The Agreement is not binding! That is why everybody signed up! Also the Agreement says 3rd counties will be compensated for climate disasters. Of course I will signup if I am 3rd world!!
The good professor does not mention the potential economic benefits from global warming ,such as bigger crops due to longer seasons and more land becoming available,less irrigation due plants' metabolism of heat;savings on heating,and savings on healthcare.
He does mention that point in some of his other work, just not in this speech. He goes so far as to include how land values would go up as more crops become available as the climate changes and opens up more land to more species of plants... But because the point of this speech is to directly address and call out the Paris Climate Accords and how the IPCC data doesn't justify the actions proposed by the accords, he doesn't go there in this discussion.
It is a contradiction. It should really be called free-market conservation. Or really just the free market, because conservation is something it does by itself.
Might the Rothbardian approach be presented in somehow more prominent portion of the whole time? This is the most central and most interesting part :-)
I would have announced a withdrawal of the Paris Accord Solutions, and and question the constitutional problem of creating a Treaty, without ratifying said Treaty. Negotiations for the USA starts at, “ I’m going to do what makes sense for my citizens, just as other countries should be doing what makes sense for their citizens”. Furthermore, each widget produced must pay for trees planted in the country equal to amount of widget produced. Second each widget produced must remove the particle pollution at levels that the USA is required to remove particle pollution. Now, let’s negotiate in good faith.
Alarmists never mention the sun, and never mention temperatures. Odd, because the sun provides almost 100 percent of all radiant heat on earth. You think someone would have said by now “yes, we’ve studied the sun and don’t think it is the problem, this is why….” When the sports guy says the team set a scoring record last night, he tells you how many points they scored. Every year the media says last year was the hottest on record but no mention of the temperature, or how it compared to the previous year, what the trend is, nothing.
There's about 10 minutes of excellent info in this presentation. But, way too much unfocused, repetitive and pointless rambling. Next time, please prepare so you can present a concise, logical, focused argument.
I do agree that he spent too much time explaining things to everyone, in multiple ways. However there were a few that I struggled with myself and was glad that he went into further details.
He's right that the Paris Agreement is insufficient, but then he uses a socialist argument "it's better for the group if we don't limit emissions". But then he fails to be a libertarian, in that he's not willing to point out that there are winners and losers, and that the losers aren't compensated. Here's the underlying issue. We've known since 1992 (the Rio Conference) that emissions would be limited eventually. Many people knew earlier, but the Rio Conference was the political time-stamp. At Paris, we created the property rights (you're not allowed to take us above two degrees). It's the same property rights that prevent me from peeing on your lawn. This retroactively creates the buffer that we're allowing ourselves to spend (450 ppm). This buffer is then apportioned accordingly, effectively each person (and their resulting family) gets ownership of a portion of the buffer. The West then continued to consume theirs, according to their own whim. You have to look at the output on a per capita basis (how else would you apportion AIR, originally?). India and China are currently consuming buffer, but they're not yet consuming past their original ownership. It's like if two families were drawing off of a lake, and the lake was being depleted. Once the depletion was noted, the families then become responsible for their own overconsumption. You don't balance the damage done in any specific timepoint, you look at the total consumption that's taken place since the problem became known.
Per capita emissions are not a good way to do this, as the population of a country is influenced by culture and government actions. If there are 2 couples and one has one kid (3 people in total) and the other has 4 kids (6 people in total), its not fair if the second family gets twice more emissions. A better way to "apportion AIR" would be to take "per square km of habitable land".
MegaMementoMori I would disagree that the best metric is land surface area, but that's only a quibble. We are agreeing in spirit that there needs to be a metric, and that it's certainly not per country. The big thing is, that you only start counting since we became globally aware of the issue. That's why I like per capita, because in 1992 we found out that we had so many tons available to consume. We are basically splitting an inheritance, and then every individual chooses to consume their portion of the inheritance at a certain rate. Some faster than others
Heh, I was the 666th like. Funny how I adhere staunchly to the Bible. This guys is beginning to sell me well to Rothbard. I have my reservations on Mr. Rothbard. But he makes me want to rethink things
Only in America can you see a debate on whether humanity should act on climate change or not. Climate change is not some far off disaster in the future, it is already happening in my country. In just a span of a month, the Philippines was hit with 4 typhoons, with one of them being a super typhoon and the strongest cyclone of 2020. My people are dying as a consequence of inaction of countries like the United States. Trump and his supporters even had the guts to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement arguing it was "unfair". People from poorer countries are suffering from the adverse effects of climate change due to the neglect of Western countries. Skeptics and deniers should ashamed of themselves.
