Regular Catallaxy commenter JC has a guest post up over at Club Troppo on innovative technological responses to environmental concerns - and among other things he flags one of Graeme Bird’s favourite planning ideas - the abolition of height restrictions on inner-city residential accommodation. He’s started a very lively thread among Troppodillians, so I thought I’d bring some of his suggestions over here, as well:
- A libertarian view (not all libertarians) is that we could achieve pretty close to negligible emissions by the next 30-40 years by reducing government action in the economy that is causing mispricing. A political left - if it were thoughtful and serious about this issue - could also tackle the issue in a similar way. Offer tax incentives for investment in nuke plants and allow accelerated depreciation allowances. Allow present coal plant operators to receive a tax write off for existing plants if they were replaced with nukes. Allow seriously attractive investment opportunities for outside investors. Go to zero tax holidays for 20 years if it were necessary. These are things that investment bankers are good at figuring out.
He also makes some good points about cheating on carbon trading schemes (according to Nicholas Gruen in comments carbon trading is almost completely busted in Europe) and then goes on to offer his planning schema:
- Immediately remove height restrictions in the large cities. The most vocal nimbies are the ones who are preventing high-rise and high-rise is one of the best ways to reduce car usage. NYC is a great example of people doing away with cars for the simple reason that transport and occasional taxi use is far superior in getting around. The subway is very efficient.
A penny for your thoughts, Catallaxians.
116 Comments
Height restrictions are crazy. We should have height restrictions so that planes don’t fly into apartment buildings but that’s about it.
With high density high rise apartment living there would be economies of density that make mass transit systems (whether operated by governments or private operators) viable. There might even be greater scope for apartment buildings to experiment with different energy options, including solar if they so wished. Instead of a pool in every backyard there would be provision of ‘club goods’ in the form of collectively shared apartment pools and public spaces.
I also don’t understand this crap about encouraging migrants to decentralise,Squeeze more people into each space and the economies of mass transit might become more viable commercially, and you even have the economies to justify 24 hour trading - people would be gainfully employed and coming and going all hours of the day and night and there would be less crime. A 24 hour high rise high density society would be an economic and environmental utopia in many respects.
HERE HERE.
With the height restrictions taken off everywhere….. the taxation on rental income scrapped but some of the money clawed back in land tax…. all those other taxes like stamp duty and the like scrapped…..
…Then we get the apartments going up and up and when some sort of saturation is reached the volume of the apartments will grow in size every year.
The older apartement buildings will wind up getting whole flaws taken out and groups of apartments consolidated into giant sky-houses as the cost of renting comes down all the time.
This is a form of capitalism that works and is fair.
As to the other stuff depreciation allowances that can be brought forward many years are essential.
But even moreso is the ability of one arm of government being able to veto restrictive practices of another harm and stop dumb-leftists or any one of us getting in the way of people putting up coal and nuclear plants.
ITS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. It is a violation of property rights to imagine that we, or our council or our State Goverment or the Feds or dumb-left protestors ought to be getting in the way.
And we need legislation from all governments attempting to stop the other theives and bully-boys from getting in the way of people building all these plants.
As to reducing emissions that is a ridiculous goal supported by stupidity at every level of the argument and ought not be contemplated in an environment of the total lack of evidence for supporting such lunacy.
But if we really were sicko Gaia-fetishists and were serious about our nature-obssession high-rise and the abolition of non-user-pays infrastructure could have us eventually leaving less of a footprint on the natural world then at any time since homo-sapiens migrated out of Africa.
“- the abolition of height restrictions on inner-city residential accommodation. ”
Thats not good enough.
What we want is the TOTAL ABOLITION OF HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE.
And the getting rid of any tax or regulation that gets in the way of vertical development.
These height restrictions may seem a small thing. But they are at the absolute core of the perception and I would say the reality of the unfairness of ‘Capitalism’ as it is practised today.
Which is indeed no capitalism but just a strain of interventionism.
GMB,
Would that include restrictive covenants? If I did not want any apartment buildings above “x” stories near me and so I bought (with my own money) all the properties around me, placed restrictive covenants on them and then resold them subject to that restriction, would you abolish those restrictions?
No but no-ones going to be that stupid.
On the other hand I don’t see a natural law justification for those covenants being eternal.
What we want instead is neighbours actually competing for who gets the Penthouse.
We want them building until one guy get the view way above the others and then the other neighbour says SCREW YOU and builds way above that guy.
“On the other hand I don?t see a natural law justification for those covenants being eternal.”
So you’re not in favour of freedom of contract? Maybe you’d like to regulate wage rates too, you CRYPTO COMMIE?
No Graeme, if people want to contract restrictive covenants into their property, that’s their business. The restriction just gets incorporated as a lower sale price. Markets work.
I cannot see a natural law justification for such covenants to be eternal.
This is anti-social behaviour for one thing.
But on what basis could they be made eternal?
That means the property can go through 1000 exchanges and none of the parties can get them removed.
And the anti-social rich slob that put them on is long-dead and his malign influence rolling on down through the ages?
