An Inconvenient Truth

[Roxanne Appleby]

roxanne says,

RA Actually, I think the whole thing is ridiculous.

i'm not sure if you, RA, mean the carbon tax, or the thesis of global warming as a danger. it's a bit surreal to be discussing either--a solution that's ridiculous or an effective solution to a ridiculous, imaginary problem.

i suppose the point is to embarrass environment people and show their insincerity. so much for the 'sincerity' of your proposals in the debate.

BUT, since various forms of 'carbon tax' have been proposed in good faith by conservatives, liberals, and maybe some social democrats, let's look at three basic problems. my point will be that the problems mean that while 'carbon tax' has some validity, it could only be a minor part of a solution to the problems at hand, not the wonderful sword against waste that roxanne claims (or says she does). it has some validity, since taxing things you want to reduce does have some effect, be it on substandard housing or emisions of poisonous gas (Sweden's tax on nitrogen oxides).

Looking over some of the literature on the internet, I see two problems cited, by analysts, and i'll add a third.

1. Lack of (much)incentive for the individual [or taxed unit] to economize

ra says,
When I say "revenue neutral" I mean in terms of the net amount flowing into the treasury, AND in terms of net family income at various income levels. In your example of the two middle income families with similar tax situations, obviously the one with the Honda Pious will come out ahead of the one with the SUV - until the changed incentives causes them to unload the SUV.

so apparently 'neutrality' is to apply to 'income levels', persons aggregated by income level-- what we call a 'tax bracket. as the example shows, an extravagant consumer on the level of 60 K--the fellow with the giant SUV--, is going to suffer from the carbon tax. To put it roughly, that's the upper end of the bell curve of consumption (top 20 percent consumers, in that bracket, of fossil fuel), let's say in the 50-75 K bracket. The honking big SUVS, those mobile homes that you drive from inside, the ATVs, the boats.

HOWEVER, for the *average* person, lets say the middle 60% of the consumers in the bracket, *there is no change*. what they pay in carbon tax is refunded on income tax. This person has little real monetary incentive to change. Roxanne points out that the tax will be felt, say in a electric bill, where coal has been used. OK, but only the person of that bracket with *exceptional* electric bills are penalized The *average* homes usage in the bracket is going to have 'revenue neutrality. no net tax impact.

2) As the letter below argues, the *amount* of the tax [that would be effective], set by Roxanne at $5, is vastly underestimated. The author below estimate several times that, and points out that Europe has $6/gallon gas [yet overconsumption, by 'green' standards]. Rox proposes only $8, quite affordable for the well off. As the author argues, if one implements the tax at a point where the tax would make a difference, like gasoline at $15-$20/gallon, that is pretty disruptive.

3) I don't believe that the tax as R describes it, is politically saleable, and point 2) above is part of the reason. Further, even at the modest levels, as we see above, the high consumers in each bracket are hit pretty hard. IOW, the top quarter (by consumption) of each upper bracket. So your $250,000/yr lawyer with his private jet, (assuming that's not typical of his bracket) is hit pretty hard.

AND the money goes to the poor and the working poor, to *completely* insulate them from R's $8/gallon [or the author below's $15/gallon gas]. This is a massive income redistribution, if you look at it from one view. This kind of thing isn't popular with Republicans, who've been cutting back the equalization effect of income and other taxes for some time. Roxanne says,

RA The pressure would be on them to pass the thing, and pushing too hard toward using this for wealth redistribution in either direction would blow it up, so the pols would resist those pushes and pulls.

P: This says that more OR less redistribution would be resisted. So the net will remain the same in a plan that is passed. BUT this is unsatisfactory to many Republicans, almost alll Randists etc.; these people hold that that rich are ALREADY robbed to subsidize the poor and want to cut that back further (from the beginning Bush has made), NOT leave it alone as per Roxanne's plan.

What would in fact happen is that Republicans would scrimp on the transfer (since the poor aren't good with money, anyway), shortchange the working poor. Then that obviousl affects the saleability of continuing the plan, once these people feel the pinch. (At which point the Dems rush to their aid, etc.)


--
In short, while a modest carbon tax might have a mild effect, the rumors of it potency (floated for whatever reason by roxanne) appear to be unfounded; or unreasonable, given the evidence.

I might add also that Roxanne avoids applying the tax to industry, where it's most needed.

RA your questions about "companies" are not relevent.

It seems logical that those industrial plants using lots of natural gas or coal or oil should be 'carbon taxed' for the same reasons R applies to individuals This is a component of many carbon tax proposals [ R reject its probably because taxing corporations is anathema to the far right, the Randists]. The exact reasoning Roxanne applies to the individual apply even more to wasteful, high carbon emitting factories. They should feel the pinch, and then their owner will start to economize.

THAT SAID, the above objections apply equally--as have been stated by others. 1) there isn't much incentive for the average factory; 2) the level of the tax would have to be *high*, which very much disrupts the some factories finances. 3) it is unclear how the proposals are going to be 'sold' to the owners of wasteful factories, and why they'd want their income redistributed to the very efficient ones.-----

article on the require level of carbon tax.

Pure, if you could ever resist throwing strawmen into your arguments you would be a much more effective debater. While you may find it personally satisfying to slip in little sneers about "republicans" and "randists," it only makes you appear bitter and nasty, and distracts from whatever legitimate points you may have.

Which when it comes to the logic of economics already fall short, or are well off the mark. For example, you say a person whose family income is not changed by the offsetting tax increase in one area (the carbon tax) and decrease in another (the income tax) has no incentive to reduce carbon consumption. That is nonsense, because most individuals never stop striving to get ahead, and the way to do that under this model is the reduce carbon consumption and pay less carbon tax. The efforts that currently go into minimizing income tax liability will go into reducing carbon tax liability, and there's only one way to do that - burn less fossil fuels.

If the object is to reduce carbon without hurting individuals or damaging the economy, then your argument about the "rich" not having as much incentive to change their behavior is nothing more than banal envy, the sustenance of class warfare promoters. The reason is, there aren't that many rich people! So the fact that some of them will continue to consume a lot won't matter for overall carbon use. Also on that - DUH!: In any area you think of, the rich are less affected by price incentives. Al Gore's current energy profligacy is a perfect example. In any event, the many changes in the patterns of production that a significant carbon tax would generate will cause the rich to consume less, whether they choose to or not. Finally on this point, if you are bothered so much by classist envy than it overcomes your desire to have a major impact on carbon emissions, then am I not correct to suspect your sincerity and seriousness about the latter? Is your real goal to eat the rich or "save the planet," Pure? And news flash - no matter what policy you adopt the rich will be insulated to some extent. (Actually, the slimiest segment of that class - the rent seekers - will be further enriched by the approach that appears to be your preference, the command-and-control politician's dream scheme.)

