81 thoughts on “Dirrrrty

  1. We are also the biggest contributor of CO2 per capita in LatAm. And some how we manage to do it having 75% of our electricity coming from hydro.

    Again, a consequence of a regressive policy.

    Like

    • Notice how I don’t say anything about whether dumping CO2 in the atmosphere is good or bad… I’m merely stating a fact, do with it as you will.

      Like

      • Pointing to the fact that Venezuela emits large amounts of CO2 does not in any way disprove Chavez’s argument that capitalism is the cause of global warming. In fact, what you are doing is a simple Ad Hominem. Instead of responding to his argument, you are criticizing the person making the argument.

        Do you think Chavez is wrong in pointing to capitalism as the cause of global warming? And if so, why? Pointing out that Venezuela emits more CO2 than Colombia or Brazil is a red herring.

        Like

      • Indeed, if we make the comparison to other oil economies, which is much more relevant than a comparison to Colombia or Brazil for example, especially when considering CO2 emissions, we see that Venezuela is actually below or on par with most other oil producers.

        http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:VEN:MEX:SAU:IRQ:LBY:KWT&ifdim=region&tstart=-294867000000&tend=1219897800000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=co2+emissions+per+capita+venezuela

        In other words, your argument is bogus.

        Like

        • Venezuela has lower emissions per capita than Kuwait or Lybia because it also has lower oil production per capita than those two countries, thanks in part to PDVSA’s notorious mismanagement. So *yours* is the bogus argument.

          Like

          • And Venezuela has higher oil production per capita than the other South American countries in your comparison. So you’ve just refuted your own argument. Nice work genius.

            Like

              • Hahaha! You are pathetic JC. Your argument, as just stated, is: “Venezuela has lower emissions per capita than Kuwait or Lybia because it also has lower oil production per capita than those two countries.”

                In other words, you are supporting my argument that your comparison to other South American countries is not valid, because the very same premise that you just stated above also applies. The rest of South American countries have lower emissions per capita than Venezuela because they have lower oil production per capita.

                So you’ve just proven yourself wrong. Any honest and decent human being would simply admit it. But we know that won’t happen here.

                Like

        • GAC,

          I am going to tell you a couple of facts. One is that many oil producing nations rely on oil for energy production. That is because they are in areas where there is little to no access to other types of energy such as hydro, i.e. the middle east. Venezuela doesn’t rely on oil for the majority of its energy generation. Norway for instance doesn’t face this problem (0.165 kCO2/$).
          Another fact is that Venezuela has repeatedly rejected CO2 caps. Another fact is that Venezuela’s environmental regulations are so outdated that even China has stricter regulations than we do. And the little we regulate, we don’t enforce.
          I know that in Mexico and Brasil you must check your car’s emissions. Otherwise you can’t drive around (this is standard in the US and Europe). I don’t know about other nations in LatAm. We have had several environmental disasters that have had awful consequences to humans during the bolivarian era (I don’t care if the happened before, I care about now).

          I don’t know if capitalism is bad for the environment. I think there is no data to support that socialism would be better. At the end it has nothing to do with the type economic system you have in place, but how effective is your institutional framework (which is weak here) and the value a nation give to its environment (which is also next to zero here). Truth is that Chavez uses the argument to pump his political views, but it is full of air. Chavez not putting his money where his mouth is. It is all air. All hypocrisy.

          Like

          • I notice that your “facts” are lacking anything to back them up. If oil producing countries use oil for energy production that would explain why most of them have much higher emissions per capita than Venezuela. But likewise, the fact that Venezuela is a major oil exporter has important effects that make it different from the rest of South America. Certainly subsidized gasoline plays a major role here, and I think most everyone agrees it is not a sustainable policy. But the question is how to change this policy without creating major ramifications. After all, who was responsible for implementing this policy in the first place? Chavez?

            As for Venezuela’s position on climate change and CO2 caps, it is right in line with much of the developing world, against the imposition of caps by developing countries who have already reached a high level of development. In other words, they are against rich countries who developed without restrictions to now put restrictions on those countries that have not yet developed. We can debate that position if you’d like, but it isn’t what you have attempted to portray it as.

            Anyone who says “I don’t know if capitalism is bad for the environment” is clearly clueless. The question is not whether or not it is bad for the environment, but rather if an alternative system should be adopted in place of capitalism. Chavez clearly thinks so, but you all refuse to even address the argument, and instead attack the messenger. Its all pretty infantile.

