Economics of Cap and Trade Policy: Auction or Free Allocation?

[anoniab]

We've always burned things for energy. It's likely we produced more CO2 when heating the homes of the 1800's and early 1900's since they didn't have double paned windows or insulation. Cap and trade discriminates against coal companies - those who have fireplaces will not have to meet these standards.

[spikesmth]

And coal power ought to be disincentivized since it's messing up our atmosphere. I looked at all your climate denial on your channel... you're BS man. Rising emissions aren't that bad, but when combined with the other environmental damage we are doing it becomes a feedback loop. What do you know of science or economics?

[anoniab]

And you, my friend, are in denial of the natural CO2 cycle. Burning coal is no different than burning wood; coal is fossilized plant material. Say, our landfill frequently burns huge amounts of wood and brush. Are they going to be covered by the cap and trade? How about emissions from ethanol plants?

[spikesmth]

My point was that human activities are disrupting the natural co2 cycle and it could have disastrous effects, some of which are already being seen. It's about incentives, if there are cleaner/more efficient manufacturing processes then make it worth it. Ideally all pollution would be under some kind of cap & trade.. if people had to pay their share of their environmental damage, then we'd cut it back voluntarily.

[anoniab]

Human activities determine the measurement of global warming (check out placement of surface stations-can you rely on the record of surface stations-that are placed incorrectly on blacktop, in parking lots, etc?) but humans do not determine climate - the system is just too big. Again, we have always burned things for fuel/energy, and we certainly must have burned more in the early 1900's since most of the heat was going out the windows and through the walls and roof before the 50's and 60's.

[spikesmth]

I don't know what candy land number's you've looked at, but total energy consumption & carbon/ghg output have increased geometrically over the past 200 years. Our per capita impact is larger (in the US) by far compared to 50 years ago.. even with efficiency improvements. Costs have gone down and consumption has risen, as we'd expect, but to the detriment of the environment (which is the root of human survival, agreed?).

[anoniab]

"over the past 200 years"

I don't think we have any idea how much energy people were using when they were using buffalo chips and wood from the back 40, do you have a way to compute it?

[spikesmth]

It would only be an estimation... but it would be far far less than after the adoption of coal. Do you know about energy density?

[dixitstiglitz]

legend!

[spikesmth]

"Leave Me Alone (Peanut Butter Wolf Mix)" by Kool Keith

[devtamagi]

Awesome dude, thx for dropping by last night btw.

[spikesmth]

Any time man... except school is raping me right now. Done after next week tho!

[devtamagi]

That sucks hardcore. Im havin a little trouble too. Good luck!

[Realizalize]

the gallon of gasoline you use less, the more stays in your pocket.

same with beer, phone, water.

a kilo(2pnd) banans cost 1,25€, no way jose!

a beer at a pub, at least 2€, hell yeah.

[JasperAvi]

Good video...

I need to start figuring out how to do diagrams in my videos, then my plan for world domination via the YouTubez will be complete!

[DarkTheAtheist]

very well done diagrams