Man vs God

[NotR]

Does modern government contradict with God's will for people? Most people, such as me, would call today's system inhumane in a tolerative sense. The "American Dream" of "equality capitalism" is disturbed from birth, as people are born into different layers of society. Nothing against America itself, but it seems that American government is very picky about inflicting this rule on other countries.

[Alamanach]

OK, so when all is said and done, you want prices to reflect things like environmental impact and long-term supply. That way, our economy will tend toward more "sustainable" practices, rather than the voracious consumption we see today. Is that roughly your position?

Even supposing Costanza has a reliable method for measuring those sorts of factors, how do we work them into the price? If through taxation, where does that money go?

[AClockWorkOrange]

i always thought that capitalism as we see it now was very unchristian, as jesus seemed to advocate and encourage a more ascetic lifestyle.

[Alamanach]

Even supposing Costanza has a reliable method for measuring those sorts of factors, how do we work them into the price? If through taxation, where does that money go?

~ahem~

[MagusYanam]

OK, so when all is said and done, you want prices to reflect things like environmental impact and long-term supply. That way, our economy will tend toward more "sustainable" practices, rather than the voracious consumption we see today. Is that roughly your position?

Roughly. I'm not opposed to markets or even to capitalism per se, but I think the human race and the human economy are eventually going to reach their limitations to what they can do with the current model, where the energy that's being dissipated through the various critical systems of the economy is pretty much all coming from fossil fuels.

Even supposing Costanza has a reliable method for measuring those sorts of factors, how do we work them into the price? If through taxation, where does that money go?

That depends. Can companies self-regulate and say, 'this is what our product is going to cost us; this is what making it is going to cost the public; this is what making it is going to cost the environment' and factor that all into the final price of the product? Glass is easy to make, easy to recycle and we have a virtually unlimited supply of raw materials. Plastic requires more energy to make, more energy to recycle, and the raw materials are not renewable. These factors should show up in the price - since recycling is often done by the local government (major overgeneralisation on my part, but for the sake of argument let's assume it's true), there should be (for example) a municipal tax on plastic products that reflects the cost of the recycling service.

Likewise, if oil is drilled on public land, there should be a tax on the crude oil drilled there that goes into land conservation and alternative energy research.

~ahem~

Sorry about that; didn't notice your post after I made the CooperSol Enterprises joke.

[Alamanach]

Can companies self-regulate and say, 'this is what our product is going to cost us; this is what making it is going to cost the public; this is what making it is going to cost the environment' and factor that all into the final price of the product?

No, because as I pointed out earlier, costs have nothing to do with price.

Glass is easy to make, easy to recycle and we have a virtually unlimited supply of raw materials. Plastic requires more energy to make, more energy to recycle, and the raw materials are not renewable. These factors should show up in the price...

And indirectly, they do. I was only half-joking about the futures market. If we are burning a lot of fossil fuels these days, it is because commodities traders know we have a lot of fossil fuels to burn. Trust me, some very smart people get paid a lot of money to be able to estimate better than the next guy the true value of this stuff.

That goes for recycling, too. If tomorrow it were to magically become impossible to recycle glass, then the price of glass would immediately jump up, because the supply would be reduced. So it seems to me that the market is already accounting for the long-term issues you've identified.

I notice you want to tax crude, but not silicon. This is arbitrary; the silicon supply is no more renewable than petroleum. I suppose you could argue that the supply is so very much greater. But then I'm curious-- would you want a supply/ environmental-impact tax on uranium? Uranium is in finite supply. But then we also don't need very much of it. It can have some environmental impact issues, but those can be eliminated through proper handling.

I expect your answer is going to hinge on whether nuclear power counts as "sustainable". I don't know what "sustainable" means, but I suspect it's code for either "quaint" or "poverty-friendly". Neither strikes me as a good goal for our tax code.

[MagusYanam]

No, because as I pointed out earlier, costs have nothing to do with price.

