[Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense

lou gold lou.gold at gmail.com
Tue Dec 18 09:20:48 CST 2007 

not too simple.

just too rational.

sure would be nice if politics could work like this.



On Dec 18, 2007 12:07 PM, Gerald Van Koeverden <vnkvrdn at yahoo.ca> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>



-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20071218/ec0b71fe/attachment.html

More information about the Terrapreta mailing list