[damo_in_sale]

If we in the developed world reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, oil for example, in an effort to curb rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations, then in the short term demand will obviously be lowered.

This demand shock will depress the Market Valuation of oil as a commodity. As a result, oil will become more affordable, around the developing world, to more people, and they will buy and burn more than was previously possible.

[geomuss]

your statement makes no sense, it contradicts itself in many ways!

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by geomuss

your statement makes no sense, it contradicts itself in many ways!

How so mate? You have to understand that economics is a new topic for most of the posters on this forum, so I try and keep things simple

[Stephen Wilde]

There's no doubt that what we don't use will be taken up by the developing world but their demand is likely to grow so fast that it will more than offset any price impact caused by our reduced consumption.

Our problem is that unless new sources of cheap clean power are found very soon the cost of energy will become debilitating for our debt laden economies.

At present the money we borrow is spent on foreign goods especially from China and India. That money is then recycled back to us by the suppliers of our goods putting their profits back into world financial institutions which lend it back to us to keep the spiral going.

At some point we will have to stop borrowing whereupon our economies go into recession, the value of Western currencies drops and the value of the Asian and Eastern investments falls with a severe impact on the nations currently supplying us with cheap goods.

The only issue is one of timing. It is not going to be pretty.

[welshy]

If we did reduce our consumption of fossil fuels where do you think the Government will get their taxes from? Yes I do agree in reducing pollution and I wish we could find alternative fuel. However I really don't think the governments would support it because they would lose too much money.

I bet you anything if I said I found a new non polluting cheap fuel the government would hide it. It would be more difficult for them (the government) to find alternative taxes than get rid of me!

Although I am for alternative non polluting fuels I know the Big Powers are not.

[Nimby]

damo

You are wrong for the reasons that Stephen gave.

China and India will soak up any oil made available by any reduction elsewhere.

It has been known for decades that oil was finite.

What has been done to alter our wasteful habits?

Perhaps more importantly: What has been done to make public transport even mildly user friendly?

Hundreds of millions worldwide choose to avoid noisy, smelly, smoke-belching, gut-wrenching busses to sit in traffic jams for hours each day.

Cycling is a form of torture when the activity has to be shared with 10-wheeler smoke-belching lorries and noisy, smelly, gut wrenching busses and an endless stream of cars desperately trying to pass you to gain one car space on the road. Somebody along the way somehow forgot that cyclists actually have to breathe.

Walking across town is a series of long stops waiting for a chain of cars and smoking busses and lorries to make just a few yards progress. When the traffic is actually moving it is one long hideous roar. Which makes walking very unpleasant and extremely unhealthy.

Walking along the verge on country roads and lanes is a hell on earth. Historic towns were gutted by mini-motorways to nowhere which destroyed the pleasure of walking and cycling to the shops almost overnight.

How was it ever allowed to get like this? Because the car can be taxed in so many different ways? There is a form of total global madness in our daily means of transport. Speed is sold as a narcotic to billions. Nobody ever discusses the size of their brakes. Most can tell you how many potential brake horses they have available but can't tell you even one single stopping distance from any particular speed.

Every car sports alloy wheels and low profile tyres, bucket seats and aerodynamic-looking spoilers and wings. A complete fantasy starts on the dealer's forecourt and usually ends fifteen years later in the scrapyard.

All this and we still imagine we can go on driving our inefficient vehicles on empty roads until the last drop of petrol is fought over...to the death.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by Nimby

damo

You are wrong for the reasons that Stephen gave.

China and India will soak up any oil made available by any reduction elsewhere.

Hi mate,


I'm sorry that I've severely snipped your post, but the above is all you posted that is of relevance, in my opinion.

Yes, China and India are likely to soak up any oil made available by reduction elsewhere.

Thanks,


Damo

[Nimby]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

I'm sorry that I've severely snipped your post, but the above is all you posted that is of relevance, in my opinion. Damo

Brevity in quotation is almost always desirable.

Your opinions are your own. It was ever thus.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by welshy

I bet you anything if I said I found a new non polluting cheap fuel the government would hide it. It would be more difficult for them (the government) to find alternative taxes than get rid of me!

Your faith in the inability of Governments to find excuses to tax us is touching.

The Tories managed to claim to lower taxes whilst raising VAT by over 100%, introducing Insurance premium and Air passsenger taxes and raising national insurance inter alia

If there was a new non polluting cheap fuel for cars the need for congestion charging would become acute and immediate. The Govt could raise more money than in petrol taxes and keep the cost of motoring the same.