The big deal about the US pulling out of the agreement, is that US has arguably been the country that has benefited the most from fossil fuels and the industrial revolution. We are trying to incentivise other countries (particularly poor countries) to opt into renewable energy for their industrial revolutions. The US pulling out weakens the deal. Why would other countries like India follow through if the US is signaling it will still benefit from fossil fuel industries. These technologies will be expensive and many countries will opt to just go fossil fuels since US is not committed anymore so it doesn't matter how much they curb carbon since this needs to be a global effort. Pretty simple
There wasn't much in the way of economics in this discussion. And furthermore, it seems to me to be a strawmanning of arguments relating to climate change and regulation. Stephen Hawking might be worth listening to instead of being mocked because he also happens to believe that AI represents a threat as though that somehow invalidates concerns about the climate. But even then, he's just a physicist. How about the views of environmental economists or climate scientists or policymakers. Instead, there's plenty of use of weasel words (some people say, there are those that argue etc.) but no doubt there are serious and compelling arguments for regulation to deal with a problem markets are known at not dealing well with. Nevermind the fact that humans are not good at assessing long term risks as is presented in climate change. To illustrate strawmanning, consider the claim that those in favour of regulation say that businesses are trying to destroy the world. I've not come across anyone making that claim. And if I had I wouldn't present it as though the views of some fringe loony is to equivalent to that of policy makers. What I have heard however, is that companies, being in the business of making money care more about that than anything else including the planet. I've heard the term suicidal used which seems to me to be fair given the gravity of the problem. The externality problem on a planetary scale. This is a well recognised economic problem to which Murphy did not provide any market based solution except in the special case where regulation is being imposed which will force companies to save money in which case regulation would be redundant (It is worth noting that this happened in Australia. Companies fought regulations but found out later that they saved) Secondly, flaws within the Paris Agreement notwithstanding, the US has more power than any single country to have a set of agreements that actually have teeth if it so wished. And finally, the symbolism of the Paris Agreement is important and presents at least a start towards taking seriously a problem which threatens organised life on the planet. Withdrawal should itself be considered for the symbolism it represents. And here we know that Trump has called climate change a "hoax". The analysis of the withdrawal by Murphy seems to overlook this rather important point as though this was a well though out move based on a sober assessment rather than the decision of a climate change denialist and political bull in a china shop. Please let's not ex post pretend that Trump was doing this as some clever move. For christ sake this is the same president who wondered whether people should inject disinfectant to deal with COVID-19 As an end note, it's interesting how this heterodox economic theory attracts all sorts of fringe types united only in their desire, seemingly, to not pay tax. But, sadly, it seems that's what the Austrian School has become. If I was an economist presenting my economic views on a topic and half the people commenting and big upping me (maybe even wanting to pose and have their photo taken with me) thought they were being clever by rejecting the current scientific consensus (which scientist claims the science is settled? Can we please be serious ) it would give me pause for thought.
