DiEM25 Official Forums

Forum rules
Read the proposed paper at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vzp ... vsxI/edit# . Do not use this forum for general policy discussion - every thread must carry the point and sub-point in its name, e. g. "2.2.1 A different proposal for banking regulations".
 
User avatar
davidstodolsky
Posts: 31
Joined: 29 Apr 2017 12:11

Re: 2.3.3 Green energy union and the proposed pan-European Carbon Tax

13 Jun 2017 14:17

FDonati,

You can find references supporting my statements on my blog. Theoretical foundation -

Here is the Book:

http://cosmism.blogspot.dk/2010/05/exis ... ement.html

and a footnote:

http://cosmism.blogspot.dk/2011/10/can- ... plain.html
 
User avatar
FDonati
Posts: 38
Joined: 19 Jul 2016 08:10
Location: Delft
Contact:

Re: 2.3.3 Green energy union and the proposed pan-European Carbon Tax

13 Jun 2017 16:14

davidstodolsky wrote:
FDonati,

You can find references supporting my statements on my blog. Theoretical foundation -

Here is the Book:

http://cosmism.blogspot.dk/2010/05/exis ... ement.html

and a footnote:

http://cosmism.blogspot.dk/2011/10/can- ... plain.html



Please, I am not trying to be rude but you can't expect me or anybody else to go through your blog (2011 - to today) to find evidence to your claims.
I also tried to read your two blog posts you are referencing but much to my disappointment, I find no substantiation to the claims you made.

I read the previous article by Tol that you posted. First, I would be wary of citing working papers, mostly those by Tol considering his track record. But in any case you say

davidstodolsky wrote:
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gatewa ... df&site=24

The private benefit of carbon is much higher than the social cost of carbon.


First the study only takes into account energy prices while not considering the aggressive subsidies fossil fuels receive pre-tax.
Secondly, the social costs which should perhaps be included in post-tax subsidies are heavily underestimated. To give you a better idea http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0X16304867
Thirdly, the study that he cites for the estimated social cost is another non-peer-reviewed working paper written by (surprise, surprise) himself.
Lastly, I don't think it's reasonable to talk about "private benefit of carbon". Energy is the actual commodity providing the benefit and carbon is just an externality resulting from its production through specific sources. Just like you wouldn't compare "the benefit of vehicle accidents" to "the social cost of vehicle accidents".
I understand the reasoning why he wants to do this type of comparison but it is at very least misleading.

In any case going back to the original discussion; of course!! if you just slap a carbon tax on people it will be a problem but the point is that you can put the tax and use the tax revenues to cover the poor from the increased energy prices.
 
User avatar
davidstodolsky
Posts: 31
Joined: 29 Apr 2017 12:11

Re: 2.3.3 Green energy union and the proposed pan-European Carbon Tax

13 Jun 2017 19:16

I have documented my claims on my blog.
I am not going to repeat everything here, so you will have to find the answers you need yourself.

The point of my links was to illustrate what I find to be the actual basis for the movement against "global warming".
That is, psychology can explain it.
The end was near according to the media in 1970, just as we hear today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HUtM_L ... 1AA956A42B

This same point is made by Lal:

http://time.dufe.edu.cn/wencong/ucla/wp814.pdf


According to the most reliable scientific measurements, there has been no change in temperatures since 1998.
One of the leading experts on climate has stated that increasing temperatures *cause* increases in CO2. He heads this Center:

http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/

Even if we accept the claims of IPCC, the satisfaction of Paris Agreement would have virtually no effect:

http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-re ... e-promises


The only effect of the attempts to control carbon emissions has been to increase the wealth of an elite and decrease the wealth of the poor.
(In fact, a UN body denounced the US biofuels program as a Crime Against Humanity.)
While it is possible to do otherwise, there is no reason to believe that it is politically feasible.

Since the US is not going to participate in controlling CO2, anything done in Europe will be both irrelevant and economically disadvantageous.
It makes no sense to include it in DiEM25's political program.
Anything included in our program must be shown to actually make life better for people.
 