How could he have realistically bought all the blue sky above the property and then fixed a curse on it that flows into geological time?
Natural law suggests that he cannot.
I dunno, how long can these things be allowed to last under common law?
Air rights they are called. Property people in New York City trade in them frequently. If you wish to protect a particular view in New York you can offer to buy air rights from other peoperty owners. I see no problem with that and the system seems to work just fine. It immediately places vlaue on air space etc.
I’m gonna have to flock off in a mo, and you won’t hear from me until tomorrow (maybe) and only in the comments.
There is no such thing as a ‘right to a view’ at common law. You can have ‘an easement of light’ (it’s empirically measurable) - which does bind successors in title - but not a pretty view.
Restrictive covenants are, however, possible - although legally tricky to draft. They can bind successors in title, although most of them are set to operate only for a particular period of time, for fairly obvious reasons. The restriction is worked out via markets - as Jason says - the typical sting being a lower sale price.
Bear in mind, too, that the ’servient tenement’ - ie the lot burdened with either the easement or the restrictive covenant - is compensated by the dominant tenement’s owner. How this is worked through between the parties is established in the contract.
Well
I had a property once that had a covenant for a single house dwelling in red brick and terra cotta tiles that went back to 1923. I wanted to do something else with the land- sell it for subdivision but was told that the title could not be changed unless everyone that resided in the subdivision agreed to it. This was a regular suburban street mind you. It seemed the covenant wasn’t attempting to spell out what was allowed to be built on the land until infinity, it was actually describing what had to be built in order to satisfy the desgin expectations of the types of homes that were going up in the area in 1923.
I went to see a lawyer who said a title change needed to go to the supreme court and I had a 15% chance of success. So coveent do seem to carry to infinity on their own…. and they should.
But you appear to be giving us a case that would show that the caveats ought to be limited…..
And then in the end you say “…. and they should.”
Now why would you say that.
On the other hand I wouldn’t want to say I’ve got a strong opinion as to caveats that restrict horizontal development like the one you suggest.
But its the restriction of VERTICAL development that strikes me as something that there is not excuse for.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the air rights attracted a small tax like a land value tax.
Then the dudes descendants are going to pay for price for his silly-buggery and the idea is to surrender the air rights to escape the tax.
Yeah actually now that you talk about it its the tradeable air rights that appear to be righteous and something that can have eternal life.
But not a stagnant restriction.
You get all these stagnant eternal restrictions accumulating for a million years and then where would we be?
People think that when they buy a property they ‘own’ the view around them and are affronted when another propertry owner wants to change that view. They need to be disabused of that notion.
Oh My
sorry meant that THEY SHOULDN”T in cases like this.
Yes, air rights are tradeable. i actually saw it as a good thing as it allows people to make decisions based on value etc.
———————————————————-
The problem goes right to the bottom of the issue we’re discussing. These nimby restrictions add to the cost of even going up a floor. You go up a floor and you will end up with dozens of objections. These issues add to costs, which is the dark side of the issue we won’t face up to.
The city where i live has placed a 30 mile radius around the city to prevent “urban sprawl”. Yet height restrictions are just as tight as they used to be. The final upshot is that the cost of land will go though the roof for everything inside it. They said they were going to relax restrictions on height but they really haven’t because nimby groups have been up and at it.
You then have issues like Heritage and heritage overlays. These days it’s nothing more than a fucking racket with all sorts of heritage experts springing up assisting council with heritage issues.
The fact is that nearly all homes in the city were never built to last forever and the idea that the “character” of the area will change with new devopement is a crock of shit. For a while I was forced to live beside a derelict old house that was falling apart because the friggen council wouldn’t allow anyone to buy who had the intentions of demolishing it. Seriously, it was an old clapped out workers cottage built in timber that was supposed to last no more than 40 years max. That place was sold 4 times. That’s 4 lots of stamp duty going down the dead gurgler of government. And the council didn’t give a toss.
Heritage is a crock of shit. The market would and does easily value heritage as old homes with interesting features are very valuable.
The entire thing is a nimby driven disgrace. I still cannot understand why old is better than new.
“y said they were going to relax restrictions on height but they really haven’t because nimby groups have been up and at it.”
Right.
The public be damned. Its property rights that matter. And the public in general… Well its NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS how high the third parties want to build.
We’ve just got to clarify and protect property rights.
Look JC this is bad tactics compromising with Troppos’ irrational anti-CO2 fantasies.
This is why RED-KEN-PARISH gave you your own thread. Its not because he is a reasonable man.
Its simply so lefties everywhere can roll their eyes and say EVEN CAMBRIA THINKS CO2 IS A PROBLEM.
People like Jason find arguments such as this incredibly persuasive but he’s never told me why.
You ought to go back there and make it clear that you know that the CO2 scare is bollocks and that you were only trying to humour the stupid evil people.
And then tell them they are a real bunch of useless girly-men fools and say that even now you are cosmically spitting on them for their part in the great carbon swindle.
