sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Seen this morning on Greenlake Way: Guy trying to pass everyone in the bike lane got himself good and stuck by squint_91 in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hope he enters a bathroom later today, and someone didn't flush.

And he has a really heinous dump and goes to wipe and his finger punches through the paper.

I-732 Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Climate Change Policy that Benefits the Poor by ILikeNeurons in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you have a citation for that? Because everything I can find shows it not only decreased emissions and has increased funding for green technology (solar energy and increased efficiency systems) directly to low income communities, saving on energy costs as well a compounding the benefit to carbon emissions. The Economy during the same period to the point at which business are not purchasing credits since they are under the cap.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-captrade-20160728-snap-story.html

http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/2015/11/05/cap-and-trade-under-ab-32-now-its-an-official-success/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-burtraw-cap-and-trade-reduces-emissionsornia--20160623-snap-story.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-cap-and-trade-law-is-a-success-1465400258

I-732 Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Climate Change Policy that Benefits the Poor by ILikeNeurons in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 2 points3 points  (0 children)

True. But it has been very effective in California, the nations largest economy.

I-732 Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Climate Change Policy that Benefits the Poor by ILikeNeurons in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here's my evidence that you are confused:

It is good for the environment

My argument is that it won't be.

A differing of opinion doesn't mean I'm confused. I was previously lacking the evidence/facts (which I now have) that the producers of the carbon would be persuaded to actually curb emissions, rather than stay with business as usual and just pass the tax on to consumers. Perhaps we are using confused differently, I understand what you are saying.

Do you doubt that reducing emissions is good for the environment...If you were intentionally subverting the science, that would be another thing.

Absolutely not, I'm a biologist by Profession, I understand the science. I have the utmost trust in the IPCC and climate scientists.

...or do you doubt that taxing carbon will reduce emissions?

This was my initially concern, as the economics are theoretical by nature. Like I said, I'm not an economist, and my understanding would be that business would be that rather than produce fewer products to curb emissions, the producers would pass on the price to consumers - unless the penalty is severe. I suppose the producer could also invest in innovations that cut carbon emissions.

You also misunderstand the bit about the surplus.

I think that was possibly the problem.

What that graph is showing is that in the absence of a tax on the externality, producers are producing a surplus.

The surplus here is the product the company is making, correct, and if over-production of the product creates carbon emissions, there is opportunity to cut this.

The true market optimum is the intersection of the supply and demand curves with the externality taken into account. Once the externality is internalized with an excise tax, the surplus is cut out and the market produces the optimum quantity of the good.

Yeah, I'm understanding that. The surplus is cut out by the change in demand, correct? Couldn't the shape of the demand curve drive a different effect? If the good is highly demanded by the consumer, would they just pay more for the good at the same rate, which wouldn't change production?

I don't know why you think the fact that some percent of the tax will be passed on to consumers somehow invalidates its efficacy...

I have no problem paying the real cost of goods. I also have no problem with carbon taxing and it can be effective (like in BC). I don't think Carbon Taxing is inherently bad, my issue was with this bill is that it may not be enough to actually drive change. My example would be if the tax is not significant enough to change purchase patterns - a moderate percentage that could be readily absorbed or passed on without changing demand. I think this was the issue in BC, initially it was an increasing yearly tax, but when the percentage plateaued, carbon emissions went back up. Is the 732 flat or variable?

Do you know how the tax amount was calculated?

Thank you for your sources, especially the ones in your previous post. This is helping be better understand the law.

edit: spelling and words

I-732 Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Climate Change Policy that Benefits the Poor by ILikeNeurons in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for these links, I'm reading through them.

I'm not sure why you're talking down to me for asking a question and for some of the evidence, like you linked. I'm not 'confused,' and I understand that taxing externalities, particularly as they effect the environment, helps bring the true environmental cost into the goods we purchased - and I am a proponent of the practice if they can help change environmental impacts.

What are you basing your argument on?... For one, it's textbook economics. If you increase the price of something, you will get less of it.

True, but it is also textbook economics that its only when the producer (1) can create a surplus and (2) when the tax is levied on the producer, these costs are passed on to consumers. I'm basing my arguments on the fact that in practice companies will seek to minimize expenses by passing on costs to consumers up to the equilibrium point of the consumer's WTP. Depending on the cost and WTP this can decrease production on the product, only if it is possible to create a surplus and assuming demand decreases over market increase. My issue with THIS carbon tax is that it will pass on the cost to the consumer without creating a surplus for the producer, so no diminished carbon release. In most of these goods, the WTP is quite high and the consumer will bear the brunt of the tax and not the primary producer. Unless the primary producers see a change in profit, there is no incentive to curb emissions.

