Norway is the fifth largest oil exporter in the world. Their largest oil company, STATOIL ASA has it’s majority shares owned by the state of Norway itself, tho not fully nationalized.
Despite the govt’s ability to rein in fuel prices for it’s citizens, Norway’s increased their gas taxes, ignoring a supply problem that doesn’t appear to exist for them.
So why is it Norwegians are up in arms about petrol prices, when the black gold abounds in their back yards?
Per Norway govt officials, it’s all about AGW and forcing behavior change in the world’s denizens.
The tax increase is part of a wider government strategy to fight climate change by pushing Norwegians to leave their car at home.
“At a time when climate change is beginning to seriously impact the planet, and when Norway’s carbon dioxide emissions are increasing, we politicians must take steps to meet these challenges,” Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen said.
The tax was agreed by all political parties, apart from the Progress Party, as part of the country’s overall climate change policy.
~~~
“Of course petrol is expensive but it’s okay. The standard of living is good here and salaries are high,” said Stine Nore, a 28-year-old logistics manager as she filled up her black BMW estate.
“There have to be incentives for people to drive less. Driving is a luxury. People should only drive a car when it really is necessary,” she said.
Driving is a luxury?? This, in itself, is a frightening and dangerous attitude. For it must follow that luxuries, by their very nature, then become privileges reserved only for the more wealthy. The US Congress is already dancing dangerously close to the same conclusion with their calls for conservation. They, too, are standing by idly, refusing to join most of the rest of the world in plans to increase supply, merely to drive up gas prices in order to force behavioral change…
And all in the interest of AGW.
Since when has transportation become a luxury? It is America’s vacation travel, even neighborhood trips to local shops, malls, theatres, that keeps our economy healthy. If driving is a luxury and restricted merely to commuting for work or emergency needs, what happens to the consumers’ economy, and the retail businesses that depend upon it?
Norway’s elections are Sept 2009, one year later than our US elections. Yet already they are predicting a first time ever change for Norway politics.
But now supporters of the centre-left coalition government fear the tax increase will cost them dearly in the next elections, in September 2009.
“It’s a very unwise political decision. The only thing it will accomplish is that the Progress Party will get even more votes,” Labour MP Karita Bekkemellem told the daily VG in June.
A third of the population expect fuel prices to be the most important issue in the polls, according to a survey in Aftenposten, Norway’s paper of reference.
Speculation has been rife over whether the far-right could come to power for the first time in the next election.
Even Labour Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has acknowledged that the Progress Party could get into government.
Those living in rural and remote areas are particularly incensed about the tax increase as they are more dependent on cars than city dwellers who have access to public transport.
“This is a serious issue with many people I have spoken to and met in my region, (rural) Moere and Romsdal. Much more serious than for those who live in a small circle in Oslo and Gruenerloekka (a fashionable area in the capital) think,” Bekkemellem told VG.
Despite Norway’s favorable position of having ample supply, and even govt majority shares, int’l pressure on governments to implement climate change legislation is being played – all at the consumers’ expense.
In the meantime, the AGW skeptics just gained another influential and credible member… Dr. David Evans, consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, wrote an op-ed in The Australian News on July 18th. Naturally, the coverage of this op-ed was limited to a few media, mostly with more conservative tags applied to their coverage.
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you’d believe anything.
The question now becomes this… what will happen first? Will governments pressured by a psuedo “consensus” inflict irreversible damage to the world economy? Or will the world’s climate itself prove the “consensus’ as flagrantly flawed – in time to prevent the serious economic damage proposed by the AGW alarmists?
I’d like to vote for the latter. However the former includes those who will continue the pressure because of the financial agendas, and big money in play.
But there is a third choice… consumers will overwhelmingly reject the economic pressure governments will place on them to bow to the AGW altar. And that one just may be a good bet.
___________________________
UPDATE: It looks like the Pakistanis are also getting vocal about the new coalition government’s price increases in fuel taxes. Whether the government did this for AGW, or just pure corrupt greed, is not mentioned. It is, however, an indication that the honeymoon is over for Benazir’s party and their coalition government… for the Pakistanis are regretting the day they believed the PPP campaign promises.
