[Sironimoll]

After reading a thread yesterday about outsourcing, I wanted to post a thread summarizing The Brookings Institute's recent release this month - their first “Top 10”, with respect to Global Economic challenges, for the year 2007. It was interesting. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events...topten2007.pdf

The following is a summary (rather long, but not as long as the link ).

I. Energy and Environment: In an effort to have incentives for the US, China, and India to participate in a standard global plan to address global environmental issues and have more concrete and equitable benefits for those who participate, they recommend caps and domestically tradable emissions permits.
II. Conflict and Poverty: They suggest that susceptibility to civil wars, conflicts, and violence is not due to political rivalries and ethnic hatred, rather it is due to weak economic growth and low incomes. To address this, they recommend
A. The world’s most generous donor of foreign aid, the US, have a more focused effort and reduce the number of objectives from 50 to no more than five. It suggests that those five are chosen and customized based on the needs and current capabilities of the recipients.
B. All donors should prioritize aid based on risk of conflict and state failure.
C. All donor states, in an effort to attenuate resource scarcity/abundance risks on human security, should have measures to promote economic diversity, capacity building, public health, equitable distribution, enforceable property rights, and demographic sustainability. In addition, all donors should be able to rapidly respond and aid states facing economic or environmental disasters.
D. Private sectors and NGOs should target aid to youth to address the “youth bulge” (

[AAAESLLESO]

I. Energy and Environment: In an effort to have incentives for the US, China, and India to participate in a standard global plan to address global environmental issues and have more concrete and equitable benefits for those who participate, they recommend caps and domestically tradable emissions permits. In other words, they want to tax the air you breathe. Damn, taxing the air used to be a fucking joke, like it could never happen. Now it's gaining steam.

No thanks. I don't give a fuck how many multisyllabic words they use to describe it. I am against the air tax.

I'm gonna go burn the insulation off some wire scraps and make a huge cloud of toxic acrid black smoke in protest. If the authorities come I'll blame it on the kids next door.

[Nurse_sero]

After reading a thread yesterday about outsourcing, I wanted to post a thread summarizing The Brookings Institute's recent release this month - their first “Top 10”, with respect to Global Economic challenges, for the year 2007. It was interesting. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events...topten2007.pdf

The following is a summary (rather long, but not as long as the link ).


I believe that they are spot on in their analysis and recommendations. What do you think about these Top 10?

Sounds like it's a plan. Really, it's an interesting analysis for sure and the ideas seem intuitively to be workable.

[Sironimoll]

In other words they want to tax the air.

No thanks. I don't give a fuck how many multisyllabic words they use to describe it. I am against the air tax.

Hi Hairball,

No, they don't want to tax the air, otherwise I would never had said I like this. In the whole text of that part, they imply that Kyoto is so last-decade and out-of-date. They suggesst that the global community come up with a new plan. That plan includes regulations of C emmisions based on the free market. Say a country is given a cap on C emissions of 2,000Kkg/year (I just picked a number). What that country could do was "sell" parcels of that cap on a market. Maybe Detroit Edison figures it can emit 100Kkg/year of C, but each kg/year of C emissions costs them $1. They look at their budget, decide they can't afford the current market rate of buying that emission, so they change their process so that they emeit less C.

Since all C emmiting industries will want to buy some of that total cap, the price/kg/year of the cap will increase (demand). So, either the industries spend money to change their processes to reduce emissions, or they fork out the dough. They will do what is best for their bottom line and the market will determine a price for those "shares" of the emission total based on its overall supply.

In some respects, this exists now in the US. I like the plan since it ensures regulations on C emissions that are equitable for all countries.

[Sironimoll]

Sounds like it's a plan. Really, it's an interesting analysis for sure and the ideas seem intuitively to be workable.

I was really impressed as well. It does seem workable because it takes into account the fact that industry worries about its bottom line, first and foremost, and nations will protect their economies. Its a reality that has to be accepted and they took that into account in their proposal.

[Sironimoll]

I'm gonna go burn the insulation off some wire scraps and make a huge cloud of toxic acrid black smoke in protest. If the authorities come I'll blame it on the kids next door.

Those damn kids.

[tactWeiccaf]

Hi Hairball,

No, they don't want to tax the air, otherwise I would never had said I like this. In the whole text of that part, they imply that Kyoto is so last-decade and out-of-date. They suggesst that the global community come up with a new plan. That plan includes regulations of C emmisions based on the free market.

I believe article 17 of Kyoto had to do with trading CO2 credits. What's different with this?

