A Question for believers in global warming.

[jaeger19]

I think your grasp of the laws of suppply and demand is broken.

really? How so?

So.. you don;t think that if the price of gas goes up to 4.00 a gallon.. there will be calls to allow more drilling in say the Artic National Wildlife Refuge?

Now..think about this. So gas goes up to 4.00 or 5.00 a gallon.. Now.. you say "hah.. now demand will drop".

and yep.. you may be right... so... what is an oil company to do? It's NOT BENEFITING FROM THAT INCREASE IN PRICE. That price is due to taxes, not the oil company. SO.. the decrease in demand is hitting the oil company profits...

So.. what will their response be? Obviously, the only way to get those profits back... is to SELL MORE OIL.. which means to pump more oil out into the market and thus lower prices to where demand picks up again.

But..you go ahead and explain to me how I got this wrong.

 

[Threegoofs]

really? How so?

So.. you don;t think that if the price of gas goes up to 4.00 a gallon.. there will be calls to allow more drilling in say the Artic National Wildlife Refuge?

Now..think about this. So gas goes up to 4.00 or 5.00 a gallon.. Now.. you say "hah.. now demand will drop".

and yep.. you may be right... so... what is an oil company to do? It's NOT BENEFITING FROM THAT INCREASE IN PRICE. That price is due to taxes, not the oil company. SO.. the decrease in demand is hitting the oil company profits...

So.. what will their response be? Obviously, the only way to get those profits back... is to SELL MORE OIL.. which means to pump more oil out into the market and thus lower prices to where demand picks up again.

But..you go ahead and explain to me how I got this wrong.

When price goes up, demand drops.

 

[jaeger19]

Humanity seems to have weathered the storms of many local extinctions without dying out after we killed all the wolves.

Because those extinctions due to climate change took place over tens of thousands of years.. not hundreds of years....

And they were often also accompanied by mass migrations of humans. think about what that means if it were to take place over just a few hundred years.

You think people are going to stand idly by and accept that they are going to starve.. while say other countries still have food?

Two world wars have been fought over much less.

Think about it for more than a minute.

 

[jaeger19]

When price goes up, demand drops.

Yep.. and when enough demand drops that suppliers get hurt.. they find a way to lower prices and increase demand.

In the case of artificially increasing the price with a tax.. as you describe.. the natural response from the oil companies will be to increase supply to drop the price to the point where demand increases (since they are not benefiting from the increased price)..

The natural response for all those consumers.. who are being forced to go without (decrease demand) because of the artificially inflated price i.e. tax.. would be to either demand an increase in supply.. (to lower prices).... or if its a political reason for the increase in price.. to remove those politicians supporting such a thing from office.

But go ahead and explain in detail how that won't be the response.

Tell me.. if the price say of medications doubles in the US because of an artificial increase in price.. say Trump decides to place a 100% tax on medications...

What do you think the response would be? Demand would most certainly drop .. because people couldn;t afford it.. not because people didn;t need it.

Do you think that it would then force people to start eating better, changing their lifestyles.. like walking more and smoking less, etc.. all things that would decrease their need for medications like blood pressure, diabetes.. etc? Do you really think that will be the response?

 

[Threegoofs]

Yep.. and when enough demand drops that suppliers get hurt.. they find a way to lower prices and increase demand.

In the case of artificially increasing the price with a tax.. as you describe.. the natural response from the oil companies will be to increase supply to drop the price to the point where demand increases (since they are not benefiting from the increased price)..

The natural response for all those consumers.. who are being forced to go without (decrease demand) because of the artificially inflated price i.e. tax.. would be to either demand an increase in supply.. (to lower prices).... or if its a political reason for the increase in price.. to remove those politicians supporting such a thing from office.

But go ahead and explain in detail how that won't be the response.

Tell me.. if the price say of medications doubles in the US because of an artificial increase in price.. say Trump decides to place a 100% tax on medications...

What do you think the response would be? Demand would most certainly drop .. because people couldn;t afford it.. not because people didn;t need it.

Do you think that it would then force people to start eating better, changing their lifestyles.. like walking more and smoking less, etc.. all things that would decrease their need for medications like blood pressure, diabetes.. etc? Do you really think that will be the response?

