Salut Kgun...QUOTE...

"Yes that is about the high dimensional system. I awaited the answer. Are you sure that the example is 100 % misleading?"

Purely due to the fact that there exists within a jar No retrieval system..No absorption system which is present
in the higher dimensional model..Therefore the model is invalid not at true scale model/experiment...

The latest data I have states that the USA produced approx...1800 million metric tons of CO2 in a given year..Of which 500
million metric tons were absorbed by Flora...It is sure that no such system exists in a jar...

QUOTE2 "Economists have written about externalties for decades if not centuries. May be it is time for the polluters to pay. I have no illusion that will happen unless the Government change the rules. A mixed economy with government intervention is best in a closed geopolitical world. Sometimes Mr market has to be regulated."...


I have read the proposals for " Mr Market" in the USA they will Tax him..Then offset the tax..by lowering corporation tax and other taxes...Thus ensuring no drop in dividend payout..."bad for business you see" the brunt of the tax will be borne by "Mr average" as is the case in France today Google "Bonus Malus"

Do not Google...Try this Link

French government announces CO2-linked registration tax plans - News - EEMS

QUOTE 3...

Can you anwer these simple question?

1. Is too much Co2 in the atmosphere pollution?
2. Do you agree that polluters shall pay the bill for degraded environments?
3. Generally who shall pay for negative externalties in consumption?
4. Generally who shall pay for negative externalties in production?



1 C02...How much is to much...Insufficient data....Commercial greenhouse producers of vegetables push the CO2 to 2000 PPM in the their "container" the plant grow by a factor of X4 compared to the same plant in the open air X1...

2 In this I stand shoulder to shoulder with you...If a person poisons the earth that must pay to restore it...I think any normal person would agree this is fair and just...However is CO2 a pollutant there are many scientists who state this is not true...

3&4 Those who profit...Simply...

Amicablement...Indy

__________________
CLIMATE CHANGE MARS...http://www.rockhoundstation1.com/MARS01.html
CLIMATE CHANGE EARTH...http://www.rockhoundstation1.com/EARTHWATCH.html

Not really sure what you are asking here.

See below


I am going to take the first three questions as a whole. My background in economics is probably not as extensive as yours. I have a BA in economics and German and an MBA in Finance and a JD. I currently spend all of my time running my small business which has very little to do with any of my prior education. If my memory serves me correctly, a tax provides a disincentive by raising the cost of an activity while a subsidy encourages an activity by decreasing the cost of an activity.

I say that the tax and the subsidy are essentially the same because if you tax fossil fuels, it will discourage the use of fossil fuels and (hopefully) encourage the use of renewable energy sources. With the subsidy you are encouraging the use of renewable energy sources and discouraging the use of fossil fuels only inasmuch as fossil fuels are a complementary good.

Ostensibly a company facing a carbon tax will seek to reduce or eliminate the tax by adopting carbon free technologies. I opine that a company would simply do a simple cash flow analysis looking at the cost of the new technology vis-a-vis the anticipated future benefits to cash flow (reduced carbon tax payments). If there is a suitable rate of return, the technology will be adopted. If it isn't, they will pay the tax and will attempt to pass along the costs to the consumer. It will be the elasticity of demand which will determine if the company will have to absorb the tax or if its able to pass along the increased cost to the consumer.

There is another reason why I favor the subsidy approach as well. Specifically three. I didn't just pick JFK's words because they're nice words. I also picked them because the Apollo missions were able to be carried out because many contracts were awarded to many companies supplying all sorts of things to the project. Of course, these companies were competing with each other for the contracts.

A second reason is the overall viability of the US military. In much the same manner as the Apollo missions, the government essentially subsidizes companies by awarding contracts to various private companies which of course compete with each other for the contracts. They even have a word for this, military-industrial complex. I'm not writing this to marvel at all of the wondrous killing machines that they have devised, but we can marvel at the sheer scientific complexity and overall level of engineering expertise that does go into it. So, when the government issues a specification for a particular advanced fighter to be produced, essentially guaranteeing the winner of the contract a LARGE sum of money, lo and behold these companies actually come up with the fighter AND are able to produce it. The government could do a similar thing with cars. Frankly I would prefer to do it in conjunction with the EU and Japan and issue a specification for a Corolla, Civic, Cobalt, Golf (you name the car platform, it really doesn't matter) to cost $17000 (go 350 miles, good for minimum of 150,000 miles) and emit no carbon and the government will guarantee 2 million units per year. Right now the most popular vehicle in the US is the Ford F-150 Series trucks and they sell between 900-950,000 per year; so 2 million cars is A LOT of cars (maybe even too many, but you get my point, I think)

Externalities are difficult to calculate as I am sure you are well aware. Probably the only industry that is really effective at it is automobile insurance companies. People drive cars so often that over any large statistical sample the insurance company is pretty certain about the probable statistical outcomes, ie. people drive 50,000,000 miles and x deaths occurs, y injuries, etc.