President of Sukkur Small Traders Haji Mohammad Haroon Memon said the increase in fuel prices was a sheer injustice. The government should have instead given subsidy on petroleum products to bring some relief to people, he urged.
Religious leaders Mufti Mohammad Ibrahim Qadri and Musharraf Mehmood Qadri slammed the increase and termed it an anti-people action.
The present government had failed miserably to provide any relief to people, who had become disappointed in their tall claims and hollow promises, they said, adding, that the government had delivered nothing during its 100 days.
Mohammad Hanif Memon and Abdul Rehman Ansari said that the rulers should cut down on their royal expenses to be able to provide some relief to people with regards to daily-use commodities.
Majority of people who recorded their comments during the survey believed that the government had no interest in solving people’s problems. The only factor behind price hike was wrong policies, which had overburdened people with heavy weight of inflation, they said.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
“The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. “
Evans also goes on to say that the Australian Labor Party will be held accountable for pushing the fraud of manmade global warming.
That’s something I would like to see but am very skeptical.
Were libs ever held responsible for being so very wrong on the Cold War and doing everything they could to obstruct and block President Reagan’s program to win it? Were they ever held accountable for pushing idiotic ideas like the nuclear freeze which would have cemented Soviety Intermediate Range Nuclear missiles and the armies that go with them in place in Eastern Europe?
Nope! The same fools who were so very wrong on the Cold War just picked up a different protest sign and took off after global warming.
They are wrong on that too but will NEVER be held accountable.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Driving IS a luxury. Just because a particular country builds up its economy using this luxury when the price was reasonable to many does not make it any less a luxury. The beauty of economics here is that the more price increases on goods that make up the luxury, the more of a luxury it becomes since less people can afford it!
As I see it, it’s simple: If you’d rather make sacrifices to continue to live far away from your jobs, schools, and extracurricular activities so that you can continue to drive you car, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, change your job, relocate to housing that is within biking/walking distance, and/or stop using your goddamned car so much. The minute diesel jumped past $4.50/gallon, I started biking half or more days per week to work. Boo hoo, I had to change my lifestyle to meet budget. Big fuckin’ deal.
Yes, driving is a luxury. And if Obama’s tax and economic plan is enacted, owning a bicycle will be a luxury too. But you can always apply as a hardship case to your local commisar of transporation to be permitted to borrow a state owned bicycle for occasional forays.
Thanks for letting the cat out of the bag Michael DePaula. People don’t believe me when i say that you neosocialists want to change the way America lives by using gas prices as a weapon against our lifestyles.
P.S.
Some interesting corroborating research from Climate Scientist Roy Spencer, who testified this week before Senator Barbara Boxer’s
SpanishGlobal Warming Inquistion:Manmade Global Warming is a LIE! There is no environmental reason not to use all the fossil fuels we have!
Maybe, Michael, we should also rip up the (asphalt) roads so that you can ride your goddamned bicycle on dirt roads as well?
Doug,
That’s the beauty of bikes, they work on both dirt and asphalt. Granted, I’d probably want to change the tires first. But I can afford that $40 “luxury”. But this belies that I like the roads just as they are.
Mike,
I’m not interested in debating the soundness of global warming. That’s the job of scientists, government sponsored or not. And we have a process to deal with differing opinions within the ranks that we call “peer-review”. The public’s opinion of its truthness or falsity will never change the degree to which it is actually true or false. To the contrary, the waters just get muddier and muddier if I can believe what I read on blogs like yours.
Who is it that wants to “change the way America lives by using gas prices as a weapon against our lifestyles”? Surely not me! My recommendations were just that–recommendations. Unlike you, I don’t believe in subsidizing peoples’ drug habit even if the drug happens to be oil. Natural economy itself will change the way America lives should gas prices or anything else become exorbitant. How could I be “neosocialist” as you claim when I want to LIMIT government intervention in regulating/subsidizing gas prices? I like the market being able to choose whether or not it wants to continue buying oil at high prices. Ooh, you called me a “neosocialist”; how couture! I think the label you’re looking for is “Libertarian”.
“There is no environmental reason not to use all the fossil fuels we have”? Wow, and you’re a wasteful bastard to boot!