            Like

            • Chavez is to blame for sustaining such regressive policy (gas subsidy).

              I agree there, develop nations should take a bigger hit when it comes to caps. But as you must know developing nations are exempt from those caps. The truth is that Venezuela’s economy as is, can only be sustained if the world demands a lot of oil and burns a lot of it. How do you square that circle?

              Yes, but please tell me first what that alternative is, explain it. How will it exactly be achieve? So far, the bolivarian revolution has been a failure in terms of sustainability (and many other fronts).

              Like

              • Venezuela’s economy doesn’t necessarily have to be based on oil. The fact that it is so dependent on oil is a legacy of past policies that served the local elite at the expense of national economic development. The solution, obviously, is diversification and economic development to move away from oil dependency.

                And just to preempt your obvious response, that dependence on oil under Chavez has increased because oil exports now make up a larger portion of total exports. This is not necessarily a valid argument. Dependence is also reduced my increasing national production for local markets, instead of for export, since it reduces the need to import those goods. This has been the case, for example, in agricultural production which has increased significantly in recent years.

                However, I am not saying that Chavez’s model is the correct model. In fact, there are many aspects that are doubtful. But the problems of underdevelopment are extremely complex, and development economists do not have clear solutions. What is clear to me is that neoliberal solutions, such as the ones you promote, are destined for failure.

                Like

              • GAC, I can’t believe you are saying this!

                Yes! It doesn’t need to be based on oil! It shouldn’t! Now, as you said before Chavez’s government has made us more dependent! Let’s look somewhere else!

                No, we are not producing more food than we did before! We are doing as bad as we always have!

                http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=merchandise_imports&fdim_y=direction_of_trade:2&fdim_y=type_of_trade:4&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:LAC&idim=country:URY:VEN:PER:COL:CHL:BRA&ifdim=region&tstart=-294867000000&tend=1219897800000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=co2+emissions+venezuela

                The bolivarian perhaps was, we just tried it for 13 years and didn’t work! It didn’t made us better! Let’s try something different!

                I invite you then to try something different! On October 7 vote for HCR! Hay un camino! Montate en el autobus del progreso!

                Like

              • Rodrigo,

                Once again, you’re wrong. This must be some kind of world record for being wrong the most times in a short period of time.

                You don’t measure food production by looking at food imports. The reason is because consumption can increase faster than food production increases, causing an increase in imports. In fact, this is exactly what has happened in Venezuela.

                You see, when consumption drastically increases in a country (because poverty falls, poor people are eating now!) then a country must import food to meet the demand in the short term until domestic food production can catch up. Damn, I wish we could go back to the days when the poor didn’t eat so much!

                As for your illusions with Capriles, it is laughable. This guy has nothing. He does not have one new idea, not one new proposal, nothing innovative. He represents more of the same policies of the past. Go ahead, get on that bus. It won’t take you anywhere.

                Like

            • Increased CO2 emissions/greenhouse effect are bad for the environment. They are probable results of free market economic development/industrialization which have improved living standards in many ways worldwide, to such an extent that anachronic/unworkable systems like former Russian/Chinese Communism are trying to emulate their success. “Chavez clearly thinks so” that an alternative system should be adopted in place of Capitalism”–What “System”–one that cannot live without selling CO2-producing hydrocarbons to those same Capitalistic nations or their Wannabes (Russia/China/et. al.) in order to try to emulate an unbelievably failed economic/social model that is Cuban Communism, whose own leaders are even trying to change to the free-market model. Venezuela is simply a large Banana Republic mono-exporting polluting oil instead of environmentally-friendly bananas, run by probably the most corrupt (in terms of amount stolen) leftist military autocracy in history, and emitting polluting CO2 greater than any of its neighbors, in spite of not having any polluting industries other than oil.

              Like

    • “Even Republicans know that CO2 is good for plants and harmless for humans.”

      Get a clue, carbon dioxide is good for plants during daylight and make oxygen. At night, however, they take in oxygen make CO2, so CO2 does little good for them then. Their net effect being negligible as far as the planet’s CO2 regulation, which is affected most directly by plankton in absorbing it and forest fires in producing it.

      As to humans, CO2 is not harmless if concentrations get too high (or too low).