Demand for energy is very fungible- the response to a price increase is to either invest in non-fossil fuel options or conserve. And once those are done, supply increases in the face of permanently less demand is pointless.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Because those extinctions due to climate change took place over tens of thousands of years.. not hundreds of years....

Nope. They were very often extremely quick. Think of that asteroid. There are also many ofther examples. The current devastation of frog species is due to a new disease appearing and jumping species, not us.

And they were often also accompanied by mass migrations of humans. think about what that means if it were to take place over just a few hundred years.

Like when? Appart from the odd invaision by Stepp nomands that people like to find some sort of climatic reason for, nope they just happen as a result of Stepp politics, sort of random chance as seen from outside, you will be pushed to find any.

You think people are going to stand idly by and accept that they are going to starve.. while say other countries still have food?

The current world hunger is a direct result of the diversion of food into the biofuel industry. This is killing about 20million people a year, my guess. There is no surprise to me that lots of people will take massive risks to get from the lands of huger to the lands where you can live out of the bins and never go hungry.

Two world wars have been fought over much less.

Think about it for more than a minute.

Actually more. The enslavement of half a continent is more of a political goal. But yes, the deaths from WWII and WWI combined do not get to be as much as the deaths from the biofuel genocide we are currently engaged in to no net CO2 benefit at all. Well done the Green lobby.

 

[jaeger19]

Demand for energy is very fungible- the response to a price increase is to either invest in non-fossil fuel options or conserve. And once those are done, supply increases in the face of permanently less demand is pointless.

So you are saying that the response on the part of the oil companies is to simply say "oh well.. we shouldn;t simply put more supply out there and get profits back up and despite the fact that we have millions of customers that WANT to pay us if gas was cheaper.. (when it was 3 dollars a gallon)... what we will do is start conserving???

Come now man. The obvious response is that the oil companies will increase supply.. and people will demand that there is an increase in supply... or they are going to punish the HECK out of the politicians that are artificially killing their bank accounts and their disposable income.

Like I said.. if what you think would happen is true.. then we should artificially make the cost of medications for diabetes, blood pressure etc.. go way up.. so that will force people to lose weight, stop smoking, eat better and exercise more.

But that ain't going to happen and you know it. and artificially dramatically increasing gas prices.. isn;t going to do what you claim either.

 

[jaeger19]

Nope. They were very often extremely quick. Think of that asteroid. .

[.[/COLOR]]

Well.. the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was not when humans were around. And most of the dinosaurs went extinct.. so not such a good example.

Like when? Appart from the odd invaision by Stepp nomands that people like to find some sort of climatic reason for, nope they just happen as a result of Stepp politics, sort of random chance as seen from outside, you will be pushed to find any

the colonization of the Americas for example.. the colonization of Europe.. and Asia.. from Africa.. And those were when the human population was just a fraction of what it is now.

There is no surprise to me that lots of people will take massive risks to get from the lands of huger to the lands where you can live out of the bins and never go hungry.

So what do you think will happen when those folks now have even less food because of climate change? Huh? Say when areas around the equator become under sea water or become desert?

The enslavement of half a continent is more of a political goal. But yes, the deaths from WWII and WWI combined do not get to be as much as the deaths from the biofuel genocide

Wow.. okay... well that's ridiculous and goes against every biological and economical concept known to man. Okay.. so you are saying that countries with starving populations.. like sub sahara countries.. are doing so because they are capable of growing their own food.. but because they are using it for "biofuels".. they are starving?

 

[Threegoofs]

So you are saying that the response on the part of the oil companies is to simply say "oh well.. we shouldn;t simply put more supply out there and get profits back up and despite the fact that we have millions of customers that WANT to pay us if gas was cheaper.. (when it was 3 dollars a gallon)... what we will do is start conserving???

Come now man. The obvious response is that the oil companies will increase supply.. and people will demand that there is an increase in supply... or they are going to punish the HECK out of the politicians that are artificially killing their bank accounts and their disposable income.

Like I said.. if what you think would happen is true.. then we should artificially make the cost of medications for diabetes, blood pressure etc.. go way up.. so that will force people to lose weight, stop smoking, eat better and exercise more.

