CO2 emmissions make largest jump ever in 2010

[Cutlass]

Originally Posted by G-Max

I'm not denying that CO2 can cause problems, or that humanity is changing the global climate. I'm just saying that I live in California, it's not even winter yet, and I still can't go to an Occupy San Jose rally without hearing at least two people whining about the cold. I can't wait for the effects of global warming to fully kick in.

So it doesn't matter what the effects on anyone else is so long as you get what you want? That's not real libertarianist philosophy.

[G-Max]

Originally Posted by warpus

To jump from the one idea to the other and pretend that there is some sort of a logical connection between the two gives away the fact that you know absolutely nothing about climate change or its implications.

Or that I'm just being facetious

Originally Posted by Cutlass

So it doesn't matter what the effects on anyone else is so long as you get what you want? That's not real libertarianist philosophy.

As long as I'm not violating anyone's rights, it's perfectly compatible with my philosophy.

[El_Machinae]

As far as I can tell, foisting pollution onto the unconsenting IS violating people's rights.

[G-Max]

Life, liberty, and property are rights. Clean air and water aren't (not that this has anything to do with CO2 levels).

[Cutlass]

Originally Posted by G-Max

As long as I'm not violating anyone's rights, it's perfectly compatible with my philosophy.

You are deliberately choosing to harm others for your benefit. How is that compatible with liberty?

[El_Machinae]

Originally Posted by G-Max

Life, liberty, and property are rights. Clean air and water aren't (not that this has anything to do with CO2 levels).

How does clean air and water not fall under 'property'? If I used to have clean air and water, and then you spill pollution onto it, how doesn't this fail the libertarian ideal?

(And I know what you mean about CO2 not really 'applying' to this field, but it's a good proxy for where the logic lies. 99% of the concerns about CO2 are about how we're essentially modifying someone else's property)

[Narz]

Originally Posted by G-Max

Life, liberty, and property are rights. Clean air and water aren't (not that this has anything to do with CO2 levels).

Right, because liberty & property are worth so much when you don't have clean water to drink.

What good are property rights when your land is flooded or when you nation suffers a severe drought & food prices quadruple. These are all possibilities connected to climate change which is connected to CO2 levels. The small-minded conception of liberty which says "Get off my lawn & leave me alone, I'll buy what I want, pollute how I want, do what I want" is going to have to perish in the near future.

[G-Max]

Originally Posted by Cutlass

You are deliberately choosing to harm others

Not really. Please, name one person who has been harmed by my contribution to global CO2 levels.

Originally Posted by El_Machinae

How does clean air and water not fall under 'property'?

Something about the fact that nobody owns the atmosphere or international waters, perhaps? Meanwhile, if you do keep a private supply of water and air like any crazy hardcore survivalist should, then that's not the air or water that I'm polluting, is it?

Originally Posted by Narz

What good are property rights when your land is flooded or when you nation suffers a severe drought & food prices quadruple.

Flooding: I can move, not that a town built 100m above sea level is likely to experience flooding.

Drought: hey look, all of that Canadian permafrost is now arable farmland! w00t!

Y'all are seriously underestimating human adaptability.

[Cutlass]

Not really. Please, name one person who has been harmed by my contribution to global CO2 levels.

When everyone thinks like that, everyone is harmed.

[Narz]

Originally Posted by G-Max

Flooding: I can move, not that a town built 100m above sea level is likely to experience flooding.

Drought: hey look, all of that Canadian permafrost is now arable farmland! w00t!

Y'all are seriously underestimating human adaptability.

It's all about "I", I noticed. What about people too poor to move or adapt. Adaptation & evolution occur most rapidly when a large portion of a species population is wiped out and only a small subset survive.

[G-Max]

When everyone thinks like that, everyone is harmed.

...assuming that anyone has actually been harmed yet, or ever will, as a result of humanity's CO2 output, which has yet to be demonstrated.

What about people too poor to move or adapt.

Nobody is "too poor to move or adapt". Our species used to be nomadic, remember? We were moving and adapting eons before we had even invented money. Also, keep in mind that we're not talking about flash-floods here. We're talking about the melting of ice caps over hundreds of years. Surely, that's a sufficient window of time to find a new place to live via Craigslist or whatever.

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by G-Max

Something about the fact that nobody owns the atmosphere or international waters, perhaps? Meanwhile, if you do keep a private supply of water and air like any crazy hardcore survivalist should, then that's not the air or water that I'm polluting, is it?
.

Following that logic nations on the west side of the pacific could put their toxic waste onto ships and burn it just outside American territorial waters. The toxic fumes would be carried by the wind to shore and so reduce pollution of the sea. Since the air and water does not belong to anyone the Americans will not be concerned and the sensible ones can look on Craigslist for a place to buy some clean air and water.

[El_Machinae]

Originally Posted by G-Max

...assuming that anyone has actually been harmed yet, or ever will, as a result of humanity's CO2 output, which has yet to be demonstrated.

I think it has, but the political discussion is more important. The effect of CO2 will become more clear to you and me as time goes on, and the nature of this discussion is such that it cross-applies to other hypotheticals (such as air pollution)

Nobody is "too poor to move or adapt". Our species used to be nomadic, remember? We were moving and adapting eons before we had even invented money.

Ah, but this was before true 'property'. Now the land is owned, and so if you need to move you'll *need* the permission of people who already own property to take some of their property. Or, like nomads of old, you can use violence.

