[Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense
Gerald Van Koeverden
vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca
Tue Dec 18 08:07:31 CST 2007
the simplest way of dealing with fossil carbon is merely to charge
the users by how much it costs us to rectify the damage they are
doing, no?
thus if it costs us $.15 to neutralize the CO2 effect for each gallon
of gas, then that much should be charged extra and should be paid to
somebody who does the job...
is this too simple?
On 18-Dec-07, at 8:40 AM, jimstoy at dtccom.net wrote:
> Sean,
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Are you using an axiomatic basis for your argument? Presuming
>> that taxing
>> fossil carbon resources is a bad thing is the first premise of energy
>> suppliers in the current time frame. You suggest suppliers will
>> become
>> criminals or involve themselves in criminal activities, if taxes are
>> levied. Prohibiting oil would not work any better, as you
>> suggest, liking
>> it to illegal drugs, as this would also create illegal black
>> markets, you
>> say.
>
> No, that's not quite what I said. I meant something more general, that
> putting a gun to the market's head (including taxes) rarely solves
> anything. And further, the problems we have (the ones you want to
> overcome) are the outcomes of such forceful acts already in palce.
> They
> have created the monopolies that you rail against and badly
> distorted the
> voluntary actions of market players.
>
> I only used an example of what might happen, not an argument for
> what will
> or won't happen.
>
> Convincing our fellow beings is always better than commanding them.
> One
> cannot always predict the outcome of commands.
>
> My point about logic would be that if one uses the right set of
> assumptions, one can "prove" just about anything. Verily, you can only
> assume the market will follow your logic. There are simply too many
> variables to contain. There is also the problem of unintended
> consequences. Look at the world around you and the laws created to
> solve
> its problems. Then, tell me that there is any great probability
> that new
> laws will do any better than the old ones, the ones that brought to
> where
> we are.
>
> Seems to me, trying to legislate solutions is more chest beating than
> creative problem solving.
>
> Jim
>>
>> My use of the logic does not require that same pre-supposed
>> premise. My
>> premise is "Supplying fossil carbon fuels leads to the consumption of
>> fossil carbon fuels and the consequent emissions problems".
>> Logically
>> following this premise, then and trivially, stopping emissions
>> requires
>> stopping consumption of (and emissions from) fossil carbon fuels
>> (MT -
>> modus tollens, denying the consequent).
>>
>> Or, my preferred illogic to apply here (denying the antecedent, a
>> beautiful fallacy to use against corporate monopolies), disrupt
>> supplies
>> of fossil carbon fuel into the economy, by using market forces,
>> and price
>> it out of the market. Then, the consequence of the other
>> inference, "If
>> the price + tax is too high, then suppliers cannot always sell fossil
>> carbon resources", can be confirmed by a some what weakened
>> validity (MP -
>> modus ponens, affirming the antecedent).
>>
>> In turn, the inference "Supplying an X energy resource (without CO2
>> emissions, and at a non-taxed price) will lead to more consumption
>> of the
>> X energy resource and NO CO2 emissions", will become the new
>> operating
>> premise. We can go on with suppliers using our weak abduction
>> fallacy
>> (affirming the antecedent - different antecedent, different
>> consequent),
>> just like they try to delude us with their (affirming the consequent)
>> fallacy to consumers.
>>
>> We've changed the paradigm by using another valid logic argument, a
>> (disjunctive syllogism). Either fossil carbon fuels are used, or
>> some
>> other non-fossil or non-carbon fuels will used. When the use and
>> sale of
>> fossil carbon fuels are prohibited (and/or they are taxed and made
>> otherwise more expensive), then, therefore, the other no-fossil
>> carbon and
>> non-carbon energy resources will be used instead.
>>
>> Global World Business already uses logical fallacy to operate on the
>> consuming public. Competition and good marketing skills demands
>> this.
>> "Taxes are only unfair to businesses!!!" is another fallacy they
>> ruse,
>> concocted to hide the fact that they would pass on any economic
>> pain to
>> consumers in a heartbeat.
>>
>> I think if we taxed fossil carbon suppliers now and diverted the
>> revenues
>> to the development of non-fossil carbon and non-carbon energy
>> resources,
>> then we have a chance to make the kinds of changes we need to
>> make, and to
>> finance it equitably on the market force we want to diminish the
>> most,
>> consumption. Do you see that? ... Tax the suppliers to reduce
>> consumption, or is that reduce consumption by taxing the
>> suppliers, who
>> increase the price to consumers. Either way, it is still a valid
>> argument. If supply leads to consumption, then all we can only
>> logically
>> say is that to reduce consumption, we have to reduce consumption.
>> One way
>> we can operate this logical assertion is by raising the price of the
>> supply (because reduced consumption will follow).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> SKB
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: jimstoy at dtccom.net<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net>
>> To: terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:02 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense
>>
>>
>> Sean,
>>
>> I think we should be careful not to blame logic or a particular
>> kind of
>> logic for the problem or even to expect that logic will provide a
>> solution.
>>
>> For the most part, people are logical. I find it rare that any
>> one is
>> illogical. Two reasons: 1) people rarely use logic and, 2) when
>> they use
>> logic they use it, well, logically.
>>
>> No, the problem is always with the premises, the assumptions we
>> start
>> with. Unfortunately, assumptions are usually based on our egos
>> (who we
>> think we are) and are rarely arguable in any real sense.
>>
>> Laws are usually the worst kind of solutions as they simply
>> represent
>> the
>> institutionalized for of force (or violence). Lawa typically
>> create more
>> and larger problems. Laws just become the tool of the most powerful
>> egos.
>> E.G., your solution of "taxing the shit out of . . . fossil fuel
>> supply"
>> would simply create a black market - granting a legal monopoly
>> to least
>> controllable elements of society, essentially, removing all social
>> control
>> -- very much like making drugs illegal (notice how well that has
>> worked).
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> If we truly understand the problem, we already have the
>> solution. If we
>> are truly aware, we find that the problem never existed.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Maybe we should consider creating the business of "Eliminating
>>> Fossil
>>> Carbon Fuel Consumption", and use the logic of eliminating (or
>>> taxing
>> the
>>> shit out of) fossil fuel supply, in order to rid the world of
>>> noxious
>>> carbon dioxide pollution?
>>>
>>>
>>> "The government's climate change policy works like this: extract
>>> every
>>> last drop of fossil fuel then pray to God that no one uses it."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> SKB
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org<http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/
>> listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org>
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://
>> terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list