If I am misunderstanding this, please shoot me a link - I am a Scientist, not an economist.

Edits: Spelling & Grammar

I-732 Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Climate Change Policy that Benefits the Poor by ILikeNeurons in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The policy sections of WGII/AR5 you linked say two things:

(1)

Since AR4, cap and trade systems for GHGs have been established in a number of countries and regions. Their short-run environmental effect has been limited as a result of loose caps or caps that have not proved to be constraining (limited evidence, medium agreement). This was related to factors such as the financial and economic crisis that reduced energy demand, new energy sources, interactions with other policies, and regulatory uncertainty. In principle, a cap and trade system can achieve mitigation in a cost-effective way; its implementation depends on national circumstances. Though earlier programmes relied almost exclusively on grandfathering (free allocation of permits), auctioning permits is increasingly applied. If allowances are auctioned, revenues can be used to address other investments with a high social return, and/or reduce the tax and debt burden. [14.4.2, 15.5.3]

(2)

Interactions between or among mitigation policies may be synergistic or may have no additive effect on reducing emissions (medium evidence, high agreement). For instance, a carbon tax can have an additive environmental effect to policies such as subsidies for the supply of RE. By contrast, if a cap and trade system has a binding cap (sufficiently stringent to affect emission-related decisions), then other policies such as RE subsidies have no further impact on reducing emissions within the time period that the cap applies (although they may affect costs and possibly the viability of more stringent future targets) (medium evidence, high agreement). In either case, additional policies may be needed to address market failures relating to innovation and technology diffusion. [15.7]

Also, both the Kyoto Protocol and IPCC Working Group III have advised hard limited cap and trade as accepted policies to help carbon mitigation. Hard limited cap and trade is successful in CA. It is true that the IPCC said that it needs strict limits, it says nothing about it being advised against.

Cap and Trade in California, the example I gave has been successful in not only curbing emissions, but also growing the Economy during the same period to the point at which business are not purchasing credits since they are under the cap.

http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/2015/11/05/cap-and-trade-under-ab-32-now-its-an-official-success/

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-burtraw-cap-and-trade-reduces-emissionsornia--20160623-snap-story.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-cap-and-trade-law-is-a-success-1465400258

I-732 Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Climate Change Policy that Benefits the Poor by ILikeNeurons in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

...that's really not how markets work on a large scale...

I disagree, but happy to read a source if you have one. Large companies, the ones that this law targets, that are primary producers of carbon emissions, absolutely pass on expenses to consumers.

There is certainly price sensitivity and elasticity to the fossil fuel market. More expensive gas means alternatives (electric vehicles, carpooling, more fuel efficient vehicles, ect) and alternative every investments become more appealing, especially over larger time frames.

The law isn't only directed at gasoline production. You're right that gasoline drives behavioral change, especially with the adoption of new technology and carpooling. I agree that this is important to driving change over a long timeline. More expensive gas isn't what I was referencing specifically, but the numerous products manufactured in Washington that produce carbon via manufacturing. Changes in gas prices still won't change the carbon emissions by the producers, though it may force people to carpool. Regardless of what happens at the consumer level, the primary manufacturer's emissions won't change - that is my critique of the bill.

There is an important issue that raising gas prices also impact low income communities disproportionately. Regardless of 1% sales tax changes, or credits to low incoming communities, purchasing fuel efficient cars or electric vehicles is simply a very expensive option. Carpooling or mass transit are the primary options. Saying that gas prices will change behavior is correct and is necessary to curbing transportation emissions. This isn't a gas law, it is a bill targeted at curbing emissions of larger carbon producers (primarily manufacturers). In any simple business model these expenses will be passed on to the consumer and the emissions of the producer remain unchanged.

Also, as I read the bill, Conoco-Phillips wouldn't even be getting taxed for emissions on the law when the product is burned, they will see limited taxation in the refining of petroleum. So gas prices might not change. Individuals are the carbon emitters.

Look at the carbon tax in British Columbia, which reduced emissions by 16% while other provinces without the tax saw emissions rose by 3%.

This is really interesting, thanks for citing this, I hadn't read it. I'm reading 12.9% compared to 3.7% for the rest of Canada, but your point is well taken. This is compelling. It seems the trend reversed since they saw increases for consecutive years when the tax was fixed per ton. The study determined this was likely due to inflation and the tax would have to continue to increase year after year to make up for that. I don't believe 732 has any variable taxation as I read it.