User avatar
FDonati
Posts: 38
Joined: 19 Jul 2016 08:10
Location: Delft
Contact:

Re: 2.3.3 Green energy union and the proposed pan-European Carbon Tax

13 Jun 2017 22:44

This forum, I swear it's really a pain. It destroys everything you write.
I will format differently this time here is the whole thing


I have documented my claims on my blog.
I am not going to repeat everything here, so you will have to find the answers you need yourself.

Ok, not my loss.


The point of my links was to illustrate what I find to be the actual basis for the movement against "global warming".
That is, psychology can explain it.

The social construct of global warming you mean? or something else? what can psychology explain? I am genuinely confused.


The end was near according to the media in 1970, just as we hear today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HUtM_L ... 1AA956A42B

Those were the years when we found out about the atmosphere of Venus and increasing concentration of CO2 emissions on earth. Seems reasonable that they would say it on TV.
isn't addressing scientific issues of international security concern a legitimate thing to do? isn't within a century short enough of a time?


This same point is made by Lal:
http://time.dufe.edu.cn/wencong/ucla/wp814.pdf

The link doesn't work

According to the most reliable scientific measurements, there has been no change in temperatures since 1998.
Which measurements? NASA begs to differ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

One of the leading experts on climate has stated that increasing temperatures *cause* increases in CO2. He heads this Center:
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/

I don't know what to do with this statement. I can just tell you that I would need to see context of the claim, name of the person and study.

Even if we accept the claims of IPCC, the satisfaction of Paris Agreement would have virtually no effect:
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-re ... e-promises

You are really taking this conversation off the rail but anyway I will admit that this seems to be an interesting article with associated publication. I need to read it more in detail but it's too late now where I am and need to go to sleep. rest assured I will re-read it. I am also not that thrilled about the Paris agreement, but this is a conversation for another time.

The only effect of the attempts to control carbon emissions has been to increase the wealth of an elite and decrease the wealth of the poor.
unsubstantiated claim. where, when, how, to what degree? how does it compare with general growing inequality that is associated to other factors?


(In fact, a UN body denounced the US biofuels program as a Crime Against Humanity.)

unsubstantiated claim


While it is possible to do otherwise, there is no reason to believe that it is politically feasible.

this is an opinion and could or could not be shared. ok.


Since the US is not going to participate in controlling CO2, anything done in Europe will be both irrelevant and economically disadvantageous.

The world does not revolve all around the US. EU and China are respectively 2nd and 3rd largest economies. EU and China are taking the lead on environmental policies. US states can still operate largely without federal government (see California) and supply chains have no boundaries, they are global.


It makes no sense to include it in DiEM25's political program.
Anything included in our program must be shown to actually make life better for people.

Ensuring local clean air and water, managing population displacements due to extreme weather events and rising waters, planning for appropriate management and security of resource supply (water, food, critical materials, etc), investing in infrastructures to support a new energy system that could make up for energy poverty and stabilize price of energy, decreasing dependencies from other economies/resources which would in turn contain/decrease resource/trade related geopolitical tensions and stabilizing prices, creating jobs while doing all this? these are things that in some part we do already and that are good for people.... what is that you see as not being proven to be good for the people?
 
 
User avatar
davidstodolsky
Posts: 31
Joined: 29 Apr 2017 12:11

Re: 2.3.3 Green energy union and the proposed pan-European Carbon Tax

14 Jun 2017 09:44

I stated: Anything included in our program must be shown to actually make life better for people.
Then you say: Ensuring local clean air and water, managing population displacements due to extreme weather events and rising waters

Instead of a concrete proposal, you repeat false claims:

The imperialistic policies you advocate have already undermined local environments. - Millions die from indoor smoke caused by high energy prices.

Decreased extreme weather events = more extreme events in your mind:

• A study based on data from the Joint Typhoon Warning Centre and the Japan Meteorological Agency shows the number of typhoons making landfall in the Philippines has declined since 1990.
• The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – hailed by greens as the ultimate arbiter – does not agree tropical storms have become more intense or frequent, but says the opposite. Their special report last year said: 'There is low confidence in any observed long-term (40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (ie intensity, frequency, duration).' Its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report added in September there have been 'no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2vsLDu2ny


So, you have convinced me you are immune to facts.
I don't engage in religious arguments, since they are a waste of time as can be seen here already.
 