GB
I never asked Ken to put it up there. He chose to himself as my post was a comment I made in Rex R’s thread.
Look I actually don’t mind Ken and Nick. They are what I would call middle of the roaders. I have a devil of a time picking that either would vote for. Some of their other colleagues are definite lefties but not those two. The liberal party for instance is full of these guys and I could easily see say Ken Parish sitting comfortably in the front bench of the liberal party without a care in the world.
This doesn’t mean I agree with these views, but then I don’t agree with almost all the views espoused by the libs anyway. …….If only they followed the party manifesto.
The difficulty is that the only party that comes close to espousing our views is the libertarian party. I hate libertarianism for reasons why I can’t even articulate because it is difficult being counter intuitive and hiding impulsive opinions. But it is far superior to any political/ideology that’s ever been around. So no, I haven’t fallen over the fence and never will and will always continue despising leftist views.
My comment there is actually an opinion on how the left should pursue a move towards nuke. It never meant that I agree with it as I think time is no our side and if left alone technology will make the discussion on Co2 redundant over time. A far shorter time than we think seeing that some science circles are actually thinking about anti-matter as an energy source.
I also think that we are imposing a transfer from the poor to the rich by doing this. The poor is us and the rich are the future generations who will find this episode amusing.
Soon is right though. The game is lost in terms of where we are headed. Whatever you or I think it doesn’t matter any more because we are headed towards some form of carbon taxing.
So I think the best thing would be if you put you thinking hat on and figure out ways we can mitigate this change over with the least pain as possible. You’re great at that sort of thing.
By the way, you also need to consider that lots of people are around who read these sites that have policy influence. I know of one guy who’s like that and is a regular reader of Catallaxy.
It’s important that these policy guys, these lurkers, get to read some interesting stuff they can use for policy decisions.
GB, the best thing you could do is post ways to create the best possible policies hoping some of it will catch on.
By the way Ron Bailey at Reason who is the science writer says that AGW is real and we are headed to a global carbon tax. When he says that it’s over.
Its not a good thing because it makes it look like you agree that CO2 release is a bad thing.
If this movement killed millions of people through malaria how many millions will they kill through stopping CO2 release.
CO2 increases plant growth. So how many people must starve on their bullshit alter of sacrificing humans for nature.
They frequently forget about nature but they never let up on sacrificing the humans.
There may be problems with getting hold of fresh water in some countries but CO2 reduces the amount of water that plants need.
So once again these guys are willing to sacrifice humans.
Thats whats driving this. A collective will to sacrifice humans and so every aspect of their lying anti-science case must be opposed.
AGW may be real but if so its a good thing.
Baileys fucked up.
And he needs to be set straight on this matter.
You can oppose it and not get anywhere or you can oppose and hope you can see or influence policies that will be far less damaging.
The reason is that is where we are headed. Even Howard has given it up. He shakes Flanery’s hand, the hand of a non climate scientist who is nothing more than a snake oil salesman posing as a guru. This twerp is the Australian of the year for Gods sake.
Bailey isn’t full of shit. he is one of the last hold outs in the science reporting crowd who read it like it is. That, that is where we’re heading.
So how do you mitigate the effects of these policies? What do you think are the best policies to move forward?
If you had no choice what would you do?
CO2 doesn’t matter Graeme.
Sound economically rationalist policy reduces CO2 emissions, and generally makes the environment better.
This is what we have to get through to the Greens and everyone else.
Abolition of subsidised energy to industry in general and subsidies to auto makers will reduce CO2 production. Privatisation of power suppliers will see more efficient networks. Allocation of strong private property rights will see cleaner energy sources all around reducing local and global pollution. Increased use of GMO in farming will see increased reforestation and CO2 abatement. Allowing market prices for electricity will see efficient use and alternative supplies will become relatively cheaper.
All of this has a general welfare benefit in increased productivity and double dividend in reduced CO2 stocks.
Right.
Well obviously we’ve got to roll this back.
You can talk about this in hypotheticals. But if you don’t mention that you think that CO2 release is a good thing then they will use Ju Jitsu on you.
The war isn’t lost when the leftist says “Joseph McCarthy was a bad man and none of the people he is investigating is a communist”
The war is lost when the conservative says “McCarthy is a bad piece of work but he was right about the communists”
That makes McCarthy being a bad guy a bi-partisan conclusion and therefore fixed into history.
Thats why Ken gave you your own thread. Because its advertising that a libertarian is accepting CO2 release is bad.
Whereas all of the scientific evidence says that CO2 release is good.
So by humouring rather then abusing these guys you are helping the fraud along.
And thats precisely how we have gotten to where we are now.
Its the BUTT-MONKEY thing over again.
Leftists know that if they have enough sustained pressure there is an architecture of bullshit that takes over and swallows all before it.
Look Mark.
Will you STOP…..FUCKING…..LYING.
There is no double dividend.
Don’t be an idiot.
Fuck you try and spin some shit Mark.
You must have gotten that from GREG at Harvard.
The one with too many consonants in his name.
Mankiw or something.