The point missed in the “driving is a luxury” bit is that very “luxury” is intrinsically tied to the economy and jobs. DePaula fully admits the the more gas prices increase, the more a “luxury” it becomes… meaning that only the wealthy will be able to shop to keep the economy on the move. And since those with at least that amount of “wealth” able to shop will be shrinking under this “luxury”, so will the economy.
So the question is… is a healthy economy a “luxury”?
Instead Michael wants to blame the shift of the US from an industrial nation to a retail nation. Well, I’m with him there… but probably for different reasons. That shift has been going on since the 70s. Since I don’t know anything about him, but from his website (click on his name and it’s self-explanatory), the burning question is… has he been a supporter of the regulations that have driven companies out of the US in order to be profitable enough to survive?
Regardless, we deal with the businesses and economy base we have today – not the one we wish we had (as Rummy would say). We are no longer an industrial giant, but a retail nation, dependent upon imports for our basics of energy, steel, textiles, copper, etal. To instigate a “luxury tax”, as fuel would be, is to destroy the US economy as it stands now. The US will lose it’s power status, based on our economy. Good for him, I guess…. I’ll let him break that news to the unemployed we will be creating.
A DePaula world will mean cloistered communities – all the farmers and rural folks, including those who supply the food and must abandon their farms because they are not wealthy enough for this “luxury gas tax”, move to the city centers, ride bikes and we all live atop each other. Or did he think the country is merely wealthy Al Gore/John Edwards estates??
No one but the ultra-wealthy will be able to live out in the country… and I assure you, Al Gore and John Edwards types won’t be farmers. We will merely be outsourcing our food to either government, or foreign suppliers.
Pack the urban centers, and we have a new set of problems.
But then, such stellar and limited insight is typical of a concrete dweller… oblivious to all that he has in his urban vicinity being dependent on those rural dwellers he’s so willing to force into a “luxury tax” – the same that grow food and necessities that supply the very places he wants to pedal his ass to.
Me and a few of my family were going to go to Norway for vacation and visit where our ancestors came from, but we decided not to after hearing about this. Incredibely stupid to destroy your economy like this.
Oh me, oh my, the SKY is falling!!!! Just look at how there were ZERO cars on the road in all but the richest of states once gas jumped above $3/gallon! Surely 90% of small business must have failed by now what with no one coming to by their wares anymore! And surely all such alternative fuels were wiped off the face of the earth along with the relocation of American refugees into the heartland where grain was cheaper!
[sic]
MataHarley, not transportation in general, but transportation in your own car is a luxury. How can you not see that? If you can’t or don’t want to afford it then you learn how to do without it just as I’ve done my whole life for Rolex watches, trips on private jets, and dinners at Bush-Cheney fundraising events. Last I checked, bus passes were still less than $50 a month in Hawaii (one of the most expensive states I’d ever lived in). One month rail passes in California were less than the cost of two weeks of gas for your car, and biking/walking to work was still free.
Where is it written that America guarantees cheap transportation in order to remain great? Where is the American government forcing oil companies to raise or lower their prices per barrel? And since when did we lose the ability to vote in line with those who agree with our principles? Last I checked, Norway was still Democratic as your post so glibly pointed out so what is their excuse?
Your problem is that you’ve constructed this fantasy land of what you think America (and other first-world countries) ought to be. And when that image is destroyed by reality due to the mismanagement of a corrupt administration you bitch and moan instead of take stock of your options and move forward.
Lastly, what “regulations”, in your opinion, “drove” US companies to go overseas?
Keep talking Michael DePaula. No one would ever believe me if I told them you folks want to make our cares too expensive to drive.
You’re the best advertisement to vote for McCain I’ve seen all week.
Rather extremist reaction, don’t you think? Careful.. as much as you say you believe in “limited government”, you’re exhibiting liberal/progressive tendencies that indicate otherwise.
$3 per gal would be a bargain in most places. We’re not discussing even today’s $4-5 a gallon prices in America. Or did you not notice we were discussing Norway prices here, and that prices quoted in the article were Norwegian prices converted to American dollars?