The second problem that you have is causation. A great example is smog. Scientists will tell you that smog causes respiratory distress in various forms, from asthma in children to lung cancer in adults, etc., etc. etc. Nevertheless while the particulate matter in the atmosphere may be exacerbating the problem, it may not be the sole cause, so its very difficult to set up any system whereby polluters pay the victims of pollution.

Despite the difficulties, I would respectfully suggest that companies can purchase insurance to cover liability incurred for external costs imposed on society.

First you have to define a 'negative environmental effect' Its a pointless question because nobody will pay an 'infinite tax' because nobody has infinite resources.

Obviously the Democrats are viewed as being more sensitive to the issue, but the key to winning Republican support is to demonstrate a legitimate threat to national security (see: setamericafree.org)

You're going to have a difficult time with any country with significant coal deposits or oil reserves, Canada and Norway excepted.

Remember, its not the green economy, its the economy! Let corporations be corporations, you can count on corporations to maximize profits. To a certain extent that is good because you can trust them to do just that. If corporations are seeking to maximize profits and are somehow impacting public health, welfare or safety, they currently ARE subject to regulation and will continue to be.

There has to be global consensus to avoid the proverbial 'race to the bottom' - ie. companies closing carbon emissions in one country, only to emit them in another. Nevertheless, Kyoto isn't an answer, it exempts at least 40% of the world's population and is only seeking to reduce carbon emissions.

Not sure. I'll ask a question back at you. If the Maldives goes underwater because sea levels rise due to global warming, who should pay? What formula? Its not difficult to say that the residents of the Maldives deserve recompense, but who pays is difficult.

You can be an anti-globalist and still accept the fact that there are issues of global concern.

Well, believe it or not my thoughts are actually inspired by some events that are taking place in your country and also in Germany. In Germany I read about a program where the government was guaranteeing the price paid to individuals utilizing solar power and as a result an entire industry has sprung up to produce photovoltaic cells.

In Norway, the government is experimenting with a program that will turn an entire important highway into one that can refuel hydrogen fuel cell vehicles along its entire route (I'm not sure how far along it is though)

Ironically I had actually read this article while sitting in a doctor's office waiting for an appointment. Other than this article I am unfamiliar with Zakaria.

__________________

Generally very good verbal answers.