But all of the scientific evidence points to CO2 being a good thing and the idea that its a bad thing is just lies and ecological hectoring.
And Greg ought to be up to speed on this and not be talking about such idiot JIVE like double dividends.
The only double-dividend I could see would be in oil tax if it was part of a sustained campaign against Crackerland.
No Graeme, you are making things up.
I don’t advocate Pigouvian taxes.
Take it back.
Mark
Would you still support carbon taxes and carbon offset trading (assuming you are) if we can’t get Nuke through as a viable alternative for political reasons?
Now you are just being silly Mark.
Now either of you. Or anyone.
Does anyone have any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
And seeing as you don’t why are you humouring these nutballs and discussing CO2 taxes and the like as if there was a CO2 problem?
This is extremely bad strategically to be caught up in going along with their lies.
Only if you could show there was a net benefit in doing so. Technological innovation makes me say no - solar cells are up to 41% efficient. There is geothermal and biomass as well. All of which are emissions neutral, and do not have the problems or aesthetic opposition like that of wind.
But carbon trading is unworkable as an international system, there will be trading of foreign carbon rights, not global trading of a common commodity.
Pigouvian taxes are a tax on alternative technologies. They may be a price signal to go elsewhere, but they also require the price of forgone resource use.
“All of which are emissions neutral…..”
Now why do you mention THIS Mark?
Mark.
Do you have some evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
And if not can you attempt to stop acting like a zombie and try and encourage others to snap out of it too.
““All of which are emissions neutral…..â€
Now why do you mention THIS Mark? ”
Because Joe is effectively talking about what the best policy is if nuclear was too unpopular in the public to pass the Senate and AGW was accepted by a large majority.
Evidence for catastrophic AGW?
It is irrelevant. Back to my point: economically rationalist policy can make it a non-issue as emissions may fall anyway. Instead of paying for reduced emissions, we get them as part of a windfall.
Graeme - my opinion of AGW is irrelevant. I am not a scientist, (and like Tim Lambert and Tim Flannery), I am not a climatologist.
What I can add to the debate is a way to increase our welfare and simultaneously reduce emissions, rather than reduce emissions through paying 5% of GDP for decades.
No its not irrelevant. And no you have nothing to offer to the debate.
Now on what basis do you want to reduce emissions?
“Now on what basis do you want to reduce emissions?”
That it is a result of reducing inefficiency.
If emissions are good, then we can generate wealth and buy them later, similar to the criticism of Kyoto.
“Evidence for catastrophic AGW?
It is irrelevant. Back to my point: economically rationalist policy can make it a non-issue as emissions may fall anyway. Instead of paying for reduced emissions, we get them as part of a windfall.”
No its not irrelevant.
IN FACT THAT IS THE ONLY RELEVANT MATTER AND HERETOFORE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID IS IRRELEVANT.
That CO2 release is good means that your entire conversation so far is totally irrelevant.
Now do you have or do you KNOW ANYONE who has any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming?
Do you know any climate scientist with that evidence?
Do you know anyone who knows any climate scientist with that evidence.
THIS IS NOT IRRELEVANT.
Everything you have talked about is whats irrelevant.
See the other parallel thread: neither you, Stern or the IPCC can see 100 years into the future with any credibility.
Our best chance is to increase current wealth and improve our technology. Pollution will fall as efficiency increases. If CO2 is good, we can buy more later on.
That’s right Mark. If you don’t want to join Bird and set up thousands of DDT-and-CO2-pumping factories to save the world from malaria and the new ice age, you must be a SHIT-SPINNING LIAR WHO IS IRRELEVANT!
Only in so far as people who pass opinions that we are all going to die and aren’t climate scientists need to prove it.
GB has asked people to prove the alarmist view of AGW. To date no one has. So they are either stupid or dishonest.
So in his own way Gb is making a vital contribution in seeing that people don’t stray us into disneyland.
Mark’s view is that he dosen’t know or considers it irrelevant whether AGW is happening and what he is doing is attempting to explain an appropriate policy mix that will get us to where it seems the public wants to go- less CO2.
I actually agree with both, however I also think the game is lost so it is better to go with Mark’s view and attempt to mitigate losses as well as we can.
So fats do you have evidence of alamist AGW becasue if you don’t you have better join Mark’s badwagon before you really do get accused of being chicken little.
“See the other parallel thread: neither you, Stern or the IPCC can see 100 years into the future with any credibility.”
Thats irrelevant.
I can tell you what WON’T happen.
We won’t get catastrophic warming.
I can tell you that for an absolute certainty.
But your point is irrelevant.
Now do you have any evidence whatsoever for:
1. The likelihood of catastrophic global warming any time in the next 50 million yars.
2. The idea that CO2 release during this time is a BAD THING rather then a GOOD THING?
Its not about me making a 100% accurate weather prediction for the 2nd of January on the Year 2001.
Thats just the sort of wordplay you tend to fall into when you’ve lost the argument.
I’ve noticed something.
You are just fine when you are winning.
