NationStates Jolt Archive

I hope they'll translate this article in the next few days.

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,496663,00.html

For the time being, the pictures will have to suffice:

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,928784,00.jpg

The sign says "Porsche builds climate pigs!"

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,928781,00.jpg

And to counter, the first sign says "We did it! Greenpeace demonstrates Porsche - finally we are somebody!"
The second notes that Porsche contributes less than 0.1% of traffic CO2 emissions, has the lowest CO2 emissions per horse power, will reduce its CO2 emissions by 20% until 2012 and is introducing a hybrid engine for the Cayenne with less than 9l/100km.
The third sign says "Dear friends from Greenpeace: Porsche is better than you think. But as a consolation - they underestimated David too."

I assume the last one refers to David from the Old Testament, which begs the question...why the hell is a group that radical now Goliath? Why is there this tendency right now with environmental issues, particularly climate change, to abandon the middle and cheer whatever is most drastic argument?

The article refers to a discussion a Porsche spokesperson had with the protesters in which he told them that 9l/100km for a Cayenne is a great achievement. They asked back what anyone needs a 2.2 ton SUV that never leaves the road. The Porsche guy's comment: "Well, we miss each other's points completely."

So I put forward the question: Who's less wrong? Porsche says the Cayenne exists because people want to buy it and that they try to minimise the environmental impact of whatever the customer wants, Greenpeace says that it shouldn't exist and that if it didn't people would buy something else. Who should decide what sort of car is allowed?

And don't tell me it's Greenpeace, because have a look at this:

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,928789,00.jpg

:rolleyes:

Just because people want something doesn't make it right or acceptable to make it. That being said, however, those products should not be banned or restricted but rather their owners should pay for any and all externalities created by it. If it means higher gasoline taxes, fees, or other penalties, so be it; that's the price they have to pay in order to own something that inflicts serious damage on public goods and services.

You can have your Porsche, but you better pay for the damage you cause to the environment that we all use.

You can have your Porsche, but you better pay for the damage you cause to the environment that we all use.
Fine in principle...in practice how do we know what the right amount is?

Fine in principle.Wow! Did you just voice your support for participatory economics?in practice how do we know what the right amount is?Guesstimate, basically. Look at the available information and draw the best supported conclusion.

I'm guessing they had to buy those cars before they did that to them. So now someone at greenpeace has themselves a nice new Cayenne. Pretty slick, I think.

Would that be the same Greenpeace that murdered thousands of starving Africans by convincing the Zambian government that donated genetically enhanced food was poisoned?

You know, some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger, have never known poverty. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them those things.

You can always count on the rich, spoiled brats who have never had to work a day in their life, the professional protesters of the world, to tell you how to live your life while they deprive someone halfway around the world of theirs.

OK let's be serious. Why care?

I say screw the planet. I'm not going to be around in 100 years anyway, and it's really not that bad right now. I mean superfund sites only account for about 0.0000000000001% of the earth's surface, and non-natural structures (i.e. parking lots, landfills, buildings, oil spills and other things that aren't plants) still only account for a small fraction of the land out there. It's not as dirty as people make it out to be.

I think our ability for technology has reached the point where it doesn't matter what we do. If the environment really does go to shit (global warming, no forests, whatever) we'll invent things that will make up for it. We'll build a planetary air filter. Whatever it takes, I think we can do it.

As long as the human species can survive, there's no reason for me to care about the environment.
:gundge:

Wow! Did you just voice your support for participatory economics?
Not really. It's all rather orthodox.

There clearly is some externality associated with driving a car that emits a lot of CO2. At the moment this externality is not accounted for in market prices to its full extent, as far as we know. Thus some sort of intervention could be justified if it reduced the time spent driving to a "socially optimal" level. And since pollution permits don't make much sense in this particular case, taxation seems to be the only other viable option.

