Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > Diamonds and Tuxedos
test
Diamonds and Tuxedos Glamour, elegance, and sophistication. That's what it's all about here in ECCIE's newest forum which caters to those with expensive tastes, lavish lifestyles, and an appetite for upscale entertainment.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 279
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70795
biomed163285
Yssup Rider61017
gman4453296
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48672
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42719
CryptKicker37220
The_Waco_Kid37077
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-27-2011, 01:57 PM   #16
pjorourke
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 23, 2009
Location: gone
Posts: 3,401
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by discreetgent View Post
True, but the goal is to cut down on the amount of carbon that is getting into the atmosphere in the first place.
I guess I'll have to do my bit for the environment.

http://gas2.org/2011/02/25/porsche-p...hen-the-prius/
pjorourke is offline   Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 01:58 PM   #17
discreetgent
Valued Poster
 
discreetgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: Even with a gorgeous avatar: Happiness is ephemeral
Posts: 2,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjorourke View Post
Why not just go to Vegas?
Word! Exactly!
discreetgent is offline   Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 02:47 PM   #18
Guest083011
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 30, 2009
Posts: 2,307
Encounters: 6
Default

He hates to fly?
Guest083011 is offline   Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 03:39 PM   #19
Ansley
Pending Age Verification
 
User ID: 499
Join Date: Apr 3, 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,276
My ECCIE Reviews
Default

I'm surprised PJ hasn't used this thread to some way mention humongous generators.
Ansley is offline   Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 04:05 PM   #20
Curious_Cat
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 8, 2011
Location: Greater NYC Area
Posts: 9
Default

Lauren Summerhill said
Quote:
I can't wrap my head around carbon credits... Once energy is spent, and carbon is in the atmosphere...
and discreetgent said
Quote:
Carbon credits are different than hedging against weather. As Lauren points out the carbon is in the air one way or another, although the theory is if it costs to put them in the air then it may cut back on it, not clear that reality will match theory.
Yes, and that's precisely the point. An economist would say that, today, a [take your pick: coal-fired power plant, or an airline, or a manufacturer of portland cement (*** an interesting(?) aside, I seem to recall that after fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, the manufacture of cement is the next-largest contributor to anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere)] is able to reap the full economic income of their activity (e.g., when they sell the electricity to end-users, or they sell airplane tickets, or they sell cement to construction contractors) but only has to suffer a portion of the true economic cost of the activity, because some of the cost is not borne by the manufacturer but instead is shoved off onto society (and the global economy) as a whole in the form of the ultimate massive negative effects of global warming. In essence, we are all being forced to subsidize the profits of the oil company and the coal-burning electric company and the cement maker, just as surely as if Congress were taxing us and then simply cutting a check directly to give a gift of billions of taxpayer dollars to those industries.*

(*Of course, Congress does sometimes literally do that, but usually that sort of blatant crony capitalism is reserved for the "too-big-to-fail" banks, and military contractors...)

Thus, the "market mechanism" (i.e., Adam Smith's "invisible hand") -- which does in fact work great -- at least in theory and when prices accurately reflect real economic costs and real economic profits -- has suffered a failure. And, as a result, absent a correction, the economy as a whole is providing an incentive for our CO2-intensive industries to engage in much more CO2-producing activity (and thus to pump much more CO2 into the atmosphere) than is "efficient" if the price signals weren't broken and if the market mechanism were in fact functioning properly.

The way to correct this market failure -- and thereby to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions to their "efficient" level -- is to force CO2-intensive industries to re-internalize the externality -- so that they have to bear the real economic costs of the fact that their actions are contributing to the fact that (for example) 100 million people currently living in Bangladesh will find their entire country underwater as result of rising sea levels a short handful of decades hence -- and as a result they will, at the margin, produce less CO2 by making fewer marginal airplane flights, or, say, by realizing that -- once the prices are made to reflect economic reality -- it's actually much cheaper and more profitable to invest in solar, wind, wave, tidal, safe-nuclear, and other non-fossil-fuel based sources of electrical generation.

That's the theory, anyway. And one way to achieve that price-correction (and thus restore the market mechanism to healthy functioning) is through a so-called "Pigovian Tax," in which the amount of the tax is equal to the amount of the externality -- a rare example of a tax, in and of itself (and regardless of how the government spends the funds) actually increasing overall social welfare.