      As to global warming, no, capitalism does not cause global warming. You may find all the correlations in the world, but I challenge you to find a single cause-effect relationship. Think about it, unless someone is physically burning paper bills, no greenhouse gases are produced by capitalism. In fact, most of the ventures that seem on the verge of reducing greenhouse gases from the planet are capitalistic, so, if anything, capitalism will be equally correlated with reducing global warming, as soon as doing so becomes an economically viable business model.

      Like

      • The cause-effect relationship is clear to anyone with a brain. Capitalism is an economic system characterized by the subordination of economic activities to the forces of the market. This creates the need to systematically maximize growth, and find new and improved ways to produce goods in order to survive in the market. This leads to mechanization, and the need to find sources of energy other than human labor to power the productive process. It’s no secret that the Industrial Revolution is considered a direct result of the advent of capitalism.

        Christ! This is basic history!

        Like

        • GAC,
          the alternative would be then to some how control population growth. Right? Because even if you stop tech development, you will still need to feed more people. Are you one of those that say that the earth’s pop should be limited to 100 million (that’s what it is sustainable at current technology).

          Again, it has nothing to do with the economic system dude (or dudette), it has to do with the value a nation gives to the environment. If stricter regulations are set in place, technology will be developed or will feasible in order to meet them. In communism increasing productivity is also valuable, but it is usually directed by a centralized state and not by the market. One needs to feed every mouth right?

          According to the data, you can’t really correlate that, as there are plenty examples of “clean” capitalist nations and “dirty” communist ones.

          The truth is (as I posted above) is that in spite of 13 years of bolivarian revolution we are doing poorly and worse than our neighbors in the environmental front. Chavez when it comes to the environment is all talk and no action. Pure political hypocrisy.

          Like

          • That’s actually false. Venezuela has always been much worse than its neighbors in terms of CO2 per capita, so you can’t blame that on Chavez. Rather, you must go from where he started. When you do that you see that emissions/capita in Venezuela have actually DECREASED under Chavez, whereas they have INCREASED over the last ten years in most major Latin American countries.

            http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:VEN:BRA:COL:MEX:PER:ARG&ifdim=region&tstart=-294867000000&tend=1219897800000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=co2+emissions+venezuela

            So, once again, you are full of shit. Venezuela under Chavez is doing BETTER, not worse, than its neighbors in terms of decreasing its CO2 emissions/capita.

            Like

            • “When you do that you see that emissions/capita in Venezuela have actually DECREASED under Chavez, whereas they have INCREASED over the last ten years in most major Latin American countries.” I never said per capita, but kCO2/$

              See, they are achieving prosperity better than we do. That’s the point.

              “So, once again, you are full of shit. Venezuela under Chavez is doing BETTER, not worse, than its neighbors in terms of decreasing its CO2 emissions/capita.”

              Absolutely false, you link shows how it reached a minimum on 1976, a max in 2002, decreased and currently going up again, how can you honestly say we are doing better?. Given the choices of thermal over hydro during the last self inflicted energy crisis I can only assume that it will be an upward trend.

              Like

              • Absolutely false? The numbers don’t lie my friend. When Chavez entered office CO2 emissions per capita were at 7.23. As of 2008 (the latest we have numbers for) they had decreased to 6.07. That’s a decrease of 16%. There is not another major economy in Latin America that has even decreased their emissions, they have all increased.

                If you can’t recognize clear facts when staring them in the face then I’d say you’ve got all the symptoms of a typical oppo-hack.

                Like

              • GAC, there is no trend in the data, you are merely pointing at two data points with no significance whatsoever, if we where at 2002 then what? then Chavez is a fail. If you look at 1996 instead of 1998 then what? Chavez is a fail again.

                Where you can see a clear trend is that the rest of LatAm has decreased its kCO2/$ while in Venezuela has remained the same.

                Like

              • You said that under Chavez Venezuela is doing worse than its neighbors. You gave the data points. What you said is completely backwards. Under Chavez Venezuela has done BETTER than its neighbors. This is very simple. Yet you refuse to accepts the facts as they stare you in the face.

                Like

              • Please Rodrigo, let’s not play games. Under Chavez (1999 to present) Venezuela has improved more than any other country on the list. You said Venezuela’s neighbors were doing better. You were wrong. Anyone with a brain can see it, and anyone with a brain can see that you are incapable of recognizing basic facts.