Also, where did you get the idea that the tax would not apply to industry? Every ounce of oil, pound of coal and cube of natural gas would be subject to the tax, whether it was burned in your gas guzzler or in a manufacture's furnace. That's just the direct effect. The indirect affect is the change in consumer demand - SUV plants would shut down, and econobox plants would ramp up. There would be many more fundamental changes than that obvious one.

Finally, your assertion that the energy tax wouldn't really affect consumption unless it was at some absurdly high level, like $100/gallon. Oh really? Everyone reading this who would NOT be motivated by $8 gas and $500 monthly heating/cooling bills to get a more efficient car, efficient furnace, efficient home improvements - raise your hand. Hmmm, I don't see any hands going up, Pure. You disagree? OK, make it $12 gas and $700 montly bills - any takers? And these are only superficial effects - the tax causes a profound and fundamental shift in consumer preferences that perhaps the radical enviros can appreciate better than you, Pure, because they have a good understanding of the "energy footprint" of everyday activities (or whatever they call it.)

 

[Pure]

comments on Rappleby,

RA Also, where did you get the idea that the tax would not apply to industry? Every ounce of oil, pound of coal and cube of natural gas would be subject to the tax, whether it was burned in your gas guzzler or in a manufacture's furnace. [...]

Finally, your assertion that the energy tax wouldn't really affect consumption unless it was at some absurdly high level, like $100/gallon**. Oh really? Everyone reading this who would NOT be motivated by $8 gas and $500 monthly heating/cooling bills to get a more efficient car, efficient furnace, efficient home improvements - raise your hand.

On the first point, you said,
RAFirst of all, I'm talking about revenue offsets coming from the personal income tax, not the corporate, so your questions about "companies" are not relevent.

P: I had proposed the commonsense point that the factory with high carbon tax would--under carbon tax, revenue neutral schemes--get rebates in other company or corporate taxes. You above, no, rebates are to come only personal income taxes. I see no way to apply that to an inefficient, gas guzzling factory, unless you plan rebates on the income of its shareholders.

So make up your mind: do companies get rebates on their carbon tax?

If NOT, they're massively impacted, if not driven from business, and their owners are going to oppose your scheme. you're in deep political hot water since every major industry is going to have to ante up, and get no direct compensation.

---
As to the non incentive point 1) in my posting, roxanne, you haven't grasped it:

RA Everyone reading this who would NOT be motivated by $8 gas and $500 monthly heating/cooling bills to get a more efficient car, efficient furnace, efficient home improvements - raise your hand.

Of course 8$/gal gas would motivate me now, if I had to pay. BUT, according to you, there is 'revenue neutrality.' This means that the middle folks, who are the majority, in each aggregate are UNaffected. So taking an upper middle class aggregate, let's just say, 80-120 K, it's only those with the real guzzling hog SUVs that suffer [i.e., the most carbon producing segment]. The *average* person [of this bracket or aggegate] with a moderately consuming SUV and a Moderately insulated, not humongous house, is, per Roxanne's hypothesis of 'revenue neutrality', UN affected.

So, where the 8$ does not really affect me there is no new incentive to change.

Now of course anyone now can get a more efficient car, insulate his or her house, etc. And some do it. There is an existing moderate incentive (sometimes with rebates for improvements); IT is unaffected--NOT increased-- by roxanne's scheme.

In short, for the *average* person within any group, the carbon tax provides no *extra* incentive to change, one that's not there now.

--
As to the necessary level of the tax, you haven't dealt with the article or any facts. We have only roxanne's word that $5 gas tax in going to start changing the world. Of the course there's actually evidence to the contrary, i.e., Europe, but this discussion is not anchored in facts but in fancy. If I may coin a phrase,

"All those who think a $5 gasoline tax [under a 'carbon tax' revenue neutral scheme, like Roxanne's] is going to cause a fundament shift in fossil energy consumption and significant reduction in in "carbon" emissions for the US, put up your hands. All those who think that Europe, with its high gasoline taxes has already taken a giant step toward solving the problem [reducing CO2 emission], put up your hands.
----


** NOTE: the claim that I discussed $100/gallon gasoline is either a serious misquote or a fabrication. Roxanne, on the most charitable view, has not read the article or that part of my posting carefully.

 

[cantdog]

Just like a good Democrat. When you get caught fucking up, immediately divert everyones attention to the Republicans and make them the scapegoat. Then when everyone is looking away slip out the back door. And if that tactic doesn't work, start making jokes to take peoples minds off the subject.

I can't discover a referent for these remarks, but if it's CharleyH, she is Canadian, and not a Democrat, therefore. You did quote CharleyH's post. If it is not, then I'm afraid it's still mysterious.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RA Also, where did you get the idea that the tax would not apply to industry? Every ounce of oil, pound of coal and cube of natural gas would be subject to the tax, whether it was burned in your gas guzzler or in a manufacture's furnace. [...]
Finally, your assertion that the energy tax wouldn't really affect consumption unless it was at some absurdly high level, like $100/gallon. Oh really? Everyone reading this who would NOT be motivated by $8 gas and $500 monthly heating/cooling bills to get a more efficient car, efficient furnace, efficient home improvements - raise your hand.

On the first point, you said,
RAFirst of all, I'm talking about revenue offsets coming from the personal income tax, not the corporate, so your questions about "companies" are not relevent.

P: I had proposed the commonsense point that the factory with high carbon tax would--under carbon tax, revenue neutral schemes--get rebates in other company or corporate taxes. You above, no, rebates are to come only personal income taxes. I see no way to apply that to an inefficient, gas guzzling factory, unless you plan rebates on the income of its shareholders.

So make up your mind: do companies get rebates on their carbon tax?

If NOT, they're massively impacted, if not driven from business, and their owners are going to oppose your scheme. you're in deep political hot water since every major industry is going to have to ante up, and get no direct compensation.

---
As to the non incentive point 1) in my posting, roxanne, you haven't grasped it:

RA Everyone reading this who would NOT be motivated by $8 gas and $500 monthly heating/cooling bills to get a more efficient car, efficient furnace, efficient home improvements - raise your hand.