But that ain't going to happen and you know it. and artificially dramatically increasing gas prices.. isn;t going to do what you claim either.

You realize it costs money to extract oil, right?

Why is a company going to increase supply and cost when revenues are dropping???

 

[jaeger19]

You realize it costs money to extract oil, right?

Why is a company going to increase supply and cost when revenues are dropping???

Yes. It does.

Its going to increase supply and cost when revenues are dropping when prices are too high and thus demand is low.

If.. by dropping the price.. through increasing supply.. they increase demand? They make money.

So.. lets say that gas and oil companies make money at 1.00 a gallon of gas.. Of course they want to get as much money as they can for their gas so they control supply so that the price is up to 2.75 per gallon at that level.. demand vs price.. gives them the optimum revenue. If they raise prices higher.. demand falls off as people change behavior.. and thus they make less money.
IF they lower prices through supply.. demand doesn;t really increase. the market demand has set the price at 2.75.

Then comes along an artificial tax increase.. that artificially increases the price to 3.75 a gallon. And of course demand falls off.

Well.. basically the oil companies are only getting 2.75 off that gas.. (the rest is taxes).. AND they are selling a lot less than they were before.

So.. the best move the can make.. is to increase the supply.. and drop the price of gas back down to that 2.75.. (were demand was topping out under the market based price). That way.. they make more money. The UNIT cost per gallon doesn;t go up. Sure.. overall they are paying more cost because they are increasing supply.. but they are selling a lot more as well. Since the unit cost of producing that gallon of gas has not changed and they make money at 1.00 a gallon. They will now be selling way more gas at 2.75.. than they were at 3.75. and though they get less money per gallon.. since they have brought demand back up.. they are going to make more revenue.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yes. It does.

Its going to increase supply and cost when revenues are dropping when prices are too high and thus demand is low.

If.. by dropping the price.. through increasing supply.. they increase demand? They make money.

So.. lets say that gas and oil companies make money at 1.00 a gallon of gas.. Of course they want to get as much money as they can for their gas so they control supply so that the price is up to 2.75 per gallon at that level.. demand vs price.. gives them the optimum revenue. If they raise prices higher.. demand falls off as people change behavior.. and thus they make less money.
IF they lower prices through supply.. demand doesn;t really increase. the market demand has set the price at 2.75.

Then comes along an artificial tax increase.. that artificially increases the price to 3.75 a gallon. And of course demand falls off.

Well.. basically the oil companies are only getting 2.75 off that gas.. (the rest is taxes).. AND they are selling a lot less than they were before.

So.. the best move the can make.. is to increase the supply.. and drop the price of gas back down to that 2.75.. (were demand was topping out under the market based price). That way.. they make more money. The UNIT cost per gallon doesn;t go up. Sure.. overall they are paying more cost because they are increasing supply.. but they are selling a lot more as well. Since the unit cost of producing that gallon of gas has not changed and they make money at 1.00 a gallon. They will now be selling way more gas at 2.75.. than they were at 3.75. and though they get less money per gallon.. since they have brought demand back up.. they are going to make more revenue.

Good lord.

You’re one of those people who believe cutting taxes increases tax revenue too, I bet.

 

[jaeger19]

Good lord.

You’re one of those people who believe cutting taxes increases tax revenue too, I bet.

Well.. it can.. but it depend on the taxes and whats cut. Say an excise tax on luxury yachts? An excise tax that was so great that it cut the luxury yacht business? (this actually happened in America)

Yeah.. then cutting THAT tax could and did raise revenues. That's because the excise tax.. actually caused avoidance of buying luxury yachts from American boat manufactures.. so.. the government didn;t collect the excise tax anyway.. and the lack of demand for American made boats.. caused boat companies to fail, and thus many folks were put out of work and the government lost revenue on their incomes.

Now in the case of Trumps tax cuts? No.. it did not increase revenues.. because it did not cause the economy to increase enough due to the tax cut.. to balance out the loss of revenue due to the lower taxes people paid.

Face it dude... you never really considered the economic impact of your premise.. and the economic response that consumers and suppliers would have. However.. you are certainly welcome to explain logically why I am wrong and I encourage you to try. .