                Like

              • Keep arguing if you want, you are the one that has seen the country get worse murder rates, no improvements on environmental policies, two very important bridges collapse, oil spills, regressive gas subsidies, no improvements on infrastructure, education, literacy, etc. Don;t get me started with corruption. And you have seen it for 13 years, you seem to imply that the bolivarian revolution is not the right model forward, but you still prefer it some how. Good luck to you (and us).

                The data is there, yes we improved, but I understand the facts, and that is that all the generation growth in Venezuela has been thermal. No new hydro, no new solar, no new wind has started to operate in 13 years. The wind project have been developed so slow, and at a cost that is embarrassing. Gas subsidy is there and Chavez clearly doen;t have the balls nor the skills to get rid of it. If at least Iran would help on that.

                I don’t know if you are aware of it but 13 years is a long time. How much more are you going to put up with this.

                Like

        • Get a clue, so forces or market –> economic activities –> systematically maximize growth –> find new and improved ways to produce goods –> mechanization –> find energy sources other than human labor.

          Firstly, thanks for pointing out how awesome capitalism is. “find new and improved ways to produce goods” Are you indirectly implying that the other systems don’t? ;)

          Secondly, you may want to reconsider the energy source thing. If we replaced all mechanization with human labor to power the productive process, we would have MUCH, MUCH more carbon dioxide emissions quite simply because the machines using up other energy sources are much more efficient than human beings digesting food to power their bodies. I know, it’s counterintuitive. It behooves you to look it up.

          Aside from that, the challenge still stands. You’ve simply stated that capitalism creates an environment that has been fertile ground for greenhouse gas emitting industry, but you fail to see that the environment is equally fertile for greenhouse gas *eliminating* industries, which will sprout everywhere as soon as it is economically advantageous for them to exist. Are you going to say that capitalism causes global cooling, then? I’ll still be saying, no, because capitalism, as an economic system quite simply does not *cause* greenhouse gases nor *cause* them to be eliminated. For what we can thank capitalism is the *efficiency* with which it will be done when it is.

          Like

          • Torres,

            I hate to have to explain these extremely basic concepts to you. Yes capitalism is much more productive than previous economic systems. This is clear to anyone with a mouse’s brain. Yes, other economic systems have paled in comparison to the dynamism of capitalism. This is virtually universally recognized. Marx explained this better than anyone, and wrote endless volumes about it.

            But, unsurprisingly, you’ve misunderstood the argument. The argument isn’t that capitalism is destructive to the environment because its creates mechanization. It is destructive to the environment because it compels economic actors to systematically and endlessly increase productivity and growth.

            This doesn’t necessarily create an environment for economic agents to seek to eliminate greenhouse gas, since eliminating greenhouse gas has virtually nothing to do with survival in the market. If it could somehow be connected to a firm’s survival in the market (which has thus far been unsuccessful) then it could be conceivable that there would be an incentive to reduce emissions. Until then, you’re speculating.

            Like

            • Just to add a last thing. Economic growth doesn’t equal environmental destruction. There is sustainable growth. Advance capitalist economies have implemented many things to do what you say, to create incentives to reduce CO2 emissions. Yes, capitalist nations have.

              Like

              • Run along Rodrigo. Everything you’ve said here so far today has been proven wrong. You have zero credibility.

                Like

              • Well put Rodrigo. Either advanced economies get their collective acts together, rather than just a few virtuous outliers, or Pol Pot here will show us the way. The shame is, it is do-able, and there is a reasonable consensus as to how it is do-able.

                Like

            • Get a clue,

              I’m glad we agree so well on the efficiency of the capitalist system. Unfortunately, someone with your much larger than my mouse brain supports less efficient systems instead of coming up with ways of directing the efficient system in a better direction. I still have hopes for you…

              “It is destructive to the environment because it compels economic actors to systematically and endlessly increase productivity and growth.” Not true. The moment the increase in productivity and growth does not bring profit, the economic actors switch gears or even screech to a halt. So it is not endless, though, yes, very systematic.

              “This doesn’t necessarily create an environment for economic agents to seek to eliminate greenhouse gas, …” Yes, it does, actually as soon as eliminating the greenhouse gases increases production and growth in the industry of performing that very service.

              “… since eliminating greenhouse gas has virtually nothing to do with survival in the market.” But from global warming predictions, it will.