Or perhaps you missed the theme entirely – that the Norwegian govt is artifically driving up prices in order to force behavorial changes. A government intrusion that should bother you if you *really* believed in limited government, as you claim to be. Especially since ours is attempting to do the same.
With the proposed implementation of no supply increase and Al Gore/BHO public financed alternative energy plans, we’re looking at far higher than our current $4 to $4.50 a gallon. So spare me your attempts to be cute with extremist and nonsensical BS comments. I swear… what is it with the young boys on this site lately that think such frat-style deliveries are endearing?
You’re not only an urban monkey, your international and “49 states” travel must have been limited to the urban centers around the airports in each state, Michael. You may be well traveled, but you are obviously only travelling to city centers apparently. And by your comments, it’s also obvious your “whole life” doesn’t exactly account for oodles of time…
Forget rolex watches and jets, or Bush-Cheney and $14K per plate BHO fundraisers. I’m talking gas to get to work, or fuel to deliver eggs from a farm, flowers from a hot house biz, or organic chickens from a small agri biz. Then again, a guy who’s buying bus passes for transport in Hawaii is unlikely to be a home owner, business owner, or anyone with exceptional financial responsibilities.
I’ve lived – not travelled or visited as have you – all over this nation in both city centers and urban or rural areas. Looking at your archive, I’d take a guess you were a child of military or diplomats and were moved around alot as a kid. But I assure you, “bus passes” and bus services, or even monorail or commuter trains or subways, are far from the norm in all but the major city centers. And even the outlying or suburban areas in those that *do* offer such service is seriously lacking.
i.e. In my latest landing in my gypsy lifestyle of almost 40 *adult* years, I find myself in a county of 60K people where there is no bus, train, nor taxi service that runs even to the nearest city centers 17-27 miles away. In fact, for great city transit systems in the US, you can count the fabulous commuter systems on one hand.
But according to you, all we need to do to cure that problem is move to the city and contribute to the critical mass. They will come, and we will build it… the commuter system, that is.
Thank you, but I don’t live in this nation just so I can be herded to where ever it is my govt feels it’s most environmentally expedient.
I didn’t say that American “guarantees” cheap transportation. Again.. in case you didn’t get it in the paragraphs above – I said artificially inflated taxes by government are being imposed to mandate citizens behavior – designed and implemented solely to fulfill an AGW agenda. Again, this doesn’t seem to bother “limited government” you.
This is an economic repercussion that will be felt not only here, but around the world. Wake up from your city frat boy condo or apartment, put down the city paper and your latte, and read a few economic projections for a change.
There’s no fantasy land. This is the economics and business structure we have as a result of decades… a time I suspect, by your attitudes and writing, you have little of as an adult under your belt. My “image” of this nation morphs as the time morphs. And I can see what the regulations proposed will do to business and finance. Something of which you are oblivious to, which is obvious by your final question…
…. OSHA, EPA and unions.
I knew there were many reasons I left CA… but you probably best represent the population still there. What you know of flyover American could fill a thimble. Next time you travel to those 49 states, try to leave the GD airport vicinity….
Only someone with a “No Child Left Behind”-level education could read my posts and even remotely suggest that I’m in favor of “wanting to make peoples’ cars too expensive to drive.”
I don’t want cars to be any more expensive to drive than you do. But I’m prepared to let the markets do as they always do: allow the consumer (that’s you and me, bub) regulate the market based on our collective purchasing interest.
Then again, this distinction may be lost on your readership who, if I may stereotype an entire voting block, find something miraculous about what appear to be images of the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast on eBay.
In which case, we’ll have a lot more to worry about than demand-side economics.
MataHarley,
Thank you for your comment and criticisms (and for bringing me back on track–these types of conversations seem to derail so easily). Yes, the OP was about Norway, a country I happen to like very much.
I think you’ve misunderstood my comments here. I am more or less against the machinations of the Norwegian government to regulate petrol prices in an attempt to combat AGW. This is an interesting debate for me and one I would much prefer to have over the current silliness. At some point, despite my libertarian tendencies, I believe it fair and just for even the government to approach the table and make it clear that certain trends, if left unchecked, will end up costing the nation more in the long run than if we’d raised prices drastically in the interim. But, at this point, sure, I am in favor of letting the public decide what the best course of action is to be.
