much until you define it in terms of "tonnes of CO2 emitted".