And I think there you'd be wrong; basic economic theory has it that the costs of producing a widget do have impact on the final price. Otherwise, what need would the government have to subsidise farming enterprises in the US? Because the production costs are fairly high, the government has to (in essence) bribe big farmers to keep prices down.

I notice you want to tax crude, but not silicon. This is arbitrary; the silicon supply is no more renewable than petroleum.

Thing is, we can't synthesise fossil fuels or recycle them once they are turned into plastic or burned off as gasoline. We can easily recycle glass (not much energy input involved - at least, not as much as plastic), and there is far more silicate matter on Earth than there is petroleum (the entire crust, practically, is made from the stuff). We're debating whether petroleum's already reached peak extraction or whether it'll reach peak extraction fifty years from now. The day when we reach peak extraction for silicate matter will be perhaps two thousand more years from now. So, for our intents and purposes now, silicate matter can be counted as a long-term, sustainable resource.

But then I'm curious-- would you want a supply/ environmental-impact tax on uranium? Uranium is in finite supply. But then we also don't need very much of it. It can have some environmental impact issues, but those can be eliminated through proper handling.

That's a good question. It's a good bet that there's less uranium on this planet as we speak than there is petroleum. But whereas the combustion of petroleum has environmental side-effects even when it's done correctly, uranium fission has virtually none when done correctly, as you say, so I wouldn't be in favour of an environmental-impact tax on uranium. Supply, however, is a different story.

I expect your answer is going to hinge on whether nuclear power counts as "sustainable". I don't know what "sustainable" means, but I suspect it's code for either "quaint" or "poverty-friendly". Neither strikes me as a good goal for our tax code.

'Sustainable' means that the demand for energy and resources put into the self-organising criticalities of the economy does not exceed the system's capacity to supply it, at least for the foreseeable future. Right now, we are using (primarily) forms of energy that are cheap and easy to extract, but that cannot be replenished to match our rate of consumption. So; it's true, if you want to look at the long-term, like thousands of years (silicates) or millions of years (solar energy) then you are correct, no resource and no form of energy is 100% sustainable - to suggest anything can be 100% sustainable would violate the second law of thermodynamics. But some are more so than others. And we could help our oil supply last longer if consumers used it more sensibly (i.e. not spending so much on refrigeration and transportation of distantly-grown food and not using obscene amounts of electricity and fossil fuel for transportation).

[Alamanach]

Thing is, we can't synthesise fossil fuels or recycle them once they are turned into plastic or burned off as gasoline. We can easily recycle glass (not much energy input involved - at least, not as much as plastic), and there is far more silicate matter on Earth than there is petroleum (the entire crust, practically, is made from the stuff). We're debating whether petroleum's already reached peak extraction or whether it'll reach peak extraction fifty years from now. The day when we reach peak extraction for silicate matter will be perhaps two thousand more years from now. So, for our intents and purposes now, silicate matter can be counted as a long-term, sustainable resource.

Where do you propose to draw the line, then? Suppose I'm an inventor and I come up with a very clever means for extracting energy from granite, turning the granite to dust. Since this technology never existed before, no machines are designed to exploit it. But those machines will come, especially if it turns out that granite is often a cheaper alternative to oil. How will we determine whether to tax this? And as more granite-exploiting machines come on line, how often will we revisit that decision? This is a hypothetical question but an important one, because there will be technologies that lie between the extremes of crude oil and silicon.

'Sustainable' means that the demand for energy and resources put into the self-organising criticalities of the economy does not exceed the system's capacity to supply it, at least for the foreseeable future. Right now, we are using (primarily) forms of energy that are cheap and easy to extract, but that cannot be replenished to match our rate of consumption. So; it's true, if you want to look at the long-term, like thousands of years (silicates) or millions of years (solar energy) then you are correct, no resource and no form of energy is 100% sustainable - to suggest anything can be 100% sustainable would violate the second law of thermodynamics. But some are more so than others. And we could help our oil supply last longer if consumers used it more sensibly (i.e. not spending so much on refrigeration and transportation of distantly-grown food and not using obscene amounts of electricity and fossil fuel for transportation).