AndreaHirschmann
Posts: 516
Joined: 16 Mar 2016 15:43
Location: LKS Fürth, Germany

Re: 2.3.3 Green energy union and the proposed pan-European Carbon Tax

15 Jun 2017 10:39

davidstodolsky,

FDonati wrote:

[davidstodolsky] It makes no sense to include it in DiEM25's political program.
Anything included in our program must be shown to actually make life better for people.

Ensuring local clean air and water, managing population displacements due to extreme weather events and rising waters, planning for appropriate management and security of resource supply (water, food, critical materials, etc), investing in infrastructures to support a new energy system that could make up for energy poverty and stabilize price of energy, decreasing dependencies from other economies/resources which would in turn contain/decrease resource/trade related geopolitical tensions and stabilizing prices, creating jobs while doing all this? these are things that in some part we do already and that are good for people.... what is that you see as not being proven to be good for the people?


Indeed, I can't see how clean air and water etc. does not actually improve life. It clearly does, in a very fundamental way.


davidstodolsky wrote:
The New Cultural Imperialism: The Greens and Economic Development

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=307823


"This paper argues that environmentalism has become a new secular Western religion" - as it (the paper) states itself.

Following this conversation, you, davidstodolsky, are trying to convince us that no climate change is happening (calling it a false claim) and that it is not necessary to protect environment and implement measures to have clean air and water. You claim that anything done in Europe or elsewhere will be both irrelevant and economically disadvantageous since the US is not going to participate in controlling CO2. Sure, definitely disadvantageous for carbon driven industry.

Practically you call measures, which ensure improvement of basic life necessities like air, a religion, citing documents dated 2000, published on the corporation lobby driven platform RELX group (known as Reed Elsevier between 1992 and February 2015), which has a history of scandals including connections to international arms trade and has been boycotted and criticized by a remarkable number of scientists and universities:

https://www.mediadb.eu/datenbanken/inte ... group.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RELX_Group
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier# ... troversies

Now, of course you are free to have a personal view and opinion according to above mentioned statements, but this is not the forum for promoting opinions which are contrary to our goals.

This topic has been set up for concrete proposals of additions and changes regarding "Funding green investment-led recovery". The forum rules are clear and stated on top of the page:

"Read the proposed paper at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vzp ... vsxI/edit# . Do not use this forum for general policy discussion (...)"

Considering also your post here viewtopic.php?f=181&t=14189#p29744
where you are trying to even promote an increase of CO2 in the athmosphere

davidstodolsky wrote:
CO2 is vital for plant growth and it is often injected into greenhouses due to its benefits. The authors appear to be confused about how to promote greening of the Earth.


You are warned to not further promote interests of fossil fuel industry here and to observe the forum rules, otherwise you risk to be banned.
Deutsch *** English *** Italiano
 
User avatar
davidstodolsky
Posts: 31
Joined: 29 Apr 2017 12:11

Re: 2.3.3 Green energy union and the proposed pan-European Carbon Tax

15 Jun 2017 10:43

"Read the proposed paper at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vzp ... vsxI/edit# . Do not use this forum for general policy discussion (...)"

As I already stated, the link doesn't work.
"Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist."
 
AndreaHirschmann
Posts: 516
Joined: 16 Mar 2016 15:43
Location: LKS Fürth, Germany

Re: 2.3.3 Green energy union and the proposed pan-European Carbon Tax

15 Jun 2017 10:58

davidstodolsky wrote:
I got a notice that "This topic has received a reply by rothana", but no such post is visible.
"Read the proposed paper at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vzp ... vsxI/edit# . " doesn't resolve.


FYI:
user rothana had been banned for advertising online casinos.
The deadline for amendments has passed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vzp ... 1da7d03sx3
Here you can download the current version: https://diem25.org/end/
Deutsch *** English *** Italiano