[ducattigezzer]

wind power,solar power etc all the so called freepower is so hard to adopt in this country.

we can all blame the goverment thats easy

but where i've worked and lived around the country it all about not in my back yard it will spoil my view and make my house price go down

these are the type of people who are quite happy to tell the developing countries to use alternative fuels but when they are asked to do it ,find the excuses not too.

as for the goverment raising taxes on fuel, don't you think they get plenty as it and do nothing for it????

and as for alternative fuels for cars why would the car companys do that it will only eat into profits.
they will still sell you that petrol car until the oil runs dry.

if people and the goverments really want to global warming to slow down stop chopping down the forests NOW

and no i'm not a tree hugger the more forest cut down the less co2 gets converted to o2 and the more co2 gets released into the atmosphere

well thats my rant for the day

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by andykn

The Tories managed to claim to lower taxes whilst raising VAT by over 100%, introducing Insurance premium and Air passsenger taxes and raising national insurance inter alia

In 1997 around 37% of an average persons hard earned pay packet was forcibly removed by the government. It is now 45%.

Before 1979 it was utterly pointless to work overtime for many people, or even to improve ones skills and knowledge in order to be more productive, because higher rate tax was so punitive.

The above is one of the many reasons why the UK was a laughing stock and a basket case prior to the Thatcher revolution.

I do wish you would stick to facts as opposed to simply regurgitating left wing dogma.

[Nimby]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

I do wish you would stick to facts as opposed to simply regurgitating left wing dogma.

And I do wish you wouldn't. This is not a political discussion forum.

Where taxation levels are relevant to a climate thread then they may be worth mentioning.

A good example: Denmark has the highest taxes in the world. It has the highest population happiness index and is one of the most equal. Its citizens also have one of the the highest standards of living in the world. Car prices are astronomical thanks to massive registration charges on importations. Fuel prices closely match those of the UK. Denmark makes lots of wind turbines and exports them all around the world.

A poor example: Handbags have no recorded relevance to climate discussion yet seem to constantly underpin your arguments.

[damo_in_sale]

Handbags are used to constantly underpin my self mockery, and my sense of humour, not my arguments

[pjclark1]

Originally Posted by welshy

I bet you anything if I said I found a new non polluting cheap fuel the government would hide it.

You appear to be wrong
Vegetable oil instead of diesel, the government has just allowed people to use 2500l a year without having to pay tax. Clean and green 50p a litre and mixes right in with your diesel at 95p a litre.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

If we in the developed world reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, oil for example, in an effort to curb rising CO2 atmospheric concentrations, then in the short term demand will obviously be lowered.

This demand shock will depress the Market Valuation of oil as a commodity. As a result, oil will become more affordable, around the developing world, to more people, and they will buy and burn more than was previously possible.

Actually he is right on the money. In this regards that it has been demonstrated right here in the USA. Where prices were artificially kept low in order to increase demand (number of people using it.) If prices had been high we would not have the number of motorist driving, that, we have today. Now that people are hooked and addicted to the conveniences of driving and all the other things you do with oil. It is proving to be disastrous in that we don't want to give up wasteful conveniences like automated check out lines and such which ultimately was made by cheap energy.

You need to artificially keep the oil price high around the world through tariffs to keep it stable. While we reduce consumption.

Lets face it it is a matter of time before our imaginary economy is going to collapse due to bad leadership and artificial influences that keep it going today. we moved away from the consumer demand and into create then make consumer demand. I don't expect you to understand this last comment.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by ducattigezzer

wind power,solar power etc all the so called freepower is so hard to adopt in this country.

we can all blame the goverment thats easy

but where i've worked and lived around the country it all about not in my back yard it will spoil my view and make my house price go down

these are the type of people who are quite happy to tell the developing countries to use alternative fuels but when they are asked to do it ,find the excuses not too.

as for the goverment raising taxes on fuel, don't you think they get plenty as it and do nothing for it????

and as for alternative fuels for cars why would the car companys do that it will only eat into profits.
they will still sell you that petrol car until the oil runs dry.

if people and the goverments really want to global warming to slow down stop chopping down the forests NOW

and no i'm not a tree hugger the more forest cut down the less co2 gets converted to o2 and the more co2 gets released into the atmosphere

well thats my rant for the day

Actually, it is ignorance on the locals part, that chop the forest. There only concern is food on the table, which is vital for survival. You need to educate them and give them an easier alternative. If it is not easier and you fail to educate them they will revert to their old habits.

We can help them by not using palm olive biofuels which is primary reason for the speed up of rain forest deforestation.

We can't make them do what we want in that it would be infringing on their sovereignty. USA is an example regarding democracy in how making someone else do something they don't want.

