Category: responsibility

  • The Wonk Gap – NYTimes.com — its the lie not the truth that is telling.

    The Wonk Gap – NYTimes.com:

    Rotary International has a 4-Way test that starts with “Is it the truth?” In all we say and do …

    If the facts that are presented are not truthful, then whatever follows in the arguments are bogus. Who benefits and why can not meaningfully be determined.

    Stated differently, often (usually?) based on a careful organization of the facts, the best decisions are self-evident.

    So what does Dr. Paul have to say about outright denial and miss information on the right? He points out the healthcare costs have actually been tame in recent years. Current estimates of the future costs/savings are actually better the GAO had originally estimated. Until recently, healthcare costs had been increasing at about 10% per year over the last 30 some years. All evidence is that these costs are much tamer, just over inflation, for the last few years. And that is prior to Obama care really kicking in.

    I know! I’m surprised too, because Obama care doesn’t do nearly enough to address out-of-control healthcare costs as I would like to see. But shifting people out of the emergency room as the primary care, has got to save tons of money.

    Klugman points out how obvious and untruthful some of the information is that continues to be propagated. At least on PBS, you will find a serious analysis of the issues and usually a fare representation of both sides.

    Why would anyone anywhere continue to accept consistent untruths and even blatant lies?

    I like to hear what I want to hear. But I need to hear what I don’t want to hear. As long as it is factual.

    Counter factual is, will, counterproductive, to say the least.

    Good article Dr Paul. It is too bad that the right people won’t read it. And the people who do read it, probably won’t apply the concept of truth-in-information-sources to their own media noise.

    We all need to unfriend sources who promote bogus information, and let them talk to empty space. Only then will we have meaningful solutions to replace meaningless bickering.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Innovation: Social Irresponsibility: Energy, cost of carbon

    Check out the workings for markets in Carbon…


    Cap n trade, tax and trade, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

    • Australia does Carbon Tax and shift.
    • Texas sets up a Carbon Exchange.
    • California has a huge lift in the prices of Carbon allocations (CCA) because of the down time of a nuclear power plant.

    Overall, the price per ton of carbon is now at between $8 and $23.


    Anything above free, is probably a very good thing for the true costs of energy.


    SustainZine: Social Irresponsibility: Energy, cost of carbon

    Coming soon to an eBook store near you: Social Responsibility by the www.RefractiveThinker.com. 
  • Social Irresponsibility: Energy and the cost of carbon

    These are all part of a dramatic change in the way that we view carbon emissions.


    There are three things that are prominently in the news about carbon emissions and addressing them in June of 2012. These are all part of a dramatic change in the way that we view carbon emissions.

    1. Australia is opening up a Carbon Tax at $23 per ton. They are adjusting from the mistakes of Europe when they started cap and trade at too low a price. Undermining the whole process.
    2. In the meanwhile, Texas is opening a market for carbon. The Oil capital of the US is also the largest Wind producer of electricity.
    3. California credit allowances jump in price dramatically.
    Generally there are three ways to address the issues associated with externalities caused by carbon emission (and greenhouse gas emissions)

    1. Voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR). Look at Shaklee corporation and Microsoft. Shaklee, a health and nutrition company, is the first company to be certified climate neutral in April 2010. In the meanwhile, Microsoft intends to be carbon neutral by the end of 2013.

    2. Cap and Trade exchanges. Texas and California.

    a.   Texas is opening a market for carbon. “Bad joke, or perhaps an oxymoron”, right?  Nope, it is the Texas Climate & Carbon Exchange. The Oil capital of the US that produces about 1m barrels of oil per year is also the largest Wind producer of electricity (producing about 6.5m GHw/hr in 2010, nearly twice as much as Kansas). This is one of several exchanges, with the most notable one in the us operating in California.
    b.   This headline from Reuters: “California carbon allowances (CCAs) for delivery in 2013 closed at $16.75 per tonne on Thursday, up $1.10 from one week ago on a growing belief that the shutdown of a California nuclear power plant will boost carbon emissions due to higher fossil fuel use.” A 7% jump was followed by $20+ call options that anticipated future CCAs rising aggressively in the future.

    3. Tax Mechanism.
    The carbon pricing scheme will impose costs on big polluters, which will result in higher end prices for certain products. Treasury estimates that an average family will pay $9.90 more per week in the first year of the scheme’s introduction.” But 9 out of 10 households will get some level of reimbursements “ through personal income tax cuts and increases in pensions and allowances, as well as other measures”. This will already take effect from May-June 2012. Check out the Household Carbon tax estimator for Australia 

    a.   What is the Carbon Tax? (Australia):  http://www.carbontax.net.au/category/what-is-the-carbon-tax/ A $23 per ton initial tax on heavy polluters.
    c.   Discussion (Australia). Australia is one of the worst (developed countries) for carbon footprint per capita. Unlike Canada (cold) this is partially because of the sprawl of the country and the abundance of fossil fuels. The tax is directly on the producers of carbon (starting with coal) and this tax is applied directly to those impacted. Those households impacted can spend the money any way they want.  The more accurate costs of dirtier energy (coal and oil) will serve to shift prices to cleaner energy.

    So, what does this mean? It means that in lots of places and within lots of organizations (and governments) there is a movement toward addressing carbon emissions. Even the glacial movements in the US are starting gain speed, much like the melting glaciers themselves are.


    A market mechanism like Australia’s seems like an good approach. There is not a massive initial gift of credits to the coal-burning companies. The government doesn’t take all the money and run. The market is given an opportunity to improve the costing to accommodate the externalities of fossil fuels.


    Let’s see how that plays forward? 


    Coming soon to an eBook store near you: Social Responsibility by the www.RefractiveThinker.com