              “If it could somehow be connected to a firm’s survival in the market (which has thus far been unsuccessful) then it could be conceivable that there would be an incentive to reduce emissions. Until then, you’re speculating.” It is for this very reason that there are people producing rotating air ballon wind generators, and others are trying to send millions of mirrors to sit between the Earth and the Sun, etc. Their market survival depends on increased desire to reduce or reverse global warming, as will the market survival of those who are coming up with ways to reduce greenhouse gases, my favorite being the fertilizing of the oceans with iron ore for increased populations of plankton which simply take the carbon dioxide from the air and sink to the ocean floor with it, as they have been doing for more than a few years. So, then is now, and I’m not speculating.

              Capitalism rocks, and you are chosing to dance to a less efficient tune. Capitalism’s main drawback is inequality of distribution. Let’s see if your larger than my mouse brain comes up with a solution to solve that one little drawback in an otherwise superiorly efficient system.

              Like

              • Torres,

                Let’s be clear here. You’re an idiot. Even though you pretend to have all these “new” ideas, like CCT’s (hahaha!), you’re just a simple idiot. For example:

                “as soon as eliminating the greenhouse gases increases production and growth in the industry of performing that very service.”

                This argument is so stupid I shouldn’t even waste my time. The reason is you could say this about anything. You could say “as soon as eliminating poverty increases production and growth in performing that very service.” Or you could say “as soon as providing health care to poor people increases production in performing that very service.” Basically your argument goes like this: All problems under capitalism will soon go away because as soon as (insert any problem here) increases production and growth in the industry of performing that very service, then there will be an incentive to resolve the problem. It is so naive and stupid and you would get laughed out of any sociology department.

                Or take this gem:

                “The moment the increase in productivity and growth does not bring profit, the economic actors switch gears or even screech to a halt. ”

                Labor productivity and economic growth have maintained an upward trend throughout the entire history of capitalism. To imply that will somehow change, and we will no longer see continual economic growth is just pure nonsense based on nothing.

                But, well, most of your nonsense is based on nothing. I’d suggest you do less commenting on blogs, and do more studying.

                Like

              • “It is for this very reason that there are people producing rotating air ballon wind generators, and others are trying to send millions of mirrors to sit between the Earth and the Sun, etc. Their market survival depends on increased desire to reduce or reverse global warming”

                This is hilarious Torres. What a tremendous distortion. People are not experimenting with these types of new technology because there is a market for them. There is no market for mirrors in the sky, or ocean fertilizers, nor can one imagine why the average consumer would be interested in buying these things. Indeed, most of the people coming up with these ideas come out of public universities, and they are experimenting with new solutions precisely because they recognize the destructive tendencies of capitalism, and are searching for ways to counteract it. It is precisely because there is very little market for alternative energy sources that we are in the predicament that we are in, and public-financed scientists search for solutions. These things are happening outside the capitalist market. That much is not even debatable.

                So it is completely idiotic to say that the people experimenting with these things are compelled by market forces to reverse global warming. That’s just patently false. University professors and public-funded researchers are in fact characterized by the exact opposite: they are not subject to market forces, and are therefore free to experiment with things that may or may not be feasible.

                Like

            • Get a clue, Hmmm, personal attacks now… Regardless, sticking to your points:

              “as soon as (insert any problem here) increases production and growth in the industry of performing that very service” Yes, you finally got it. If there were profits to be made in reducing poverty, or in providing healthcare to poor people, it would be a business. If poor people had sufficient income to pay for health insurance, but there were no social programs to cover health coverage, you can be sure insurance companies would have poor people plans. If you don’t think the market isn’t creative enough to take advantage of every opportunity consider the Red Cross, with 80% overhead costs. That’s a handful of people making a living off of not making a profit, isn’t it? Or how about Canada’s socialized private healthcare providers, with poor people not having to pay because the government pays for them, yet these services are offered by private providers.

              “It is so naive and stupid and you would get laughed out of any” [insert name of department] Yeah, I get that a lot. Yet, they can never argue rationally against it. Paraphrasing from Damages: people laugh at visionary ideas, then the ideas take over. By the way, not to be a nitpicker, but I’ll point out that CCT’s are a go all over the world. You probably meant to laugh at my thing, UCTs. Nobody laughs at CCTs, at least not anymore…

              “Labor productivity and economic growth have maintained an upward trend throughout the entire history of capitalism.” I’m not implying that will change. You misunderstood me entirely. What I said would switch gears and possibly even screech to a halt is any given business that ceases to make profits. They would then change paths, even do a 180 if that’s what it takes, to keep making a profit. That is why the net effect of the market is continued growth, because no one puts up with losing money, contrary to what chavismo does.