This may be another way of saying that I am in favor of SOME government restrictions to help curb carbon production at the national level, nevertheless, taxing gas is not one of them. (Regulating emissions standards on car manufacturers is, I feel, a much better option since it incorporates already paid for R&D and, at least subliminally, accomodates their inclinations to put off doing until tomorrow what they should have done today). I do not know at what length and for how long the Norwegian government has been trying to work towards such a reduction. If it has been a recent and immediate change of plans, then sure, people should rightly complain. Nevertheless, as I said in an earlier post, if there is a real gripe to be had then the next election should help solve some of the problem.
As for my personal history, you’re a bit off. I’m not a “frat-boy”, active duty military, nor did I have military parents. And while I’ve travelled to more than 20 countries and 49 states, I have also lived in varied environments: Maine for 18 or so years, rural Pennsylvania, rural Massachusetts for a year each, rural Virginia for 2 years, WashingtonDC/Maryland for a year, California for 5 years or so (both inland and downtown L.A.), Hawaii (both rural and urban) for about 3 years, Japan (both city and country) for over 5 years. And while none of this may be special or interesting to your readers, to me at least it counts for something when I go to give my opinion on matters such as these.
Like you, I too have an “image” of this nation that morphs as time passes. And I fear for what I see as inevitable if we continue on this path of complete denial to the harm we cause and by holding to fanciful notions of what it means to be an “American”. Perhaps none of this is special…something that every adult begins to think about as their involvement with business and government increases with age. To be sure, the issue of AGW is a rather unique and interesting one. Something that has been sure to get everyone riled up.
You should read my final question again. You should note that I’m not asking “what these regulations are” because I don’t know what you’re talking about. Instead, I’m asking you why you are of the opinion that US corporations are forced to go overseas just because OSHA, EPA, and unions exist. Again, I think you have unrealistic expectations of what being a successful US corporation should entail.
Much more cogent response, Michael. Vastly improved over acerbic quips. I, and many others here, appreciate well articulated debates.
INRE EPA regulations on business, we all… whether in favor or not… are accepting (forced or not… :0) ) regulations on emissions. If we don’t own thoses businesses, we are paying for it with the consumer price.
And it is many of these regulations imposed – requiring serious expense – that drives up the cost of US business overhead. This, of course, makes it difficult for them to compete with industries in countries that do not have similar restrictions and regulations.
Walmart is the perfect example. Low prices – which many need and take advantage of – comes from low Chinese labor costs in factories unregulated for safety (OSHA) and environmental (EPA) issues. Why do you think Ford makes it’s most of it’s trucks in Mexico? Yet Toyoto, who does so well on sales and profits, actually builds most of their line in American factories, with American labor. Using the benefits of a foreign owned business, it comes out in the wash when they weigh tariffs and shipping etal against the other tax benefits.
Needless to say, we have some very strange and convoluted business regs in trade tax structures here. I suspect Ford could do better emulating Toyota… becoming a foreign based company, and building in the US (if they sold enough vehicles)
This “outsourcing” (to use today’s popular word for an old problem…) started with the steel businesses in the 70s, and has cascaded into other manufacturing in the decades to follow. Every bit of it has come from increased costs of doing business in the US for permits, licensing, and safety/environmental/union overhead. I’ve watched it happen for years.. both in businesses I was in, and in businesses around me.
It’s a mixed bag… we have better air quality and working conditions… at least in those places that can still survive and turn enough profit to pay to play, so to speak. But we also have less industry and manufacturing of the basic necessities because of the regulations. Personally, I think giving up oil/energy, steel, copper and textiles to outsourcing was a bad nat’l security move. But then, I’m quite old school on that. I do not make a good “citizen of the world”
And why did you think they were leaving the States?
From what you say, I’d guess you were in the SF bay area in CA. LA doesn’t have any commuter system to speak of, and you’d take your life in your hands on their bus transit system. But BART is stellar. For California… dat’s it. Nothing else. DC, while no subways, has a fantastic 8 minute an hour commuter bus system… as well as hi spd rail to both Phillie and NYC. And, of course, NYC has taxies and subways. A waste to own a car there.