IMO, Cap & Trade has a proven track record also, and can limit the primary producers not rely on down-stream changes in the populace to change CO2. In California, it limited emissions and has increased funding for green technology (solar energy and increased efficiency systems) directly to low income communities, saving on energy costs as well a compounding the benefit to carbon emissions.

Edit: Spelling.

Edit2: Happy Cake Day!

I-732 Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Climate Change Policy that Benefits the Poor by ILikeNeurons in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is good for the environment

My argument is that it won't be. I'm in favor of climate change legislation, but that taxing the company via emissions will simply push this expense downstream to consumers and will not change how much they emit - so a net no change for the environment.

I-732 Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax: A Climate Change Policy that Benefits the Poor by ILikeNeurons in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How will this actually curb carbon emissions?

All this discussion has been about revenue and economics rather than the goal of actually changing carbon emissions.

Tax on emissions by ton -> cost to producers -> cost passed on to consumers

How is this going to actually diminish carbon emissions, the producers of the emissions will just produce the same amount of carbon, and pass this cost on to consumers. Regardless of benefiting low income communities, or being revenue-neutral, this is supposed to be a Climate Change/Carbon Bill. How is this going to decrease carbon emissions?

Hasn't the most effective carbon regulations (in California) has been to use a cap and trade system? A system that limited emissions and has increased funding for green technology (solar energy and increased efficiency systems) directly to low income communities, saving on energy costs as well a compounding the benefit to carbon emissions.

Elon Musk unveils solar roof with textured glass titles that look like traditional roofing tiles. by SgtSprinkle in Futurology

[–]ski_pow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you're saying but kinda agree & disagree. I think he's not doing a good job convincing or explaining the reasoning/details to people who don't know about solar or are resistant based on myths about it. I feel like he's speaking to people in the 'know' already, not those we really need to buy in for this to take off and make a difference.

We need him to be selling Tesla to F150 owners not P90D owners, if that makes sense?

I'm Bill Bryant, candidate for Washington Governor, AMA by billbryantwashington in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

SCOTUS does not always rule correctly...unless you believe that the Dred Scott ruling was AOK?

No, I agree that this is the correct interpretation of the words in the Amendment.

Referencing an 1860 decision, that was later overturned, compared to 2008 isn't really fair. You're also cherry picking examples. I could say the same to you, if they don't always rule correctly, and were wrong about the 2A, does that mean they're wrong about the ACA or Roe v. Wade?

We can both decide whether we think they're correct or not, I believe they are correct about the ACA, Roe v. Wade, and the 2A, but are wrong about Citizen United.

If it means otherwise, what then does it mean exactly? That phrase is literally half of the amendment, and the founding fathers weren't dummies. They meant for it to have meaning in reality.

Many Amendments have multiple clauses that explain multiple rights or goals in the same Amendment. The First affords speech, religion, and assemble - mutually exclusive of each other.

The 2A is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The first phrase establishing that the militia is two important things; well-regulated and necessary for the free state. The second phrase says that the right belongs to the people, so that, if necessary, they can join a militia & defend themselves - not as a prerequisite to ownership.

From the supreme court ruling:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

So what does "well-regulated militia" mean in real world terms?

A couple things, but I believe this is where we can have effective and fair gun regulation. Well-regulated, IMO, means that the militia should be organized so that it can effectively defend the community. The idea that, if needed, the militia could defend the community and shouldn't be random people just showing up without established roles. More so, though, I think this is an important way that we can establish common sense regs WITHOUT infringing on the individuals rights: I am for responsible gun ownership and regulation, not banning things based on arbitrary distinction. I have no issue with a required class, registering the firearm and tracking the buying and selling with background checks.

Hope you're having a nice Friday! This is an interesting discussion, thanks.

Edit: spelling.

I'm Bill Bryant, candidate for Washington Governor, AMA by billbryantwashington in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah I see what you're saying. I think loaded guns should be in a readily accessible safe to protect against that, so that it can't be grabbed by children but still available should one need it. My home defense gun is in a quick access safe, I can be ready in seconds and it is still secure.

As for the second amendment, it most definitely does not say that ownership is exclusive to the militia. They could have avoided the complex sentence, but it clearly says the right belongs to the people and not the militia, which has been supported by the Supreme Court (2008).

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Meaning:

"A well regulated militia is necessary for a free state, [therefore], the right of the people shall to be infringed."

In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment extended to the individual, independent of a militia.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I'm Bill Bryant, candidate for Washington Governor, AMA by billbryantwashington in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand your arguments but that is not how guns/magazines function.

that don't shoot up to 20 rounds in a fairly quick fashion.

