RSN has arrived!
Bill Turlock
As promised, here's the aforementioned piece on "green" policies
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_specter
Big Foot
In measuring carbon emissions, it�s easy to confuse morality and
science.
by Michael Specter
February 25, 2008
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_specter
Snidely
wrote:
> As promised, here's the aforementioned piece on "green" policies
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_specter
Okay, where's my spreadsheet?
/dps "t'anks"
Har²
cost more - would not the average persons carbon emissions actually increase
for the additional labor required to earn the money for the more expensive
product?
"Bill Turlock" <"Bill Turlock "@sonnnic.invalid> wrote in message
news:4B0772A1...@sonnnic.invalid...
Greg Johnson
>hmm. has me wondering.... if buying an item with a lower carbon footprint
>cost more - would not the average persons carbon emissions actually increase
>for the additional labor required to earn the money for the more expensive
>product?
Isn't the point of the various proposed forms of carbon tax to ensure
that the low-footprint item will always be cheaper?
Har²
"Greg Johnson" <greg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9s3hg59fp1044rq74...@4ax.com...
Cheaper by taxing other seems to shift things... but... cheaper for sale not
necessarily cheaper to produce if by artificial construct. If I
understand... product NotGreen will be forced above cost of product Green by
tax, so now more labor required to buy "cheaper" green product. (albeit
after tax, non-green even moreso expensive) But still, after tax in effect
it will require more labor for same purchasing power. And I'd be willing to
bet a persons carbon output is higher at work on average than home.
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
> hmm. has me wondering.... if buying an item with a lower carbon
> footprint cost more - would not the average persons carbon emissions
> actually increase for the additional labor required to earn the money
> for the more expensive product?
While some people may work long enough to get the money to buy that
thing they've been yearning for, and then knock off for the
day/week/month, I think that that is more the exception than the rule.
But anyway, does labor produce more carbon emissions than leisure?
Xho
Har²
"Xho Jingleheimerschmidt" <xho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b08b6b8$0$8055$ed36...@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com...
dunno. take a factories carbon output and divide by number of workers... or
workers hours. seems it'd be larger than what leisure output would be. even
a grocery store. lots of lights burning / freezers / heaters running / etc
per person working atm. I know I go through more supplies / etc. in
production at work than at home, and all of those would have the same
associated stream of carbon emissions.
Har²
"Har�" <h...@fake.net> wrote in message
news:4b08bdcb$0$8012$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
thinking more on it... all those figures are hopefully included in the
product(s) carbon footprint... tho as a consumer (per article on labels)
carbon footprint per dollar earned / carbon footprint per dollar spent -
would seem to be a better gauge as to which product transaction leaves the
smaller footprint.
art...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Leisure can result in labor 9 months later which can have a big carbon
footprint.
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
>
>
> "Xho Jingleheimerschmidt" <xho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b08b6b8$0$8055$ed36...@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com...
>> Har� wrote:
>>> hmm. has me wondering.... if buying an item with a lower carbon
>>> footprint cost more - would not the average persons carbon emissions
>>> actually increase for the additional labor required to earn the money
>>> for the more expensive product?
>>
>> While some people may work long enough to get the money to buy that
>> thing they've been yearning for, and then knock off for the
>> day/week/month, I think that that is more the exception than the rule.
>>
>> But anyway, does labor produce more carbon emissions than leisure?
>>
>>
>
> dunno. take a factories carbon output and divide by number of workers...
> or workers hours.
I don't think many factories close down because one of its workers
decided to knock off early.
Xho
Peter Ward
Don't let them play in the coal barn.
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
- Elbert Hubbard
Har²
right. but if worker output and compensation not a carbon factor, then just
get rid of the workers from equation... Not sure I'm following. If a
product produced - or a service rendered - has a carbon footprint
(apparently a lengthy one) - then surely the wage earned has an associated
carbon footprint, with some jobs obviously greener (in more ways than one)
than others.
and if people are buying large ticket items on credit - does that not mean
even more "potentially dirtier money" spent on interest on a green product?
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
>
> "Xho Jingleheimerschmidt" <xho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4b097726$0$8067$ed36...@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com...
>> Har� wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Xho Jingleheimerschmidt" <xho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4b08b6b8$0$8055$ed36...@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com...
>>>> Har� wrote:
>>>>> hmm. has me wondering.... if buying an item with a lower carbon
>>>>> footprint cost more - would not the average persons carbon
>>>>> emissions actually increase for the additional labor required to
>>>>> earn the money for the more expensive product?