So the Mises Institute's argument is loosely scattered across these premises, ignoring the self-contradiction: 1. Policies that discourage carbon emissions will be hard on everyone including the middle class, the poor and business owners. 2. It is unlikely we can stop global warming at 2C 3. The Paris Accord is a non-binding treaty and proposes no penalties for not living up to Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) 4. Warming may bring a net benefit to industry and agriculture, so there's a good reason not to try and stop it. 5. Group action coordinated by governments smell like socialism What a pathetic excuse for abandoning all responsibilities to future generations and burdening them with the full weight of trillions of dollars that will be spent in the coming century to adapt, rebuild and relocate humanity from coastlines worldwide. Not one of these cheap talking points should give people doubts about the scientific certainty that not only is climate change real, but we cannot wait for energy systems carrying little marginal cost list wind and solar to dominate the market replace the established energy giants. The math is correct. There is no alternative theory that debunks what scientists are saying. There may be doubts, but the probability of eventual disaster is so massive that no insurer would take the bet. The likelihood of missing the 2C target is in no way justification for delaying climate action. Clean energy progress has been stalled for decades by fossil fuel interests through social and market manipulation. These merchants of doubt are grasping at the their last straws to extract every last drop of oil they can before their holdings become stranded assets. Mises "University", Koch Industries, the CATO institute, the Fraser Institute, all the rest of these libertarians suckling at the teat of Big Oil are a tax-exempt fake news PR machine trying to fit 18th century Austrian economic theories into a global economy that served to funnel half of the world's resources to just 8 clever billionaires. Is this freedom? It sounds like you're trying to help those old men clutch every ounce of their gold before they experience the worst of what's to come. www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50
You fail to realize that all of the measures taken, like the carbon tax, will be shouldered by the consumers, not any big company, big oil, or the like. The whole warmist/climate change debate, even if it were factually and scientifically true is irrelevant to the point that Mr. Murphy is elucidating here. The relevance of "global warming/climate change" is, unlike you believe, to pose as yet another justification for even more confiscation of everybody's property and/or resources. It is nothing but a sleight of hand to justify yet another round of big robbery and to ensure the continuation of the current global elite - something you apparently despise and yet, through your own argumentation, ends up endorsing wholeheartedly. Isn't it even midly curious to you that the ones that use such an argumentation want a bunch of our resources (money) NOW, though taxes and other confiscatory means, and yet do nothing to curb their own contribution to the problem they are allegedly solving? And if they aren't really doing anything NOW, why is it credible to assume that with the influx of additional billiions of dollars they'll start doing it? The State is rife with the corrupt, the psychopath and like minded monsters. Why believe, even for a second, that charging them with the protection of the climate, even if it was possible (it isn't), is a good thing? I'll repeat once more: it is completely irrelevant if global warming and/or climate change is scientifically proven or not. It bears enough semblance to truth to be gobbled up by voters with an uncritical mind. Said voters, like yourself, are the ones entirely responsible for the maintenance of the global elite you so loudly oppose and yet, through the silence of your uncritical mind, approve.
zkrtrt you are demonizing Al Gore to escape your personal contribution to the problem. After decades of misinformation from Big Oil, the obvious truth of the 400ppm atmosphere is being documented in real time by thousands of independent scientists. We don't know exactly how bad it will get but the only logical path forward is a rapid mitigation effort. A wait and see/business as usual approach requires no effort but excerbates the problem and picks the dying oil companies and their SHAREHOLDERS as winners.
All of the measures taken will be shouldered by consumers and not big corporations? That's patently absurd. Of course corporations will taxed in the same way as consumers, every carbon emitting activity is taxed at the same rate. In Canadian provinces where it has been in place for years, there are credits for low income earners and economic growth has been steady and positive. Next year it will be applied nationally, although there are pockets of resistance from a handful of conservative jurisdictions. Like tobacco taxes, carbon tax is a deterrent to encourage sustainable energy choices and support the adoption of more sustainable technology. I pay a lot for heating (mostly propane at present) and the extra tax is spurring me to invest in insulation and a heat pump this year. The investment will be a net cost benefit even without the tax; propane is expensive and inefficient. I honestly wish I didn't have to pay taxes at all, but the point is that everyone bears this burden collectively. Everyone who drives a car or burns gas for heat is responsible for the problem, only now has the cost of the emissions been factored in. Climate change is fact, the discussion is over. This insane alt-right movement to justify doing nothing about it, or reexamine the science or wait for cheaper alternatives is counter-productive. Renewables reached parity with carbon energy last year, there is no turning back to the "good ol' days" of coal. Your argument is inconsistent and rooted in a baseless conspiracy theory.
All taxes, however you may name it, are ultimately taxes on consumption. The added dollars that must go to the government's coffers will be reflected by a raise in all prices pertaining to the taxed activity - and, most likely, throught its production chain. The one who'll really *pay* for it is you and every other consumer. The companies, both small and huge, will only add those additional taxes to their cost. If anything, the companies will, at most, decry this tax as it makes their products more expensive due to something that is as fictional as the bugs bunny (for them). Again, I'm not disputing the credibility of the existence or not of AGW or that CO2 is the evil as it's portrayed and etc. Personally, I don't believe in any of it. And the climate has been changing since the dawn of the universe, it's really not as big of a deal as many depict it to be. More than that, we really cannot control it the way the government tells you that it can. If we could, why do we still have floods, snowstorms, earthquakes, famine, and etc? Again I ask of you, why do you think that a further confiscation of a nation's wealth by a band of robbers and killers, as all politicians ultimately are, in the name of the environment, or whatever the next flavor of the month demagoguery that will spawn from their mouths will benefit you or your children? And, as I said before, the issue that Mr. Murphy is consistently attacking is, ultimately, not the fact that climate change exists, or AGW exists, or any of that. He's just pointing out how ludicrous it is to use such arguments as further justification to line the pockets of the elite and preventing ALL of us from improving our own lives through an even more difficult social environment in which we can accumulate capital - the hallmark of a better life for us, as individuals, and for our families, that will inherit our property.