Since all C emmiting industries will want to buy some of that total cap, the price/kg/year of the cap will increase (demand). So, either the industries spend money to change their processes to reduce emissions, or they fork out the dough. They will do what is best for their bottom line and the market will determine a price for those "shares" of the emission total based on its overall supply.

Screw this and screw Kyoto. We are a sovereign nation of free people. Our free market is more than capable of coming up with solutions to real problems and I don't consider CO2 a problem as there are plently of natural causes that many scientists think may be responsible for the recent heating.

I like the plan since it ensures regulations on C emissions that are equitable for all countries.

And this is exactly why I have been saying Kyoto is nothing more than a global redistribution scheme designed to reduce the globabl disparity in jobs and wealth. If you and other liberals are concerned with this (I am actually in that I wish ALL nations had great economies and standards of living) then what you need to do is export what values that made America great: Liberty, freedom, the right to own private property, a democratic Republic form of government, free press, etc.

Kramer

[Brewpralgar]

Screw this and screw Kyoto. We are a sovereign nation of free people. Our free market is more than capable of coming up with solutions to real problems and I don't consider CO2 a problem as there are plenty of natural causes that many scientists think may be responsible for the recent heating.

What free market are you talking about? Did I miss something? And what do you base your nonconcern with CO2 on? Not being the only problem does not mean it is not any problem.

[Sironimoll]

I believe article 17 of Kyoto had to do with trading CO2 credits. What's different with this?

Screw this and screw Kyoto. We are a sovereign nation of free people. Our free market is more than capable of coming up with solutions to real problems and I don't consider CO2 a problem as there are plently of natural causes that many scientists think may be responsible for the recent heating.

Yup, Kyoto does have trading C emissions in it. But it is out-dated and not as equitable to all nations (US included). If it turns out that this newer approach is inequitable, I would not support our ratification of it (as I did not and do not support the ratification of the current Kyoto).

I agree that we are able to control emissions much better than many believe. We already have mercury emissions improving based on emissions cap trade: Basic Information | Clean Air Mercury Rule | US EPA

And, even without ratification of Kyoto, we have done a pretty good job relative to others on C emissions (from 2000-2004, the US increase in CO2 emissions increased 1.3% while the European Union's increase in CO2 emissions was 2.1% during that same period): Post-Kyoto Surprise: America's Quiet Efforts to Cut Greenhouse Gases Are Producing Results

Their point is, that to keep and improve our economic standing globally, we should address CO2 emissions (the world cares about it, so we should too - diplomacy to ensure economic standing). But only with changes in what is currently there to make it equitable.

And this is exactly why I have been saying Kyoto is nothing more than a global redistribution scheme designed to reduce the globabl disparity in jobs and wealth. If you and other liberals are concerned with this (I am actually in that I wish ALL nations had great economies and standards of living) then what you need to do is export what values that made America great: Liberty, freedom, the right to own private property, a democratic Republic form of government, free press, etc.

Kramer

I don't know if many on this forum think I'm a liberal. I appear to be classified as a "righty knucklehead" and a "wing-nut" by some .

[AAAESLLESO]

III. Global Competition: Trade with China and labor trade in India must be given importance. To address globalization, they recommend the following:
A. Rather than pursue liberal trade policies, the US should focus on establishing a competitive advantage through high value-added, innovation-intensive industries and empower citizens through training and incentives in taking on high-skill jobs.
B. Provide social insurance to support mobility.
C. Negotiate and enforce favorable trade rules (i.e. Intellectual property theft in China and China’s subsidization of their exports).
D. Do no harm with respect to inequitable taxes. Inequitable taxes like perhaps.... the air tax it proposed in the first place?

[Sironimoll]

Inequitable taxes like perhaps.... the air tax it proposed in the first place?

Arrrgh...there is no air tax.

When they speak of inequitable taxes, they are recommending the governments of emerging global economies not unfairly distribute their tax burdens on the middle or lower class - an equitable tax burden distribution.

[tactWeiccaf]

And what do you base your nonconcern with CO2 on?

CO2 is 1/20th as powerful as a warming gas than Methane. In addition, the vast majority of CO2 (well over 97%) is from nature. And, the Vostok ice core data when graphed (temp and CO2) shows changes in CO2 lagging changes in temp by 400 to 800 years which to me, means that CO2 is a very weak GW gas as it had no effect on changing temperature according to the Vostok ice core data.
In addition, the sun was recently in a 1000 year high sunspot cycle and there is evidence that sunspots can influcence the earth's temp (for example, the Maunder minimum which was an abnormally cold period on earth coincided with a time of no sunspot activity. There is also evidence of other similar coincidences.) I've also found scientific evidence of the surface temperature of the ocean tracking almost 1:1 the sunspot numbers. In other words, more sunspots, more higher surface temp, less sunspots, cooler surface temps. To add to this, the energy of the sun has been increasing by 0.05%/decade since the 1970's so there are two factors from the sun that we are being hit with. And if these two factors really did have an affect, wouldn't you expect it to also melt ice on neighboring planets? Well, ice on Mars has been recently observed to be melting.
There is also the fact that the earth's average temp has varied naturally from 12C to 22C and we were just in a 12C period.


In short, my "nonconcern" is that I don't see CO2 as having much impact based on what I've foudn out. In addition, there are natural factors happening that many scientists say could be having an affect on our temperature.

I also don't trust most of the group of scientists from the IPCC which is part of the UN which itself is an organization that pushes socialisim and which some of its founders were communists. Why people take these people at their word like they are an objective group of professionals without their own biases and agendas is beyond me.

About the only way I will become a believer in man-made warming due to too much CO2 is about ten years after the sun has quieted down. If its still hotter than normal after this (and assuming no major volcano eruptions), then I'm with you. On the other hand, if it cools down, then we averted major economic damage by not succumbing to leftists with a flawed theory.

And in the meantime, I all for developing shale oil (if possible) and renewable energy sources for the goal of being weaned off of middle east oil and its problems. I also support energy reduction ideas such as changing from incandescent light bulbs to LED light bulbs. LED light bulbs use a fraction of the energy of a fluorescent light bulb and a fluorescent light bulb uses a fraction of the energy of an incandescent light bulb so LED's will really save a lot of energy.

Kramer

[jinnamys]

Hi Hairball,

No, they don't want to tax the air, otherwise I would never had said I like this. In the whole text of that part, they imply that Kyoto is so last-decade and out-of-date. They suggesst that the global community come up with a new plan. That plan includes regulations of C emmisions based on the free market. Say a country is given a cap on C emissions of 2,000Kkg/year (I just picked a number). What that country could do was "sell" parcels of that cap on a market. Maybe Detroit Edison figures it can emit 100Kkg/year of C, but each kg/year of C emissions costs them $1. They look at their budget, decide they can't afford the current market rate of buying that emission, so they change their process so that they emeit less C.

Since all C emmiting industries will want to buy some of that total cap, the price/kg/year of the cap will increase (demand). So, either the industries spend money to change their processes to reduce emissions, or they fork out the dough. They will do what is best for their bottom line and the market will determine a price for those "shares" of the emission total based on its overall supply.

In some respects, this exists now in the US. I like the plan since it ensures regulations on C emissions that are equitable for all countries.

The biggest problem I have with trading CO2 emissions is this: it is primarily a cash flow system to make Eastern Europe and possibly Africa more wealthy, and does not provide incentives to produce more efficient technology in manufacturing and other industries that do contribute to the CO2 emissions. The Kyoto Accord would never work in its current format or in this format. The only diffeerence is that the Kyoto agreement never addressed China or emerging markets while this one does.

Only by allowing the markets with businesses and some public sector define, distribute, and develop the new technologies to burn coal and oil cleaner, alternative fuels, and new engineering codes would go farther, faster, and better than this proposal can ever hope to accomplish.

[Brewpralgar]

So in short you have chosen to believe a tiny handful of industry funded studies over the huge preponderance of evidence supported by the Acadamies of Science of every major nation on the planet. And you have chosen to do so because some of the scientists may have come from countries which you classify as socialist.

It follows logically that you must believe there is a massive socialist conspiracy at work here. Can you tell me what these socialists hope to accomplish by this hoax? And how have they subverted all the top scientists in the world?

And I'm still waiting to hear where you found that free market you were talking about.

[SypeKifef]

like to add.. all donar aid be restricted to countries of vital strategic importance. IE iraq, afganistan, and any other government under threat to collapse under pressure from islamic extremism... well thats a few dozen any ways itself..

[jinnamys]

So in short you have chosen to believe a tiny handful of industry funded studies over the huge preponderance of evidence supported by the Acadamies of Science of every major nation on the planet. And you have chosen to do so because some of the scientists may have come from countries which you classify as socialist.

