The scientist with the freakiest hair on Earth addresses CO2 emissions from air-craft. Specifically, he is examining deficiencies in the European Union's plan for seeing these emissions reduced, but some of his recommendations would probably apply more generally:The emission allowance equals the number of passenger-kilometres times an emission per passenger-kilometre standard. That standard could be the lowest emissions per passenger-kilometre of all commercial airlines. This would reward airlines with low emissions and punish those with high emissions. Although overall demand for flying is not sensitive to price, the choice of carrier is. Passengers would flock to the climate-friendly airlines and emissions would fall. Airlines that invest in energy-efficient aircraft would be financially rewarded and gain an advantage over their competitors. This would stimulate further emission reductions.
Go get 'em Richard, and never forget:
Almost cut my hair
It happened just the other day
It's gettin kinda long
I coulda said it wasn't in my way
But I didn't and I wonder why
I feel like letting my freak flag fly
Cause I feel like I owe it to someone
13 comments:
BCL I take it that for you anyone buying into AGW is a scientist. For those of us not blinded by the light and more interested in reality and real facts, we learn that Mr. Tol is no scientist, he's an economist at best holding at Ph.D. from some no-name Dutch university. He assumes AGW and generates his economic data without questinoning it, garbage in, garbage out in other words.
I'll concede that he looks like an AGW scientist though.
He assumes AGW and generates his economic data without questinoning it, garbage in, garbage out in other words.
That assumes AGW is "garbarge."
Oh, the irony...
When, oh when, will the fucknobs learn that asserting something with no evidence to back it up is simply irrational.
Apparently ti-guy's job (and I mean that in the literal sense as he obviously doesn't have a real one),
is to sit on this and other liberal websites and chide every dissenting view.
What's so remarkable is the fact that his efforts invariably have the effect of reaffirming the dissenter's point.
Ti-guy is the poster boy for today's "progressives".
We on the other side of the political spectrum can be thankful that the likes of ti-guy exist to show the true colors of today's left.
Ti-guy, ti-guy, ti-guy, let's talk about a few basics, it's early in the morning and I hoping you can follow. It'll be a brief lesson.
Elementary lesson in Logic number #1. He who asserts must prove. If you assert AGW you must a) prove that the earth is getting warmer and b) prove that the warming is caused by humankind.
The onus is on you. This is elemental logic for anyone asserting any proposition. It is particularly apposite here since the climate has been warming and then cooling at various times since time immemorial.
I know you left-wingers assert your political views like religious dogma but for those of us who don't have that left-wing religious faith, we need proof.
Elementary lesson in Logic number #1. He who asserts must prove. If you assert AGW you must a) prove that the earth is getting warmer and b) prove that the warming is caused by humankind.
Exactly so. So, if you assert that AGW is garbage, you have to prove that, no?
The onus is on you. This is elemental logic for anyone asserting any proposition.
I am not a climatologist and I have never asserted anything with regard to AGW. I've just been paying attention to the discussion. What has intrigued me in the last while are the credibility-deficient personalities who've taken up the issue to prove, not that something does exist, but simply to cause confusion and doubt, which is a horribly corrupt, immoral and anti-scientific approach to discovering truth. How do they do this...
It is particularly apposite here since the climate has been warming and then cooling at various times since time immemorial.
...with unsupported (and often completely count-factual assertions such as this).
I know you left-wingers assert your political views like religious dogma but for those of us who don't have that left-wing religious faith, we need proof.
Then get off your fat arse and go and get it, you stupid little troll. A place to start might be to realise that your job as a rig-pig, or a burger-flipper, or a tax consultant, or an investment banker or a porn star, or a politican does not, in and of itself provide you with the all the knowledge or experience necessary to assert anything about the real world with any degree of certainty.
But you know that already. Your job isn't to discover truth; your job is simply to harrass people who don't happen to agree with you.
I'll never stop being astonished by just how much effort you put in to maintaining this completely transparent façade, which reveals itself by the simple fact that you refuse to establish a consistent pseudonymous persona by signing up for a blogger account.
I also don't understand what value BCL gets out of having his blog overrun buy the same damn trolls, but it's his blog and he has his reasons, I'm sure. Maybe he finds them amusing; I sure as hell don't, but being a believer in the value of suffering as a learning experience, I find it difficult to ignore them.
In my opinion AGW people mostly look like smelly hippies? Why is that.
Wayne wrote:
"Allow anoymous comments, it makes for great debate, allow free speech."
And of course I accidentally hit the delete button rather than "publish". So there's a downside.
"Although overall demand for flying is not sensitive to price, the choice of carrier is. Passengers would flock to the climate-friendly airlines and emissions would fall"
I totally disagree with this statement, maybe high end business travelers who can deduct the cost of the flights are not sensitive to price, but the normal flying public damn well is. When it comes to a few hundred dollars per family flying to visit Grannie, or go on vacation you can be damn sure the fact the plane has green seat covers will not mean a thing, If this was even close to true, then why would West Jet be able to stay in business, it is because they are cheaper.
Kingston, I'm not sure, but I think he's referring to the fact that on the vast majority of routes, there isn't much variation in price in the same class of travel and under the same conditions.
BCL, is that what you understood he meant?
Kingston, TiGuy,
The EU collects a tax from air-travellors that is very tiny (price of a cup of coffee) and then gives it back to the airlines in such a manner that they green their business. Tol is suggesting that they redistribute it to the company that Greens it business most given by the equation he outlines. The Greenest airline gets money back for investing in energy efficient technology, and wears the tag "Greenest Airline", which attracts customers. Everyone competes for the dough and the title.
Thats how I read it.
BigCityLib: You read correclty. Note that the EU proposal is different.
Anonymous: We may debate whether climate change is real, or really human-induced. However, I do not think there is any doubt that climate policy is real, at least in Europe.
Well, however good his knowledge is, hope he succeeds in reducing these CO2 emissions.
Post a Comment