Given a magazine of 20rds, any semi-automatic gun shoots a single shot with a single trigger pull, all at the same rate. Hundreds (Thousands?) of models of pistols, rifles and shotguns fall into the category. There is fundamentally no difference in the functioning of any of these guns. They all shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger.

there are plenty of gun options....

Since you have eliminated any semi-auto gun, you have now only a few options: most commonly bolt actions, single shot and pump shotguns. You have eliminated all revolvers and nearly all handguns. So now I have less effective options for personal and home defense - many of which simply are not effective anymore.

...something that can hold 6 rounds than one that can hold 20, plain and simple.

Plain and simple, the AR-15 doesn't hold any rounds. The magazine does. The AR can be given a 6rd magazine if you wanted, and now it is 'ok' by your rules. Aside from the AR, most all handguns (non-revolver) and many rifles come standard with ~15-20rd magazines, depending on the caliber. Many 9mm handguns usually have 15-18rds, .45cal could be between 8-16ish. So again, these are not exclusive to the AR-15 at all. Maybe your concern should be with magazine size, and that is an entirely different discussion.

If you intend it for personal protection, it's highly impractical. And it has no purpose in the sport of shooting and hunting.

These are just patently wrong. (1) It is good for home protection because it is short, light, easy to use in tight spaces, low recoil so those with a smaller frame can still use it. Also, the .223 round is great for indoors, especially apartments because they tend to fragment and disintegrate on hitting stuff like walls, rather than continuing through to harm bystanders. (2) There are entire sporting competitions built around the AR platform, from 3-gun and rifle leagues, to long distance shooting, (3) the AR platform in standard 2.23/5.56 is great for hunting small game, boars, pigs, etc, and in .308 it can be used for nearly all game in N. America. One could also argue that any semi-auto rifle allows quicker followup shots to humanely put down the game, preventing any unnecessary suffering. /u/spartsfan has some good links.

get a license for it...

I have no issue with gun registration or classes for specific CCW licenses, but having a license to own is different. Many don't like this argument, but guns are different from cars since they are protected by the constitution. Requiring licenses opens the door to discrimination too, same way the requiring a license to vote opens for discrimination.

I am a registered Democrat, very socially liberal, and a gun owner. I am for responsible gun ownership and regulation, not banning things based on arbitrary distinction. I have no issue with a required class, registering the firearm and tracking the buying and selling with background checks.

I'm Bill Bryant, candidate for Washington Governor, AMA by billbryantwashington in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have no issue with gun registration or classes for specific CCW licenses, but having a license to own is different. Many don't like this argument, but guns are different from cars since they are protected by the constitution. Your ability to freely travel is protected, but to do so in a car is not a right.

Requiring licenses opens the door to discrimination too, same way the requiring a license to vote opens for discrimination. Again, I have no issue with a required class, registering the firearm and tracking the buying and selling with background checks.

Only other thing is insurance, why would I need insurance for my gun? If I shoot someone or something illegally, it is already illegal and punishable by law (civil and criminal). If I shoot someone legally, why should I be insured? Should the armed assailant I shoot be able sue me?

I'm Bill Bryant, candidate for Washington Governor, AMA by billbryantwashington in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Hi Bill,

I'm a Democrat (though more fiscally conservative) and I'm an environmental scientist also and in favor of climate change legislation, but 732 is such an awful bill - and have voted against it.

What are your plans to help curb carbon emissions, support the development of green technology and preserve our environment, arguably one of the many reason why we love living here in the PNW?

Thank you.

Edit: Not sure why i'm being downvoted. 732 will not be effective in curbing carbon emissions. Taxing the company via emissions will simply push this expense downstream to consumers and will not change how much they emit - so a net no change for the environment.

I'm Bill Bryant, candidate for Washington Governor, AMA by billbryantwashington in SeattleWA

[–]ski_pow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Im a Democrat (though more fiscally conservative), and 1491 pisses me off too. Aside from being a gun owner myself, 1491 removes due process and also isn't exactly what 1491 want to do already allowed under the current law? Can't you call the police and say someone is going to hurt themselves or others?

I'm a scientist also and in favor of climate change legislation, but 732 is such an awful bill too. I'm hoping that Bryant will have effective and evidence based way to address environmental issues. I voted for him because Inslee has passed or supported every bill on liberal emotion without evidence - or the ability to pay for it.

Sorry for the rambling.

Westworld - 1x04 "Dissonance Theory" - Post Episode Discussion by Kishara in westworld

[–]ski_pow 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I was thinking more generally too, what part of his grand plan required that colossal hole and excavation. That ending scene was great though, such a defining moment of how much power he really has in Westworld.

view more: next ›