Me too, but (the socialist leaning) Malcolm Turnbull is suggesting this payment will become mandatory in a few years, so the joke is turning sour real fast.Mal said:Personally I feel carbon offsets are a joke and won't be supporting this initiative though.
At the risk of dragging this thread off topic: there's nothing socialist about ensuring that the cost of producing a product is fully reflected in the price paid by the consumer. That's the only efficient way to ensure a product is properly priced (whether that product generates pollution or otherwise).Soundguy said:Me too, but (the socialist leaning) Malcolm Turnbull is suggesting this payment will become mandatory in a few years, so the joke is turning sour real fast.
How the hell do the benefits of the atmosphere accrue to only one group (the "underpriced" airfares payers")? Do you breathe, drive, live in a house, own a computer, read a paper (online or not online - the cost is potentially no different)?AnonymousCoward said:You only need to look up "the tragedy of the commons"  to see what happens to communal resources (e.g. the atmosphere) when the benefits accrue to one group (underpriced airfares) but the costs are borne by others (people who live on earth)
 Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why not say what you really mean :?:simongr said:How the hell do the benefits of the atmosphere accrue to only one group (the "underpriced" airfares payers")? Do you breathe, drive, live in a house, own a computer, read a paper (online or not online - the cost is potentially no different)?
Do not blame fliers for global warming - blame your parents (well blame your parents if they are european) for theirs wars and reconstruction and booms of the 70's/80's that have moved us to this position. Blame India and China for their massive expansion in the pas few years for sustaining this.
Global warming is not the fault of the 50J/14F pax on a 744 - it is everyone's fault and the focus on fliers is detracting from the bigger issue.
For god's sake they are building and unnecessary desalination plant from concrete (again) in Sydney and polluting the bays - and people target fliers...
Sorry - fliers are an easy target that wins votes but doesnt fix a problem - the fundamental flaw in democracy and allowing people to vote (and don't get me started on the waste generated through the election process).
This was what I posted at FT last night. It still applies, and I still have no reason to retract my comment:mbeder said:Can't imagine that my $1.28 (before merchant fees) on a Sydney-Melbourne flight is going to do much to help solve global warming. It may give me the warm & fuzzies, but that's about it....
That betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what free market economics is all about.simongr said:True in parts. For a start Government intervention in the market through the imposition of market adjusting factors is not in the spirit of free market economics.
Don't let your political agenda cloud your economic judgement here.simongr said:Secondly - airfares are the only "goods" that are the target of carbon offset taxes rather than little things like tower blocks made of massive amounts of concrete that is one of the other big CO2 producers that people dont like to talk about.
Market failure is the issue. The full cost of production is not being internalised by the producer.Air tarvel is not the issue - human beings are the issue.
I agree this is not about socialism - carbon offsets are a way of avoiding the fixing the underlying problems. I don't have a political agenda for this topic in any way.AnonymousCoward said:Correting market failure is *not* socialism (which is the point I was trying to make before you turned it into some other debate about politics)
Would you care to point out the section of the constitution which deals with this?Soundguy said:Compelling people to eg pay a carbon tax or use only CF lamps by law (a la Turnbull) is pure socialism as it is based on an ideology alone (BTW the latter is also unconstitutional as you cannot ban things which have not proved to be dangerous in any way).
Socialism refers to collective ownership of the means of production (land, resources, labour).Soundguy said:Compelling people to eg pay a carbon tax or use only CF lamps by law (a la Turnbull) is pure socialism as it is based on an ideology alone
Well, I did constitutional law at Uni, and I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the Constitution itself that says such as thing, nor any case law either. Care to elaborate?Soundguy said:(BTW the latter is also unconstitutional as you cannot ban things which have not proved to be dangerous in any way).
OK - now you're just making things up. From a scientific point of view alone (let's lead aside all the political and economic value judgements) the best scientific evidence we have is that the globe is warming, and we are contributing to that.Soundguy said:In this case the green faith has claimed that CO2 is a pollutant and those that produce it must pay - a claim which is entirely false scientifically,
There is something known as having "too much of a good thing"Soundguy said:I am proud of the CO2 I produce each day as it is very beneficial to flora and thus to the environment,
a) I don't know what temperature trends you are looking at, but obviously not what everyone else is looking atSoundguy said:so I choose not to pay a 'carbon tax' but I am happy for others to pay it if they freely choose to do so. If you look at global temperature record there has been no global warming trend here in the southern hemisphere and the recent warming in the norther hemisphere stopped about 8 years ago with temperatures dropping since then.
Yes - to the extent that fliers are being targetted because it's politically easy, there's definately an issue there. I agree with you.simongr said:I actually think that we agree generally - the polluter pays principle is great. My problem is the targetting of particular groups because they are easy visible politically safe targets. I don't think that we can justify carbon offsets under the polluter pays principle because it seems to be tinkering with the edges of the market rather than fully considering the full cost of the carbon emmissions.
Flying is being targeted because although airplanes contribute 3.5% of total carbon emissions, they deliver it in the worst possible place. Also, why is it OK for airlines to pay little or no tax on avgas (slugging us for most of it in fuel "taxes"), but it is not OK for governments to put a price on the damage it does to the environment? A large proportion of fuel price in this country is government tax, and I would support any moves to increase it that fed into environmental action.AnonymousCoward said:Yes - to the extent that fliers are being targetted because it's politically easy, there's definately an issue there. I agree with you.
A broader based approach is required that targets the entire CO2-equivalent emission of pollution is required.