Andrew cheadle You poor soul. You have to be a pretty hard denialist to still stick your head in the sand in 2020. Please don’t get your information exclusively from RUclips. There are too many conspiracy nuts on here.
I am going to be watching Pakistan like a hawk. If they don't keep to the commitment they made in Paris, I am going to be truly shocked.
I'll be shocked as well if they're able to defy the rules of logic. xD
Why don't we all just follow Pakistan's example?
+Donald Clifford, good idea! Then we could get access to congressional computer servers too.
😂
Keep shredding that Krugman and the other villains with your adamantium logic.
Great talk thank you.
@@joebloggs479 ahahahahahahahahaahaha
Adamantium, lol
Another great talk by Bob Murphy. Love his talks.
I watched this about a year ago and it definitely changed my life. Eye opening video!! Thank Mises for you!
How can a guy give such patient explanations and be so condescending at the same time? Gotta love Bob Murphy
My takeaway is maybe we should start selling climate change insurance.
I keep offering to buy Alarmists beech front property for pennies on the dollar, and they wont!
Maybe they read the recent news that for the past 14 months, ocean level has receded, measurably.
Nope, not Wolverine. Hank McCoy (Beast) seems a better fit for Bob.
The Agreement is not binding! That is why everybody signed up! Also the Agreement says 3rd counties will be compensated for climate disasters. Of course I will signup if I am 3rd world!!
Yes but it was a lie. They were already talking about how to get it legalized 2 years after signing it.
The good professor does not mention the potential economic benefits from global warming ,such as bigger crops due to longer seasons and more land becoming available,less irrigation due plants' metabolism of heat;savings on heating,and savings on healthcare.
He's talking about within the guidelines and methodology of the Paris Accord.
If that is true,it is sad.
He does mention that point in some of his other work, just not in this speech. He goes so far as to include how land values would go up as more crops become available as the climate changes and opens up more land to more species of plants... But because the point of this speech is to directly address and call out the Paris Climate Accords and how the IPCC data doesn't justify the actions proposed by the accords, he doesn't go there in this discussion.
Dumbest shit I have read. Go farming for a decade, in your real life, before you jump to and spew such dangerous presumptions. Bigger crop?????
I love this guy. :-)
It is a contradiction. It should really be called free-market conservation. Or really just the free market, because conservation is something it does by itself.
Might the Rothbardian approach be presented in somehow more prominent portion of the whole time? This is the most central and most interesting part :-)
I would have announced a withdrawal of the Paris Accord Solutions, and and question the constitutional problem of creating a Treaty, without ratifying said Treaty. Negotiations for the USA starts at, “ I’m going to do what makes sense for my citizens, just as other countries should be doing what makes sense for their citizens”. Furthermore, each widget produced must pay for trees planted in the country equal to amount of widget produced. Second each widget produced must remove the particle pollution at levels that the USA is required to remove particle pollution. Now, let’s negotiate in good faith.
Mr. Murphy, I really like the beard. It gives you a rather extinguished look.
He's not extinguished, he's alive! And if I may make so bold, unquenchable ;)
That's a _good_ thing.
+Ed Waggoner, Extinguished? No way! The man is on fire.
Amazing that some fail to see the play on words here.
@@edwaggonersr.7446 Malapropism.
Actually the Pakistanis pledged to have a single maximum, didn't they?
Source please.
This aged like wine after covid. "The science"
I never knew George Costanza was from Austria
The beard is killer. You look like Bohm-Bawerk
Of course youtube decided to give this a misinformation tag 🙄
24:30...so, big corporations are the global super villains?!
Alarmists never mention the sun, and never mention temperatures. Odd, because the sun provides almost 100 percent of all radiant heat on earth. You think someone would have said by now “yes, we’ve studied the sun and don’t think it is the problem, this is why….” When the sports guy says the team set a scoring record last night, he tells you how many points they scored. Every year the media says last year was the hottest on record but no mention of the
temperature, or how it compared to the previous year, what the trend is, nothing.
