[Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Jim,

You could be right?  The energy market does not operate on mere logic.  It has a more base motivation for both suppliers and consumers.
That is a tough nut to crack.  I think providing the "right choice" for our energy future will not beat out the price for consumers and suppliers making the "wrong choices" (more mining and more use of fossil carbon fuels).

If there is an economic disincentive preventing the "wrong choice", then there may be a chance to change the status quo.  How can we force the price of using fossil carbon fuels to properly reflect the "real" costs of doing so?  Cheap fossil carbon fuels are what is driving the rapid increase in Green House Gases and consequent Global Climate Change.  In this market, where greed motivates the suppliers and survival motivates the consumers, how can we rein in the market volume?

Should FEMA have dropped the bill for hurricanes Rita and Katrina on the the oil, coal, natural gas, airlines, trucking, trains, automotive, and fossil carbon based electric power industries?  Or on all the consumers, like GW did, along with the bill for his stupid war.  When and who will pay for the environmental damages of using fossil carbon fuels?

Regards,

SKB


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: jimstoy at dtccom.net<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net> 
  To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:40 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense


  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<mailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net%3Cmailto:jimstoy at dtccom.net>>
  >   To: terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<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<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org%3Cmailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>>
  >   http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/%3Chttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/>>
  >   http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/<http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org%3chttp//terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/>>
  >   http://info.bioenergylists.org<http://info.bioenergylists.org/<http://info.bioenergylists.org%3chttp//info.bioenergylists.org/>>
  >
  >



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20071219/91637c84/attachment.html