Pity is that we don't know what the socially optimal level of CO2 pollution is. Guesstimating is probably better than nothing, but in the current political climate I fear that groups like Greenpeace will get more of a say than economists.

I always thought that the Greenpeace is a stupid and cutting it really close to eco-terrorism.

Without pressure from groups like Greenpeace Porsche wouldn't be making the steps that they are, including running their flagship Spyder RS endurance race cars on Ethanol next year and the hybrid engine, or like BMW improving output and efficiency in one punch.

Ultimately Greenpeace knows that shutting down a Porsche isn't going to make the dent that they want, but Porsche is a symbol and they're making a point.

You really really really need to get rid of this paranoia that the big meanies are just going to take your cars to spite you.

Safety bumpers didn't destroy the automobile. Catalytic converters did not destroy the automobile. The car will evolve or it won't deserve to exist. It surprises me that people who are so devoted to the market and fans of innovation lose their faith so easily.

Ban Greenpeace.

Not really. It's all rather orthodox.If that means what it looks like, we're moving to aussieland.Pity is that we don't know what the socially optimal level of CO2 pollution is. Guesstimating is probably better than nothing, but in the current political climate I fear that groups like Greenpeace will get more of a say than economists.But the information is available to us. We do have enough evidence to start drawing conclusions with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
The problem with that, is that both Greenpeace (and others) and economists (and others) suffer the delusion that their pet superstitions and stale ideologies, should replace facts as the basis for policy making.

It's an absurd situation, but no different from your initial question on whether or not Porsche should be allowed to sell SUVs. Obviously they should, if they can sell SUVs that don't cause harm. If they can't do that, then it's no more 'fair' for them to sell their faulty designs than it is for you to kick random strangers in the face.

i don't know if it's just me, but I think the greatest irony of our age is our extreme level of specialization, and our bloodyminded refusal to heed our specialists. It boggles the mind.

Without pressure from groups like Greenpeace Porsche wouldn't be making the steps that they are, including running their flagship Spyder RS endurance race cars on Ethanol next year and the hybrid engine, or like BMW improving output and efficiency in one punch.


Groups like greenpeace are responsible for that? :p I doubt it. Simple PR is the more likely cause. ;)

Would that be the same Greenpeace that murdered thousands of starving Africans by convincing the Zambian government that donated genetically enhanced food was poisoned?

You know, some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger, have never known poverty. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them those things.

You can always count on the rich, spoiled brats who have never had to work a day in their life, the professional protesters of the world, to tell you how to live your life while they deprive someone halfway around the world of theirs.

Couldn't said it better. I agree completely.

Just because people want something doesn't make it right or acceptable to make it. That being said, however, those products should not be banned or restricted but rather their owners should pay for any and all externalities created by it. If it means higher gasoline taxes, fees, or other penalties, so be it; that's the price they have to pay in order to own something that inflicts serious damage on public goods and services.

You can have your Porsche, but you better pay for the damage you cause to the environment that we all use.

Well you could say that in many counties that already happens. Cars like Porches use more fuel than conventional cars....every visit to the gas pump puts a hefty tax revenue into the government coffers...

Groups like greenpeace are responsible for that? :p I doubt it. Simple PR is the more likely cause. ;)

If it wasn't for groups like Greenpeace, there would be no public interest in the environment. PR is never pro-active, it's ALWAYS a response to public demands and opinions.

NL, I'm going to have to stop clicking your threads soon (not that you care or anything :p).

This latest thread is just the last in a long line of threads, so this isn't about this thread per se. You've gotten so "the free market will sort everything out for everyone's goods, sillies, now let me make money, money, money" it's become straight-out scary. To think I've only been here since the late 2005 and you weren't like that then, that has been an awfully quick complete conversion to the Gods of the Market.

Here's hoping that after all that money making and fast car buying and driving you're wanting to do so desperately your common sense and, dare I say it, social conscience will grow back eventually. I remember reading where you're coming from politically and this seems like so much overcompensation it's just such a waste of a good mind.

