[OsmundL]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

Osmund dissembles...

We're not dumping carbon into the oceans. The oceans are doing their job of absorption and off-gassing as they've always done.

This is precisely what scientists claim they are not any longer.

All the evidenc shows that the earth is a vastly resilient eco-system.

Certainly. It too, behaves like a market, if you like, promoting this, rejecting that, according to circumstances. Does that mean that the earth works with our benefit in mind? It has from time to time balanced forces by wiping out entire species. Would it care if oceans turn to algae soup? I am impressed that anyone can attribute such God-like powers to nature that it will protect Florida just because nice people live there. To me, the “equilibrium” argument is the most dangerous we could ever entertain.

Our thinking that we are having that large an impact globally is just hubris. We're not that important.

Agreed – and not. Through history, we’ve done magnificently well at destroying the environments we depended on; empires have fallen on simple resource grounds. We don’t need Greenpeace to explain some of the local devastations we’ve caused through history, but it may take some imagination to see a global effect.

Your understanding of the American auto industry appears limited at best. The entire world automotive industry strives to produce just the types of vehicles that the American auto industry produces. They have this odd idea that they'd like sell vehicles at a profit within North America. Since no one either drives as much, or needs to, than Americans this makes some sense. And a cursory examination of the mix of vehicles sold will reveal that the profit made by the imports, and the transplants, is in just those vehicles our European betters decry. M-B bought Chrysler for an entre into the truck and SUV market. Toyota has yet to earn a dime on the Prius and wouldn't have been able to develop it if they hadn't been making pick up trucks and SUV's at high profit margins. Of course you can fund a socialist state with high gas taxes, if your citizenry does not have to drive very much. What makes sense for Europe does not necessarily make sense for the US. What has hurt the US auto industry is not gas-guzzling product as much as it is a poor business model. In Europe the State takes care of the retirees, in the US the auto industry is burdened with huge legacy costs due to past labor agreements regarding pensions that no longer fit the world we live in. "Self-delusional umbrella"? Show me the Euro car that can compete with the Chevy Corvette that does not cost twice what the Chevy does. Show me a minivan made in Europe that can compete with the Chrysler Town & Country. Oops, that's not fair, you guys don't need minivans; you don't have kids.

This tirade was quite funny. “The entire world automotive industry strives to produce just the types of vehicles that the American auto industry produces.” Dream on. They do for the American market, because it is so lax. “Strive” is hardly the word – it isn’t too hard to manufacture the agricultural antiques this market accepts. You have obviously not listened to “Top Gear” or other foreign verdicts on US vehicles – and yes, the Chevy Corvette came as a huge and pleasant surprise. Unions and legacy costs? I didn’t no that European states “take care of” retirees – it tends to be a superannuation scheme that workers contribute to – which in turn increases labor costs – which in turn makes the end cost of labor pretty level with the US, if not higher.

No, we don't need a lecture about triple pane windows, nor mercury-laden light bulbs. Of course, you're aware that actual energy consumption increases when those household improvements are made, are you not?

Suit yourself. Triple pane is a comfort bonus, never mind consumption. Why would I not have it? You can quote human nature till you’re blue, but raw consumption figures country by country are blatant evidence that preferences matter and can be influenced.

Yeah, all the studies show that when people buy a car that get's better gas mileage, they drive more.

No, “all the studies” don’t. The answer is that simple. And you may only know “toxic” low-energy light bulbs, pity for you.

The part that seems to appeal to you is the State imposition of standards and practices, all of which the market can do better.

And you seem to believe in efficient markets in the Adam Smith sense. The first time that illusion was debunked must have been, let’s see, ten years after he wrote it? Today’s markets are anything but free and rational, and it isn’t only governments that cause the distortions. The fact is, we do regulate markets in all manner of ways to good effect, none of which are “socialism.” Seat belts were not market-driven, and some Chinese-made toys were banned for their lead content without the “market” lifting a finger. To specify a fuel consumption target is not the end of the world as we know it.

One of the signal accomplishments of the market is to continuously compare relative costs.

Indeed – and one of the chief tools of Western nations in their quest for competitiveness now is to enforce pollution controls, safety standards and worker rights including child labour bans across the Asian and African regions, which will lift their costs more into line and improve conditions at the same time. The irony of arguments like yours is that you pamper to the low-cost nations and flush a US advantage down the drain.

For everyone in this world there is a cost-benefit analysis to be done for every action, with the exception of the State.

Precisely – though you’d have to be blind to think the State is excepted. In our country, for example, not a single measure, especially taxes, is undertaken without reference to its impact on competitiveness and exports. OECD and other bodies give ample feedback on national competitiveness, and woe the country that ignores the figure.

Just for the record, how's that Kyoto thing working out for ya? I see that Norway's emissions have increased by 12%, the US emissions by 16%, and Canada's by 22%; the former and the latter being signatories.

True, and pressure in this country is to pull ourselves together and match the Swedes. The % is misleading, however – caused by the oil sector exporting for – you guessed it – US consumption. As the world’s third largest exporter of oil, our domestic consumption is negligible.