Then there is "they are doing it, so can I" Excuse.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Actually he is right on the money. In this regards that it has been demonstrated right here in the USA. Where prices were artificially kept low in order to increase demand (number of people using it.) If prices had been high we would not have the number of motorist driving, that, we have today. Now that people are hooked and addicted to the conveniences of driving and all the other things you do with oil. It is proving to be disastrous in that we don't want to give up wasteful conveniences like automated check out lines and such which ultimately was made by cheap energy.

You need to artificially keep the oil price high around the world through tariffs to keep it stable. While we reduce consumption.

Lets face it it is a matter of time before our imaginary economy is going to collapse due to bad leadership and artificial influences that keep it going today. we moved away from the consumer demand and into create then make consumer demand. I don't expect you to understand this last comment.

Mate, I think you're great You have very different views to those of myself but I respect you because, unlike many others here, you are both friendly AND believe that I am entitled to express my political and economic views here on this forum relating to the topic of MMGW. In essence, you’re a good sport.

However, erm, you are correct in asserting that I don’t understand your last comment, because it appears not to be written in English, at least not in decipherable form

If you clarify what you mean then I will hopefully respond.


If you tax everyone in your country punitively for oil consumption, then all that will happen is that oil will be consumed elsewhere.

Cheers mate,

Damo

[Nimby]

I believe Corey is suggesting that we have moved on from natural consumer demand into creating artificial consumer demand.

A real need does not exist for a particular product so it must be made to appear essential to one's lifestyle.

Coca cola, fast foods, designer label products, golfing equipment, expensive AV cables, etc, etc.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by andykn

The Tories managed to claim to lower taxes whilst raising VAT by over 100%, introducing Insurance premium and Air passsenger taxes and raising national insurance inter alia.

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

I do wish you would stick to facts as opposed to simply regurgitating left wing dogma.

Er, what part of my post you quoted is not true?

[Stephen Wilde]

It's correct, as Corey says, that a proportion of current total demand arises artificially as a result of arguably unnecessary lifestyle choices rather than real physical need.

Also he is right in saying or implying that the whole world economy is now dependent on a continuation of such artificial demand.

The trouble is that there is no clear moral viewpoint to be derived from those facts either for or against such artificiality. The following points are relevant:

1) It is the artificial component that has energised the world economy to so increase the total wealth and funding needed to reduce death rates and increase the planet's carrying capacity to hitherto unimagined levels.

2) Lifestyle choices do within reason have a valid emotional context in that they can help to satisfy deep seated emotional needs for security, aesthetic satisfaction, self esteem and generally making a difficult existence worth living. All of us have our hidden demons which need to be assuaged if we are to become good inhabitants of the planet.

3) Consumption in itself is not objectionable. The problem is the number of people who exist at any particular level of consumption. Either the planet can be made to support the preferred combination or it cannot. Unfortunately there is no definitive or enforceable point of balance.

In a sense Corey is more optimistic than me because he favours the view that the problem is solveable by encouragement and a degree of central government direction. I tend to the view that the population aspect at least can only be dealt with by getting the third world rich enough for people to voluntarily limit family size. The alternative would be an unacceptable level of oppression world wide.

[Corey USA]

A specific example is computer components like video cards. The upgraded version of the same card.
I have a deep suspicion that they have the tech to produce the next generation card but they spend time giving you the strip down version adding little improvements here and there in small steps forcing you to buy a new card frequently. In order to drive up profits. (This also wastes vast resources in that the cards being replaced work perfectly. Same with the operating systems and backward compatibility. This is a profit drive not sustainability drive.) . Why aren't they putting all the major improvements in one package every couple of years or longer. Doing big steps instead of little steps.

I have encountered this with many product from walmart and other places where the goods last for short periods of time Forcing you to buy new, when, it is a minor thing like wiring that went bad. I had a humidifier go out in less than 4 months right after the 90 day return.

Go figure, the warranty, itself is a clue that they know exactly how long it will last. What happened to life time guaranteed and life time warranty?

What does it have to do with economy? simple forces the money to keep changing hands when there really is no money look at the deficit as an example that there actually is no money. If there was where is it in that some one should be having a huge positive bank account.

Makes me wonder if the international bank on that Island, which is its own country, is holding the money. Right where No government on earth can court order them to share their financial records and transactions. (minus the client info itself. Just the amount of money being wired and when.)

[Stephen Wilde]

There's no doubt that competition is wasteful as is manufacturing down to a price rather than maintaining durability and repairability.