Like, seriously.

[/sanctimonious remarks]

the earth is getting warmer and so is mars and the other planets. how could we cause global warming on other planets? we can't yet the "flat earthers" who scream down any other idea's about why this is happening refuse to debate the issue and want to outlaw basic science which is to question everything. Google search and find the 1973 news week article about global cooling and how in the 70's they wanted to release CO2 to warm the earth's atmosphere to prevent a new ice age. Also has everyone forgot about Al Gore being behind the Y2K scare? he makes billions off your fear and off your good will. Question everything and quit being sheep.:upyours:

the earth is getting warmer and so is mars and the other planets. how could we cause global warming on other planets? we can't yet the "flat earthers" who scream down any other idea's about why this is happening refuse to debate the issue and want to outlaw basic science which is to question everything. Google search and find the 1973 news week article about global cooling and how in the 70's they wanted to release CO2 to warm the earth's atmosphere to prevent a new ice age. Also has everyone forgot about Al Gore being behind the Y2K scare? he makes billions off your fear and off your good will. Question everything and quit being sheep.:upyours:

Thanks for the nice smiley, but you might want to add "Use your brains!". Oh, wait, no you don't. My bad.

Question everything and quit being sheep.:upyours:
Can I question your sanity? :)

Can I question your sanity? :)

No, because the rest of us already does so you'd be a sheep again. See? This is tricky.

If that means what it looks like, we're moving to aussieland.
Well, the CSE isn't the mainstream, at least not here. Mainstream economics includes good ideas from every field, and that includes Pareto and his work on externalities (it was him, wasn't it?). The Coase Theorem is all very well, but in this case I think we can agree that paying each other to not emit CO2 isn't practical.

The problem with that, is that both Greenpeace (and others) and economists (and others) suffer the delusion that their pet superstitions and stale ideologies, should replace facts as the basis for policy making.
Economists have pet superstitions now?

It's an absurd situation, but no different from your initial question on whether or not Porsche should be allowed to sell SUVs. Obviously they should, if they can sell SUVs that don't cause harm. If they can't do that, then it's no more 'fair' for them to sell their faulty designs than it is for you to kick random strangers in the face.
But the thing is that not allowing them to sell SUVs isn't fair to those who want them either. There is some ideal price of running an SUV that balances the happiness one gets from driving it with the unhappiness caused to everyone by the CO2 emissions, and we know that currently it doesn't seem like the market approximates those prices (though maybe it does, since we don't know them we can't say for sure). So yes, the only party that could intervene is the government...the problem is that I can't trust politicians to actually do this. They'll introduce some tax (or worse, some new speed limit laws or emission cap regulations) but it won't have anything to do with economic efficiency, it will have to do with being reelected.

Unfortunately nutcases like Greenpeace (by the way, I do agree with their actions against whaling) get so much positive publicity these days that being reelected will end up looking too much like listening to people who think a Smartcar is a climate pig.

Without pressure from groups like Greenpeace Porsche wouldn't be making the steps that they are, including running their flagship Spyder RS endurance race cars on Ethanol next year and the hybrid engine, or like BMW improving output and efficiency in one punch.
Why? You know as well as I do that ethanol is cheaper than petrol (or at least will be) and burns better. And the hybrid engine wasn't developed by Toyota because Greenpeace sat outside demanding it, it was developed because Toyota figured people wanted a car that could drastically reduce fuel consumption when you're stuck in some Tokyo traffic jam.

I don't mind people having more of an environmental conscience these days, I'm just afraid that they'll be naive enough to follow Greenpeace-types in whatever they say.

You really really really need to get rid of this paranoia that the big meanies are just going to take your cars to spite you.

Safety bumpers didn't destroy the automobile. Catalytic converters did not destroy the automobile. The car will evolve or it won't deserve to exist. It surprises me that people who are so devoted to the market and fans of innovation lose their faith so easily.
See below regarding "faith".