Of course 8$/gal gas would motivate me now, if I had to pay. BUT, according to you, there is 'revenue neutrality.' This means that the middle folks, who are the majority, in each aggregate are UNaffected. So taking an upper middle class aggregate, let's just say, 80-120 K, it's only those with the real guzzling hog SUVs that suffer [i.e., the most carbon producing segment]. The *average* person [of this bracket or aggegate] with a moderately consuming SUV and a Moderately insulated, not humongous house, is, per Roxanne's hypothesis of 'revenue neutrality', UN affected.

So, where the 8$ does not really affect me there is no new incentive to change.

Now of course anyone now can get a more efficient care, insulate their house, etc. And some do it. There is an existing moderate incentive (sometimes with rebates for improvements). IT is unaffected--NOT increased-- by roxanne's scheme.

In short, for the *average* person within any group, the carbon tax provides no *extra* incentive to change, one that's not there now.

--
As to the necessary level of the tax, you haven't dealt with the article or any facts. We have only roxanne's word that $5 gas tax in going to start changing the world. Of the course there's actually evidence to the contrary, i.e., Europe, but this discussion is not anchored in facts but in fancy. If I may coin a phrase,

"All those who think a $5 gasoline tax [under a 'carbon tax' revenue neutral scheme, like Roxanne's] is going to cause a fundament shift in fossil energy consumption and significant reduction in in "carbon" emissions for the US, put up your hands. All those who think that Europe, with its high gasoline taxes has already taken a giant step toward solving the problem [reducing CO2 emission], put up your hands.

It's always somewhat surreal discussing economics with Pure, because no matter how many times and in different ways you try to explain certain things, he never gets it.

So this is not really for you, Pure, because I have little reason to think you'll get it, but for any masochists out there who are following this exchange.

Right now Joe makes $60,000. He pays around around $12,000 in income tax. He drives a Ford truck 12,000 miles a year and has a 2,000 sf Victorian house in Cincinatti with natural gas heat and central air. The total he pays in energy taxes is around $1000 year, or less, so his total tax bill is $13,000 and his net after tax disposable income is $47,000. Under the revenue neutral carbon tax system I propose he would pay $10,000 in carbon tax and and $3,000 in income tax. In other words, he pays the exact same amount of gross tax under both systems, and the same disposable income of $47,000.

Question: Under a system in which he pays $10,000 in energy tax, does he have an incentive to use less energy? Pure says he does not, apparently assuming that Joe is perfectly satisfied at $47,000 in disposable income, and so would make no effort to use less energy and thus enjoy more disposable income. Presumably he makes no effort right now to lower his $12,000 annual income tax bill either, and never thinks about asking for a raise, because he's perfectly content with his current income.

If you think that is implausible, then you agree with me, that he would do lots of things to lower that energy tax bill - that is, he would reduce his consumption. If you think he wouldn't, then welcome to Pure's world.

Regarding the factories that get no rebate on their carbon tax in the form of lower corporate income taxes. Actually, I think you're right on that, Pure - they should also get a lower corporate tax rate. The goal is to ensure that no private sector business or individual is harmed by the tax shift except to the extent they use significantly more fossil fuels than the average, and simulaneously give every person and company a strong incentive to use less energy. So companies with plants that currently use lots of fossil fuels would be relative losers, and those that use less relative winners. If the product they make is one that intrinsically uses lots of fossils, the price would go up for that product and less of it would be sold. Isn't that the goal?

There are business winners and losers under this system, much more than for individuals because there is much more variation in energy use patterns, but once the tax regime is in place, politicians and bureaucrats have no ongoing role in selecting who they will be. A level playing field is created - a fair field with no favors. Innovators who devise less energy consumptive processes and products gain; fossil-guzzling companies that fail to respond lose. You would be harnessing "creative destruction" in the cause of lowering carbon emissions. Isn't that the goal?

Because the tax shift happens gradually, everyone has time to respond to the new tax regime. A 20 year phase in would be desireable. The gradually increasing pressure and the certainty that more is coming would start changing behavior and lowering consumption right away, though.

Finally, the politics. As I said, this would require a popular movement, but given the hysteria the enviros are capable of generating over "global warming," that should be possible. The gradual phase in period would mute opposition somewhat. The main opponents would be the rent seekers who stand to get rich gaming the system - see next post.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This article describes what you get under the system that Pure apparently favors for “lowering” carbon emissions.

Note who gets rich: Rent seeking plutocrats who are already well established and hire the best lobbyists. They produce no real energy-reducing innovations, and in fact lower the ability of others to do so by sucking in resources that otherwise would be available to innovators. Everyone else in society pays to enrich them, no one else benefits, except the next group -

Note who gets much more powerful: The politicians who get to esablish the rules of the game. Their ability to change those rules and make new ones at will allows them to keep their newly enhanced power. Any reduction in carbon emissions is dependent on them being honest and acting in good faith. Right.

Note what doesn’t change much: The level of carbon emissions.

Compare this to a revenue neutral carbon tax. Innovators, not rent seekers get rich. Politicians have no ongoing ability to game the system, so enjoy no real increase in power. Individuals are held harmless, and businesses win or lose to the extent they respond to the new cost and demand structures, which are ones that automatically and quickly bring about big reductions in carbon emissions.

I understand why the political class and the rent seekers prefer the system described by this article. I don’t understand why people like Pure prefer it.



WSJ, 3/3/07
Cap and Charade
March 3, 2007; Page A8
The idea of a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S. has become all the rage. Earlier this year, 10 big American companies formed the Climate Action Partnership to lobby for government action on climate change. And this week the private-equity consortium that is bidding to take over Texas utility TXU announced that, as part of the buyout, it would join the forces lobbying for a cap on carbon emissions.

But this is not, as Lenin once said, a case of capitalists selling the rope to hang themselves with. In most cases, it is good old-fashioned rent-seeking with a climate-change patina.

Start with the name. Most of those pushing this idea want you to think about it as cap-and-trade, with emphasis on the trading part. Senator Barbara Boxer touts all the jobs that would be created for people trying to game the system -- er, save the planet. And her colleague Jeff Bingaman calls cap-and-trade "market based," because, you know, people would trade stuff.

But for that to happen, the government would first have to put a cap on CO2 emissions, either for certain industries or even the economy as a whole. At the same time, it would allocate quotas for CO2 emissions, either based on current emissions, or on energy output, or some other standard. If a company then "over-complied," which means it produced less carbon dioxide than it was allowed to under the rules, it could sell the excess allowance to someone else. That someone else would buy the right to produce CO2 if doing so cost less than actually reducing emissions.

