Why Politics is Inferior to the Market in Choosing Fuel

[Timshel]

As I said, review the history of suits against airports, you ignorant fuck. It's a nuissance, far more tangible than noise pollution. Why, if we can deal with that, can't we deal with emissions?

 

[uscitizen]

And the airports are still there....

 

[Bonestorm]

As I said, review the history of suits against airports, you ignorant fuck. It's a nuissance, far more tangible than noise pollution. Why, if we can deal with that, can't we deal with emissions?

Because the damages caused by emissions are not particularized or localized unlike noise pollution. Essentially, The states have to file suit (oh no, it's "government") not individual landowners. I suppose individuals living along the coasts could file suit on the grounds that rising sea levels resulting from global warming resulting from greenhouse emissions could sue polluters but you run up against all the same problems I identified previously.

 

[Timshel]

There is no regulatory mechanism currently in place to account for the negative externalities associated with the use of fossil fuels. That's my point.

Your response is that "government" is protecting the polluters and preventing the market from accounting for those external costs. I respond to that argument by pointing out that very basic common law concepts are responsible and pointed out the myriad obstacles that individual property owners face in bringing a lawsuit against polluters. You respond with a philosophy piece.

Make your argument and explain to me how this regulation by litigation would work to internalize the costs that are now external to the market. Until you show me how this is possible, on a large scale (not a farmer and the railroad scenario) your argument that the market is superior on fuel decisions is nonsense. Further, you haven't even attempted to explain how the positive externalities of alternative fuels would be built into their price. I'm afraid litigation isn't going to work.

Who do I send the bill to since I drive on biodiesel rendered from used cooking oil? Surely someone in the marketplace is going to compensate me for the resultant public good, no?

So you read two paragraphs. Yeah that's a fair hearing.

The road owners would pay for the pollution and would then charge the users of the road to offset it.

I am not arguing this would be perfect, just better than a system that grants one a "right" to pollute or one that assumes guilt. It's a difficult matter, but markets have proven time and again more effective than regulatory schemes.

To what positive externalities are you referring?

 

[Lao Tse]

As I said, review the history of suits against airports, you ignorant fuck. It's a nuissance, far more tangible than noise pollution. Why, if we can deal with that, can't we deal with emissions?

relative to air pollution which drifts endlessly on the breeze noise pollution is highly localized around the source of the noise, due to the transient nature of soundwaves. You're like dealing with a retard, honestly.

 

[Lao Tse]

So you read two paragraphs. Yeah that's a fair hearing.

The road owners would pay for the pollution and would then charge the users of the road to offset it.

I am not arguing this would be perfect, just better than a system that grants one a "right" to pollute or one that assumes guilt. It's a difficult matter, but markets have proven time and again more effective than regulatory schemes.

To what positive externalities are you referring?

Toll Air? IS that what you're proposing?

Remember in total recall when they were suffocating the workers on mars? That was cool. Plus, there was that three titted martian prostitute.

 

[Timshel]

Because the damages caused by emissions are not particularized or localized unlike noise pollution. Essentially, The states have to file suit (oh no, it's "government") not individual landowners. I suppose individuals living along the coasts could file suit on the grounds that rising sea levels resulting from global warming resulting from greenhouse emissions could sue polluters but you run up against all the same problems I identified previously.

Much of the external costs would have already been internalized (the polluters would have paid damages to the immediate victims), before we ever got to rising sea levels. I am not arguing that all possible externalities can be internalized, but many, much more than the current system accomplishes.

 

[Timshel]

Toll Air? IS that what you're proposing?

Remember in total recall when they were suffocating the workers on mars? That was cool. Plus, there was that three titted martian prostitute.

Yeah, we can see why you like to consider all issues based on science fiction, with your wild delusions about evil Chinese, Jews, minorities, immigrants, etc.

 

[Lao Tse]

Much of the external costs would have already been internalized (the polluters would have paid damages to the immediate victims), before we ever got to rising sea levels. I am not arguing that all possible externalities can be internalized, but many, much more than the current system accomplishes.