 

[Threegoofs]

Well.. it can.. but it depend on the taxes and whats cut. Say an excise tax on luxury yachts? An excise tax that was so great that it cut the luxury yacht business? (this actually happened in America)

Yeah.. then cutting THAT tax could and did raise revenues. That's because the excise tax.. actually caused avoidance of buying luxury yachts from American boat manufactures.. so.. the government didn;t collect the excise tax anyway.. and the lack of demand for American made boats.. caused boat companies to fail, and thus many folks were put out of work and the government lost revenue on their incomes.

Now in the case of Trumps tax cuts? No.. it did not increase revenues.. because it did not cause the economy to increase enough due to the tax cut.. to balance out the loss of revenue due to the lower taxes people paid.

Face it dude... you never really considered the economic impact of your premise.. and the economic response that consumers and suppliers would have. However.. you are certainly welcome to explain logically why I am wrong and I encourage you to try. .

I’ve read several economic analyses of carbon pricing and I’ve NEVER seen anyone predict fossil fuel supplies would grow.

I’ve also read critiques, and no one has ever used that argument as a critique.

Ever.

 

[jaeger19]

I’ve read several economic analyses of carbon pricing and I’ve NEVER seen anyone predict fossil fuel supplies would grow.

I’ve also read critiques, and no one has ever used that argument as a critique.

Ever.

Probably because lots of folks only deal with very limited hypothesis and don;t understand real world economics.

Before you say: "but they are experts"... you should do some reading on what a lot of economists thought about deregulation of the banks and just how few if any predicted the mortgage crisis and the shenanigans that were pulled.

Its simple logic. IF you put a tax large enough on gas..in order to raise prices and decrease demand.. then what do you think the oil and gas companies do? Simply roll over and accept that they are going to make so much less revenue?

OR are they going to do what they can.. and that's increase supply to get the price back down to where demand for their product picks up.

Now.. not to confuse the issue.. but there is another thing that the oil and gas companies can do.. and that's lobby the crap out of congress and the democrats.. so that the tax money collected.. goes back to the oil and gas companies for "research" into alternative fuels..

Since by the way.. oil and gas companies are already heavily invested in alternative fuel technology.. (you should look into how the EV1 and its technology was killed).. because it makes sense for them to control the development of any potential competing technology.

Actually.. that's a good hypothesis of what will happen if the democrats get into power and enact a carbon tax.. They will be happy to be lobbied by the oil and gas companies.. (which you won;t know about).. and happily give subsidies and credits and all sorts of incentives "for alternative energy".. which will go right into the pockets of the oil and gas companies. And you will think its awesome!!!.. not knowing that the oil and gas companies ARE developing the technology.. and more importantly patenting it.. so that they can control when and if it every comes to market.

Honestly.. in either case.. its not rocket science.. its what any savvy businessman would do.. when confronted with declining revenue from an artificial price increase causing lack of demand.

Which is why a lot of economists miss it.

 

[rickc]

I really don't understand this debate. There is no question that global warming is happening. There is no question that man is a big part of it. If the deniers would just take off the blinders and look around at the changes man has made to the earth in the last 100 years they could see it too. What will the earth look like in another 100 years? What have we left to our children and our children's children?

There is already a discussion ongoing about abandoning the florida keys. What happens to the structures when roads and utilities are abandoned? Will the government buy them out. What happens when Miami and New York follow? And all out coastal cities?

The fires in Australia are a precurser to where California is headed and most likely the rocky mountain states.

Drought and desertifaction is sure to follow for the midwest breadbasket.

The list goes on and on.....

Can or will anything be done about it? I doubt it. Too much short term money in maintaining the status quo. But at what cost for the future.

Our modern society our civilization is very fragile. All i will say is as an individual it is best to prepare. These changes will happen slowly but they are inevitable.

 

[flogger]

I really don't understand this debate. There is no question that global warming is happening. There is no question that man is a big part of it. If the deniers would just take off the blinders and look around at the changes man has made to the earth in the last 100 years they could see it too. What will the earth look like in another 100 years? What have we left to our children and our children's children?