Chicago has the loop, but limited to suburbanites. Portland OR has some limited rail… high crime, and limited suburban service. In Florida cities? Nothing… no car, you go nowhere. Same with Texas.. and most other cities, the same. As I said, you can count the great US commuter systems in the urban centers on one hand. …. and we have a lot of country and cities of all sizes inbetween.
See what I mean about how this attempt to force behavior change and conservation can affect business, jobs and economy as a side effect? “only drive when you need to”, and you will not patronize restaurants, theatres, vacation spots, weekend getaways, shopping malls, etc. If people can only afford to drive to and from work.. no where else.. how are all the support retail businesses to thrive? When those businesses fail from lack of patronage, who can employ them?
Thus my statement, is the economy a “luxury”?
I consider this latest post from you far more worthy of your libertarian mind (libertarians are fun to debate, and generally very thoughtful… if not quite misguided in some areas. I know… I was one for awhile! LOL). But I still recognize that your experience in the world as an adult has it’s limitations. So you gave me a grin at your history recap, Michael. I confess… I am a research junkie. You volunteered your homesite. So I visited…. scanned thru some archives, saw your list of countries traveled and your 49 state mention in a blog post a few years ago. Nothing in depth, but enough to find out where you were coming from.
I also viewed your Myspace page. That’s one adorable crumb grabber you have.
However did you notice that your history of years spent at places you mentioned above outnumbers your age? Or is your myspace page behind the times…. LOL Doesn’t matter.. my grandbaby girl is older than your son.
I only mention this because there is quite a difference in perspective living somewhere as a kid or dependent, and living places as an adult. You truly do have a different perspective on things when you have adult responsibilities – ala paying the bills for overhead, food, transport, etal. And I sensed this in your first posts. You’ve got quite some time on this planet left yet, plus the little one. Keeping an eye out on govt actions that oversteps the boundaries of reason is something you’ll have to do more regularly now…. especially in the wake of the economic changes they wish to impose to accommodate for AGW. I know you don’t want to get into a discussion about that, but the other discussion you cannot ignore is the economic repercussions of govt policy surrounding AGW.
And at that point, you will have to decide what you consider what those “some restrictions” you consider reasonable.
MataH: If you feed that moonbat too much we’ll be stuck with him. Just think of the carbon emissions that you are creating!
Well, Mike’sA… I didn’t think you had any morsels left over after your steady feeding of our regular two site pests, Arthur and DW. You know, of course, I have that cyber hearing problem – the buzzing sound in your ear? – when their comments fly thru… LOL
We always have been, even before AGW. Every business has to factor in the costs of doing businesses. Some people can make it work and make a go of it. Others don’t even start, and still other try but end up failing. And you don’t hear the owners of these business failures writing op-ed columns complaining that the cost of capitalism is to high, do you? It seems to me that arguing what constitutes “fair” costs of doing business is an exercise in subjectivity. Aside from Norway’s recent spate of governmental self-delusion, if the cost of gas rises, then great, make a choice:
1) spend more on gas
2) spend the same on it
3) spend less on it
4) make up the difference by cutting corner’s elsewhere
5) make up the difference by passing the charge on to your customers
6) some other option
7) a combination of some of the above options
8.) innovate
9) change management to people who can innovate
10) go out of business
There is nothing new in this list. It’s the same list that was here before rising gas prices. And yearly thousands of small businesses went belly up long before AGW so nothing has changed there either. There is no requirement of government to ensure that you stay in business.
Put another way, what is a fair price for gas and how do you determine it?
Thank you for pointing out the error in my numbers for the years I spent living in different places. You are correct, it doesn’t add up to my age. The reason is because for the years I was in PA, MA, VA, and MD, I also spent about half the time in Maine, so to get my age, you should subtract those 7 or so “doubled” years from your estimate. (I never thought someone would be so diligent in stalking me!) 😉
There are far worse habits to have than being a research junkie. I commend you on your skill there. Believe it or not, with all the debates going on in the public square, people such as yourself at least create a need for the opposition to come to the table with well-presented arguments or at least be willing to correct misstatements when the need arises.