China has a climate change policy, and has a free trade agreement with my country, New Zealand. So why would I want to buy American goods?
You can't have free trade with China because they don't practice. You can't free trade with a mixed economy.
It's you money you are free to spend it how you please.
@@meganh9460 I am told that they subsidise their industry- which makes the products cheaper. But they buy our cherries locally- so I support them.
Chanelling Krugman sporting that beard
There's about 10 minutes of excellent info in this presentation. But, way too much unfocused, repetitive and pointless rambling. Next time, please prepare so you can present a concise, logical, focused argument.
Do it yourself, lazy bum.
I do agree that he spent too much time explaining things to everyone, in multiple ways. However there were a few that I struggled with myself and was glad that he went into further details.
The cosmopolitans won't be happy about this...
You were the “cool kid” for the uncool kids.
We don't even know if the planet would **naturally** heat 2 degrees Celsius, without greenhouse gas emissions.
Dinasour anyone hello the time of big mushrooms no ok.
He's right that the Paris Agreement is insufficient, but then he uses a socialist argument "it's better for the group if we don't limit emissions". But then he fails to be a libertarian, in that he's not willing to point out that there are winners and losers, and that the losers aren't compensated.
Here's the underlying issue. We've known since 1992 (the Rio Conference) that emissions would be limited eventually. Many people knew earlier, but the Rio Conference was the political time-stamp. At Paris, we created the property rights (you're not allowed to take us above two degrees). It's the same property rights that prevent me from peeing on your lawn.
This retroactively creates the buffer that we're allowing ourselves to spend (450 ppm). This buffer is then apportioned accordingly, effectively each person (and their resulting family) gets ownership of a portion of the buffer. The West then continued to consume theirs, according to their own whim. You have to look at the output on a per capita basis (how else would you apportion AIR, originally?). India and China are currently consuming buffer, but they're not yet consuming past their original ownership.
It's like if two families were drawing off of a lake, and the lake was being depleted. Once the depletion was noted, the families then become responsible for their own overconsumption. You don't balance the damage done in any specific timepoint, you look at the total consumption that's taken place since the problem became known.
Per capita emissions are not a good way to do this, as the population of a country is influenced by culture and government actions. If there are 2 couples and one has one kid (3 people in total) and the other has 4 kids (6 people in total), its not fair if the second family gets twice more emissions. A better way to "apportion AIR" would be to take "per square km of habitable land".
MegaMementoMori I would disagree that the best metric is land surface area, but that's only a quibble. We are agreeing in spirit that there needs to be a metric, and that it's certainly not per country. The big thing is, that you only start counting since we became globally aware of the issue. That's why I like per capita, because in 1992 we found out that we had so many tons available to consume. We are basically splitting an inheritance, and then every individual chooses to consume their portion of the inheritance at a certain rate. Some faster than others
Heh, I was the 666th like. Funny how I adhere staunchly to the Bible.
This guys is beginning to sell me well to Rothbard. I have my reservations on Mr. Rothbard. But he makes me want to rethink things
bertrum
Only in America can you see a debate on whether humanity should act on climate change or not. Climate change is not some far off disaster in the future, it is already happening in my country. In just a span of a month, the Philippines was hit with 4 typhoons, with one of them being a super typhoon and the strongest cyclone of 2020. My people are dying as a consequence of inaction of countries like the United States. Trump and his supporters even had the guts to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement arguing it was "unfair". People from poorer countries are suffering from the adverse effects of climate change due to the neglect of Western countries. Skeptics and deniers should ashamed of themselves.
mhm
Spreading misinformation again I see...
The big deal about the US pulling out of the agreement, is that US has arguably been the country that has benefited the most from fossil fuels and the industrial revolution. We are trying to incentivise other countries (particularly poor countries) to opt into renewable energy for their industrial revolutions. The US pulling out weakens the deal. Why would other countries like India follow through if the US is signaling it will still benefit from fossil fuel industries.
These technologies will be expensive and many countries will opt to just go fossil fuels since US is not committed anymore so it doesn't matter how much they curb carbon since this needs to be a global effort.
Pretty simple
This is so bafflingly short-sighted.
Welcome, Denialists!