In this way, emissions would be reduced in an relatively efficient way: Those for whom reductions were cheap or easy would reduce, and if they reduced enough, they could sell their excess allowance to someone for whom the reductions were harder or more expensive. This kind of trading works, and we've argued in these columns that cap-and-trade beats the pants off just plain capping by lowering the overall economic burden of a cap.

The difficulties don't lie with the trading, but with the cap, which is where the companies lobbying for restrictions come in. James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, put it plainly earlier this year: "If you're not at the table when these negotiations are going on, you're going to be on the menu." Translation: If a cap is coming, better to design it in a way that you profit from it, instead of being killed by it.

Which is why the emphasis really should be cap-and-trade. It's all about the cap, because without it there's no trading. We don't buy our daily ration of oxygen because it's in abundant supply. Same with carbon dioxide -- there's no constraint on your ability to produce CO2 until the government creates one. When it does, it creates an artificial scarcity. What Duke, Entergy, TXU, BP, Dupont and all the rest want is to make sure that when the right to produce CO2 becomes limited, they're the ones that end up owning the allowances. Because that would mean they could sell them, and make money off something that previously wasn't worth a dime.

Thus, Entergy, a utility that relies heavily on natural gas and nuclear power and thus produces relatively less CO2, would love a cap that distributes the allowances based on how much electricity you churn out, rather than on how much CO2 you produce. Entergy's "carbon footprint" is small compared to some other utilities, so an electrical-output-based cap would be windfall city. Dupont, meanwhile, wants credit for reductions already made because it sees instant profit in costs already paid. It also wants a cap to cover as many industries as possible so it can make money selling emissions-reduction products.

We don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to make a buck. But there's a difference between making money by producing things people want and making money by gaming the regulatory process. There's no market here unless the government creates one, and who has the profit opportunity depends entirely on who the government picks as the winners and the losers in designing this market in the first place. So it's no wonder that almost any business that has ever put an ounce of CO2 into the atmosphere is rushing to show its cap-and-trade bona fides.

* * *
By far the biggest question, however, is where the cap is set. The trading of emissions credits does nothing to lower the quantity of emissions -- it merely shifts around the right to emit. It's the cap that sets the amount of CO2 put into the air. And as Europe has learned, that figure is a political football unto itself. When the EU started emissions trading in 2005, the price of a ton of CO2 quickly tripled before cratering when participants realized that the cap hadn't been set low enough to create a genuine shortage.

The European Commission is now in the process of reviewing each country's plans for allocating emissions allowances for 2008, but in the first round it found that all but one national plan had set the cap too high to comply with Kyoto's 2008-2012 limits. Of course, even a stringent cap means nothing if countries don't comply, and so far Europe's commitment to Kyoto has been more hot air than action.

The reason is hardly a secret, though you rarely see climate-change activists admitting it. Despite all the talk of "alternative" fuels, some 80% of the energy that the world produces today comes from carbon-based fuels. Barring cold fusion or some other miracle technology, that ratio won't change much for decades to come. That means, in turn, that any stringent CO2 cap would inevitably have serious economic costs. We doubt voters will elect politicians who tell them the cost of reducing their "carbon footprint" is more blackouts or a lower standard of living. And in any case China is putting up a new coal-fired plant every week, raising emissions that will overwhelm whatever reductions cap-and-trade would yield in the U.S.

The emerging alliance of business and environmental special interests may well prove powerful enough to give us cap-and-trade in CO2. It would make Hollywood elites feel virtuous, and it would make money for some very large corporations. But don't believe for a minute that this charade would do much about global warming.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Dupe Post.

 

[Pure]

"cap and trade" system

Rapplby in her alternate universe,

RA This article [on 'cap and trade' describes what you get under the system that Pure apparently favors for “lowering” carbon emissions [...]


I understand why the political class and the rent seekers prefer the system described by this article. I don’t understand why people like Pure prefer it.

P: This, of course, is a lie, and there is no evidence, no postings of mine favoring this system. If Rappleby can post such evidence, I will apologize.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Rapplby in her alternate universe,

RA This article [on 'cap and trade' describes what you get under the system that Pure apparently favors for “lowering” carbon emissions [...]


I understand why the political class and the rent seekers prefer the system described by this article. I don’t understand why people like Pure prefer it.

P: This, of course, is a lie, and there is no evidence, no postings of mine favoring this system. If Rappleby can post such evidence, I will apologize.

My, my - for a person who never fails to associate me with reprobates like "republicans," "consservatives" and vile "randists," and never fails to characterize my motives in the most insulting terms, we sure are touchy about having our own preferences mischaracterized, aren't we? How does it feel?

I mean you apparently prefer the command-and-control bureaucratic and political system of which cap-and-trade is just one component. You don't like cap-and-trade - I suppose there's too much carrot and not enough stick in that for your taste. But I believe you have spoken with qualified approval of Kyoto, plus the mandates and subsidies that are its typical product, if not the carbon trading. You have implied a belief that government directed research dependent on the wisdom and foresight of bureaucrats will yield better alternative energy sources (or ones you prefer for aesthetic reasons) that private sector research motivated by the desire for profit. I don't get the sense you are on board with expecting the radical change in human attitudes and behavior required by the "New Socialist/Green Man" option for reducing carbon emissions. And of course you've dumped all over the let-the-market-do-it carbon tax system.

Actually, Pure, as is typical, you do not explicitly offer any specific proposal of your own, but spend all your energy attacking anything I describe, usually in snide and sneering language. Please, be my guest and describe what you think will lower carbon emissions. I'm all ears. If I disagree I'll be sure to criticize, and my criticism is sure to include a lot fewer strawmen and much less sneering your responses to my suggestions. (In fact, the minute you choose to display civility instead of mean hostility in your responses to me in this and any other thread, will be the minute I will drop the sarcasm I level in your direction.)

 

[Pure]

Appleby misses the point, again,

Pure said,
//Now of course anyone now can get a more efficient care, insulate their house, etc. And some do it. There is an existing moderate incentive (sometimes with rebates for improvements). IT is unaffected--NOT increased-- by roxanne's scheme.

In short, for the *average* person within any group, the carbon tax provides no *extra* incentive to change, one that's not there now.//


Appleby's example, "Joe," similar to mine: A 'average person' in a bracket, whos UN affected by the carbon tax.

RA Right now Joe makes $60,000. He pays around around $12,000 in income tax. He drives a Ford truck 12,000 miles a year and has a 2,000 sf Victorian house in Cincinatti with natural gas heat and central air. The total he pays in energy taxes is around $1000 year, or less, so his total tax bill is $13,000 and his net after tax disposable income is $47,000. Under the revenue neutral carbon tax system I propose he would pay $10,000 in carbon tax and and $3,000 in income tax. In other words, he pays the exact same amount of gross tax under both systems, and the same disposable income of $47,000.