              “People are not experimenting with these types of new technology because there is a market for them.” False. The iron ore fertilization of the ocean ventures are counting on the CERs (Certified Emission Reduction credits) as tradeable instruments. Greenhouse gas emitters will pay good money to gain CERs by paying for greenhouse gas reducers’ services. Another such project on which I’m keeping an eye is a set of ships to pump water from the ocean and shoot it up high enough with water droplets of a small enough size to produce very white clouds that would reflect sunlight. Both of these ideas are at proof of concept phases, but make no mistake about it, they are in it to become millionares providing these services. The rotating helium filled balloon has achieved proof of concept. It even produced a documentary of its proof of concept ordeal as a means of making money for the venture. Their goal: making money.

              “It is precisely because there is very little market for alternative energy sources that we are in the predicament that we are in” The moment the alternative energies are marketable, the market adopts them, by definition. Have you noticed the correlation between increased interest in developing alternative energies and increased oil prices? It would seem that with your understanding of the efficiency of capitalism you fail to see what makes it so efficient, and that is that the market goes where there is money to be made. It is that simple.

              “So it is completely idiotic to say that the people experimenting with these things are compelled by market forces to reverse global warming.” Well, I didn’t make it up. I saw interviews with these guys and they spell it out: they want to be rich off of these ideas. They themselves explain that the increased support for human intervention to reverse the effect of gobal warming points to services offering to do it will become profitable in the foreseeable future. I will not disagree, however, that many of those involved in solving global warming project are university or government sponsored, but the ones I’m mentioning above are capitalistic. In some ways, though, even the university or government ones are capitalistic because some governments want to use CERs, too, for carbon emitting caps to be raised for trade purposes, while some universities want to attract high caliber students and professors and donations with these kinds of projects, which all translates, in the end, to income.

              Like

              • ” If there were profits to be made in reducing poverty, or in providing healthcare to poor people, it would be a business.”

                But there’s not, that’s the whole point. Just like there’s not money to be made by putting big mirrors in the sky. That’s why no one is doing it.

                ” I’ll point out that CCT’s are a go all over the world. You probably meant to laugh at my thing, UCTs. Nobody laughs at CCTs, at least not anymore…”

                They are a fad, because people think they are a solution to poverty. The reality is that they are more of a band-aid fix, because they don’t create economic development, but rather pull poor people barely above the poverty line without providing opportunities for them. You are right, your idea of UCT is even dumber, especially in the case of Venezuela, as I have explained to you at length before.

                “You misunderstood me entirely. What I said would switch gears and possibly even screech to a halt is any given business that ceases to make profits.”

                But the discussion isn’t about what any given business will do. The discussion is about the overall characteristics of the capitalist system. In other words, you tried to disprove my point about capitalist with a complete nonsense remark about what a given business would do. This is why responding to your comments is such a tedious task.

                ” Greenhouse gas emitters will pay good money to gain CERs by paying for greenhouse gas reducers’ services.”

                There is obviously a much larger incentive to not have to pay for these services to begin with, and simply be able to freely pollute. Which is why if firm’s are going to pay for these services they will have to be forced to do so by outside actors. It will not happen naturally within capitalism.

                “The moment the alternative energies are marketable, the market adopts them, by definition. Have you noticed the correlation between increased interest in developing alternative energies and increased oil prices?”

                This doesn’t mean consumers will move towards cleaner, less polluting energy sources. Just cheaper ones.

                “Well, I didn’t make it up. I saw interviews with these guys and they spell it out: they want to be rich off of these ideas.”

                Just because someone wants to get rich off an idea doesn’t mean they are a capitalist, or that they are a product of a capitalist system. People also wanted to get rich in the 1500s, when capitalism did not yet exist.

                Like

              • GAC it is totally apparent that you don’t know anything about the history of capitalism or the distinction between, for example, capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, or industrialism. Capitalism did not exist in name before the Industrial Revolution but it existed in form, particularly in England, Italy, and the Netherlands. I recommend you read your buddy Marx. It is apparent that you have not. You’ve got a google eye view of him.

                Like

              • “The iron ore fertilization of the ocean ventures are counting on the CERs (Certified Emission Reduction credits) as tradeable instruments.”