There is already a discussion ongoing about abandoning the florida keys. What happens to the structures when roads and utilities are abandoned? Will the government buy them out. What happens when Miami and New York follow? And all out coastal cities?

The fires in Australia are a precurser to where California is headed and most likely the rocky mountain states.

Drought and desertifaction is sure to follow for the midwest breadbasket.

The list goes on and on.....

Can or will anything be done about it? I doubt it. Too much short term money in maintaining the status quo. But at what cost for the future.

Our modern society our civilization is very fragile. All i will say is as an individual it is best to prepare. These changes will happen slowly but they are inevitable.

I have a very simple question for you. Why would colder be better ? It certainly never was in the past

 

[rickc]

I have a very simple question for you. Why would colder be better ? It certainly never was in the past

What does that to do with this discussion?

 

[Threegoofs]

Probably because lots of folks only deal with very limited hypothesis and don;t understand real world economics.

Before you say: "but they are experts"... you should do some reading on what a lot of economists thought about deregulation of the banks and just how few if any predicted the mortgage crisis and the shenanigans that were pulled.

Its simple logic. IF you put a tax large enough on gas..in order to raise prices and decrease demand.. then what do you think the oil and gas companies do? Simply roll over and accept that they are going to make so much less revenue?

OR are they going to do what they can.. and that's increase supply to get the price back down to where demand for their product picks up.

Now.. not to confuse the issue.. but there is another thing that the oil and gas companies can do.. and that's lobby the crap out of congress and the democrats.. so that the tax money collected.. goes back to the oil and gas companies for "research" into alternative fuels..

Since by the way.. oil and gas companies are already heavily invested in alternative fuel technology.. (you should look into how the EV1 and its technology was killed).. because it makes sense for them to control the development of any potential competing technology.

Actually.. that's a good hypothesis of what will happen if the democrats get into power and enact a carbon tax.. They will be happy to be lobbied by the oil and gas companies.. (which you won;t know about).. and happily give subsidies and credits and all sorts of incentives "for alternative energy".. which will go right into the pockets of the oil and gas companies. And you will think its awesome!!!.. not knowing that the oil and gas companies ARE developing the technology.. and more importantly patenting it.. so that they can control when and if it every comes to market.

Honestly.. in either case.. its not rocket science.. its what any savvy businessman would do.. when confronted with declining revenue from an artificial price increase causing lack of demand.

Which is why a lot of economists miss it.

Carbon taxes have been implemented in several places.

I have never heard that supplies have been increased- it seems to always lead to less consumption.

 

[jaeger19]

Carbon taxes have been implemented in several places.

I have never heard that supplies have been increased- it seems to always lead to less consumption.

Well.. you would need to question that and ask "why"?

Logically.. do you really think that the oil and gas companies are going to sit back and watch their revenue stream dry up as consumption(demand) drops?

Without doing anything to mitigate that loss in revenue?

Doesn't that make you at least question the validity of any study on carbon taxes that doesn't consider this question.?

As far as Carbon taxes being implemented in 'several places"... I would seriously suggest that you research exactly how they are applied and what exemptions are given.

I believe you would find that when the carbon tax was applied.. there were other things.. subsidies, credits, exemptions etc that made sure that the oil and gas companies were not fiscally hurt by the carbon tax. In fact.. its probably that they even benefited from the carbon tax and the end result is that rather than the carbon tax creating "more money to offset future costs"... the end result is a net decrease in revenue and a further drain on the taxpayer.
Another possibility was that since consumption in that area was low anyway.. the oil and gas companies didn't really care and diverted supply to other markets where they made more profit.

I can recall more than a decade ago, reading one of the schemes done in the European union to mitigate carbon emissions. A trading of carbon credits if I recall. And the upshot was that it was costing the taxpayers more.. and didn't do anything to mitigate carbon emissions.

However, it certainly LOOKED like it was doing something. And I think that's exactly what would happen here and is probably happening in areas where there is a carbon tax.

Again.. is it really logical to think that the oil and gas companies are going to sit back and allow a dramatic loss of revenue without doing something to mitigate that loss?

 

[Threegoofs]

Well.. you would need to question that and ask "why"?