Question: Under a system in which he pays $10,000 in energy tax, does he have an incentive to use less energy? Pure says he does not, apparently assuming that Joe is perfectly satisfied at $47,000 in disposable income, and so would make no effort to use less energy and thus enjoy more disposable income. Presumably he makes no effort right now to lower his $12,000 annual income tax bill either, and never thinks about asking for a raise, because he's perfectly content with his current income.

If you think that is implausible, then you agree with me, that he would do lots of things to lower that energy tax bill - that is, he would reduce his consumption. If you think he wouldn't, then welcome to Pure's world.

If you read the bolded sentence in my posting, you see where Appleby gets it wrong. I didn't say, "he wouldn't" change, as RA alleges. I say,-- Joe has exactly the same incentive he does at present. [Why? His taxes have been re-labeled, but their total is the same.] There is a mild incentive, only.

Let's look at the details, for example.
He drives a Ford truck 12,000 miles a year and has a 2,000 sq. ft. Victorian house in Cincinatti with natural gas heat and central air.

we ask, "Why doesn't he drive a Treehugger XXX compact truck burning vegetable oil?" "Why the Ford?" He *likes* the truck, it's big and makes him feel 'king of the road' etc. IF you look at RA's numbers, his after tax income is UNaffected by the carbon tax and the $8/gal gasoline.

Of course, even now he can economize, down size. Smaller truck, better mpg. Sometimes he does. Consumers *have* downsized a bit and it's put money in their pockets.

There is a slight matter RA ignores. The Ford truck costs 40K, while the Treehugger XXX costs 50K.

Same for his home insulation. He could renovate: upgrade it, triple glaze windows, install heat saving gizmos in the earth under the house. Why doesn't he?

Again, most of us who own has done some steps. But the above reno package is $30 K. Of couse it saves money in 10 years. But most people can't 'afford' this economy. Notice that with Rox's figures there NO incentive [beyond the present] to spend the 30K to cut the home's energy consumption.

The 'carbon tax' has some merit as a mild incentive, BUT, coupled with the conservative mantra of 'no new taxes [overall]' 'read my lips' etc. =--revenue neutrality--it is further attenuated if not almost neutralized in its probable effect. Of course the usual taxes on gasoline, heating oil, etc. do have some effect-- that persists even under all the shuffling and re-labeling of a scheme like Roxannes.
----

Anyone reading the above can see what would have to exist besides the carbon tax; and that it couldn't be 'revenue neutral' and be very effective. Higher gasoline taxes, yes; but rebated partly, only for the working poor. NOT JOE, above. Subsidies [tax breaks] to oil would have to be reduced.

Subsidies, at least short run, would be needed to get the other fuels, derived from garbage, wood, or vegetables on line. The gov would have to *demand* standards of insulation, and offer, say, 75% rebates to anyone who re-insulates their home. Generally, all the 'energy saving,' and 'alternative power [geothermal, wind, etc]' companies and organizations would have to get tax breaks, 'seed' money etc.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Pure said,
//Now of course anyone now can get a more efficient care, insulate their house, etc. And some do it. There is an existing moderate incentive (sometimes with rebates for improvements). IT is unaffected--NOT increased-- by roxanne's scheme.

In short, for the *average* person within any group, the carbon tax provides no *extra* incentive to change, one that's not there now.//


Appleby's example, "Joe," similar to mine: A 'average person' in a bracket, whos UN affected by the carbon tax

RA Right now Joe makes $60,000. He pays around around $12,000 in income tax. He drives a Ford truck 12,000 miles a year and has a 2,000 sf Victorian house in Cincinatti with natural gas heat and central air. The total he pays in energy taxes is around $1000 year, or less, so his total tax bill is $13,000 and his net after tax disposable income is $47,000. Under the revenue neutral carbon tax system I propose he would pay $10,000 in carbon tax and and $3,000 in income tax. In other words, he pays the exact same amount of gross tax under both systems, and the same disposable income of $47,000.

Question: Under a system in which he pays $10,000 in energy tax, does he have an incentive to use less energy? Pure says he does not, apparently assuming that Joe is perfectly satisfied at $47,000 in disposable income, and so would make no effort to use less energy and thus enjoy more disposable income. Presumably he makes no effort right now to lower his $12,000 annual income tax bill either, and never thinks about asking for a raise, because he's perfectly content with his current income.

If you think that is implausible, then you agree with me, that he would do lots of things to lower that energy tax bill - that is, he would reduce his consumption. If you think he wouldn't, then welcome to Pure's world.

If you read the bolded sentence in my posting, you see where Appleby gets it wrong. I didn't say, "he wouldn't" change, as RA alleges. I say,-- Joe has exactly the same incentive he does at present. [Why? His taxes have been re-labeled, but their total is the same.] There is a mild incentive, only.

Let's look at the details, for example.
He drives a Ford truck 12,000 miles a year and has a 2,000 sq. ft. Victorian house in Cincinatti with natural gas heat and central air.

we ask, "Why doesn't he drive a Treehugger XXX compact truck burning vegetable oil?" "Why the Ford?" He *likes* the truck, it's big and makes him feel 'king of the road' etc. IF you look at RA's numbers, his after tax income is UNaffected by the carbon tax and the $8/gal gasoline.

Of course, even now he can economize, down size. Smaller truck, better mpg. Sometimes he does. Consumers *have* downsized a bit and it's put money in their pockets.

There is a slight matter RA ignores. The Ford truck costs 40K, while the Treehugger XXX costs 50K.

Same for his home insulation. He could renovate: upgrade it, triple glaze windows, install heat saving gizmos in the earth under the house. Why doesn't he?

Again, most of us who own has done some steps. But the above reno package is $30 K. Of couse it saves money in 10 years. But most people can't 'afford' this economy. Notice that with Rox's figures there NO incentive [beyond the present] to spend the 30K to cut the home's energy consumption.

The 'carbon tax' has some merit as a mild incentive, BUT, coupled with the conservative mantra of 'no new taxes [overall]' 'read my lips' etc. =--revenue neutrality--it is further attenuated if not almost neutralized in its probable effect. Of course the usual taxes on gasoline, heating oil, etc. do have some effect-- that persists even under all the shuffling and re-labeling of a scheme like Roxannes.
----

Anyone reading the above can see what would have to exist besides the carbon tax; and that it couldn't be 'revenue neutral' and be very effective. Higher gasoline taxes, yes; but rebated partly, only for the working poor. NOT JOE, above. Subsidies [tax breaks] to oil would have to be reduced.