Unfortunately it is the same competition and manufacturing down to an affordable price which produces the incentives and the funds to innovate and improve or go out of business.

Regulation and direction however well intended are only capable of blocking the progress we need to overcome our problems. Usually they frustrate innovation, penalise experimentation and create monopoly conditions for favoured suppliers and producers.

The market, made up of millions of individual decisions daily, is the most responsive environment possible for the development of the technologies and systems we need. Often a solution is in train even before any individual can articulate the problem. Of course it cannot be unrestrained which is why we have a Rule of Law and a sense of what is acceptable commercial practice.

There are good reasons why the West has enabled such a huge reduction in death rates and a staggering increase in the planetary carrying capacity.

Only the operation of the same methods lightly restrained will deliver what is needed. No central command economy has ever been successful for more than a tiny ruling elite.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Unfortunately it is the same competition and manufacturing down to an affordable price which produces the incentives and the funds to innovate and improve or go out of business.

Regulation and direction however well intended are only capable of blocking the progress we need to overcome our problems. Usually they frustrate innovation, penalise experimentation and create monopoly conditions for favoured suppliers and producers.

Here in the USA this happens regardless of regulations or not. Only that the regulations were well intended but were changed with Amendments by lobbying by particular companies which then had the regulations changed to favor the particular company while giving disadvantage to competitors.

Look into the regulations regarding Organic. which Is Primary example of Good regulation That actually worked and was changed to favor big mechanized operations while making it difficult if you were a small diverse organic grower.

It now requires about 1000$ or more just to get certified every year.(Source local organic growers at the farmers market which are mostly small farmers. Who Use to be certified.) Along with intensive paperwork that would swamp any small growers. This was a result of lobbying by big growers and companies like walmart who wanted to take the organic profits. Original organic did not include mono cropping which mechanized farms excel at. Lobbying had Mono includes as part of organic.

It isn't the affordable prices that they are concerned with it is the Profit margin that matters to them. The afford ability Is a very small part of it, just not enough to be the driver of the majority of the process. Bottled water is an example. 2000% Profit or more. Yet it is one of the most wasteful of resources and yes it is affordable, but by whom?

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

Here in the USA this happens regardless of regulations or not. Only that the regulations were well intended but were changed with Amendments by lobbying by particular companies which then had the regulations changed to favor the particular company while giving disadvantage to competitors.

Look into the regulations regarding Organic. which Is Primary example of Good regulation That actually worked and was changed to favor big mechanized operations while making it difficult if you were a small diverse organic grower.

It now requires about 1000$ or more just to get certified every year.(Source local organic growers at the farmers market which are mostly small farmers. Who Use to be certified.) Along with intensive paperwork that would swamp any small growers. This was a result of lobbying by big growers and companies like walmart who wanted to take the organic profits. Original organic did not include mono cropping which mechanized farms excel at. Lobbying had Mono includes as part of organic.

It isn't the affordable prices that they are concerned with it is the Profit margin that matters to them. The afford ability Is a very small part of it, just not enough to be the driver of the majority of the process. Bottled water is an example. 2000% Profit or more. Yet it is one of the most wasteful of resources and yes it is affordable, but by whom?

That sounds like evidence supporting what I say. Regulation and direction is counterproductive to say the least. The fact that it arises via pressure on government from the larger commercial players is not relevant. ANY government intervention is likely to reduce the beneficial aspects of a free market.
There are of course problems with a free market that is no more than a corrupt free for all but the one thing that is worse is central direction of the market. It is necessary for government to maintain a level playing field and to prevent obvious abuses but no more.
It is also fine for governments to use persuasion and incentives but instead all we get are penalties and taxes.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

That sounds like evidence supporting what I say. Regulation and direction is counterproductive to say the least. The fact that it arises via pressure on government from the larger commercial players is not relevant. ANY government intervention is likely to reduce the beneficial aspects of a free market.
There are of course problems with a free market that is no more than a corrupt free for all but the one thing that is worse is central direction of the market. It is necessary for government to maintain a level playing field and to prevent obvious abuses but no more.
It is also fine for governments to use persuasion and incentives but instead all we get are penalties and taxes.

The regulations are there to prevent abuses by anyone, Especially when those people refuse to self discipline. The changing of the Working regulations That I refer to as to do with those who have self discipline problems spend vast resources changing the regulations to permit them to HARM others For self gain.. I am saying that the regulation works. It isn't till the damb companies who won't play fair that are causing the problem. Meaning that the penalty and taxes is suppose to make it more difficult to take the easy way out and stear you towards the now easier way which is get a job and work for it.