But you lose your marbles when you are beginning to lose the argument.
“GB has asked people to prove the alarmist view of AGW. To date no one has.”
Only because he rejects all expert opinion, peer-reviewed research, and scientific consensus. In fact, anything that doesn’t fit his pre-conceptions and wacky theories.
No I don’t reject any of the science.
The science is on my side you liar.
The propaganda ABOUT the science is not on my side.
But the science is on my side.
Now if thats not true can you help me out here?
Do you have any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
Do you have any evidence that CO2 release is bad rather then good as the science suggests?
You see the fact that nobody and no scientist has this evidence means that your claim is a lying one. A false one. Everything you say in 41 is wrong and or a lie.
And clearly so.
Now I’ve said that this is the worst ice age we’ve been in for 500 million years.
And I still think thats true. But from here on in I’ll say 300 million just to be conservative.
See if what you said in 42 was true (IT ISN’T TRUE OF COURSE BUT IF IT WAS TRUE) then it would just be a matter of you going and getting that evidence that you speak of.
But since you are full of shit and lying you cannot do that.
So what you say CANNOT be true.
And in fact I am only going with the science as it exists now.
Do you have that evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming as your lying statement implies?
“The science is on my side you liar.”
That’s not what the scientists gathered to review that science have said, repeatedly.
Who cares.
I didn’t say that the UN SCIENTISTS on junkets were on my side.
I said the SCIENCE was on my side. That is not the same thing.
Now do you have any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming?
Can you find one of these scientists that you speak of and identify where they have amassed any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming?
‘I said the SCIENCE was on my side. ”
Where is your proof that it is?
Where is your evidence that we will/might have catastrophic cooling?
Where is your other brain cell? The one you’re using now is getting tired.
Don’t any of you dropkicks see a PATTERN forming here?
Would you expect these anomalies to be occurring if this WASN’T a fraudulent movement?
No of course not.
I’d throw down the challenge, you would get the evidence and then I’d say:
“Right…… I did not know that?”
And that would be the end of it.
The fact that this is not happening and is not going to happen ought to be telling you something about the corruption of science and more specifically about the very strange nature of the alarmist movement.
Last time I was wrong about this sort of thing Steve Edney presented the evidence and it was a revelation to me and I learned something and I’ve never gotten that wrong again.
Now you guys would be far more enlightened if you just took the same approach as me.
The idea is to own up quickly when you are wrong. Thats how you learn stuff.
But none of you ever do it.
Its disgraceful and its silly.
“Where is your proof that it is?”
You idiot.
What????????
You expect a one-sentence answer to that.
And why have you dishonestly used the word PROOF all of a sudden when your lying ass should have used the word EVIDENCE.
Thats an old marxist trick fathead.
My evidence is that you guys cannot come up with any evidence to the contrary.
And if the science was not on my side you could quickly find evidence to the contrary.
“We won’t get catastrophic warming.
I can tell you that for an absolute certainty.”
So we may have mild warming with mild costs.
If these costs are caused by market protections, subsidies and bias against technology, then there is a double dividend in liberalisation of energy, heavy industry and agriculture.
“So we may have mild warming with mild costs.”
We may have mild warming with mild GAINS.
Not costs.
We will likely have cooling by mid-century and when this happens the fraud will be swept away.
But by then these clowns will have buggered our energy production industries.
There is no double dividend so stop talking what I am assuming to be Mankiw nonsense.
Warming is good and cooling is bad and immensely risky.
Let’s assume you are right.
Would be still better off having a permanently higher growth rate now and purchasing CO2 later.
Just the same reason why Kyoto is a bad idea if CO2 accumulation is bad. In that case we are better off having a higher growth rate and purchasing abating technologies later.
You are talking nonsense and makiing idiot false accusations.
Now restate what it is you are trying to say. If you bullshit you’ll only confuse yourself.
I would suggest to you that your post 52, amongst some very strong competition, is the most dishonest post you have made since the threads-of-doom.
Now do you want to make explicit these idiot lying accusations you are now making?
Stop lying or fuck off.
I suggest that if you thought that CO2 emissions were bad, you would be an avid supporter of the Kyoto treaty. Now you want to sacrifice higher growth for a benefit which you cannot value 100 years down the road (global warming).
Post 52 is about the most concise and powerful reasons to support liberalisation now and purchase climate determinants later on.
STOP FUCKING LYING MARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You’ve made a string of implied accusations here.
Now its clear you are too much of a prick to retract so fuck off.
Do you want a higher growth rate or not Graeme?
When Mark is getting completely stomped he just goes into lying Fyodor mode.
You are an asshole fella.
Fuck off.
Answer the question Graeme.
You are better off sacrificing CO2 emissions now and purchasing them later if you need to.
“Do you want a higher growth rate or not Graeme?”
Why are you such a dishonest penis-head?
Stop lying.
YOu know the answer to that question.
Stop fucking lying.
What a liar you are.
YOu know you were getting a reasonable reputation with some people.
But now I know you are just a filthy liar.