Subsidies, at least short run, would be needed to get the other fuels, derived from garbage, wood, or vegetables on line. The gov would have to *demand* standards of insulation, and offer, say, 75% rebates to anyone who re-insulates their home. Generally, all the 'energy saving,' and 'alternative power [geothermal, wind, etc]' companies and organizations would have to get tax breaks, 'seed' money etc.

As I said, when discussing econ with Pure things get surreal.

My example of "Joe" has a person who could probably put $5,000 in his pocket by making a few modest behavior changes, starting with a more miserly vehicle, and Pure says, "Nah, his incentive will be hardly any greater to do that even though gas prices have tripled." He proceeds to make up goofy notions to prove it. Like a truck that costs $40k vs an economical car that costs - $50k? Where the fuck do you get that? Smaller, lighter cars cost less in the universe I inhabit. When gas costs $8/gallon in this universe, the choices in that direction will be far more, too.

Next, "Joe" won't be able to "afford" energy saving home improvements, and/or is too stupid to recognize the value of ones that have a 10 year paypack period. Um, Pure? I specified this person is a homeowner who earns $60K/year, almost exactly the median salary-plus-benefit compensation level in my state. Plus, with the much higher energy cost the payback will accelerate. Plus, in a wold of $1,000 monthly heating bills instead of $250 ones, the increase in his home value from the efficiency improvements will be much greater than it would be currently.

In the end, Pure gives away the deep-seated elitism at the core of such beliefs, and the contempt for the common sense of the ordinary person they imply: Consumers won't respond to opportunities to save thousands of dollars with modest behavior changes. Suppliers won't respond with innovations that cater to the demand created by those opportunities. Therefore, we must rely on the wisdom, honesty and foresight of politicians and government bureaucrats - backed up by the coercive apparatus of the state - to figure things out and make our decisions for us through mandates and one-size-fits-all targeted subsidies. Because we're too stupid and lazy to do it on our own.

Such an implicitly derisive vision of the common man is contemptible, and this blind faith in the efficacy of government institutions is laughable. It ignores 100 years of failure with intrusive government command and control schemes, whether it's Jimmy Carter's failed energy policies (remember 'Syn-fuels?'), LBJ's "War on Poverty," or GWB's NCLB.

Give me a break.

 

[Pure]

the rhetoric flows, and always the Randish characterizations;

derisive vision of the common man is contemptible, and this blind faith in the efficacy of government institutions is laughable. ...

My example of "Joe" has a person who could probably put $5,000 in his pocket by making a few modest behavior changes, starting with a more miserly vehicle, and Pure says, "Nah, his incentive will be hardly any greater to do that even though gas prices have tripled."

P: Roxanne expects 'modest behavior changes,' of this average fellow.
That sort of thing could green the world if US and others did so, but most of us don't. We even go opposite--i.e., buy SUV's when there used to be a trend toward compacts.

Go figure, Roxanne. Them's just the facts.

Here again is the argument:

P: //"Why doesn't he drive a Treehugger XXX compact truck burning vegetable oil?" "Why the Ford?" He *likes* the truck, it's big and makes him feel 'king of the road' etc. IF you look at RA's numbers, his after tax income is UNaffected by the carbon tax and the $8/gal gasoline.

Of course, even now he can economize, down size. Smaller truck, better mpg. Sometimes he does. Consumers *have* downsized a bit and it's put money in their pockets.

There is a slight matter RA ignores. The Ford truck costs 40K, while the Treehugger XXX costs 50K.//

Here is Roxanne muddying the picture and getting pretty upset:

Like a truck that costs $40k vs an economical car that costs - $50k? Where the fuck do you get that? Smaller, lighter cars cost less in the universe I inhabit.

Roxanne switched him to a car; I assumed he needed a truck. Given that assumption, he can buy the Ford guzzler truck for 40K or the Treehugger XXX [truck] for 50K.

To my mind, this is exactly the situation today, and one can see how 'Joe' reacts. Hybrids and vegetable oil cars [or trucks] cost more, partly because of the scale problem. Partly because of production is just getting going.

So this picture is ALREADY the case:

My example of "Joe" has a person who could probably put $5,000 in his pocket by making a few modest behavior changes, starting with a more miserly vehicle,

Well, the Joes just aren't doing that. Maybe in the Rand universe they would, but there's human nature, ya know. Hard to change.
NOTE that Roxanne's Joe has NOT suffered one nickel of loss, not to say hardship, with the advent of Roxanne's scheme.

People DO change if their gasoline bill is suddenly 25% higher, but in R's scheme there is NO, i.e., ZERO DOLLARS, ZERO CENTS net impact. One might speculate that even a small tax, say $2/gallon, but NOT REIMBURSED would have more effect on Joe that Roxanne's scheme which refunds the extra expense at income tax time.


As the author pointed out, Europe has Gasoline taxes of the type Roxanne proposes (not revenue neutral, incidentally). Yet their mild benefits are hardly enough to solve the problems---IOW people keep driving gasoline engines, but slightly more efficient.

The moral of this discussion, and it's not worth continuing, is that sizeable incentives are probably necessary. Joe is NOT irrational for the short run; NOTHING has happened to make a expensive change necessary, or even one that require him to life a finger. an expensive hybrid IS a losing proposition in the present situation, in the short run; same as a total house re-insulation.

A modest carbon tax might have a mildly beneficial effect, but that's diluted to almost nothing by making it 'revenue neutral.'

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think this particular exchange has gone as far as it reasonably can. As I indicated, we have three very different models of how to lower carbon emissions, and they reflect profoundly different visions of the human animal.

Vision 1 is the “Green Utopia,” or as I call it creating the “New Socialist/Green Man.” It is in a sense a highly idealistic vision, since for it to work humans would have to behave in ways that few alive today would view as anything other than voluntary deprivation. In another sense it can be viewed as the opposite of idealistic: Its proponents don't like people as they are now; if one believes that people as they are now are people as they are, period, then this means the Green Utopians don't like people, period. This is a difference of opinion that is not likely to be resolved any time soon.

