So, maybe it's an assumption that the market will take care of itself, and thermodynamics, in conclusion gets taken care of? — Caldwell

Interpersonal Market Economics, by contrast to Top-down Government Planning, is like Democracy : it assumes that erroneous or extreme ideas (irrational elements) will neutralize or normalize each other. And, as Winston Churchill once said “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

Monetary Economics is not a logical physical system, like Thermodynamics; it's a passionate Prey versus Predator ecosystem that sometimes gets out of balance due to selfish human interference. Fortunately, some altruistic humans are working to offset the imbalance by providing a targeted counter-force (e.g. reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone). But even that well-intentioned response may be based on incomplete information about the state & trend of the system. So, we may have to just get used to an imperfect & erratic Economy & Ecology, until Economists become omniscient, or Human monetary interactions become more predictable and controllable, like Physical energy exchanges. :cool:


“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.” This quotation is used to illustrate the self-centeredness of men and thereby to motivate the market as the best allocation mechanism.
___Adam Smith
https://faces-online.nl/en/the-godfather-of-economics-adam-smith-in-five-quotes/

Monetary Economics is not a logical physical system, like Thermodynamics; it's a passionate Prey versus Predator ecosystem that sometimes gets out of balance due to selfish human interference. — Gnomon

In that case, let's shoot for absolute emission then, which would not excuse production output as an anchor for reducing or increasing CO₂. As a business organization, you are given a percentage of reduction.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.” — Gnomon

Good quote. So true.

I understood the criticism to be that classical economics treats the market as a closed system when it isn't. That is, the market price for carbon emissions - historically effectively zero - is far removed from the environmental cost - potentially enormous.

Carbon emission per American is about 20 metric ton.
Or total emission in America is about 5 billion metric ton. Let's say $50 per metric ton is the cost of carbon emission. That's $250 billion in social cost per year -- health, decreased productivity, the ocean, the air, etc. You don't think that's a lot? Europe's cost is about €71.

In that case, let's shoot for absolute emission then, — Caldwell

Let's not give-up on Economic or Ecological relative regulation. Natural systems are inherently self-regulating by deterministic Genetics. But in human Cultural systems, FreeWill throws a monkey wrench in the gears. That's why cannibalistic humans would quickly go extinct in a dog-eat-dog world, without Social Contract laws, regulated by self-determining Reason. :joke:

PS___Let's not debate Freedom from Determinism here. That's a topic for another thread.

Let's not give-up on Economic or Ecological relative regulation. ....
PS___Let's not debate Freedom from Determinism here. That's a topic for another thread. — Gnomon

I think you misunderstood my response. Both the absolute emission and intensity emission are technical terms used in economic/regulatory measure of carbon emission. It has nothing to do with philosophy. Absolute emission reduction being that the reduction is based on total carbon emission, say of a country, and from that they determine a business organization's percentage of reduction, say 10%. (This is simplifying it). Intensity emission reduction, as I already explained previously, is emission reduction based on economic output of a business organization.

Now I haven't read up on ecological relative regulation you alluded to. I'm not sure what that is. Maybe that is another model that we could discuss.

Now I haven't read up on ecological relative regulation you alluded to. I'm not sure what that is. Maybe that is another model that we could discuss. — Caldwell

Sorry. I wasn't familiar with the technical term "absolute emission". It sounded like "no regulation -- emit all the pollution you want". So, my tongue-in-cheek response was to tone it down to "relative ecological emission regulations". It's not an existing method of regulation, but merely an admonition for moderation in both "emission of pollution' and "regulation of emission". Since I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll back-off now. :joke:

It sounded like "no regulation -- emit all the pollution you want". — Gnomon

:grin:

What happened to @Banno?

Still here. I wasn't sure of the import of , and didn't respond.

Did you want something?

Did you want something? — Banno

Yes.

I don't buy Keen's criticisms against Nordhaus simply because I myself couldn't appreciate the carbon emission damage except when quantified in monetary value. Why? Because climate change is a very, very slow death. It's hard to appreciate you're dying in a water set at a negligible temperature increments.

But there's much more compelling reason than this. The production of carbon emission is mostly due to economic activities. So emission reduction would have to happen as a consequence of, not as a solution to, the damage done to the environment and atmosphere. I hope you get the nuance of this thought.

True, scientists could factually say, "illnesses or deaths by the hundreds of thousands", or "five towns will be underwater in the next 5 years". And I'm sure most of us could understand and fully grasp what those mean. But I'm also guessing we would fail to understand the trade-off we have to accept.

But there's much more compelling reason than this. The production of carbon emission is mostly due to economic activities. So emission reduction would have to happen as a consequence of, not as a solution to, the damage done to the environment and atmosphere. I hope you get the nuance of this thought. — Caldwell

"So emission reduction would have to happen as a consequence of, not as a solution to, the damage done to the environment and atmosphere."

I don't see this. You have:

• Economic activity leads to carbon emissions, which in turn leads to environmental damage.
• Hence the damage done to the environment leads to emissions reduction.

Or should that be:
[*] Hence the damage done to the environment ought lead to emissions reduction.

There's some steps missing.

Economic activity leads to carbon emissions, which in turn leads to environmental damage. — Banno

Ah. No, you're getting ahead of yourself. Remember, I said "consequence of". This is not a logical necessity, as you're trying to portray.

Hence the damage done to the environment leads to emissions reduction.

Or should that be:
[*] Hence the damage done to the environment ought lead to emissions reduction. — Banno

No and no. Remove the "hence", and remove the "leads to". Just scrap the whole statement.

Just scrap the whole statement. — Caldwell

Right.

No, not seeing it. How does the damage done to the environment lead to emissions reduction?

So as the Earth becomes uninhabitable, the emissions will reduce?

So as the Earth becomes uninhabitable, the emissions will reduce? — Banno

Yes. There will be no more humans to sustain the exhaust of carbondioxide or to inflate economy. Emissions of all poisons will be zero, unless some form of AI will linger on after us. Given the fact that AI's are not capable of autonomous existence, the logical conclusion is that emission will reduce.

Damage done to nature ("the environment") is the cause of the reduction in a teleological approach. Cause and effect inversion.