>>>>
>>>> While some people may work long enough to get the money to buy that
>>>> thing they've been yearning for, and then knock off for the
>>>> day/week/month, I think that that is more the exception than the rule.
>>>>
>>>> But anyway, does labor produce more carbon emissions than leisure?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> dunno. take a factories carbon output and divide by number of
>>> workers... or workers hours.
>>
>> I don't think many factories close down because one of its workers
>> decided to knock off early.
Or I guess more to the point, few factories will agree to stay open
later because one of the workers needs a little more money because he
wants his apples to be organic and local.
Instead if you buy more expensive stuff (which claims to be green), you
"pay" for it by buying fewer stuff.
>
> right. but if worker output and compensation not a carbon factor, then
> just get rid of the workers from equation...
There is a certain problem with deciding whether one would need to care
about how the person who makes the product you buy spends that persons
income, which was formerly your money. Is that what you are getting at?
> Not sure I'm following. If
> a product produced - or a service rendered - has a carbon footprint
> (apparently a lengthy one) - then surely the wage earned
The wage earned by the person who is buying the product with his
earnings, or the wage earned by the person who is making/selling the
product?
> has an
> associated carbon footprint, with some jobs obviously greener (in more
> ways than one) than others.
Is this from the perspective of how I choose to earn my money, or how I
choose to spend it?
>
> and if people are buying large ticket items on credit - does that not
> mean even more "potentially dirtier money" spent on interest on a green
> product?
I have no idea what that means.
Xho
Har²
no... as the person, as a consumer, on deciding how to evaluate how green
his (say, mine) purchase would really be.
>
>
>> Not sure I'm following. If a product produced - or a service rendered -
>> has a carbon footprint (apparently a lengthy one) - then surely the wage
>> earned
>
> The wage earned by the person who is buying the product with his earnings,
> or the wage earned by the person who is making/selling the product?
>
>> has an associated carbon footprint, with some jobs obviously greener (in
>> more ways than one) than others.
>
> Is this from the perspective of how I choose to earn my money, or how I
> choose to spend it?
>
>>
>> and if people are buying large ticket items on credit - does that not
>> mean even more "potentially dirtier money" spent on interest on a green
>> product?
>
> I have no idea what that means.
>
> Xho
what I'm getting at - from the article, buying a "greener" product does not
(necessarily) mean less carbon impact. The "green-ness"of the money earned
and spent on product does not even come into the equation. But they seem to
want to compile every other factor into the carbon footprint. From that
standpoint - every job and every income has the same carbon associated and
that seems impossible.
and if buying on credit - the cost is even higher.
seems clear in my head - perhaps I'm not getting it out there well.
Bob Ward
<xho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>While some people may work long enough to get the money to buy that
>thing they've been yearning for, and then knock off for the
>day/week/month, I think that that is more the exception than the rule.
>
>But anyway, does labor produce more carbon emissions than leisure?
>
Is labor the only factor you are considering? I'd think that a
working factory would have a larger footprint than an idle factory.
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:53:48 -0800, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
> <xho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While some people may work long enough to get the money to buy that
>> thing they've been yearning for, and then knock off for the
>> day/week/month, I think that that is more the exception than the rule.
>>
>> But anyway, does labor produce more carbon emissions than leisure?
>>
>
> Is labor the only factor you are considering?
When addressing HarHar's statement about labor, I am considering labor.
Why have you forgotten The Maine? Is it because you hate America?
> I'd think that a
> working factory would have a larger footprint than an idle factory.
And if all the idle factory workers enjoy their time off by consuming
stuff made in other, non-idle factories?
Xho
Mac
> "Xho Jingleheimerschmidt" <xhos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b09c92e$0$22072$ed36...@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com...
>
>
>
> > Har² wrote:
>
> >> "Xho Jingleheimerschmidt" <xhos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:4b097726$0$8067$ed36...@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com...
> >>> Har² wrote:
>
> >>>> "Xho Jingleheimerschmidt" <xhos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The word you are looking for is "greenwashing."
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
>> Har� wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> right. but if worker output and compensation not a carbon factor,
>>> then just get rid of the workers from equation...
>>
>> There is a certain problem with deciding whether one would need to
>> care about how the person who makes the product you buy spends that
>> persons income, which was formerly your money. Is that what you are
>> getting at?
>
>
> no... as the person, as a consumer, on deciding how to evaluate how
> green his (say, mine) purchase would really be.
You say that, but you don't seem to mean it.
>>
>>> Not sure I'm following. If a product produced - or a service rendered
>>> - has a carbon footprint (apparently a lengthy one) - then surely the
>>> wage earned
>>
>> The wage earned by the person who is buying the product with his
>> earnings, or the wage earned by the person who is making/selling the
>> product?