Vision 2 is the command-and-control bureaucratic/political model that I call the “Politician\Bureaucrat’s Utopia,” because it would vastly increase the power of those classes vis a vis individuals and private businesses. It's adherents have little faith in private markets and self interested individuals to change their behavior in ways that lower fossil fuel consumption even if those fuels become much more expensive. They do appear to have boundless faith in the abilty of politicians and bureaucrats to precisely tailor goverment subsidies and mandates to bring about those changes, however. In my view the first part of that formula is elitist and the second part is fantasy. The disagreement between supporters of this model and supporters of the next one is more amenable to empirical confirmation, however.

Vision 3 is a rational choice model. It holds that if incentives are changed by imposing a steep carbon tax that makes fossil fuels much more expensive, consumers will respond by seeking alternatives and reducing consumption, and suppliers will respond by seeking and providing innovative products and processes to fill that consumer demand. This model requires no change in human nature, and requires no unprecedented wisdom, honesty and foresight from government officials. It only requires that individuals and businesses pursue their own self interest.

If you don't believe consumers and suppliers would do those things, then as I say, there's really nothing more to say about this option.

Finally, it is true that rational choice models holding that people are solely motivated by a desire to maximize narrowly defined self interest are not sufficient to explain human behavior. Idealism exists, and benevolence. In the US there is a deeply held "civic creed." The founders of the US sought to create a system that recognized the role of both self interest and a desire in men to promote the "true interest of the country." That said, if your goal is to bring about big changes in economic behavior, then you would be wise to give self interest a priviliged role in making that happen.

 

[Pure]

i have shown, at least for the short run, why it's Joe's "rational choice", under Roxanne's scheme, to keep his SUV going. he wants the 'life style', the roominess, the 'bulk' for feeling safe in crash, and it costs, under Roxanne's scheme 0$ to keep it going, despite the higher gasoline taxes.

far better, say, a Swedish approach, without 'revenue neutrality'. there the Joes have reason to choose economy and lo and behold they do; i suppose Roxanne with say it's the tyrant's boot is on their neck.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i have shown, at least for the short run, why it's Joe's "rational choice", under Roxanne's scheme, to keep his SUV going. he wants the 'life style', the roominess, the 'bulk' for feeling safe in crash, and it costs, under Roxanne's scheme 0$ to keep it going, despite the higher gasoline taxes.

far better, say, a Swedish approach, without 'revenue neutrality'. there the Joes have reason to choose economy and lo and behold they do; i suppose Roxanne with say it's the tyrant's boot is on their neck.

And Pure somehow believes that having to pay $160 every time he pulls his SUV up to the pump, $6,400 annually (10.6 percent of his annual income), will generate no significant desire in Joe acquire a more efficient vehicle. If there are any lurkers masochistic enough to have read this far they can make up their own minds about whether that is plausible.

(Actually, he might be right - this Joe might be an idiot. But we're not talking about this Joe - we're talking about all the Joes, in the aggregate. So Pure has to believe that they are all idiots. Very elitist of you, Pure.)

 

[Liar]

And Pure somehow believes that having to pay $160 every time he pulls his SUV up to the pump will generate no significant desire in Joe acquire a more efficient vehicle. If there are any lurkers masochistic enough to have read this far they can make up their own minds about whether that is plausible.

Um.. isn't that exactly what the swedish model is all about?

...asks this confused swede.

(Not arguing against either pure or rox here, since I can't undestand which side who is on)

Here, gas is expensive as high hell. So people talk about mileage a lot when looking for a new car.

It seems that that's what rox was proposing. No?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Um.. isn't that exactly what the swedish model is all about?

...asks this confused swede.

(Not arguing against either pure or rox here, since I can't undestand which side who is on)

Here, gas is expensive as high hell. So people talk about mileage a lot when looking for a new car.

It seems that that's what rox was proposing. No?

A masochist!

How much is gas there, Liar? (I suppose I can do the kroner/liter conversion.)


Edited: Oh duh - this is the internet. They are $5.50 to $6.00 per gallon - a bit more than double the US. The carbon tax I've been speculating about would mean $8/gallon in the US. (BTW, I just pulled that number out of a hat. As long as the phase-in period is long enough it could go higher without causing major disruptions. Say, to $12 over 30 years.)

 

[Liar]

A masochist!

How much is gas there, Liar? (I suppose I can do the kroner/liter conversion.)

11.30 sek/liter

Which would be... 3.78 usd per gallon?

It's late. I probably messed that up.

 

[Pure]

liar

LiarHere, gas is expensive as high hell. So people talk about mileage a lot when looking for a new car.

It seems that that's what rox was proposing. No?

P: no, it's not: that's a *supplementary carbon tax*

rox is proposing a *revenue neutral carbon tax* so that ONLY the superhogs have to pay more overall.

the average fellow, under R's scheme, has losses at the pump for the 8$ gas, but has those losses reimbursed at income tax time

see her scenario, below:

RA Right now Joe makes $60,000. He pays around around $12,000 in income tax. He drives a Ford truck 12,000 miles a year and has a 2,000 sf Victorian house in Cincinatti with natural gas heat and central air. The total he pays in energy taxes is around $1000 year, or less, so his total tax bill is $13,000 and his net after tax disposable income is $47,000. Under the revenue neutral carbon tax system I propose he would pay $10,000 in carbon tax and and $3,000 in income tax. In other words, he pays the exact same amount of gross tax under both systems, and the same disposable income of $47,000.

P: Note that "Joe," once RA's scheme is going, will be paying $10,000 in 'carbon tax', much of it in the form of gasoline taxes, but he has NO increase in taxes overall: his income tax was reduced from (i estimate, from above) $12,000 to $3,000.
(i'm not sure her figures add up, but this is the general picture.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

11.30 sek/liter

I get $6.06/gallon.

So - they sell/drive many 6km/L (15 mile/gal) SUVs in Sweden?

Think they'd run out and buy them if you got a 35,000 SeK income tax cut ($6,000)? Under Pure's "logic" you just might . . .

You see, Pure thinks people only respond to really high energy prices by reducing consumption if they also have to pay high income taxes.

Doesn't make any sense to me either, but that's basically what the man's been saying all day in this thread . . .

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

dupe post

 

[Liar]

I get $6.06/gallon.

So - they sell/drive many 6km/L (15 mile/gal) SUVs in Sweden?

Think they'd run out and buy them if you got a 35,000 SeK income tax cut ($6,000)? Under Pure's "logic" you just might . . .

You see, Pure thinks people only respond to really high energy prices by reducing consumption if they also have to pay high income taxes.

Doesn't make any sense to me either, but that's basically what the man's been saying all day in this thread . . .