Logically.. do you really think that the oil and gas companies are going to sit back and watch their revenue stream dry up as consumption(demand) drops?

Without doing anything to mitigate that loss in revenue?

Doesn't that make you at least question the validity of any study on carbon taxes that doesn't consider this question.?

As far as Carbon taxes being implemented in 'several places"... I would seriously suggest that you research exactly how they are applied and what exemptions are given.

I believe you would find that when the carbon tax was applied.. there were other things.. subsidies, credits, exemptions etc that made sure that the oil and gas companies were not fiscally hurt by the carbon tax. In fact.. its probably that they even benefited from the carbon tax and the end result is that rather than the carbon tax creating "more money to offset future costs"... the end result is a net decrease in revenue and a further drain on the taxpayer.
Another possibility was that since consumption in that area was low anyway.. the oil and gas companies didn't really care and diverted supply to other markets where they made more profit.

I can recall more than a decade ago, reading one of the schemes done in the European union to mitigate carbon emissions. A trading of carbon credits if I recall. And the upshot was that it was costing the taxpayers more.. and didn't do anything to mitigate carbon emissions.

However, it certainly LOOKED like it was doing something. And I think that's exactly what would happen here and is probably happening in areas where there is a carbon tax.

Again.. is it really logical to think that the oil and gas companies are going to sit back and allow a dramatic loss of revenue without doing something to mitigate that loss?

Isn’t it logical to look at where the policy has been implemented and assume that that is how the economy will react if you do it again?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Well.. the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was not when humans were around. And most of the dinosaurs went extinct.. so not such a good example.

Exactky. Humans not around and a sudden mass extinction. Also there have been very quick warmings during this glacial period. No mass extinctions despite +5c over a couple of decades.

[Mass miogrations]{1}the colonization of the Americas for example.. {2}the colonization of Europe.. and Asia.. from Africa.. And those were when the human population was just a fraction of what it is now.

{1}So movement of people over 250 years is a sudden mass migration now?
{2}The colonisation of Europe over a thousand years? Or the expansion of the neolithgic farmers over a couple of thousand years?

[creation of woprld hunger by diversion of massive amounts of food into making biofuel at no CO2 benefit] So what do you think will happen when those folks now have even less food because of climate change? Huh? Say when areas around the equator become under sea water or become desert?

Last time it was warmeer than now that warming made the deserts of the world, especially the Sahara, much greener than now. The increase in CO2 has been cited as the cause for the present grenning of large areas of semi desert. The Sahara is shrinking especially in the South.

[WWii + WWI deaths vs deaths caused by use of food as fuel]Wow.. okay... well that's ridiculous and goes against every biological and economical concept known to man. Okay.. so you are saying that countries with starving populations.. like sub sahara countries.. are doing so because they are capable of growing their own food.. but because they are using it for "biofuels".. they are starving?

No. I am saying that the world price of food would be half what it is if we stopped doing the no CO2 benefit biofuel thing and this would result in 20 million or so less deaths by this time next year. Nigeria imports food. It does not make biofuel. The Arab Spring and the Lybian revolution happened as direct results of changes in US food/biofuel policy. The Syrian Civil war was also caused by high food prices. Syria imports food. Yemen the same.

It is the US and the EU who do the biofuel thing to subsidise the farming industry. That is rich land owners milking money out of the state for themselves. That the poor of the world die as a result is not of their concearn. Just like you. Perhaps you do care about all that rain forest that has been chopped down for palm oil. Again as a result of food being twice the price it should be. Or more rain forest going for sugar the make biofuel in Brazil.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I really don't understand this debate. There is no question that global warming is happening. There is no question that man is a big part of it.

And you will not find anybody here who disagrees with you on that. So why are you presenting a Straw man argument?

 

[jaeger19]

Exactky. Humans not around and a sudden mass extinction. Also there have been very quick warmings during this glacial period. No mass extinctions despite +5c over a couple of decades.
R]

Ummm.. why don;t you realize your intellectual disconnect here? You offer up the extinctions of the asteroid hitting the earth.. when humans were not around.. as evidence that humans survived the extinction when an asteroid hit the earth... do you get the massive intellectual disconnect you are making.