1. May be you are not trained in mathematical economics. Under profit (company) and utility (consumer) maximization, you can set up exact mathematical formulaes, first and second order conditons for profit and utility maximum in case of externalties in consumption and production. To compensate for these externalties, you have to impose a tax to restore the real equilibrium. If you introduce welfare economics, you may know that Pareto Optimum is a necessary but not sufficient condition for welfare maximum. A slave community can be Pareto Optimal. But if your community is not Pareto Optimal, then in a welfare sense, you waste resources.
2. You talk about elasticities in demand. Those elasticities are important, since that is quantitative measures of how indiret taxes (price elasticities) and income taxes (e.g. green income taxes on rich people - income elasticities) will affect demand. That is the consumer or demand side. There is a similar production side.
3. "Not sure. I'll ask a question back at you. If the Maldives goes underwater because sea levels rise due to global warming, who should pay? What formula? Its not difficult to say that the residents of the Maldives deserve recompense, but who pays is difficult". There is a concept, structural violence, some will say that concept takes violence to the extreme. It is a form of structural violence if rich people live in much safer houses than poor people in an eara with many earth quakes. The point is that relatively more poor people are killed in earth quakes than rich people. It is a form of structural violence if rich people have access to medicine, but poor people do not have the same access. So it is structural violence against people linving on these islands in the Pacific and Bangladesh, if it can be proved that global warming and pollution increase sea level with a 1/2 meter. Increasing sea level with 2 meter and the Maldives would bee a historical fact, unless they get some very clever Dutch engineers to build good enough shelter. The responsibility is global, but the effect (1/n)th. Why shall I reduce pollution if other people do not? This effect is also well known in economic theory. The global community has to pay. In a free market economy, I know of no better formulae than a tax system. This system may be very complicated according to some welfare economists. Members on this forum should know the term of "progressive enhancement." Somebody has to start.
4. Externalities are difficult to calculate as I am sure you are well aware. Probably the only industry that is really effective at it is automobile insurance companies. Very good example. It is possible to compute externalties throug a representative individual. An example, if a young boy (18 - 23 years) wan't to insure a Chevrolet Camaro in Norway, some companies will price him out of the market. He simply has to buy another safer, less powerful car as long as he is less than 23 years and of male sex.
5. "They even have a word for this, military-industrial complex". Yes, I know that word. We live in 2007. Can the negative effects of extreme weather that we have seen in your country, Hurricane Katrina and the fires last year in California, be worse in the next years than September 11 2001? Is this a picknick before the real hurricanes and fires? Military threats? The USA have 20 times more military power (in a real threat situatuation) than the second nation on the list. I call that extreme unhealthy body building. I once saw a program on Cnn. It was when Reagan talked about his "star war" project. The reporter said. The real threat is inside USA. It is a historical fact, if you have problems in your own country, find an outside enemy. I saw a shocking progam about how people in New Orleans and Luisiana were treated after Hurricane Katrina. Twentyfive percent of all gass and 20 per cent of all oil supply in the USA is drilled outside the coast of New Orleans and Luisiana. If Luisiana had been separated form the rest of the USA, the economy would have been comparable to Saudi Arabia's. It seems to me as an outsider and foreigner, that instead of some Republican candidates promising to cut taxes, there should be imposed some income taxes on rich people so people in New Orleans and Luisiana, could get a decent life after the hurricane. Insurance companies. Was the house destroyed by flood, a tree falling over your house or the wind? If you did not have the right insurance, you did not get anything. It is also structural violence against people in your country living along the "Hurrican Coast" in the Mexican Gulf if this extreme weather is related to Global warming. It is structural violence to these people if they do not get the same shelter and protection as other people in your country and in the world. Excuse me for these negative comments. I know it is an American forum and I am a guest here.
6. "You can be an anti-globalist and still accept the fact that there are issues of global concern". Hopefully yes.
7. "Well, believe it or not my thoughts are actually inspired by some events that are taking place in your country and also in Germany. In Germany I read about a program where the government was guaranteeing the price paid to individuals utilizing solar power and as a result an entire industry has sprung up to produce photovoltaic cells". Yes, EU, more precisely Denmark, Germany and Sweden are in the front of some of these technologies.

This is a political and scientific problem. I remember from my studies in economics. Don't mix economics and politics. There is a difference between case and judgement. The question of global warming and how to best fight global warming is a question about case, and should be left to scientists. How high we wan't to prioritize the fight against global warming and pollution is a political question and as such a question about judegement. Which road we want to follow in the figth against global warming and pollution - if we can choose between many roads - is also a political question. But what will really be effective solutions, is a scientific question.

__________________
Kjell Gunnar Bleivik:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

Regarding my last section:

A scientist builds his / her conclusions on certain assumptions that is not always mentioned, eg. assumptions about how economic activity is organised. A scientist's predicitons and some of the unmentioned assumptions - can without the scientist being aware of it or even wish it - be influenced by the scientist's political attitudes and opinions. Therefore, there can be political elements when a scientist says something about a case.

Now (december 16 2007) on Norwegian Tv.

Record high measurement of CO2 (390 PPM) at Svalbard in the Artic and the trend is increasing. This is dramatic according to a Swedish scientist, since we may have underestimated the level and the increase. There is also a higher measurement of other greenhouse gasses, but the measurement of CO2 is most dramatic.

__________________
Kjell Gunnar Bleivik:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

Good evening Kgun...


QUOTE "Record high measurement of CO2 (390 PPM) at Svalbard in the Artic and the trend is increasing. This is dramatic according to a Swedish scientist, since we may have underestimated the level and the increase. There is also a higher measurement of other greenhouse gasses, but the measurement of CO2 is most dramatic."

Is it "dramatic" is dramatic a scientific term?

First most CO2 evaluation are given the error factor of + -3/6%... As the the northern hemisphere contains the most biomass and Man made CO2 production...The reading in the antarctic should not correlate to arctic reading...In Jan 2007 the reading NH was 383 ppm + -3/6% Hardly "dramatic" the new reading NH...

As well...


"Data from Britains Climate Research Unit show that the earth is cooler now than in 1998.There has been no warming in about 10 years. While 1998 was hotter than usual 2006 was cooler than 2002,2003,2004 and 2005.This year is about the same as 2006. During this time CO2 increased by about 5% casting further doubt on the CO2 - warming connection. A recent paper by Beck shows CO2 levels over 400 ppm in the 1820's and 1940's again showing the IPCC paradigm to be flawed to the point of fraudulence.