And just what is it that we are saving our oil for? If we start driving the price up now by governmental fiat simply because the supply is getting low, what happens when the supply is half its current level? Will we keep taxing the stuff until the cost of the very last barrel of crude costs the GDP of the entire eastern hemisphere? If we accept that the supply is finite, then we are bound to run out of it someday. And before we get there, we have to reach a point at which someday is in the forseeable future.

There are all kinds of ways to stretch our oil supply, and the technologies to do so exist right now; just look at fuel efficient cars. If more people are to drive such cars, and buy certain foods, and so on, it has to make economic sense for them to do so. (I'm sure you agree; the entire point of these taxes is to artificially tip the economic scales in conservation's favor.) But I remain unconvinced that the market isn't taking such factors into account already. To the extent that there is a need to conserve this stuff, we are already doing it.

If I grant you the assumption that Cardoza's equations are accurate, then some of what you say could makes sense. But that's a mighty big assumption; It is easier to believe that Cardoza has some pro-environmentalism agenda to push than to believe that he has outsmarted the entire commodities market. As I said earlier, if there was something to his calculations, then he could make a tremendous amount of money.

[MagusYanam]

And just what is it that we are saving our oil for? If we start driving the price up now by governmental fiat simply because the supply is getting low, what happens when the supply is half its current level? Will we keep taxing the stuff until the cost of the very last barrel of crude costs the GDP of the entire eastern hemisphere? If we accept that the supply is finite, then we are bound to run out of it someday. And before we get there, we have to reach a point at which someday is in the forseeable future.

There are all kinds of ways to stretch our oil supply, and the technologies to do so exist right now; just look at fuel efficient cars. If more people are to drive such cars, and buy certain foods, and so on, it has to make economic sense for them to do so. (I'm sure you agree; the entire point of these taxes is to artificially tip the economic scales in conservation's favor.) But I remain unconvinced that the market isn't taking such factors into account already. To the extent that there is a need to conserve this stuff, we are already doing it.

Hm. If the market is already taking into account the fact that our oil supply is running out, we should be seeing a sea change in the way GMC or Ford manufactures automobiles, shouldn't we? Or, perhaps the beginnings of a federal mass transit programme, on the same scale that China and many European countries already have.

I realise that my measures may sound rather draconian, but I'm of the opinion that they needn't be permanent; really only to jump-start an economic paradigm change that will require limits on growth and consumption, because the boundary conditions are going to change radically once our oil production begins to decline (not to mention the five gallons of carbon we put into the atmosphere for every six gallons of petrol burned beginning to effect ecological change). When the paradigm does begin to shift, one hopes that the result is not a Malthusian-scale disaster.

[Alamanach]

If the market is already taking into account the fact that our oil supply is running out, we should be seeing a sea change in the way GMC or Ford manufactures automobiles, shouldn't we?

Yeah, you would think so...

http://www.gm.com/automotive/innovation ... /vehicles/
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/2008escapehybrid/
http://tinyurl.com/ywmnln
http://tinyurl.com/2be7tr
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 70326.html

[MagusYanam]

Hm, it would appear that I stand corrected. But then again, the 'flex fuel' advertised by GM is little more than a quick-fix that doesn't actually address the problem, since the alcohol being used for fuel also requires a good deal of petroleum for its synthesis, and I see to my disappointment that even using hybrid technology, the Escape still doesn't get as impressive a gas-mileage rating as the wagons and crossover vehicles produced by Toyota and Volkswagen in the 1970's and 1980's. But then again, it is a sea-change that we're looking for. One can't expect overnight solutions.

Interestingly enough, a couple of my friends (who are in grad school now) seem to be of the opinion that the technology already exists to replace the internal combustion engine once the lack of resources makes it obsolete, but that as long as the resource exists to be consumed, they'll keep milking the technology for all that it's worth, and make a killing on the new technology when its purchase becomes necessary.