No, I do not see the economy as a luxury. However, I also find no need for people to believe that there is any “right” to have reality be anything other than the way it is. Standard of living? Could be better than it is now, could be worse. Cost of living? Could be higher than it is now, could be lower. For almost every set of circumstances I could throw out, with enough time I could probably show a causal chain that led it to be that way and could point out that had one or more of the variables change along the way, we’d be in a different reality. Not better, not worse, just different. So I find little satisfaction in begrudging my current set of circumstances in an effort to say that they’re unfair, or that some things on the list are just a little too expensive for my tastes. (What is “too expensive” and who determines the threshhold?).
That said, something may be unfair according to my standards of fairness, or it may be too expensive for my pocketbook. But the only way out is to work to change it–to change the circumstances or change my ability to counter them. This seems to me to be a very Republican way of thinking and it is why I think I would make a good businessowner, something which I would like to be in the near future.
Maybe public transportation is non-existent for the majority of Americans. So what? They’ll have to make the same choices as everyone else. And those choices have never changed. Every day the price of something or other changes and we make a choice consciously or unconsciously to buy it. That market determines the ultimate value of a commodity.
Ultimately, with each new era of decisions to make, some businesses survive and others don’t. Again, nothing new here. This is how capitalism works. The poor farmer in Kansas will need to make some choices with regards to how he runs his business. Today it could be the cost of gas, tomorrow, the cost of tractors or feed. If he succeeds in adapting to his ever-changing environmet then great, he may be fitter when the next wave comes. But if he doesn’t succeed, then someone who knows how to do it right will step in and do it. Do you really believe that the rising costs of gas will never spurn some innovation that will overcome the current insufficiency?
Excellent observation.
I would just add that the timing is critical. If they can impose their fascist policies, and have them in place long enough before the climate comes round on it’s own, they can say “See, we were right. Our controls worked,” and, only a few of us being the wiser, they will have the majority in lock step behind them.
Well, Yon… considering temps haven’t been rising for the past decade, the AGW zealots better work fast. Because time and events are not on their side. The rising numbers in skeptics may very well be a reflection that the predicted doom n gloom is *not* playing out, and temperatures are reversing for a cooling period. All despite rising CO2 levels.
MataHarley #18
Yes, so far so good. There’s still hope for us, and I think that’s why they make it seem so urgent, because if things go on too long with no doomsday emerging, everyone will realize that it’s all just a scam.
Lesson to us? Be prepared, because if they fail at this, they will only look for another white elephant to sell.
The only elephant being sold is the one via the elephant party who proclaim business as usual.
Thought for the day: with all those heads in the sand, shouldn’t it be called the “Ostrich Party”?
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
Invest your time in learning material from people who actually know what they are talking about….
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=394
…and avoid investing time in long winded drivel that tells you nothing, or short pissy saying based on that nothing.
WHO ARE THE MICHAEL DePAULA’S, AND THEIR FELLOW TRAVELERS?
FROM The Marxist Roots of the Global Warming Scare
In short, the conservation movement has been hijacked by socialist extremists, and their usfull idiots, as a vehicle for the destruction of the West.
Sorry, I have a hard time taking seriously groups that receive funding from the oil and gas industry.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science
I am sorry I do not take anything seriously that comes from the UN. The IPCC is run by bureaucrats from the UN.
And where does all the money come from for environmentalists????
YEP, HE’S ONE OF THEM!
“Sorry, I have a hard time taking seriously groups that receive funding from the oil and gas industry.” — Michael DePaula
You believe that lie?
LOL.
Then you probably believe Al Gore is doing what he does out of the kindness of his idda bitty heart?
That’s all I need to know who you are, and the level of your “expertise.”
__________________________________
The choice….
I can believe these guys
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp
…or some conspiricy theorist socialist gad-fly off the street
Oh WHY am I faced with such DIFFICULT decisions???!!!
“And where does all the money come from for environmentalists????” — Stix1972
Interesting you should ask. Here’s some info…
Who the Lefty environmental groups are…
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catId=60&type=group
Where they get their money…
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Thinkmap%20SDK%202.5%20Standard%20Edition/webapp/TM-1VER/index.asp?keyword=Ford%20Foundation
(That last is a little “busy” but it’s packed with informaiton. Use patience, and be amazed at who is funding, and by how very much, the destruction of America in particular and Western culture in general.)