The thing is that it is not being left to the market. People actually go and blame the market for environmental degradation, which is just plain stupid. It's being left to incompetent morons of politicians and dangerous loonies like Greenpeace. And I know how hard it is to get rid of a law once it's been put in place for a while. You know as well as I do that most highways don't need speed limits, yet any attempt to get rid of them is shouted down. Pointless laws survive longer than pretty much everything else in society, and who knows what will have been done before this craze is over?

Of course something like the car will survive. The problem is that it will end up either illegal to drive it yourself and they'll have a government-approved computer do it, or they'll have a GPS tracking system on you that watches every move you make. All in the name of the environment, of course.

Oh, and if legal, my cat will be gone as soon as I get my exhaust system upgraded.

NL, I'm going to have to stop clicking your threads soon (not that you care or anything :p).
Well, it never hurts to be exposed to different viewpoints, does it?

This latest thread is just the last in a long line of threads, so this isn't about this thread per se. You've gotten so "the free market will sort everything out for everyone's goods, sillies, now let me make money, money, money" it's become straight-out scary. To think I've only been here since the late 2005 and you weren't like that then, that has been an awfully quick complete conversion to the Gods of the Market.
I disagree with the "gods" comment. I have no faith in the market any more than I have faith in a hammer or a screwdriver. From a policy perspective, it's a tool. It's a distribution mechanism that yields close-to pareto optimal outcomes, ie it minimises waste. If there is one thing everyone should be able to agree on it's that wasting our precious resources is a bad thing.

But you're right, there is something beyond the simple fact that it works. It is also a system based on not using force on others. Not everyone might share this view, but I think forcing someone else to do it by holding the metaphorical gun to their head is a no-no. Only the most extreme cases warrant actual compulsion, in any other it is infinitely better to convince them or pay them to do something. The market is based on two people being happy with their choices, any alternative is based on one party being happy and the other party being hurt.

I obviously also have a strong individualist tendency, which probably has as much to do with my character as with everything else. I've had a few experiences which lead me to believe that Ayn Rand wasn't wrong in everything she said. There is a tendency from everyone to think that the capable owe them something, that just because I'm good at maths I have a duty to help others with their math homework (figuratively speaking), and screw whatever I want to do. I don't know if you've ever read 'Atlas Shrugged', but if you can get through it, give it a try. Many people say it's a horrible book, and I don't know how much their judgement of its content clouds their criticism, but I didn't find it all that bad. I have my doubts it will appeal to you as much as it did to me, but at least you'll understand where I (and people like me) come from on this.

Nonetheless, if the past five years (in which we went from a pretty comfortable life to having to beg grandparents for money, which only now seems to be turning) have taught me anything, then that money is the foundation for happiness. I'm sorry if I kill off any preconceptions, but being poor is not fun at all. Being rich doesn't guarantee happiness, of course, but it's a pretty good basis to build on. I have sworn myself a long time ago not to be poor, not to beg and not to depend. Right now, that's where my priorities are and I'll be damned if someone came along and once again claimed they had a right to my plans and goals.

Here's hoping that after all that money making and fast car buying and driving you're wanting to do so desperately your common sense and, dare I say it, social conscience will grow back eventually. I remember reading where you're coming from politically and this seems like so much overcompensation it's just such a waste of a good mind.
I know what you mean. I have a social conscience, I help others out where I can (unless they come out and demand it of me). But right now, I have bigger fish to fry (and the fact that I consider my own goals and my own happiness bigger fish than the rest of the world is probably where we differ). Once I have my mansion and my car collection any my billions of dollars I'll make the world a better place.

Well, it never hurts to be exposed to different viewpoints, does it?


I disagree with the "gods" comment. I have no faith in the market any more than I have faith in a hammer or a screwdriver. From a policy perspective, it's a tool. It's a distribution mechanism that yields close-to pareto optimal outcomes, ie it minimises waste. If there is one thing everyone should be able to agree on it's that wasting our precious resources is a bad thing.