And remember, if you're needing to move because your property has been degraded, your ability to afford to move will be reduced. A farmer who thrived before, when the aquifers were full, the CO2 balance was correct for grains, and there wasn't sever seasonal flooding (because of snow capture of water) is poorer and has less assets as the pollution builds up to ruin the value of his property.

Your idea that 'no one' owns the atmosphere seems wrong. It's clear that every human makes rampant use of it, and so it's probably more reasonable to suggest that we all own it. Or else we get into strange scenarios like where you are 'okay' with me moving a tire-burning plant upwind of your house. The analogies are more similar than dissimilar.

[Cutlass]

Originally Posted by G-Max

...assuming that anyone has actually been harmed yet, or ever will, as a result of humanity's CO2 output, which has yet to be demonstrated.

Actually, it has. Many people would just rather hurt others than be inconvenienced themselves. And so they reject the evidence.

[Narz]

Originally Posted by G-Max

...assuming that anyone has actually been harmed yet, or ever will, as a result of humanity's CO2 output, which has yet to be demonstrated.

Many of the recent weather disasters (droughts, tsunamis, etc.) may be related to global warming.

Originally Posted by G-Max

Nobody is "too poor to move or adapt".

Right, so people watch their children starve to death because they choose to. What kind of idiot would let flies suck the last drops of moisture from their child's eyes when they could just go on "Craigslist or whatever". Apartment wanted : Hi, I'm a starving East African refugee, looking for somewhere I won't die. No ride or job but I have references... well, most of them are dead but anyway, you have to pick me up cause I can barely walk, I don't even know how I'm typing this as I have no access to a computer".

Originally Posted by G-Max

Our species used to be nomadic, remember? We were moving and adapting eons before we had even invented money.

Yeah, but nowadays people don't appreciate your migrating into their territory. Not to mention many nomads humans perished along the way.

Originally Posted by G-Max

Also, keep in mind that we're not talking about flash-floods here. We're talking about the melting of ice caps over hundreds of years. Surely, that's a sufficient window of time to find a new place to live via Craigslist or whatever.

I don't think you understand the predication if you think it will take hundreds of years for the coastlines to change. There are already islands underwater that weren't before. If Miami is not underwater in 50 years I'll be very surprised.

[TheLastOne36]

Originally Posted by G-Max

I'm not denying that CO2 can cause problems, or that humanity is changing the global climate. I'm just saying that I live in California, it's not even winter yet, and I still can't go to an Occupy San Jose rally without hearing at least two people whining about the cold. I can't wait for the effects of global warming to fully kick in.

That's not what Global Warming is. Entire regions of continents could become significantly cooler and arid due to change in global temperature levels and it's effects on climate.

The Canadian Tundra wouldn't become useable. It would become arid.

[G-Max]

Originally Posted by Silurian

Following that logic nations on the west side of the pacific could put their toxic waste onto ships and burn it just outside American territorial waters. The toxic fumes would be carried by the wind to shore and so reduce pollution of the sea. Since the air and water does not belong to anyone the Americans will not be concerned and the sensible ones can look on Craigslist for a place to buy some clean air and water.

Buying clean air and water? That's for losers. Sensible people buy filters to make their own clean air and water

Originally Posted by El_Machinae

I think it has, but the political discussion is more important. The effect of CO2 will become more clear to you and me as time goes on

Good, because I'm freezing my rocks off here.

Originally Posted by El_Machinae

Ah, but this was before true 'property'. Now the land is owned, and so if you need to move you'll *need* the permission of people who already own property to take some of their property.

Okay. How is this different from our current setup? Either way, I'm renting a room in a house that I don't own...

Originally Posted by El_Machinae

And remember, if you're needing to move because your property has been degraded, your ability to afford to move will be reduced. A farmer who thrived before, when the aquifers were full, the CO2 balance was correct for grains, and there wasn't sever seasonal flooding (because of snow capture of water) is poorer and has less assets as the pollution builds up to ruin the value of his property.

That's why it's a good idea to sell your property before it becomes covered in the carcasses of drowned polar bears

Alternatively, you could convert the land for non-farming purposes (i.e., the Indian Casino effect).

Originally Posted by El_Machinae

Your idea that 'no one' owns the atmosphere seems wrong. It's clear that every human makes rampant use of it, and so it's probably more reasonable to suggest that we all own it.

This kind of contradicts the concept of "ownership".

Originally Posted by El_Machinae

Or else we get into strange scenarios like where you are 'okay' with me moving a tire-burning plant upwind of your house.

Whether I'm okay with it or not is irrelevant. What matters is that you're not violating my rights by doing so. I can choose to move, or I can choose to tolerate the smell of burning rubber. I'd probably go with the latter because I have almost no sense of smell.

[El_Machinae]

Well, if your world view is such that you'd support the rights of a neighbor to burn tires next to your property, I guess that's your worldview. I won't be able to create common ground on the CO2 issue, if your perception of property rights is like that.

Because of that, it doesn't really matter what you think of CO2 science. I mean, it matters because the world is better if people are as informed as possible, but you and I will never agree on what needs to be done regarding CO2, regardless of whether you ever perceive it as causing problems. The burning tire problems is an analogy for CO2 concerns, and you're okay with someone polluting the air you intend to breathe. I am not

Agree to disagree!

[warpus]

Originally Posted by G-Max

Or that I'm just being facetious

So why should I take any of your arguments seriously?

[Verbose]

Originally Posted by G-Max

Drought: hey look, all of that Canadian permafrost is now arable farmland! w00t!

Mmmm.... methane!
http://terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm