What is Digg?Sponsored by Lost Season 5 On Blu-ray
LOST Season 5 lands on Blu-ray(tm) & DVD Dec 8 view!
lostuniversity.org/ - Check out the 5-disc collection complete with deleted scenes and new bonus features.
62 Comments
- doodiepants, on 06/08/2009, -2/+25Who cares much it's monetary value is? We need to change the way things are viewed completely
- GregLoire, on 06/08/2009, -0/+17Because money is the only way you'll get anyone to actually do anything.
- Barackalypse, on 06/08/2009, -4/+13Except it is a false economy because any payments would be based on arbitrary Government mandates concerning allowed carbon emissions and not the actions of a free market setting the value of these natural assets.
- Junkyarddawg, on 06/08/2009, -1/+6Well, it would be worth more standing IF it was allowed for industrialized nations to swap CO2 emissions for payments to developing countries to keep their rainforest. It isn't, the environmental organizations stupidly stopped that during the Rio conference, and the morons are still opposed to it.
- blackanode, on 06/08/2009, -0/+5sadly yes
- PeppermintPig, on 06/08/2009, -0/+5What value does it have if it is priceless??? If we can't afford to lose it, then surely we have the incentive to pony up money and buy the land outright.
Ignoring or defying economic law to pursue an environmentally defensive agenda will lead to failure. - maanwi, on 06/09/2009, -0/+4I wonder if people will still be talking this sort of unwise smack when the forests (and ice caps) are all gone.
- MWeather, on 06/08/2009, -0/+4Oxygen is kind of nice to have around.
- Dustin00, on 06/08/2009, -0/+4That's nice, can that be monitized by the people living on/next to those trees?
If we just give money to the Brazillion govt, the clear-cutting/burning will continue. - bromac, on 06/08/2009, -2/+6Quite frankly, with all due respect to Adam Smith and his revolutionary views on human free markets...
***** the "Free Market" in this case. Humans are traditionally horrendous with the "value" it places on natural resources. If left to their own means, most industries from mining to manufacturing love to displace their costs onto the common assets that is the environment, which is to say the land air and water we live in. Real estate.
Since these are common assets, yes it is up to our duly elected representatives to set a value that society thinks these assets are worth. Parks, for example, are essentially priceless, both in the altruistic sense and the fact that you cannot purchase land in them or develop them, if it really is an actually park or wilderness preserve.
To prove my point, my uncle just dedicated a $1.5 Million piece of land to a local park that my late-aunt campaigned to found as far back as the 70's. They BOUGHT the land to preserve. That's a real economy. Money where the mouth is. - Renian, on 06/08/2009, -0/+3Because you need a unit of value to compare anything to, so we just convert things monetary values as such data is relatively easy to extract. We would use utility if that were more easily measured, but it is not.
- yocouchdigga, on 06/08/2009, -0/+3what is this i dont even
- Trent1492, on 06/09/2009, -1/+4" Suppose it is true that co2 is rising? "
It is: Keeling Curve: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id= ...
"What is the economic value of that? Increased agricultural production."
So you think that plants need only CO2? Changing precipitation patterns, higher temperatures in already marginal agricultural areas, increased range of insects and disease, etc. May I suggest you find out what Liebig's law of the Minimum means.
"Try checking out the following graphs and examine real data, then draw your own conclusions about the so-called global-warming/climate change claims:
http://climatepolice.com/Past_Future_climate.pdf&q ...
So tell me, what do you think is Archibald's strongest argument and evidence. What is his "killer" piece of evidence in your opinion? - Swivelstick, on 06/09/2009, -0/+2No they'll just blame previous generations whilst ignoring the issues they create..
- ZSparkman, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2But it's not really dollars/gold/money that people are looking at, it's the ability to stay alive. People in the developed world have trouble understanding the plight a hoard of people that don't have expendable income and are destructive for reasons other than wealth or power, but just to survive.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/09/2009, -0/+2"If you don't assign any cost to destroying nature/the environment/forests etc., of positive benefit to saving them, you shouldn't be surprised by what's going on."
I made that exact point, yet the conclusion I draw is very different from what either you or sulthernao appear to imply.
"You must not understand the economic concept of a negative externality. "
How did you come to this conclusion, and what's the point of this assumption? - SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/09/2009, -0/+2So, basically, you all speculate on who owns the land or some inherent "tyranny" in the government preventing the further destruction of the rainforest. You're all going to panic when you find out about agricultural subsidies and national park lands.
TYRANNY IS AT OUR DOORSTEP! /s
I, for one, don't care who is getting paid so long as we stop destroying our own habitat. - chessthecat, on 06/08/2009, -1/+3Yeah I was thinking the same thing. "An area of rainforest the size of Kansas is lost every second." Okay. So the whole world should be paved by now. Something's not right.
- PeppermintPig, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2Yes. People think they can escape the laws of nature/economics.
- Trent1492, on 06/09/2009, -1/+3"The point of my post is: the economics of a socialist system of transferring, by fiat, personal property rights from one group (the owners) to another group and that maybe all the concern about carbon is overblown."
I do not see how your economic fears justify your suspicion that the dangers of AGW are overblown. I can not see how the utility of socialism negates or adds to the dangers of AGW.
"Where did you get the idea that I thought co2 was the only requirement for production. It is just one component, of course. "
When you said this, What is the economic value of that? Increased agricultural production." You give every indication that increased CO2 levels will lead to greater agricultural productivity with out considering any other factors that increased CO2 will also mean.
Next, the point of Archibald's argument is that the earth goes through cycles constantly, with climatic changes independent of man in many cases."
That is a error in thinking called the Genetic Fallacy. Just because climate has changed in the past for one .reason or another does not exclude it changing from human induced actions.
"For example, volcanic activity."
Humanity produces 130 times more CO2 every year than do volcanoes.
"As for higher temperatures, there is the evidence that temperatures peaked in 1998-2000 and have since dropped."
NASA and every global temperature data set says other wise. - MWeather, on 06/09/2009, -0/+1When a quarter feeds your family for a week, every penny matters immensely.
- gn84, on 06/11/2009, -0/+1@chalkboy
You think hurricane clips are bad? In the City of San Francisco, they require all plumbing to be done with metal (cast iron or copper) piping... Why metal over much cheaper, easier, and just-as-effective ABS or PVC? Because it creates more work for the metalworkers union.
I was at the building department the other day while an electrician had spend a couple hours of his time to pull a $180 permit in order to remove an "illegal" stove. - PeppermintPig, on 06/09/2009, -0/+1The problem isn't a lack of money so much as it is a lack of motivation to creatively solve their financial problems. I refuse to believe this is the best they could possibly do.
The reason I complain about the situation is that they expect other people in government to come up with new rules in order to rake in money. This means they lose the incentive to solve the problem directly. And, as a consequence, that money is spent less efficiently and destroys opportunities for greater solutions. - borez, on 06/08/2009, -1/+2Finance and profit>nature.
Is it me, or is rational thinking within our species just going completely out of the ***** window? - PeppermintPig, on 06/08/2009, -4/+5"A new analysis has shown that payments to reduce carbon emissions from the forests could generate more income than palm oil production on deforested land. "
Who is paying?
"Protecting the forests could become profitable under a proposed scheme called Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (Redd). "
Whether or not it's more profitable, the question remains: Why aren't the so-called experts putting their money where their mouth is and buy up the land to protect it? Why are they using government to force a desired behavior??
""Redd will only be competitive for slowing destruction of peat forests, which are jam-packed with carbon and become massive sources of greenhouse gases when cleared. "
'jam-packed with carbon' is a disingenuous way of describing the situation, making associations with political anti-science ecological agendas. - inactive, on 06/09/2009, -0/+1"Whether or not it's more profitable, the question remains: Why aren't the so-called experts putting their money where their mouth is and buy up the land to protect it? Why are they using government to force a desired behavior??"
There are many groups doing this, most notably the Nature Conservancy, but they only have limited financial resources. - sndream, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1Principal Redd based on.
"If you don't give me free money, I am so going to burn down my backyard." - chalkboy, on 06/08/2009, -2/+3Actually the land owners would get paid. Who are probably already rich. The little people would stay poor and not have a place to raise food. It is really like most government mandated ideas.
Some rich dude gets richer while I have to put damn hurricane clips on a house where we don't get hurricanes all to protect the little people.(That is just an example the clips do have a purpose in some parts of the country)
But the person who made the clips is the one getting rich while I waist time and money putting them on my house. All rules and regulations are written by the people with the money to pay for it. - Homerr, on 06/08/2009, -2/+3You know that retarded Sean Connery movie Medicine Man? I thought when he says, "I found a cure for the plague of the 20th century, and now I've lost it!" I thought it was going to be about the lumberjack crew cutting down the tree that had the one herb or bug on it that cured cancer. But it wasn't.
I wonder if we've already mowed down the things that would have cured us. - randomdude287, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1save the rainforest!!! the rainforest is cool
- scotchw, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1sulthernao is right.
If you don't assign any cost to destroying nature/the environment/forests etc., of positive benefit to saving them, you shouldn't be surprised by what's going on.
This is why, IMHO, carbon tax / cap-and-trade could change everything. - logandurand, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1Most common assets are only so by state mandate. It should come as no surprise that the lakes and rivers declared unownable by the state are so quickly devastated. It makes little sense to say "***** the free markets" in areas where the free market is forcibly prohibited.
- inactive, on 06/09/2009, -0/+1Human greed won't stop this from happening.
Cows in Europe need feed, mothers in Utah need Dove soap.
One sucks the Amazon to death and the other SE Asia.
Its will come down to the last 10 miles and then it will be protected, The last 10 miles. - scotchw, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1That is great news, because money is the only real reason anyone does anything.
Especially poor people, because they don't have any. Money
(hope this doesn't sound derogatory)
Oh, and spite. - Peekman, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1Plants grow?
- milomilomilo, on 06/09/2009, -0/+1how about the oxygen we get from those rainforests that without which everyone on the planet dies?
How much is that worth?
It's pretty ***** up that this has to be reduced to money for people to start to consider it?
Like the corporations that know global warming will kill a good portion of our species but don't care, or fish the oceans to extincion and yet the consequence don't register.
There does come a point folks, where your greed resembles pure insanity.
And to reduce this down to a monetary issue just continues to feed the suicidal greed many show. - chaseywacy, on 06/09/2009, -0/+1They don't have rainforests.
- andrewh7, on 06/09/2009, -0/+1So, we're not going to cut it down because it's more profitable not to? It's sad that things have come to this.
- MWeather, on 06/08/2009, -1/+1"But it's not really dollars/gold/money that people are looking at, it's the ability to stay alive"
You say that like you can stay alive without money. You can't. Legally, at least. - JayTee44, on 06/08/2009, -0/+0How about the people who live in rainforests tell you to what to do with your land?
- MofoVideo, on 06/08/2009, -2/+2When will people understand that. The Laissez-faire free market guides people to act.
- Barackalypse, on 06/08/2009, -2/+2The people who own the land win, everyone else pays higher prices and thus loses. Except Governments that levy sales tax, they also win, because when prices go up so does the amount of money the sales tax collects (assuming consumption doesn't drop).
- ZSparkman, on 06/08/2009, -0/+0But in the case of people who are just making enough money to get buy, it is easy to measure in utility, while with larger profits you cannot.
- sulthernao, on 06/08/2009, -2/+2You must not understand the economic concept of a negative externality.
- jaythewise, on 06/09/2009, -0/+0.... retard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_temperate_rai ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreal_forest - ZSparkman, on 06/09/2009, -0/+0I mean that with these people who live in a 3rd world country, they make just enough to get buy. Not enough for the gold/dollars/money to matter.
- Propethic, on 06/09/2009, -0/+0I agree! Down with Capitalism! Give me a break
- Trent1492, on 06/09/2009, -1/+1"The following seem to dispute your "every global temperature data set" statement:"
Here IS every global temperature set: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
Who do I believe the data itself or newspaper editorials and blogs? It really is not that tough of a choice. - mah2cent, on 06/09/2009, -0/+0The following seem to dispute your "every global temperature data set" statement:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4 ...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/twisting_sc ...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197 ...
http://ezinearticles.com/?Global-Warming-Ended-in- ...
- mah2cent, on 06/09/2009, -3/+3Still another socialist program to extact payments from one group to another group. And, to what end? Suppose it is true that co2 is rising? What is the economic value of that? Increased agricultural production. What difference does that make? Feed for the world's people. What difference does that make? Less starvation. Does any one think about cause and effect? Apparently not.
Try checking out the following graphs and examine real data, then draw your own conclusions about the so-called global-warming/climate change claims:
http://climatepolice.com/Past_Future_climate.pdf -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