                Emissions trading is based on markets that are are artificially created by governments in an attempt to counteract the natural tendencies of capitalism. To take this and act like the capitalist system is responsible for this, and to claim that capitalist dynamics have created this situation is utterly retarded. The reality is that these measures have been created by political actors who have seen the writing on the wall: that capitalism by itself will not solve these problems, and thus actions must be taken to change course.

                Once again, your arguments are retarded and backwards. I can honestly say that I am now stupider for having read them.

                Like

            • There are no mirrors in the sky, yet, but there ARE people who think it WILL be marketably profitably, so they start working on “finding new and improved” technologies to make it marketably profitable. The guy I saw on TV was working on a new reflective disc wafer of extreme thinness that could stack in tubes in very large quantities at very light weight. He stated that he was counting on a government or world organization wishing to implement the concept to buy the discs from him, at his profit.

              “They are a fad, because people think they are a solution to poverty.” Who’s speculating now? Another challenge: Find a link to a CCT study that demonstrates concept failure.

              Again, you misunderstand the point about business. It’s not any one business, it’s ANY business. Businesses will switch gears and screech to halts if money isn’t being made. That’s the key to the very capitalistic growth you describe. If businesses didn’t do that how would explain the efficiency and inertia of growth in a capitalistic environment?

              “It will not happen naturally within capitalism” It will, IF there is marketable profit to be made. Why wouldn’t someone make money off of it in capitalism if there is big money to be made? For example, if a company’s products begin getting boycotted by their customers for not being green (I’m sure you can think of an example), the company starts adopting higher production costs using greener sources so that they can maximize their profits, thus, changing gears. By the way, why do you discount the effect of outside actors, such as government policy, in capitalism? They can go hand in hand, and do.

              “This doesn’t mean consumers will move towards cleaner, less polluting energy sources. Just cheaper ones.” No. From the consumer point of view, the consumer also weighs other preference factors, besides cheaper. If consumers only decided based on cheaper, they would be chopping wood for heating, but they also weigh time, trouble, and comfort. Ask the perfume industry, where they know that lowering a price tag can lower your sales. When it comes to cleaner, less polluting energy sources, as consumer awareness increases, their demand for greener sources is changing their choices and the pressure they put on their elected officials, which is where you see government going hand in hand with the market in exchange for the tradeable instrument of votes.

              “when capitalism did not yet exist.” You were the one to mention capitalism as causing a drive for unending growth. The wanting to get rich is precisely the drive caused by capitalism. As to it not existing before 1500s, you’re wrong. That’s like saying evolution didn’t exist before Darwin. Maybe you are talking about Capitalism with a capital C, but the concepts of supply, demand, price, competition, have always existed, even before they were labeled. In fact, it’s because they existed that they were labeled. Besides, many of the implementations of capitalistic societies were well in play in several societies long before the 1500s.

              “that capitalism by itself will not solve these problems, and thus actions must be taken to change course.” Yes and no. If it consumers who are upset with climate change did not have the option of pressuring governments to create policy such as CERs in order to affect the markets, they would take actions to affect the markets some other way, most commonly through organized boycotts. And as soon as businesses detect potential loss in profits by staying dirty, or see a potential gain by becoming greener, they will switch gears or screech to a halt…

              Like

  2. Once again, no matter the topic, Get a Clue steals the show and has everyone dancing his/her tune…. People, wise up!
    Get a clue is not interested in conversation/discussion. his/her job is to troll and keep blogs like this derailed and boring…..

    Like

    • Hear, hear. Wise up! (Even if Rodrigo’s answer was good enough on his own as to *almost* justify posting it).

      Like

    • Right, I’m not interested in conversation/discussion… that’s why I consistently engage the topic of the post at hand. And if it is so boring why do so many people want to participate?

      Like

        • If you can tell him a reasonable way to do it that won’t create the obvious negative consequences then I’m sure he’d be happy to hear from you.

          Like

          • Since you’re right ‘up there’ in the pantheon of socialist hacks, why don’t you pass the message along. What? You don’t form part of the hierarchy? They don’t accept you?