There wasn't much in the way of economics in this discussion. And furthermore, it seems to me to be a strawmanning of arguments relating to climate change and regulation. Stephen Hawking might be worth listening to instead of being mocked because he also happens to believe that AI represents a threat as though that somehow invalidates concerns about the climate. But even then, he's just a physicist. How about the views of environmental economists or climate scientists or policymakers. Instead, there's plenty of use of weasel words (some people say, there are those that argue etc.) but no doubt there are serious and compelling arguments for regulation to deal with a problem markets are known at not dealing well with. Nevermind the fact that humans are not good at assessing long term risks as is presented in climate change.
To illustrate strawmanning, consider the claim that those in favour of regulation say that businesses are trying to destroy the world. I've not come across anyone making that claim. And if I had I wouldn't present it as though the views of some fringe loony is to equivalent to that of policy makers. What I have heard however, is that companies, being in the business of making money care more about that than anything else including the planet. I've heard the term suicidal used which seems to me to be fair given the gravity of the problem. The externality problem on a planetary scale. This is a well recognised economic problem to which Murphy did not provide any market based solution except in the special case where regulation is being imposed which will force companies to save money in which case regulation would be redundant (It is worth noting that this happened in Australia. Companies fought regulations but found out later that they saved)
Secondly, flaws within the Paris Agreement notwithstanding, the US has more power than any single country to have a set of agreements that actually have teeth if it so wished.
And finally, the symbolism of the Paris Agreement is important and presents at least a start towards taking seriously a problem which threatens organised life on the planet. Withdrawal should itself be considered for the symbolism it represents. And here we know that Trump has called climate change a "hoax". The analysis of the withdrawal by Murphy seems to overlook this rather important point as though this was a well though out move based on a sober assessment rather than the decision of a climate change denialist and political bull in a china shop. Please let's not ex post pretend that Trump was doing this as some clever move. For christ sake this is the same president who wondered whether people should inject disinfectant to deal with COVID-19
As an end note, it's interesting how this heterodox economic theory attracts all sorts of fringe types united only in their desire, seemingly, to not pay tax. But, sadly, it seems that's what the Austrian School has become. If I was an economist presenting my economic views on a topic and half the people commenting and big upping me (maybe even wanting to pose and have their photo taken with me) thought they were being clever by rejecting the current scientific consensus (which scientist claims the science is settled? Can we please be serious ) it would give me pause for thought.
So the Mises Institute's argument is loosely scattered across these premises, ignoring the self-contradiction:
1. Policies that discourage carbon emissions will be hard on everyone including the middle class, the poor and business owners.
2. It is unlikely we can stop global warming at 2C
3. The Paris Accord is a non-binding treaty and proposes no penalties for not living up to Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)
4. Warming may bring a net benefit to industry and agriculture, so there's a good reason not to try and stop it.
5. Group action coordinated by governments smell like socialism
What a pathetic excuse for abandoning all responsibilities to future generations and burdening them with the full weight of trillions of dollars that will be spent in the coming century to adapt, rebuild and relocate humanity from coastlines worldwide. Not one of these cheap talking points should give people doubts about the scientific certainty that not only is climate change real, but we cannot wait for energy systems carrying little marginal cost list wind and solar to dominate the market replace the established energy giants. The math is correct. There is no alternative theory that debunks what scientists are saying. There may be doubts, but the probability of eventual disaster is so massive that no insurer would take the bet.
The likelihood of missing the 2C target is in no way justification for delaying climate action. Clean energy progress has been stalled for decades by fossil fuel interests through social and market manipulation. These merchants of doubt are grasping at the their last straws to extract every last drop of oil they can before their holdings become stranded assets. Mises "University", Koch Industries, the CATO institute, the Fraser Institute, all the rest of these libertarians suckling at the teat of Big Oil are a tax-exempt fake news PR machine trying to fit 18th century Austrian economic theories into a global economy that served to funnel half of the world's resources to just 8 clever billionaires. Is this freedom? It sounds like you're trying to help those old men clutch every ounce of their gold before they experience the worst of what's to come.
www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50
alcom lol
You fail to realize that all of the measures taken, like the carbon tax, will be shouldered by the consumers, not any big company, big oil, or the like. The whole warmist/climate change debate, even if it were factually and scientifically true is irrelevant to the point that Mr. Murphy is elucidating here. The relevance of "global warming/climate change" is, unlike you believe, to pose as yet another justification for even more confiscation of everybody's property and/or resources. It is nothing but a sleight of hand to justify yet another round of big robbery and to ensure the continuation of the current global elite - something you apparently despise and yet, through your own argumentation, ends up endorsing wholeheartedly.