But you're right, there is something beyond the simple fact that it works. It is also a system based on not using force on others. Not everyone might share this view, but I think forcing someone else to do it by holding the metaphorical gun to their head is a no-no. Only the most extreme cases warrant actual compulsion, in any other it is infinitely better to convince them or pay them to do something. The market is based on two people being happy with their choices, any alternative is based on one party being happy and the other party being hurt.

I obviously also have a strong individualist tendency, which probably has as much to do with my character as with everything else. I've had a few experiences which lead me to believe that Ayn Rand wasn't wrong in everything she said. There is a tendency from everyone to think that the capable owe them something, that just because I'm good at maths I have a duty to help others with their math homework (figuratively speaking), and screw whatever I want to do. I don't know if you've ever read 'Atlas Shrugged', but if you can get through it, give it a try. Many people say it's a horrible book, and I don't know how much their judgement of its content clouds their criticism, but I didn't find it all that bad. I have my doubts it will appeal to you as much as it did to me, but at least you'll understand where I (and people like me) come from on this.

Nonetheless, if the past five years (in which we went from a pretty comfortable life to having to beg grandparents for money, which only now seems to be turning) have taught me anything, then that money is the foundation for happiness. I'm sorry if I kill off any preconceptions, but being poor is not fun at all. Being rich doesn't guarantee happiness, of course, but it's a pretty good basis to build on. I have sworn myself a long time ago not to be poor, not to beg and not to depend. Right now, that's where my priorities are and I'll be damned if someone came along and once again claimed they had a right to my plans and goals.


I know what you mean. I have a social conscience, I help others out where I can (unless they come out and demand it of me). But right now, I have bigger fish to fry (and the fact that I consider my own goals and my own happiness bigger fish than the rest of the world is probably where we differ). Once I have my mansion and my car collection any my billions of dollars I'll make the world a better place.

See? Still basically sensible yet crossed over to the dark side... ;p

I can see where you're coming from moneywise. But I also know several people in the same place and while they want more financial security than they have/had, they're still not so ravenously ambitious in their search to get it nor is their goal the mansion and the car collection and the billions of dollars but really just financial security.

It's sad, because you're reminding me so much of one of those "Mein Haus, mein Auto, meine Yacht" guys (remember the ad?) who have this tunnel vision of career and money and career and money and career and more money and those are, well, not good people.

Hehehe, Autos mit Schweinenasen...

Well you could say that in many counties that already happens. Cars like Porches use more fuel than conventional cars....every visit to the gas pump puts a hefty tax revenue into the government coffers...

However, the gas tax is designed for a different end than compensating for environmental damage caused by consumption. The people who consume the most by and large are likely to be the ones that use the road infrastructure the most, and so that tax covers their share of maintaining and expanding the road network.

A carbon tax would be based on consumption intensity, not net consumption like the gasoline tax. The difference is that this tax would penalize those that consume the most per capita, not those who consume the most overall. This penalizes wastefulness while still avoiding undue pressure on people who have to use more out of necessity (like a home business or a job with a lot of travel).

they actually improved the looks of the cayenne and the A class there. i thought though designs were irredeemable.

Pity is that we don't know what the socially optimal level of CO2 pollution is. Guesstimating is probably better than nothing, but in the current political climate I fear that groups like Greenpeace will get more of a say than economists.Determing the optimal level of CO2 pollution is an environmental issue. Why would economists be consulted at all on that?

Hooray for Porsche! Frankly, Greenpeace can fuck off back to their Toyota Prius's or whatever else is in vogue today.

Determing the optimal level of CO2 pollution is an environmental issue. Why would economists be consulted at all on that?
Because economics is the science of making choices between scarce resources, which is precisely what this is. Of course climate scientists and the like are vital in trying to get the numbers correct, but ultimately they have no idea what to do to make the actual decision.