Busy little beavers, aren’t they?!
I already knew most of that, but I was wondering if our esteemed Goracle Disciples knew.
Stix1972
Well, if they didn’t before, they do now. But then, they don’t care that the money they receive to destroy the world is dirtier than that from those who are trying to build it. But at least they now know that we know, and care.
“I am sure just like the anti-war funding from Communist and Marxists does not deter them either.” — Stix1972 (#30, below)
Not only that, they’re hearts probably skip a beat at the thrill.
I am sure just like the anti-war funding from Communist and Marxists does not deter them either.
It’s either extreme arrogance or ignorance for you to claim that those MOST concerned with environmental preservation are somehow seeking to “destroy the world”.
You’ve deluded yourselves to absurd proportions my friends. And what do you have to show for it?
“Destroy the world” M.D. ???? Who said that? Who is deluded here?
Are you perhaps referring to Yonason’s comment #22 where he said that the goal of environmentalists is: “destruction of the West”???
Perhaps destruction of capitalism would be more accurate that would also result in the destruction of the freedoms, and democracy, of the West.
State control and planning over every element of our lives is already becoming commonplace and environmentalists want to jack it up another few notches.
They have already decreed what kind of lightbulbs we can buy. What kind of cars we can drive. How our toilets and shower heads will work and what kind of washing machine and air conditioners we can own.
They already threaten private property rights which are the most basic set of freedoms that have enabled our capitalist system to be so much more successful than any other form of government.
And it’s that success which has generated all of the great discoveries that have helped to alleviate disease, povery, illiteracy and hunger worldwide.
Environmentalists would risk tossing all that away without even realizing it and then we would be left incapable of being the benefactor the world in times of need.
You think the Chinese are going to pick up the slack?
Think again. Unless of course you think forced organ donations from the hundreds of thousands put to death by the Chinese in the past decades has been a boon to mankind.
Nope, was referring to yonason’s comment #28 where s/he said:
Who is forcing you to buy brand X of lightbulbs, cars, toilets, showerheads, etc? To my knowledge you are free to buy whatever the hell is sold, but that doesn’t make you immune to paying for electric, gas, and water bills (respectively) when they come. Not all options are created equally. If you’re going to be wasteful with the resources you have access to, well then, you’ll pay for that wastefulness. Simple economy, my friend.
Another strawman. No one wants to destroy democracy, capitalism, et. al. But I do think that your version of them is pretty shitty.
‘No one wants to destroy democracy, capitalism, et. al. But I do think that your version of them is pretty shitty.” — Michael DePaula
Bingo!
Like when Gene Wilder, in “Frisco Kid” was carrying a knife and chasing a wild bird, saying, “Here, chicken. I don’t want to hurt you. I just want to make you Kosher.”
The sad part is, DePaula probably believes his own propaganda.
“Who is forcing you to buy brand X of lightbulbs, cars, toilets, showerheads, etc? “ — MD
The Left is trying.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/31/tech/main2418348.shtml
…for the “good of the planet” …yeah, right! …like any of them knows what is “good for the planet.” …talk about arrogance.
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine is an asshole who obviously doesn’t understand economics if it came and bit him on the ass.
So we agree that forcing people to switch would be wrong. I trust the markets enough to make owning an old light the economic equivalent of using Lead Acid batteries to power a cell phone.
Funny! Naturally, that’s how I view your version of Democracy and capitalism. 🙂
“Assemblyman Lloyd Levine . . . doesn’t understand economics . . . .” — M.D.
Neither do mosts of the other Leftists, of whom he is only one of MANY, who are trying to “control” free markets (at which pt they are no longer “free”) rather than focusing on punishing bad behavior.
Another problem with the left is that they are often more likely to use obscenities in their speech and writing.
“Funny! Naturally, that’s how I view your version of Democracy and capitalism.” –M.D.
NATURALLY
Right, because speech and writings are better monotonous and unimpassioned.