Um... Actually, it makes perfect sense. You look at your bottom line and make choices. If Big Car is a high priority for you, more money in your pocket, whether that's from low gas prices or low taxes, will then logically mean you choose the Big Car. However, for most people Big Car ain't that high a priority. Food trumps it, for instance.

And Big Car has only been a priority here for people who actually need a terrain veichle. Last decade or so, it's also been a status fad for Rich Bastards. But they're now coming to their senses, and realizing that barge is a pretty retarded choice for inner city cruising. They couldn't find a parking spot to save their life with those monsters.

 

[Pure]

RA //So - they sell/drive many 6km/L (15 mile/gal) SUVs in Sweden?

Think they'd run out and buy them if you got a 35,000 SeK income tax cut ($6,000)? Under Pure's "logic" you just might . . .//

The answer is yes; it's commonsense. IF I want the roominess and authority of a Hummer, *and I pay hardly any penalty## for its shitty mpg* why the fuck not? giving the Hummer guy a refund of all his gasoline taxes periodically makes buying a Hummer a live proposition!

##(since most of the price of gas is taxes.)

 

[S-Des]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2/AR2007030201442.html?nav=rss_print/asection

I'm changing the topic slightly here because I'm actually very curious about this and I'm hoping some of those who have posted here can give me some insight. I understand that the issue of global warming is controversial, that not everyone accepts the scientific findings thus far. And I especially understand that solving global warming and other environmental problems is very controversial (as evidenced by Roxanne and Pure), but I don't think I understand why Christian leaders are attacking this so strongly. How does global warming hurt the Right? How does the cause of the environment hurt Christians? I'm really confused about this.

Good luck trying to get between Roxanne and Pure in a debate!

There is no reason for religious leaders to attack it. It comes down to the philosophy, "THOSE people said it, so it must not be true." Unfortunately, that is the state of leadership in many religious circles (not just among Christians). Most religious people I know worry about the environment. Many just don't believe the problem is as bad as it's being made out to be (or that humans are really contributing so much to it).

Imagine if it was reversed...A pro-life group floods the public with information that abortion causes some horrible mental/physical problem in women. People on the left would refuse to believe it, no matter what evidence they showed because of who was presenting it. This issue isn't black and white. Despite some of the radical claims I've seen, not all scientists see the problem the same way. We can't even really get a definition of what a scientist is. If some guy studies rat droppings, does his opinion on global warming matter more than mine?

I still remember all the talk about the bad hurricane season and how it "proved" what was going on and that it was going to get worse every year. Then we had a mild season. Does it disprove Global Warming? No, but I've heard more than one right-wing talk show host say, "See, this proves they're wrong." People listen to that and side with the people they normally agree with. It's just human nature. But I think people who are trying to get others to see the problem are making headway. It just takes time to admit that someone you disagree with 90% of the time could be right about something this large.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RA //So - they sell/drive many 6km/L (15 mile/gal) SUVs in Sweden?

Think they'd run out and buy them if you got a 35,000 SeK income tax cut ($6,000)? Under Pure's "logic" you just might . . .//

The answer is yes; it's commonsense. IF I want the roominess and authority of a Hummer, *and I pay hardly any penalty## for its shitty mpg* why the fuck not? giving the Hummer guy a refund of all his gasoline taxes periodically makes buying a Hummer a live proposition!

##(since most of the price of gas is taxes.)

Yes Pure, I'm sure some people would. Some people would prefer Abrams tanks if they could buy them. We're talking aggregates now, though. Would more people or fewer people buy those vehicles? If fewer, would the prices of those vehicles go up or go down? In the aggregate, would that secondary effect cause more people or fewer people to buy them? Here's another secondary effect: It takes more energy to make a big vehicle than a smaller one. Since that energy would be much more expensive, the relative price of the big one would go up even more. Same question - more or fewer sales?

You see, Pure, when there's a fundamental shift in the cost structure of a primary commodity like fossil fuels, it generates zillions of primary, secondary, and tertiary effects that all have the effect of reducing consumption in ways that your wise and honest politicians with there targeted mandates and subsidies will never be able accomplish.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2/AR2007030201442.html?nav=rss_print/asection

I'm changing the topic slightly here because I'm actually very curious about this and I'm hoping some of those who have posted here can give me some insight. I understand that the issue of global warming is controversial, that not everyone accepts the scientific findings thus far. And I especially understand that solving global warming and other environmental problems is very controversial (as evidenced by Roxanne and Pure), but I don't think I understand why Christian leaders are attacking this so strongly. How does global warming hurt the Right? How does the cause of the environment hurt Christians? I'm really confused about this.

S-Des Good luck trying to get between Roxanne and Pure in a debate!

There is no reason for religious leaders to attack it. It comes down to the philosophy, "THOSE people said it, so it must not be true." Unfortunately, that is the state of leadership in many religious circles (not just among Christians). Most religious people I know worry about the environment. Many just don't believe the problem is as bad as it's being made out to be (or that humans are really contributing so much to it).

- Pure and I debating does have the feel of a longstanding dysfunctional couple arguing, doesn't it? Pure sneers at and insults Roxanne. Roxanne responds with vicious sarcasm . . . As long as one knows it won't come to blows, I suppose it might be seen by some as quite entertaining.

Actually, SJ, there is some of what S-Des said, but there's something deeper too, which is an understanding by Christian thinkers that many on the left, especially the enviro left, have created a new paganism. They have made a god of "the Earth," and "Gaia," and all that. There is a genuine and important philosophical difference in the Christian and radical enviro view of man's relationship to nature. The new enviro pagans view man as just another animal, with no priviliged position - "a boy is a frog is a tree." Christians, of course, believe that man is made in the image of God.

I'm not a Christian, but I am a believer in "human exceptionalism." Humans are different, by virtue of having free will and reason. Part of the philosophical disagreement is about the reality of the first and the meaningfulness of the second. (On free will, a philosopher I know put it like this: "A plant in the way of a car will get run over. An animal will jump out of the way. A human will do whatever she chooses - that's free will." )

A friend of mine recently expressed an extreme version of the earth-centered paganism. I don't think she really meant it, but in my usual pain-in-the-rear way I responded. Here's the exchange, which is perhaps illustrative of the difference between and earth-centered and a human-centered universe:

My friend: "The world would be such a loverly place if it weren't for the people in it."

Me: "Don't you think it would get really boring real fast though? I mean, what would be the point of anything - the bio-machine trundles along until the sun blows up someday, then it's gone and who cares about any of it? With people there are other possibilities . . . "

The Christians believe in a God-centered universe, but since humans are made in the image of God, is ends up being the same as human-centered for purposes of this debate.