It follows logically that you must believe there is a massive socialist conspiracy at work here. Can you tell me what these socialists hope to accomplish by this hoax? And how have they subverted all the top scientists in the world?

And I'm still waiting to hear where you found that free market you were talking about.

You are mixing apples to oranges. There have been studies that suggest CO2 is in part to blame on the increase in surface temperature; however, there is only one study that suggested trading CO2 emssions will help lower CO2 emissions.

Take location A: It is a heavily industrialized location with a specific level of CO2 emissions.

Take Locaton B: it is a rural area with little CO2 emissions.

Now, if each location has a set standard rate for CO2 emissions, which location is more vulurnable, given everything else being equal. If you said Location A, then you go to the next step.

Now, Location A transfers (buys) CO2 emission levels from Location B while locaton B is still rural. So, have the CO2 emissions lowered or increased, Melted? If you said increase, then you go ahead of the class. If not, you go directly to jail and do not collect $200.

NOTE: This has nothing to do about socialism or any political system. It is about $$$$$$$$ in which one region is wanting to ceeate a money scheme, and that is all.

[jinnamys]

When they speak of inequitable taxes, they are recommending the governments of emerging global economies not unfairly distribute their tax burdens on the middle or lower class - an equitable tax burden distribution.

There is no such thing as an equitable or inequitable tax system. There will always be "winners" and "losers" in any tax scheme whether it is progressive, regressive, flat, VAT/GST, etc.

[Sironimoll]

The biggest problem I have with trading CO2 emissions is this: it is primarily a cash flow system to make Eastern Europe and possibly Africa more wealthy, and does not provide incentives to produce more efficient technology in manufacturing and other industries that do contribute to the CO2 emissions. The Kyoto Accord would never work in its current format or in this format. The only diffeerence is that the Kyoto agreement never addressed China or emerging markets while this one does.

Only by allowing the markets with businesses and some public sector define, distribute, and develop the new technologies to burn coal and oil cleaner, alternative fuels, and new engineering codes would go farther, faster, and better than this proposal can ever hope to accomplish.

I'm not sure I'm getting your argument. I believe that the emissions shares are available to all industries that are willing to purchase them at their market value. Their incentives are to develop new processes that emit less CO2, or buy the shares. Also, these shares are only to be traded domestically - no international trade of these shares. Each country gets its emissions caps and each country trades those emissions shares of that cap internally. If the total caps for the world are not distributed equitably among the nations based on their economies, then I would not support this either as I do not support the inequities of Kyoto.

Please let me know more about your point.

like to add.. all donar aid be restricted to countries of vital strategic importance. IE iraq, afganistan, and any other government under threat to collapse under pressure from islamic extremism... well thats a few dozen any ways itself..

I guess I should have worded that better in my summary. Here is the whole text of that section (from the link above):

“A Comprehensive Approach to Weak States. The United States and other bilateral and multilateral donors should place a much higher priority on addressing countries at risk of conflict and state failure. This will require an integrated set of policies that enables leaders of newly democratic countries to deliver concrete results to their people: further debt relief; increased market access; the elimination of agricultural subsidies; improved incentives for private sector development; sustained support for civil society, the free press, women’s rights and democratic institution-building; and concerted efforts to prevent and terminate conflict and to rebuild post-conflict states.”

I think the key sets of words are “at risk” and “newly democratic”. This might rule out some of the targets about which you are concerned.

[Sironimoll]

There is no such thing as an equitable or inequitable tax system. There will always be "winners" and "losers" in any tax scheme whether it is progressive, regressive, flat, VAT/GST, etc.

Agreed, but in emerging economies, it is too easy to have more inequitable tax burden distibution as part of the growing pains those economies will experience. This calls to attention those who are planning aid, to keep an eye of this possible problem to prevent possible future conflict which would have ramifications on the global economy.

[tactWeiccaf]

So in short you have chosen to believe a tiny handful of industry funded studies over the huge preponderance of evidence supported by the Acadamies of Science of every major nation on the planet.

My sites are mainly NASA, or science sites. I ignore blogs (even though they may have accurate information).

It follows logically that you must believe there is a massive socialist conspiracy at work here. Can you tell me what these socialists hope to accomplish by this hoax? And how have they subverted all the top scientists in the world?

Not a conspiracy. Just a movement. You know, like how Hollywood is controlled by leftists. ANd how the vast majority of college professors and news reporters are also leftists.
Regarding the scientists, of course they weren't subverted. More likely, many of them that joined had an agenda and/or a pre-conceived bias.

Kramer