But, because in our stupid political environment "Tax" is a dirty word, another way to achieve a similar end is to grant existing CO2-intensive industries "permits" to produce a set (fixed total) amount of CO2, and allow them to sell them to others at a profit if they can find ways of reducing their own CO2 emissions. The devils are obviously in the details, but at least in theory (and if governed by well-designed rules and policed by intelligent and non-corrupt regulators) it ought to be able to achieve the same result of reducing overall CO2 emissions in the long-term.
Curious_Cat is offline   Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 04:09 PM   #21
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

I too wish to welcome the both of you (DG and LS) back, especially since I neglected to do so in earlier exchanges. Iaintliein beat me to the punch by equating the proffered carbon exchange program with “weather derivatives.” @ DG, my fear is that once someone starts selling “air,” it will soon grow too expensive for most of the rest of us to live. @ PJ LOL. I didn’t catch the reference until I went to the site.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 04:21 PM   #22
Guest053011
Account Disabled
 
User ID: 4424
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I B Hankering View Post
I too wish to welcome the both of you (DG and LS) back, especially since I neglected to do so in earlier exchanges. Iaintliein beat me to the punch by equating the proffered carbon exchange program with “weather derivatives.” @ DG, my fear is that once someone starts selling “air,” it will soon grow too expensive for most of the rest of us to live. @ PJ LOL. I didn’t catch the reference until I went to the site.
Stocks in Water first, then air :P

Or are we doing that already?!
Guest053011 is offline   Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 04:34 PM   #23
Iaintliein
Valued Poster
 
Iaintliein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 6, 2010
Location: In the state of Flux
Posts: 3,311
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious_Cat View Post
Lauren Summerhill said


and discreetgent said


Yes, and that's precisely the point. An economist would say that, today, a [take your pick: coal-fired power plant, or an airline, or a manufacturer of portland cement (*** an interesting(?) aside, I seem to recall that after fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, the manufacture of cement is the next-largest contributor to anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere)] is able to reap the full economic income of their activity (e.g., when they sell the electricity to end-users, or they sell airplane tickets, or they sell cement to construction contractors) but only has to suffer a portion of the true economic cost of the activity, because some of the cost is not borne by the manufacturer but instead is shoved off onto society (and the global economy) as a whole in the form of the ultimate massive negative effects of global warming. In essence, we are all being forced to subsidize the profits of the oil company and the coal-burning electric company and the cement maker, just as surely as if Congress were taxing us and then simply cutting a check directly to give a gift of billions of taxpayer dollars to those industries.*

(*Of course, Congress does sometimes literally do that, but usually that sort of blatant crony capitalism is reserved for the "too-big-to-fail" banks, and military contractors...)

Thus, the "market mechanism" (i.e., Adam Smith's "invisible hand") -- which does in fact work great -- at least in theory and when prices accurately reflect real economic costs and real economic profits -- has suffered a failure. And, as a result, absent a correction, the economy as a whole is providing an incentive for our CO2-intensive industries to engage in much more CO2-producing activity (and thus to pump much more CO2 into the atmosphere) than is "efficient" if the price signals weren't broken and if the market mechanism were in fact functioning properly.

The way to correct this market failure -- and thereby to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions to their "efficient" level -- is to force CO2-intensive industries to re-internalize the externality -- so that they have to bear the real economic costs of the fact that their actions are contributing to the fact that (for example) 100 million people currently living in Bangladesh will find their entire country underwater as result of rising sea levels a short handful of decades hence -- and as a result they will, at the margin, produce less CO2 by making fewer marginal airplane flights, or, say, by realizing that -- once the prices are made to reflect economic reality -- it's actually much cheaper and more profitable to invest in solar, wind, wave, tidal, safe-nuclear, and other non-fossil-fuel based sources of electrical generation.

That's the theory, anyway. And one way to achieve that price-correction (and thus restore the market mechanism to healthy functioning) is through a so-called "Pigovian Tax," in which the amount of the tax is equal to the amount of the externality -- a rare example of a tax, in and of itself (and regardless of how the government spends the funds) actually increasing overall social welfare.

But, because in our stupid political environment "Tax" is a dirty word, another way to achieve a similar end is to grant existing CO2-intensive industries "permits" to produce a set (fixed total) amount of CO2, and allow them to sell them to others at a profit if they can find ways of reducing their own CO2 emissions. The devils are obviously in the details, but at least in theory (and if governed by well-designed rules and policed by intelligent and non-corrupt regulators) it ought to be able to achieve the same result of reducing overall CO2 emissions in the long-term.

Agreed, calling CO2 a pollutant is indeed a reflection of a very stupid political environment.
Iaintliein is offline   Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 04:51 PM   #24
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill View Post
Stocks in Water first, then air :P

Or are we doing that already?!
LOL. No, unfortunately not. I do have stock in oil, but that's still not giving me any breaks at the pump.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 05:13 PM   #25
pjorourke
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 23, 2009
Location: gone
Posts: 3,401
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ansley View Post
I'm surprised PJ hasn't used this thread to some way mention humongous generators.
I gotta humongous generator for ya.
pjorourke is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved