Previous  1  2  3  4  5

Not quite, but awfully close.



Hey, I'm not the one who's trying to shift responsibility for the use of a product from the users to the producers -- you are.



But where is the social value for drugs? For prostitution? For trading endangered species? It isn't just "limited" (as is the case with fast food) it doesn't exist.

   

Garbage! There is loss in every system. Unless oil is so easy to extract that all you've got to do is put a pipe in the reservoir and the pressure within just forces it all the way to the refinery, there is energy input somewhere. You say it's electrical. Is there a wind turbine on every well? Solar panels? Or are they hooked up to the grid? Or do they burn gasoline in an electrical generator on site? What I'm saying to you is that the extraction of the oil requires some input of energy, and that energy comes from somewhere, more than likely some fossil fuel be it goal or natural gas or some refined oil product. Therefore the exploitation of our oil reserves inherantly comes with some production of CO2, whether it's consumed here in Canada, or in the States or anyone else we sell to.



The producers, though, are producing in a manner which is not optimal. They could do a better job.



Fine. Cigarettes. The manufacturers know they're poisonous no matter what the user's level of consumption. They've known for years they're deadly, and have for years been fighting to convince people they're not. Where do they get off playing the personal responsibility card when they know for a fact that their product is KILLING PEOPLE?

   

The machines are hooked up to the grid, which makes up for the approximately %25 loss in these particular pumps.

Now, they aren't used universally, but they're replacing more and more older hydraulic pump units -- and for obvious reason.



Oh, you mean the producers, most of whom currently exceed the standards placed upon them by the government?



Let's not pretend that cigarette manufacturers don't know that cigarettes are "killing people". At the same time, let's not pretend that most consumers of cigarettes don't know that cigarettes are killing them.

Now, despite the fact that Thank You for Smoking is a brilliant film, let's noteven pretend that cigarette companies haven't largely given up the ghost in terms of "convincing people cigarettes aren't deadly".

Finally, cigarettes are taxed, to the tune of $6.3 billion a year. To this extent, they have social value, although, for obvious reasons, that social value is severely limited.

Here's something that either make you laugh, or make you cry: according to this site,

http://www.ncic.cancer.ca/ncic/internet ... en,00.html

Direct costs in Canada related to Canada were tallied at $2.5 billion. Canadian taxpayers may have profited as much as $3.9 in that year.

Naturally, we know that isn't the case as soon as indirect costs are tallied, but isn't that a perverse little factoid?

   

Well given that the vast majority of the power on the grid is from coal, I think we've established that the production of both conventional oil extraction AND synthetic crude from oil sands results in GHG emissions, before it gets to the consumer.



Kay, either I'm being really dense here or you're arguing my point for me.



Yes, that is perverse, and probably the reason cigarettes aren't banned outright.

Not having a background in sociology, though, I presumed "social value" was not monetary, but more like something people could identify within our society and feel good about. But if "social value" is the ability to tax something, then legalize and regulate drugs and tax them. Value. Legalize and regulate prostitution. Tax it. Sell licences to import and export endangered species.

Or if I'm barking up the wrong tree again, then you need to define your terms.

   

And given that the bulk of fossil fuel consumption takes place in our homes and in our vehicles, it brings us back to the original point: consumers of fossil fuels are every bit as responsible for GHG production as producers.



My guess is that you're being really dense. You're arguing that "production could be done better (in environmental terms). Yet, oil and gas producers have already proven to be better stewards of the land than the government currently requires them to be.



Other than the fact that banning cigarettes outright would turn citizens who are currently addicted to tobacco -- let's not pretend tobacco isn't addictive, either -- into criminals.



No. What you're referring to is Social Capital, which is an entirely different concept.

Social value can basically be defined in terms of a conribution to society. Taxation contributes toward the running of our country, including all the wonderful things we have like Public Health Care and Education. Thus, anything that is taxable essentially has social value.

Fossil Fuels have social value both in terms of their taxability, and the ends they are a means toward -- fuelling our economy, heating our homes, providing us with electricity, etc.

Fast food has social value in terms of providing employment -- although the specific semantics regarding that employment are well open to discussion -- producing taxable income, and providing a service that has become nearly essential for people who, more and more, are constantly living on the go.

But social value economics also forces us to consider the flip side of the coin: as you have astutely noted, excessive consumption of fast food leads to obsesity, and the additional costs that places on our society through things such as health care. As such, the social value of fast food is limited.

Likewise, with fossil fuels, burning fossil fuels produces air pollution, and green house gases. As a result, there are also limits on the social value of fossil fuels.

This being said, nothing has unlimited social value.



No, that may be my mistake. I started to assume that you understood the concept of social value economics. The Green Party is pretty big on it, but they have a tendency to evaluate most things strictly in negative terms, without considering the benefits that society derrives from such things.

If you want, I'd be more than happy to further explain the concept to you.

   

Uh huh. At least around here most home heating is natural gas. Canada exports about 45% of the natural gas it produces, leaving 55% to be consumed here.Source. Given all the offices, commercial and industrial buildings, not to mention gas fired power plants and cogen facilities, I find it difficult to believe that home heating consumes the bulk (which I would define as >50%) of natural gas production.

Turning to oil production, This site lists a range of figures for the yield of gasoline from oil, none of which exceed 67%. In 2004, canadians consumes 40.3 billion lites of gas. Using the 67% figure, and the number of litres in a barrel, this means we consumed 378 million barrels of oil in gasoline. Our total production for that year was 839 million barrels (see the first link). Thus, gasoline consumption can only acount for 45% of oil production. Even if that was all personal vehicles, it still isn't what I'd call the bulk of consumption.

In short, I don't buy it. Direct personal fossil fuel consumption in our homes and vehicles cannot possibly constitute the bulk of fossil fuel production.



Actually, it was just a misunerstanding. I read "exceed standards" and interpreted "emitted more than allowed." And you'll not find any disagreement from me that government standards are lax.



Hogwash. We've got gum. We've got patches. Addicts would be able to cope and wean themselves.



No, that's okay. I think you and I both are on approximately the same page in terms of acknowledging the complexities of the issues, and simply find ourselves making different value judgements.

   

The point is, and I'm not sure that you've gotten this, is that consumer and industrial (let's be sure to add this) consumption constitutes the bulk of GHG of fossil fuel in consumption in Canada and the world, not fossil fuel producers.



Government standards are just fine. I've heard this argument before, and it comes across as a weak attempt to continue to villainize oil and gas producers as "plunderers of the land" by people who have never been in the field, and seen the amount of effort, time, and money that are spent protecting the environment as is best possible.

It's too similar to "if fast food didn't exist, people couldn't choose to eat it" to be an effective argument. The fact is that government standards currently exist as they are, and that oil and gas companies currently exceed them.



Believe it or not, you'll find little argument from me as to whether or not society would be better off without cigarettes. But the fact is that criminalizing cigarettes forces people who are currently hooked on a habit that is currently legal to quit, or become criminals. Criminalizing cigarettes essentially amounts to pulling the rug out from under them.

Consider this: even with such things as patches and gum, many people still have difficulty quitting smoking.



Well, if you have any questions regarding social value economics, feel free to ask. I'll be happy to fill you in.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5