>>
>>> has an associated carbon footprint, with some jobs obviously greener
>>> (in more ways than one) than others.
>>
>> Is this from the perspective of how I choose to earn my money, or how
>> I choose to spend it?
>>
>>>
>>> and if people are buying large ticket items on credit - does that not
>>> mean even more "potentially dirtier money" spent on interest on a
>>> green product?
>>
>> I have no idea what that means.
>>
>> Xho
>
>
> what I'm getting at - from the article, buying a "greener" product does
> not (necessarily) mean less carbon impact. The "green-ness"of the money
> earned and spent on product does not even come into the equation.
Money is a means of exchange. Above you said you weren't talking about
what the other people did with the money once they got it from you. But
unless you are talking about that, then talking about the "green-ness"
of the money is just gibberish.
> But
> they seem to want to compile every other factor into the carbon
> footprint.
Those would be the real factors.
> From that standpoint - every job and every income has the
> same carbon associated and that seems impossible.
Money is a means of exchange. If you count both side of the transaction
independently, then you are double-counting. So generally people count
the real side of the exchange, and not the money side.
> and if buying on credit - the cost is even higher.
The cost to who? You, or the atmosphere? Why does that atmosphere care
if your soy raisin latte enema was bought with cash or credit?
Xho
Har²
> Har� wrote:
>> "Xho Jingleheimerschmidt" <xho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b09c92e$0$22072$ed36...@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com...
>>> Har� wrote:
>>
>> what I'm getting at - from the article, buying a "greener" product does
>> not (necessarily) mean less carbon impact. The "green-ness"of the money
>> earned and spent on product does not even come into the equation.
>
> Money is a means of exchange. Above you said you weren't talking about
> what the other people did with the money once they got it from you. But
> unless you are talking about that, then talking about the "green-ness" of
> the money is just gibberish.
>
yes. money is a means of exchange, but if you begin taxing non-green
products to exceed price of green products.... dose not carbon (or lack of)
then become a (or, the?)means of exchange? so to speak? they are even
selling "carbon credits" are they not?
>
>> But they seem to want to compile every other factor into the carbon
>> footprint.
>
> Those would be the real factors.
but taxes are not real? I use money to pay those. I should see if I can pay
in not making more carbon... :)
>
>> From that standpoint - every job and every income has the same carbon
>> associated and that seems impossible.
>
> Money is a means of exchange. If you count both side of the transaction
> independently, then you are double-counting. So generally people count
> the real side of the exchange, and not the money side.
>
>> and if buying on credit - the cost is even higher.
>
> The cost to who? You, or the atmosphere? Why does that atmosphere care
> if your soy raisin latte enema was bought with cash or credit?
>
> Xho
alright... so... if I buy an 80k green car - I really introduce less carbon
into the atmosphere than if I'd buy a 50k "non-green" car (that will have
to sell for 80k), no matter what I do to earn that 80k+ interest?
I do see what you mean about dropping the expenses - but - if the idea is to
reduce (your own) carbon footprint - I don't see how cost, and how you're
earning your money - can be disregarded as it "balances out" because I'd be
double counting.
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
>> about what the other people did with the money once they got it from
>> you. But unless you are talking about that, then talking about the
>> "green-ness" of the money is just gibberish.
>
> yes. money is a means of exchange, but if you begin taxing non-green
> products to exceed price of green products.... dose not carbon (or lack
> of) then become a (or, the?)means of exchange?
No.
> so to speak? they are
> even selling "carbon credits" are they not?
They also sell ground beef, but ground beef is not a means of exchange,
either. If you used carbon credits in exchange for your ground beef,
and your carrots, and your rent, and your car insurance, and a bunch of
other people did so as well, then they would count as a means of
exchange. But I bet you don't.
>>
>>> But they seem to want to compile every other factor into the carbon
>>> footprint.
>>
>> Those would be the real factors.
>
>
> but taxes are not real?
That would be debatable, I think. But also irrelevant.
> I use money to pay those.
Sure, and you use money to pay for apples, too. Apples are more real
than money, and maybe taxes are more real as well.
> alright... so... if I buy an 80k green car - I really introduce less
> carbon into the atmosphere
Are you planning on driving this car you are going to own? That could
be important
> than if I'd buy a 50k "non-green" car (that
> will have to sell for 80k),
So what is the mandatory 30k going to? Punitive taxes for not being
green? Is that based on just the manufacture of the car, or are
bureaucrats trying to guess the average lifetime gasoline usage
differential and throw that in as an up-front cost as well? And if it
is a tax, what is the government doing with it? Using it to pay people
to go into virgin tropical rain forests and burn them down just for spite?