Graeme
As you know I was a more enthusiastic proponent of carbon taxes before.
Mark’s arguments made me more agnostic about doing something about AGW/
Yours haven’t.
Game, set and match.
You know the answer you fucking liar.
Good. You agree that we are better off by abating our rate of CO2 production now for higher GDP and GDP growth rates by liberalising the economy, and then purchasing them later on.
You have a bizarre way of agreeing with people Graeme.
Why are you continuing with this relentless false allegation which suggests I ever implied that I didn’t want a higher growth rate????
YOU TOTAL LYING ASSHOLE.
STOP LYING OR FUCK OFF.
Intellectual honesty is the most important thing here.
Now I don’t think its too much to ask that you stop these relentless implied false allegations you filthy peice of shit.
You implied it by saying that we needed more CO2 after I said liberalisation would reduce CO2 emissions.
Liberalisation would increase our growth rate.
Why is this such an unbelievable leap in logic?
I cannot abide a fucking dishonest person of such bad character as Mark.
Mark go to the other side of the fence fella.
We don’t need any liars in the libertarian camp.
Why have you been relentlessly lying and implying that at any time I ever implied that I didn’t want higher growth rates.
You know thats not true.
Now admit your dishonesty or fuck off and never sully any of these forums with your dishonesty again.
Oh dear, Mark’s been excommunicated by Cardinal Bird
Patriarch Hill considers the same fate for Bird…
No I never implied that we don’t want higher growth rates you are lying and you must retract.
But its now pretty clear that this dishonestly is not a one-off and its hard-wired into your bad character.
In the past I’ve put it down to the subject of money brings out the crank in people.
Go away.
We don’t need dishonest idiots in the libertarian camp.
Graeme, see the other thread, it was an honest mistake if not a leading question - but do you support liberalisation?
Jason.
This is exactly a repetition of your bad behaviour in the money thread.
If you wanted to be useful you would chastise Mark for his lying.
For his Fyodor-like relentless implied false-accusations.
(FUCK OFF MARK)
“Graeme, see the other thread, it was an honest mistake if not a leading question - but do you support liberalisation?”
WHAT……..THE FUCK………DO YOU……THINK.
Now you KNOW the answer to that. And you implying that you don’t is itself dishonest.
What is the MATTER with you?
Fats
He doesn’t have to accpet anything. He has simply asked people like you -the chicken littles -to prove that we have catastrophic warming happening and so far no one has been able to.
In other words if you’re going to sit at the right of the IPCC bell curve to the tail you had better have a phd in climate science and be able to prove the thesis that global climate is heading for a catastrophy otherwise you come out looking like a dick.
Why can’t you actually say yes - it implies you value current CO2 output over increasing our growth rate and purchasing CO2 later on - which means you agree with the policy of Kyoto if not the science.
You are talking GIBBER Mark.
Nothing you say in 78 makes sense.
And this is what happens when at first you are willing to be dishonest.
You totally lose track of your own bollocks.
Sorry, it implies you agree with the reasoning behind the Kyoto policy. Strike the last phrase, it came out wrong.
Graeme - I know you support liberalisation. You even agree with me about the best policy option.
You should be more forthright with your support of it.
CO2 output is good.
This implies one thing. That CO2 output is good.
It does not imply anything else you say it implies.
What it does imply is that the expansion of capitalism is a good thing indeed and something we ought all be working at.
Now can you stop talking nonsense.
This is just you kicking the chess table over via dishonesty when you are losing.
Its this sort of instinctual knee-jerk dishonesty that can make your learning-curves so flat for some things.
“You should be more forthright with your support of it.”
???????????????????????
HOW MUCH MORE FUCKING FORTHRIGHT CAN ONE PERSON BE?
What are you saying here. That I’m keeping my ideas in the closet?
That I am an ideas WALLFLOWER???
No Mark.
You are not weasling out of this.
The fact is you were caught being dishonest and you have created for me a great deal of overhead and watered down the truth of what I have been trying to get across.
And I’m not happy about it.
This is precisely what your coterie did on the threads of doom.
And I’m not at all pleased with the extra time this bad and dishonest behaviour takes up.
“CO2 output is good.
This implies one thing. That CO2 output is good.”
No Graeme. It implies more. Current subsidies make CO2 production higher than it would be if the market was liberalised and we subsequently had higher growth rates. .
You are therefore presented with choice on growth rates and CO2 accumulation now and at a later date in the future. The best choice is high growth rates now and purchasing carbon later if necessary.
You did not present explicit support of liberalisation. If you disagree with this, perhaps I need better comprehension skills or you need better writing skills, or both.
No you are talking bullshit.
I’ve never even entered into such a discussion with you.
This amounts to ANOTHER false accusation on your part.
Now stop it or fuck off.
Stop lying or fuck off.
There is just not climbing out of this one.
Do you want liberalisation or not Graeme?
You are lying yet again you fucking crunt.
Stop lying or fuck off.
87 is yet several more IMPLIED-FALSE-ALLEGATIONS.
Stop lying or fuck off.