            Like

  3. GAT do as your name says. Juan never mentioned CO2 per capita, the link talks about CO2 per unit of GDP. In Europe CO2 emissions have fallen (are falling) because of the recession and slow growth. in terms of CO2 per unit of GDP Venezuela is doing worse than its neighbours. Simple. two countries both with a population of 10 (all adults): Country A producing USD100 of GDP and emitting 100 tonnes of carbon would have ration of 1 ton of CO2 per dollar of GDP / Country B assume equal productivity but 50% unemployment and GDP at USD50, (same technology so emitting 50 tonnes of carbon) would have also 1 ton per dollar of GDP. However country B would appear ‘greener’ on a per capita basis emitting 5 tonnes per capita. Whereas country A would look dirtier emitting 10 tonnes per capita! Ergo abandon your attempt to derail the original debate. Juan (and myself when I pointed him to this) posted about CO2 per unit of GDP.

    Like

  4. Anyway, I hadn’t been here in ages….glad to see Justin is still around – that style of argumentation is unmissable…

    Like

  5. Trend? Who mentioned trend int he original post….The trend-may-be-your-friend (are you a momentum investor GAC?). But we were talking about the reality as it stands today the jury concludes: (Miss) Venezuela wins hands down the prize for more CO2 emissions per unit of GDP in Latam….”en una noche tan sucia como esta…..”
    World Peace!

    Like

    • When you are talking about a particular government, you can only look at the performance of that government during the time they have been in power. IN the case of Chavez, C02 emissions have decreased more than any other country in Latin America during that time period.

      Like

  6. -sigh-
    “Athlete’s X performance increased the most between the 2012 and 2008 at the Olympics”
    However if all other runners (assume a race) are faster, at the end of the day the reality is that if athlete X is still last….well he is last, not matter how stellar his improvement.

    Would you give the coach a prize for the stellar improvement that still leads to a bottom place ranking? Reward for failure? Are you a Fund Manager GAC by any chance and do you tell your clients to judge you by your relative performance and not your absolute returns? Because let’s face it if performance is negative no matter how good the trend, you are still loosing money.

    So just to make the point again Miss BVR of Venezuela wins for most CO2 emitted per unit of GDP

    :-)

    Like

    • Brilliant argument Jota. So no matter how much a country improves on any given indicator, they must not be praised or rewarded until they have surpassed all other nations on that given indicator. China’s economic growth in recent years, for example, should not be given any credit because they still are not one of the largest economies. Reward for failure?

      You oppo-hacks are killing it here today!

      Like

  7. Invest 100 BsF with a clown that gives you a 20% negative return which then starts improving at a rate of 1% per year….by year 17 the trend has wiped you out…the trend is not your friend. “Surpass all other nations?” in the spirit of settling for less it would be nice to surpass at least one other major Latam country….

    Year 1 100.00 -0.20 80.00
    Year 2 80.00 -0.19 64.80
    Year 3 64.80 -0.18 53.14
    Year 4 53.14 -0.17 44.10
    Year 5 44.10 -0.16 37.05
    Year 6 37.05 -0.15 31.49
    Year 7 31.49 -0.14 27.08
    Year 8 27.08 -0.13 23.56
    Year 9 23.56 -0.12 20.73
    Year 10 14.01 -0.11 12.46
    Year 11 12.46 -0.10 11.22
    Year 12 11.22 -0.09 10.21
    Year 13 3.15 -0.08 2.90
    Year 14 2.90 -0.07 2.69
    Year 15 2.69 -0.06 2.53
    Year 16 2.53 -0.05 2.40
    Year 17 -the imrpovement in the trend has wiped you out-
    Repeat after me…the trend is not your friend

    Like

  8. The trend is an argument invented by capitalist under-performers and now being deployed by Socialist Government Hacks like you to justify poor performance (I didn’t come in last Sir, I made the best improvement of the lot may I have a prize Sir).

    Like

    • Imagine a “personal best” category – and prize – for those “socialist” countries that have improved one economic indicator or another, ever so slightly.

      Clueless dogs would never stop wagging their tails.

      Like

  9. GAC is the guerrilla comunicacional of Caracas chronicles! Congrats! you have your own salaried guerrillero.
    Now, GAC I hope you are getting your salary is USD, You have English Skills, but you have the same “You need to read, you need to learn, you are a moron”All part of any answer in any social media when a “guerrillero” is paid to just spend time refuting with the same argument ( more or less) capitalism is bad, Chavez is good, and you all are horrible people that do not adore Chavez like me!

    Like

  10. Goddammit, stop feeding the GAC troll!!! Can’t you people see he/she is just a plant that chavism places in anti-chavez bogs?? Don’t feed his/her ego by not replying to his/her comments and the lack of response will make it (I’m tired of genderizing) go away and “ladillate” another blog.

    Like

Comments are closed.