That's precisely the problem right now. Everyone is talking about how horrible climate change will be, but we basically have no reliable cost figures for it. And since we don't, we can't really compare it to reliable cost figures for avoiding further damage (which would probably be easier to calculate, but still aren't available to my knowledge...though I think a few of those UN reports mentioned something of the sorts). Because environmentalists know relatively little about business and about the economy they're bound to underestimate the damage done to it and the effects that has to the quality of life.

That's precisely the problem right now. Everyone is talking about how horrible climate change will be, but we basically have no reliable cost figures for it.
And does that matter? We know what the bare minimum would be. Amazingly enough, doing something is better than doing nothing.

Determing the optimal level of CO2 pollution is an environmental issue. Why would economists be consulted at all on that?

Because it's also a resource issue, hence, an issue of economics.

As with any good policy, all parties with an aspect involved should be consulted to develop the appropriate policy, otherwise you'll get tunnel vision and shitty, haphazard policies that, individually seem like a good idea, but combined into one overarching superstructure, suck.

And does that matter? We know what the bare minimum would be. Amazingly enough, doing something is better than doing nothing.
Of course it matters. Doing something about climate change is painful both in terms of economic growth and personal freedom. It'd be stupid to just go ahead without knowing when to stop.

And which figures for the bare minimum do you mean?

We know how much land is going to be covered. We know where said land is. All we have to do is add up the value for said land, and that's the bare minimum. (Although, to tell the truth, it'd be a bit less than the actual minimum.)

We know how much land will be covered if x amount of ice melts, what we do not know is how much ice will indeed melt, which leads to a mite bit of a problem.

Of course it matters. Doing something about climate change is painful both in terms of economic growth and personal freedom. It'd be stupid to just go ahead without knowing when to stop.

And which figures for the bare minimum do you mean?

We know how much land is going to be covered. We know where said land is. All we have to do is add up the value for said land, and that's the bare minimum. (Although, to tell the truth, it'd be a bit less than the actual minimum.)

We know how much land is going to be covered.
Do we?

Because economics is the science of making choices between scarce resources, which is precisely what this is. Of course climate scientists and the like are vital in trying to get the numbers correct, but ultimately they have no idea what to do to make the actual decision.

That's precisely the problem right now. Everyone is talking about how horrible climate change will be, but we basically have no reliable cost figures for it. And since we don't, we can't really compare it to reliable cost figures for avoiding further damage (which would probably be easier to calculate, but still aren't available to my knowledge...though I think a few of those UN reports mentioned something of the sorts). Because environmentalists know relatively little about business and about the economy they're bound to underestimate the damage done to it and the effects that has to the quality of life.If climate change results in the deaths of people, that's a problem. If humans cause said climate change, it's an even bigger problem. Economists alone don't get to decide if the deaths of people are acceptable.

We know how much land will be covered if x amount of ice melts, what we do not know is how much ice will indeed melt, which leads to a mite bit of a problem.Which is why it's an environmental issue. It doesn't become an economic issue until after these things are calculated.

If climate change results in the deaths of people, that's a problem. If humans cause said climate change, it's an even bigger problem. Economists alone don't get to decide if the deaths of people are acceptable.
Well, just put a suitably high cost on a human life in the cost-benefit analysis then. Economists have in the past tried to work out such a price from things like insurance premiums and pay-outs, but I can understand if politicians don't think that captures the entire cost.

The fact that economists do the analysis doesn't change though.

EDIT: Oooooh, evo magazine put up some videos about the future of cars: http://www.evo.co.uk/front_website/bpvideos/#

Well, just put a suitably high cost on a human life in the cost-benefit analysis then. Economists have in the past tried to work out such a price from things like insurance premiums and pay-outs, but I can understand if politicians don't think that captures the entire cost.

I'd set it at at least $2 million per person on average, since that's roughly equal to the economic output of an average person during their life (obviously, this would increase along with life expectancy).