Now you tell me.
You tell me what I want.
You tell me what I want being as you know the answer beyond a shadow of a doubt and your question was just AN IMPLIED LYING ACCUSATION on your part.
Just say what you want and move on.
No no.
You’ve got to stop lying.
1. You’ll never get away with it with me.
2. It wrecks threads.
3. Its wastes peoples time
4. It misleeds people and distracts them from the right course of action.
I never lied Graeme.
You implied you had a contradictory belief set. Do you expect people to be mind readers? Should we read your voluminous writings and never ask for clarification?
I have just read the post and skimmed through the comments - it looks as if carbon dioxide makes its appearance around comment number 18 and the thread then descends into another abusive rant from a serial offender, which is a shame.
Have to say that I’d like the Sydney CBD to have many more “tall” buildings, and I wouldn’t mind there to be more tall buildings in the inner city. The two-to-three story terrace houses in the inner city are picturesque, but greater population densities in the inner city may well be the way to go to increase energy efficiencies.
Most buildings are no more than 6-10 stories high around Kings Cross, which could probably be raised to 15 stories without too much problem - the streets may have less sunlight, but it shouldn’t be too bad. I don’t know what the current height restrictions are in the area.
I thought that JC’s comment at Club Troppo was quite interesting.
“You implied you had a contradictory belief set”
No I didn’t. This is more dishonesty on your part.
Sacha you are being a smartarse.
You are the seriel offender.
You are offensive for your unwillingness to go where the chips fall.
Do you have any evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming?
I didn’t think so.
“I thought that JC’s comment at Club Troppo was quite interesting.”
Yes they indeed they were interesting.
But I pointed out to him that you ought not compromise with the lunatics on the matter of CO2.
We ought never imply that CO2 is bad when thats a lie and all the evidence points to more CO2 being a good thing.
““You implied you had a contradictory belief setâ€
No I didn’t. This is more dishonesty on your part.”
Either you did or one or both of us have poor communication skills.
Graeme, you think warming is good. Do you think we are actually warming?
Let’s see - this is a blog generally about economics and liberalism - most people here (without any disrespect to the people here) are not scientists and so rely on scientists when referring to scientific matters.
I am a mathematician who is interested in a broad range of topics including economics. If I challenge an economist on any matter, I do not presuppose that that economist’s non-response means that I am right and they are wrong.
sacha
We have already been given a summarized blue print of the IPCC report. Scientists or not it means diddly squat from this point on because governments are looking like they will soon offer action.
A lot of this discussion here is about trying to get to those changes without causing big economic problems going forward.
“When Mark is getting completely stomped”
Ah, the old if-GMB-says-it-then-it-must-be-true gambit. Even when no-one else agrees.
It’s just the rest of the world that’s wrong, hey G-man? Must get awful lonely.
By the way, I think Mark you have some good points about economic policy changes that will also improve environmental outcomes. It seems reasonable that they will actually help.
However, what do you suggest if they are not enough? Or do you think they will be enough? If the latter, why do you think that?
Fats
what he has been asking, which you have basically avoided answering like the plague, is to provide evidence for catastrophic warming.
So far you really haven’t done that. So I think your characterization of his arguments is false and misleading. More accurately they are what American call sophmoric.
If your courageous and loaded with info you would at least try to make an attempt to offer such evidence. But it seems the opposite is true
“which you have basically avoided answering like the plague”
JC, many, many people have tried answering GMB on this. He doesn’t want to know, period. Given straightforward answers, links to first-hand research, he blithely rejects it out of hand because it doesn’t agree with his prejudices.
Go ahead, take a poll - you’ll see most will agree.
In any case, when someone holds a radically different view to… well, everyone, then the onus is on them to justify their view. Some might try out of the goodness of their hearts to persuade GMB that there might be something to this too-much-CO2-is-a-bad-thing schtick, but they are under no obligation to. And neither am I.
Plus it can be fun to see him froth at the mouth, and I might even admit to goading him a bit to see if a coronary eventuates.
Oh, all right. If it makes you feel better:
Evidence the greenhouse effect can have catastrophic consequences?
Venus.
OK?
In countries like Australia with only 200 odd years of architectural history I can understand that the entire concept of ‘heritage’ can be questionable. But I live in a city centre that dates back to medieval times in places (my own modern building was put up in the 1980s but was designed to be ‘in keeping’ with the area - fortunately the tenements in this part of town are pretty high, 5-6 stories). It’s a UNESCO world heritage site. Is this type of protection pointless?
Oh and you may as well give up fats. GMB asked for concrete proof that sea-levels were rising so I mentioned the increased closure of the Thames Barrier to prevent flooding during increasingly high tides. Graeme explained that it’s not that spring tides are higher, London is sinking every month.
Well thats right.
We must differentiate between land sinking and the see rising.
Background level sea rise is 2 mm per year or so for thousands of years.
So its something we’ve had to get use to for many thousands of years and it doesn’t appear to have changed.
You ought to remember that before that you mentioned an island in the middle of a river in India going under.