Polar bear numbers have been steadily increasing. Satellite data show that at current melting rates of the Greenland and Anarctic icecaps total sea level increase for the next hundred years would be about one and a half inches.
While Arctic sea ice has been at record lows Antarctic sea ice has been at record highs . The northern hemisphere has warmed while the southern has cooled . On balance the earth has cooled since 1998."


In the new edition of EARTHWATCH...A "forensic" view of the IPCC...And their utterances...

Amicablement..Indy

__________________
CLIMATE CHANGE MARS...http://www.rockhoundstation1.com/MARS01.html
CLIMATE CHANGE EARTH...http://www.rockhoundstation1.com/EARTHWATCH.html

I can't seem to reply here!

__________________

Actually I was. Econometrics, Advanced Statistics, Calculus, the whole nine yards. However, that was in 1994. When I graduated I hoped to pursue a Ph.D in Economics and was hoping to get an internship in NYC with the Federal Reserve. That did not happen. I wound up going to work for an accounting firm in Parsippany, NJ and went on to get an MBA in Finance and a JD. Make plans, God laughs. The problem is that while I maintain a keen interest in both economics and history. I must devote a substantial portion of time to my business. As such, I’m at best an amateur historian/economist.

__________________

Never mention ‘slave’ and pareto optimality in the same sentence

I would suggest that in the short-term demand for energy is relatively inelastic. If the price of gas doubles tomorrow, people must still fill their tank and get to work. It is only in the long-term that they can adjust their economic behavior, ie. By switching to a position that they can walk to, or shorten their commute.

However, in the context of global warming, there is no global taxing authority. In theory, the price that you would have to pay the residents of the Maldives is the sum that would compel every single individual to voluntarily emigrate prior to the inundation (and there are those who, I am sure, wouldn’t emigrate no matter what the price). Try to put a dollar figure on that! Very difficult.

__________________

This happens in the US too, it happened to me specifically. When I was younger, I had a heavy foot and received speeding tickets. My insurance was going to be $3000 per year, so I had to switch cars and modify my behavior. Years later, my driving record is flawless as I have become a model citizen, and I now pay $850 per year (which in NJ is considered good), and for insurance provides greater coverage.

__________________

I only brought up defense spending to illustrate the potential effectiveness of my preference for a subsidy. Ultimately I am not attempting to get into a guns/butter debate. The point is that the government has sought solutions to various technical problems related to national defense. Since the government was able to provide contracts, funding, etc., sure enough there are various contractors, industrial enterprises, etc. that have devoted substantial time, effort and resources to develop the desired solutions, and indeed, they have created some devilishly fantastic weaponry.
I can understand why you mention Katrina, because the global warming theory predicts warmer oceans and hence stronger hurricanes. I have no problem with that thesis. I concur with you that global warming is a serious issue and yes, it’s a serious issue inasmuch as the CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere is causing negative externalities. I would suggest that instead of trying to ‘assess’ blame and to tax the emitter of the CO2, I would prefer to simplify that process and would argue that as a society we are jointly and severally responsible for the problem. Do you blame ExxonMobil for making the gas, or every car driver who turns an internal combustion engine on.
Just as an aside, I can understand the frustration with the Federal response to Katrina. Nevertheless, it still highlights the concept that an ‘ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ In the face of a Category 5 storm, evacuation is essential. To the extent evacuation could not, would not, or did not happen, I blame those who willingly stayed (and were capable of leaving), the local, state and federal government.

And since the best solution to issues of global concern is a world government, I urge all nations to hasten their statehood applications. (just joking

__________________

My point being that my preference for a subsidy to green industries is not a typically American solution.


WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I adamantly object to that statement. Perhaps you are a little bit older than me, but while in college they had an entire course entitled ‘Political Economy’

Apparently this was a relatively new concept at the time, but they made quite a bit to do about it. Nevertheless, unless you are in a completely laissez-faire system, the government is the only institution that will address market imperfections. By its very nature, the government is a political entity. You must take into account political, social and cultural factors when discussing economic problems. Otherwise you will be advocating for economic policies that either have no chance of being implemented or otherwise will face such widespread social and cultural resistance that enacting the policy will be counter-productive.

In the context of the upcoming US election, the Republican candidate Governor Huckabee argues for a flat tax. Giuliani chastised him by essentially arguing that a flat tax was so far beyond the realm of possibility that discussing it was pointless.



This is essentially what I am advocating. I acknowledge that as a nation we need to make this issue a priority (of some sort), and advocate specifically stimulating private industry with subsidies (ostensibly the private companies will hire the necessary scientists and engineers) to develop the necessary solutions.

__________________