ETS and retarded views

[IQSRLOW]

No IQ, it makes economic sense.

No, it doesn't

But when they want to mess with the economy, they think a primary school education is sufficient.

I think your delusion of grandeur over your economic credentials just overflowed when you put yourself in the same category as engineers and doctors.

Perhaps you should try and liken economists to one of the other arts - like sculpting or music. They create something out of virtually nothing and 90% of the time it's generally worthless as well

[freediver]

It's not just my credentials. There is an economic consensus on the issue.

Doctors are not right 100% of the time, but I'd choose a doctor over some fool on the internet for medical advice. It's the same with economics. It may not be perfect, but only an idiot would suggest you ignore the economic consensus and just go with whatever feels good.

[IQSRLOW]

Would you agree that the economic consensus is that an ETS or carbon tax is only of value on a global scale

[freediver]

That sounds close to the mark. Economists wouldn't use such loose terminology as 'only of value' as that can mean a wide variety of things. There are certainly limits to what can be achieved without international agreements. It is however reasonable to expect the heaviest polluters on a per capita basis to act first and to make the biggest cuts. It is not reasonable to make the poorest countries send money to the wealthier countries as they increase their emissions, which is what would happen if models like kyoto were adopted universally.

[IQSRLOW]

Then you would also agree that there would be a consensus that without a global scheme involved that their would be potential for economic catastrophe by 'going it alone'

[freediver]

I think you are streching it a bit. The consensus would be that the less universal the price on emissions is, the more costly it is from a global perspective to reduce emissions. Politicians use words like 'economic catastrophe', not economists.

[IQSRLOW]

The consensus would be that the less universal the price on emissions is, the more costly it is from a global perspective to reduce emissions.

Your perspective is skewed to your bias. The perspective I asked for was in relation to the economics of one country adopting ETS/carbon taxes while the rest of the developed and non-developed who emit much more in total do not.

I think you are streching it a bit.

Economists don't use the word streching

[freediver]

If you want me to say there is a consensus that we shouldn't do anything until China and India start reducing their emission, I won't, because there is no such consensus. There are two problems with the issue:

1) A consensus is only going to cover the basic stuff.

2) A consensus will only ever cover positive questions, not normative ones.

Once you go into how we should frame local law in the context of international developments, you move outside of normative questions and outside of economics.

Obviously Australia should not go it alone. But to suggest this is a possibility is absurd. We are lagging, not leading the developed world.

[IQSRLOW]

basic stuff

Economists don't use the term basic stuff

If you want me to say there is a consensus that we shouldn't do anything until China and India start reducing their emission, I won't, because there is no such consensus.

I beg to disagree...and so do economists- which is why a consensus from economists is as much use as herding cats.

Obviously Australia should not go it alone. But to suggest this is a possibility is absurd. We are lagging, not leading the developed world.

Rubbish.

Until one or more of the economic powerhouses adopts a system, Australia is going it alone...and it will be to the detriment of all Australians

[freediver]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... p_2005.png

Participation in the Kyoto Protocol: green indicates states parties, yellow indicates states with ratification pending, and red indicates those that signed but declined ratification of the treaty.