Only thing is you forgot to mention it was an Island in the middle of a river.
No fathead. And your silliness here just shows how bereft of evidence-for-the likelihood-of-catastrophic-warming you are.
We were looking for evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming ON EARTH.
And if I must add in another stipulation I would have to say ON EARTH WITHIN THE NEXT 20 MILLION YEARS. (lets say).
Because I have just BEGAN to argue…. My argument is not complete….. that without humans the EARTH may be catastrophically hot within 300 million years.
I need more evidence for this to see if it could be true. But so far it looks like the continued prosperity of intelligent like MAY be necessary to the survival of the natural world for more then another 300 million years.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/capital-accumulation-critical-to-the-salvation-of-the-natural-world/
Not that it matters much. Without intelligent life its all a bit pointless.
But I want to reverse this lunacy of thinking that man and nature are enemies with eachother ….. which is only true to the extent of some land-use practices that could be mitigated against under a better form of capitalism.
Under capitalism akin to what JC was talking about when you get rid of all height restrictions on buildings.
“JC, many, many people have tried answering GMB on this. He doesn’t want to know, period. ”
No fatfingers you are lying.
Thats just a lie.
Deus tried to show that all these place were going under water because of rising seas.
But she chose an island in the middle of a river in a Delta region and I pointed out that every Delta region in the world was sinking and this didn’t mean the seas were rising faster then normal background rises.
I pointed out that the Himilayas were rising and that this didn’t mean he oceans were sinking and we were losing water molecules out into space.
You see Deus didn’t come up with any evidence. She just tried to gyp us by failing to distinguish between land sinking and sea rising.
And failing to distinguish between a normal range of background sea level rise that we have had to deal with for 18000 years and something more catastrophic and new on the scene.
In other words she had no evidence and should have stuck to the dancing lessons with which she is no doubt more profficient.
“JC, many, many people have tried answering GMB on this. He doesn’t want to know, period.”
No fatfingers. Thats just you lying. Retract those lies.
Now third parties will know you are lying when you fail to come up with valid EVIDENCE……for the LIKELIHOOD…..of CATASTROHIC WARMING.
We have mountains of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic COOLING. But we have no evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.
So you were just lying fatfingers. And once one person starts lying the rest of you start piling on with it.
“By the way, I think Mark you have some good points about economic policy changes that will also improve environmental outcomes. It seems reasonable that they will actually help.
However, what do you suggest IF THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH ? Or do you think they will be enough? If the latter, why do you think that?
IF THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH???????????????? fatfingers???????
Enough for WHAT??? you dishonest communist assholes.
See how these watermelon-commies work third parties?
They haven’t got a stitch of evidence for catastrophic global warming but they just keep on running ahead without it anyhow.
FATFINGERS YOU FILTH.
Where is your evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
I hope some of you are beginning to understand why our greatest living economist thinks that these lunatics are so dangerous.
They don’t need evidence to start pointing guns at people.
They just don’t fucking care.
realclimate.org should change its name to fuckthedata.com
Over at Climate Audit, I found the following entry that does seem to support the scepticism of our venerable GMB regarding CO2 and warming.
It is by Willis Eschenbach and appears in the Unthreaded #3 thread, and is comment #204:
“I’m still not clear what your point is. Yes, US, Canada, and Australia emit a large amount of CO2 per capita. However, that only makes them “bad global citizens” if we accept the underlying assumption that CO2 is “bad”. To do that, you need to establish two things using facts (as opposed to models):
1) Increasing CO2 will cause a significant rise in temperature.
2) The effects of this rise will be significantly deleterious/dangerous.
Near as I can tell, neither of these is any where near established. Yes, I’m very aware of what the IPCC says … but if you can’t see the holes in their claims, you desperately need new eyeglasses. If you move from New York to LA, you have experienced a change in average temperature far, far exceeding what the IPCC predicts … where is the downside? Increased malaria? Paul Reiter, one of the world’s most qualified experts in the subject, says this is nonsense … and for saying so, he was dumped from the IPCC panel on health effects, and replaced by someone expert in … coprolites. If you are looking for clues, there’s a clue in there about the IPCC report’s value, when they dump real health scientists and replace them with experts in fossilized shit …
Increased rainfall? While there may be more floods, unlike a small amount of warming, water shortages are a very real problem in many parts of the world. How is increased rain a problem?
Increased drought? Drought is associated with cooler climates, not warmer. The Sahara is becoming more green, not less. I don’t see that as a worrisome trend.
Sea level rise? The IPCC currently predicts about a foot (300 mm) of rise in the coming century … which is what we’ve seen since 1850, and somehow I don’t recall anyone saying that sea level rise was one of the great disasters of the 1900’s.”
The more I follow this story the less regard I have for the IPCC and its procedures, as well as of some, not all, of the scientists involved who appear only to be interested in protecting the fiefdom they have created.
This is all standard known science.
Its the watermelon-commies that are the anti-scientific ones.
And I’m pissed with them for sucking me in for awhile.