> no matter what I do to earn that 80k+ interest?
It is conceivable that you decide to pay for a $49,876 car out of your
savings, but a $49,877 car by a Rube Goldbergian series of madcap
adventures that involve sky diving out of Air Force One, burning down
47% of the Amazon forest, and marrying Julia Roberts. But I don't think
I'd try to build an economic model out of this bad movie plot.
What people usually do when something they want to buy gets more
expensive is some combination of buy less of it (I bought a so-called
green for a lot less than 50k, and a heck of a lot less than 80k) and/or
buy less of something else. I think it would be pretty extraordinary to
ask your boss "Hey, something I want to buy got more expensive, can you
add an extra shift on at the factory?" and have that succeed.
Am I falling or the lump of labor fallacy, only in reverse, here?
>
> I do see what you mean about dropping the expenses - but - if the idea
> is to reduce (your own) carbon footprint - I don't see how cost, and how
> you're earning your money
Does how you earn your money change depending in which apple you buy, or
which make of car you buy?
> - can be disregarded as it "balances out"
> because I'd be double counting.
Let's say I'm a coal miner. Whose carbon account is the coal added to,
mine, as the miner, or the one of someone who bought the car made with
the steal derived from the iron smelted with the coal? Or is it divided
equally? Or is it fully counted for both? How about the people who
make their living in the train yard and smeltery and ironworks and car
factories?
Are we trying to decide who gets to heaven, or how to best save the
planet? Maybe we can all be convicted as co-conspirators, or maybe the
felony murder rule applies.
Xho
Har�
<snip> well, what it boils down to in my eyes - if I had the money in the
budget (say, the 80K) to purchase a new vehicle (or had reason to purchase)
after proposed taxes on non-green vehicles has passed - I'd still have
prefered to purchase a non green vehicle and spend the "tax" amount on a
solar field. yes - I would not have the zero emission car - but for my
dollar my carbon footprint would be less, less than spending the whole nest
on the zero emission bmw. And after the new taxes it'd cost as much to buy
the non-green car as well, making it even more wasteful by comparison;
however - like illustrated by both - that tax money won't be able to be
spent on something that makes carbon - but neither will it be spent on an
item that cuts carbon rather than just being a zero emitter as well.
Har�
Makes me think of that 1.5M green boat boasting how good it is for the
environment. If I had the 1.5M to blow - a greener plan would be a
considerably less expensive conventional boat and put the rest in alternate
energy and actually have a net reduction in carbon output rather than
spending the nest egg on breaking even.
Greg Goss
>Makes me think of that 1.5M green boat boasting how good it is for the
>environment. If I had the 1.5M to blow - a greener plan would be a
>considerably less expensive conventional boat and put the rest in alternate
>energy and actually have a net reduction in carbon output rather than
>spending the nest egg on breaking even.
This is why a simple carbon tax (plus ofsetting tax reductions in the
income tax) like BC, Canada uses is so much better. You know how much
you're paying for each of the products, and choose the balancing
points yourself.
I drive a 65 horsepower three cylinder two seater hybrid. A large
chunk of the extra cost was allocated in my mental budget as "bragging
rights". It isn't zero emission, but it produces a lot less carbon
than the 60% cheaper runner-up in my shopping decisions. Good public
policy needs to push decisions towards the smaller engines, and also
towards alternative energy fields or jungle preservation.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Har�
"Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
news:7pat22...@mid.individual.net...
Currently (well - weather permitting - does fine in loose snow - won't use
when I see black ice around) my main vehicle is a KLR650.
http://www.subcycles.com/images/KLR650_1.jpg with a few of the military mods
including the bash plate and 50/50 tires. 55-60mpg with around 5.5 gal
tank... it's bike with a solid history and easy to get parts for world
wide... would love one of these next -
http://www.hdtusa.com/vehicle-m1030-m2.php (diesel modded KLR) - with
additional mods (basically a switchable pre-heater) for biodiesel. 96mpg
reported. other vehicle is a Jeep liberty 3.7 liter 4x4. only used when
required here in NE Pa - USA. Was a cost / reliability decision, basically
got for a steal when gas was over 4 a gal - and the place I now work owns
the dealership. gas in around 2.67 / gal here now.
I have a solar panel on the rear to keep the bat topped off as well. (also
have solar "shades" on those fold down visors to keep the jeep from
discharging when sitting unused with the alarm on) - wired them right into
the vanity mirrors.
Har�
reading the spec, now the biodiesel mod is apparently standard in the
military model...