And furthermore, rarely will companies actively seek to re-internalize every last bit of damage they cause.

 

[Lao Tse]

Yeah, we can see why you like to consider all issues based on science fiction, with your wild delusions about evil Chinese, Jews, minorities, immigrants, etc.

What delusions would those be? Please explain.

 

[Timshel]

relative to air pollution which drifts endlessly on the breeze noise pollution is highly localized around the source of the noise, due to the transient nature of soundwaves. You're like dealing with a retard, honestly.

Noise drifts the same as air pollution. Noise completely disappears but the harmful effects of pollution virtually disappears over certain distances. In both cases, the neighboring victims are the most damaged. Through protection of the rights of the neighbors much of the costs could be internalized to the polluter. Not all, but far more than is currently occuring.

 

[Timshel]

What delusions would those be? Please explain.

You've done that already nAHZi.

 

[Timshel]

And furthermore, rarely will companies actively seek to re-internalize every last bit of damage they cause.

Who said they would???

 

[Bonestorm]

Noise drifts the same as air pollution. Noise completely disappears but the harmful effects of pollution virtually disappears over certain distances. In both cases, the neighboring victims are the most damaged. Through protection of the rights of the neighbors much of the costs could be internalized to the polluter. Not all, but far more than is currently occuring.

Even assuming you are correct, how is "government" preventing that from happening? (we agree that it isn't happening, correct? Or at least it isn't happening to such an extent that the price of fuels reflect the external costs?) And certainly more that the immediate neighbors are harmed given we a re talking about a global scale issue? How do you account for the secondary harm?

And what if the neighbors actually aren't harmed at all by a single polluter, but the cumulative effect of all polluters is that we all suffer a small degree of harm?

 

[Timshel]

Even assuming you are correct, how is "government" preventing that from happening? (we agree that it isn't happening, correct? Or at least it isn't happening to such an extent that the price of fuels reflect the external costs?)

The cost of roads aren't even internalized thanks to government, much less the pollution they cause.

And certainly more that the immediate neighbors are harmed given we a re talking about a global scale issue? How do you account for the secondary harm?

As I said, not all external costs can be internalized.

The secondary harm was not fully known and is still unclear. Blaming the "market" for failing to put a price on that is rather silly.

And what if the neighbors actually aren't harmed at all by a single polluter, but the cumulative effect of all polluters is that we all suffer a small degree of harm?

I assume you are talking about automobiles?

Those living next to an airport don't seek damages from one plane. They sue the airport. When lawsuits are brought against a concert grounds they do not make each concert goer or even the band defendants. Just the venue.

 

[Lao Tse]

You've done that already nAHZi.

I have explained a lot of bad things that are going on. No delusions though. You specialize in delusions.

 

[Lao Tse]

Noise drifts the same as air pollution. Noise completely disappears but the harmful effects of pollution virtually disappears over certain distances. In both cases, the neighboring victims are the most damaged. Through protection of the rights of the neighbors much of the costs could be internalized to the polluter. Not all, but far more than is currently occuring.

No. Fucko. It's not comparable. SOund travels a certain distance THROUGH air. it's a form of energy that travels in a compression wave through the air. The air is unharmed after the sound has stopped. There is no lasting POLLUTANT. You're laughably cretinesque.

 

[Bonestorm]

String - Apparently we are talking past each other. I'd just as soon save my breath than discuss this issue any further.

My solution: tax carbon.

 

[Timshel]

SOund travels a certain distance THROUGH air. it's a form of energy that travels in a compression wave through the air. The air is unharmed after the sound has stopped. There is no lasting POLLUTANT.

Yeah, that's what I said retard.

 

[Timshel]

String - Apparently we are talking past each other. I'd just as soon save my breath than discuss this issue any further.

My solution: tax carbon.

I don't know that we are talking past each other.

Anyway, I agree with the carbon tax as the best politically viable solution. I just do not agree the market cannot do more. It has been hampered by failure to protect property rights, which is basically the source of the market.