So movement of people over 250 years is a sudden mass migration now?
{2}The colonisation of Europe over a thousand years? Or the expansion of the neolithgic farmers over a couple of thousand years?

Why yes.. they are evidences of mass migration.

Now imagine a mass migration of people occurring in a few decades and many many more millions or billions of people. The political,socialogical and biological consequences would be astronomical.

No. I am saying that the world price of food would be half what it is if we stopped doing the no CO2 benefit biofuel thing and this would result in 20 million or so less deaths by this time next year

And you would be wrong. Since farmers would not supply the market at a loss. I own farms.. If you cut the price of my agricultural products "in half"..it wouldn't pay the cost of production. I and my fellow farmers would reduce supply at that price point. We simply wouldn't produce at a loss.
In fact.. we currently already oversupply the market.. and that's why we are subsidized by the federal government to keep supply up and give us price supports etc.. One of those ways we are subsidized is through programs like biofuel. Without that.. we would decrease production.

That the poor of the world die as a result is not of their concearn. Just like you. Perhaps you do care about all that rain forest that has been chopped down for palm oil. Again as a result of food being twice the price it should be

Yeah... see above. I nor just about any US farmer is going to make it with a price half of what we get now.. especially when you get rid of things like subsidizing us with biofuels. You got it wrong dude.

Think about it.. why would I produce food at a loss?

 

[jaeger19]

Isn’t it logical to look at where the policy has been implemented and assume that that is how the economy will react if you do it again?

Well.. No.. you cannot assume that. For one.. oil and gas markets differ significantly around the world and even in the US. So your assumption that a policy implemented in one market.. will have exactly the same effect elsewhere is an erroneous assumption.

In fact.. as I pointed out.. one of the responses to a carbon tax in one area.. might be to simply shift supply to a more profitable area anyway.

So..no.. obviously you cannot assume that a policy in one market is going to have the same effect in a different market.

Secondly.. you really have to see not just that policy.. BUT.. the other policies that are put into effect as a result of that policy. As I point out.. its very probable that there are other things that are implemented to mitigate the effects of the carbon policy. I would bet that you would find out.. that rather than getting an influx of money from the carbon tax.. "to pay for future generations costs".... it ends up costing the taxpayer more as other policies that benefit oil and gas are implemented to counter act the carbon tax.

Its like taking a look at Trumps trade war and saying.. "well.. farmers are doing well, obviously they are not hurt that bad"...and ignoring that Trump and Congress had to authorize billions is bailout subsidies to support farmers..

I ask you.. "Do you think that the big oil and gas companies are going to stand idly by and watch their revenues go into the tank when a carbon tax is implemented?"

IF not? What do you think their logical response will be?"

Please think about that and answer.. how will they deal with declining revenue brought about by the carbon tax?

 

[Threegoofs]

Well.. No.. you cannot assume that. For one.. oil and gas markets differ significantly around the world and even in the US. So your assumption that a policy implemented in one market.. will have exactly the same effect elsewhere is an erroneous assumption.

In fact.. as I pointed out.. one of the responses to a carbon tax in one area.. might be to simply shift supply to a more profitable area anyway.

So..no.. obviously you cannot assume that a policy in one market is going to have the same effect in a different market.

Secondly.. you really have to see not just that policy.. BUT.. the other policies that are put into effect as a result of that policy. As I point out.. its very probable that there are other things that are implemented to mitigate the effects of the carbon policy. I would bet that you would find out.. that rather than getting an influx of money from the carbon tax.. "to pay for future generations costs".... it ends up costing the taxpayer more as other policies that benefit oil and gas are implemented to counter act the carbon tax.

Its like taking a look at Trumps trade war and saying.. "well.. farmers are doing well, obviously they are not hurt that bad"...and ignoring that Trump and Congress had to authorize billions is bailout subsidies to support farmers..

I ask you.. "Do you think that the big oil and gas companies are going to stand idly by and watch their revenues go into the tank when a carbon tax is implemented?"

IF not? What do you think their logical response will be?"

Please think about that and answer.. how will they deal with declining revenue brought about by the carbon tax?

Dude.... it’s not happening in the real world.

You can speculate and imagine all you want, but when you look at what happens, it’s quite clear.