Isn't it even midly curious to you that the ones that use such an argumentation want a bunch of our resources (money) NOW, though taxes and other confiscatory means, and yet do nothing to curb their own contribution to the problem they are allegedly solving? And if they aren't really doing anything NOW, why is it credible to assume that with the influx of additional billiions of dollars they'll start doing it? The State is rife with the corrupt, the psychopath and like minded monsters. Why believe, even for a second, that charging them with the protection of the climate, even if it was possible (it isn't), is a good thing?
I'll repeat once more: it is completely irrelevant if global warming and/or climate change is scientifically proven or not. It bears enough semblance to truth to be gobbled up by voters with an uncritical mind. Said voters, like yourself, are the ones entirely responsible for the maintenance of the global elite you so loudly oppose and yet, through the silence of your uncritical mind, approve.
zkrtrt you are demonizing Al Gore to escape your personal contribution to the problem. After decades of misinformation from Big Oil, the obvious truth of the 400ppm atmosphere is being documented in real time by thousands of independent scientists.
We don't know exactly how bad it will get but the only logical path forward is a rapid mitigation effort. A wait and see/business as usual approach requires no effort but excerbates the problem and picks the dying oil companies and their SHAREHOLDERS as winners.
All of the measures taken will be shouldered by consumers and not big corporations? That's patently absurd. Of course corporations will taxed in the same way as consumers, every carbon emitting activity is taxed at the same rate. In Canadian provinces where it has been in place for years, there are credits for low income earners and economic growth has been steady and positive. Next year it will be applied nationally, although there are pockets of resistance from a handful of conservative jurisdictions.
Like tobacco taxes, carbon tax is a deterrent to encourage sustainable energy choices and support the adoption of more sustainable technology. I pay a lot for heating (mostly propane at present) and the extra tax is spurring me to invest in insulation and a heat pump this year. The investment will be a net cost benefit even without the tax; propane is expensive and inefficient. I honestly wish I didn't have to pay taxes at all, but the point is that everyone bears this burden collectively. Everyone who drives a car or burns gas for heat is responsible for the problem, only now has the cost of the emissions been factored in.
Climate change is fact, the discussion is over. This insane alt-right movement to justify doing nothing about it, or reexamine the science or wait for cheaper alternatives is counter-productive. Renewables reached parity with carbon energy last year, there is no turning back to the "good ol' days" of coal. Your argument is inconsistent and rooted in a baseless conspiracy theory.
All taxes, however you may name it, are ultimately taxes on consumption. The added dollars that must go to the government's coffers will be reflected by a raise in all prices pertaining to the taxed activity - and, most likely, throught its production chain. The one who'll really *pay* for it is you and every other consumer. The companies, both small and huge, will only add those additional taxes to their cost. If anything, the companies will, at most, decry this tax as it makes their products more expensive due to something that is as fictional as the bugs bunny (for them).
Again, I'm not disputing the credibility of the existence or not of AGW or that CO2 is the evil as it's portrayed and etc. Personally, I don't believe in any of it. And the climate has been changing since the dawn of the universe, it's really not as big of a deal as many depict it to be. More than that, we really cannot control it the way the government tells you that it can. If we could, why do we still have floods, snowstorms, earthquakes, famine, and etc?
Again I ask of you, why do you think that a further confiscation of a nation's wealth by a band of robbers and killers, as all politicians ultimately are, in the name of the environment, or whatever the next flavor of the month demagoguery that will spawn from their mouths will benefit you or your children?
And, as I said before, the issue that Mr. Murphy is consistently attacking is, ultimately, not the fact that climate change exists, or AGW exists, or any of that. He's just pointing out how ludicrous it is to use such arguments as further justification to line the pockets of the elite and preventing ALL of us from improving our own lives through an even more difficult social environment in which we can accumulate capital - the hallmark of a better life for us, as individuals, and for our families, that will inherit our property.
He’s wrong about the science (first few minutes of the talk). We ARE facing a climate catastrophe. Denying facts cannot be good economics...
What climate catastrophe is that then?
Andrew cheadle You poor soul. You have to be a pretty hard denialist to still stick your head in the sand in 2020. Please don’t get your information exclusively from RUclips. There are too many conspiracy nuts on here.
Not an argument.
You were the “cool kid” for the uncool kids.