If it wasn't for people committing misdeeds there would be no need for government. The governments purpose it to protect those who chose to follow the unwritten rules from those who are willing to break those unwritten rules that allows us to tolerate each other.

The economy and environment is no exception. One party is playing fair while the other is playing dirty. The first group winds up paying the cost or being harmed by the second parties pursuit of there personal agendas. Thus government is born to keep the second party in check. The dirtier the second party plays the bigger the government gets and less effective it gets in that the government is trying to follow its own rules which the second party is not doing.

So it isn't the government and its regulations that are the problem. It is the anti-socials as individuals and as groups. (whether they are companies or individuals.)

I was never saying regulations were counter productive I was saying the opposite. I was trying to point out how Anti Socials can change regulation to be un-beneficial. I PUT THE BLAME SQUARELY ON THE ANTI SOCIALS. Regulations work in that it is those "so called unsaid rules" in writing to which we can refer to when communicating with each other about what is or isn't acceptable saving huge and vast resources and time on about what is or isn't right from wrong..

Your last sentence may be due to human psychology, in that we look at the world in what can we get away with first before we consider the benefits. we want to take the easy way out by taking when no one is looking vs having to work hard first to get a little reward. example seeing a ten dollar on the table it is less work to look around to see if no one is looking and taking that ten dollar vs working your ass off for 1 hour at a job to be payed 10 dollars.

[Stephen Wilde]

I'm sorry that we can't agree.

I think he problem is that I see the scenario as a natural interplay between opposing forces that both need to be constrained and directed so that they are constructive not destructive. I am morally neutral as regards those forces.

In contrast you have a moral preference which colours your viewpoint and skews your judgement away from constructive solutions towards destructive ones.

It is a common problem and not one that I am equipped to deal with. It has to be dealt with by each individual at a personal level.

[Corey USA]

If it could be solved by individuals, at a personal level, it would have been already.

What colors my judgment is not my moral values but the experiences at the hands of anti- Socials. I have had a chance to see several angles. Where people are allowed Act for themselves ( the free for all which your suggesting). I have seen Anti social ruling and how its miserable for everybody except for the anti socials. I have also seen what happens when rules are made by fair people and everybody for the most part tolerated each other and punishment is only doled out when the line is crossed.(For the most part everybody was content here.)

My guess is we both may be right due to our past experiences. Its just looking at the same issue from different angles.

[Stephen Wilde]

Agreed generally, but I see it as a balance between constructive freedom and destructive oppression not between social and antisocial elements. I'm as distressed and aggravated by antisocial behaviour as anyone else but I'm discussing these issues on a societal level rather than an individual level.

I think that is where the judgemental aspect of your viewpoint creeps into it. One cannot escape value judgements but they need to be applied very cautiously due to the huge variety of legitimate but differing points of view.

And I'm not suggesting a free for all.

[sinizterguy]

Originally Posted by Nimby

A good example: Denmark has the highest taxes in the world. It has the highest population happiness index and is one of the most equal. Its citizens also have one of the the highest standards of living in the world. Car prices are astronomical thanks to massive registration charges on importations. Fuel prices closely match those of the UK. Denmark makes lots of wind turbines and exports them all around the world.

Thank you for that gem, but my happiness index would be higher with lower taxation. With the UK governments and NHS system, no amount of reasonable taxation will be sufficient to deliver good quality care and services to everyone. I am not interested in funding services I dont use with half my hard earned money. 1/3rd is bad enough, but that I am willing to accept.

As for taxation relevance to global warming, they are milking it out of Londoners with the ridiculous congestion charging which does not reduce congestion, improve air quality or do anything to improve public transport.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by sinizterguy

As for taxation relevance to global warming, they are milking it out of Londoners with the ridiculous congestion charging which does not reduce congestion, improve air quality or do anything to improve public transport.

!

Close, except that congestion has been reduced and the bus service (the main beneficiary of the congestion charge) gets better daily. And it doesn't milk it out of me, or any Londoner I know - we don't pay it. The only people I know who pay it are people from out of town.

Bus fares in London are about to be reduced by 10%.

Bus usage is up enormously.

Its a common fallacy to quote the fact that congestion in Central London is at pre charge levels whilst very conveniantly ignoring that congestion in the rest of London and surroundings has increased. All the congestion charge can do is affect congestion relative to the wider picture. Which it has done.

I don't know about your air quality assertion but I assume it is as accurate as the other two.

I hope Ken's next move is mobile crushing machines for vehicles illegally blocking the Public Highway. Or a law making it legal to throw bricks from the top deck of a bus onto vehicles illegally blocking its passage.