You are still objectively using the wrong term to describe the phenomenon you want. A consumption as a function of time graph goes up and to the right, but you are simply wrong to call this a "demand curve" or, more recently, a "curve of the demand" which have completely different axes and go down and to the right besides.

That you seem utterly unwilling to acknowledge you are just objectively wrong about perhaps the most basic terminology in all of economics is embarrassing at this point.

That is a very loaded question that one can only guess at and the variance would be massive.


What we know, is that if in fact we could accomplish the goals of the more aggressive left, say going back to the Gore years and use tactics like uke suggests to raise the price of fossil fuels and make them more harmful and polluting such that the use of them was moving down and not up across those decades, we would see countless more people living in abject poverty today and all the suffering and dead that entails.

In those post Gore years we have seen billions of people shifting up the economic ladder and the key to that continuing is energy, first.

I think Germany is illustrative enough to demonstrate what happens when ideology is pushed to rapidly without properly balancing pragmatic realities and the entire world following in Germany's path would have been a disaster.

That does not mean the goals are not worthy and needed but when you put 'achieving the goal' over pragmatic realities you end up on the 'road to hell' and the fact it was 'paved with good intentions' is not going to save you.

So to Part B.

On balance will the trade off of a more pragmatic approach cost more lives than adopting a uke type (drive prices up, arrest and shrink demand) plan would? That answer depends on what man can do technology wise in the future?

I do believe that thru technology mankind will be able to offset much of the most extreme and dangerous elements of the continual climate change. I am more concerned however, that despite the technology being available, fights over 'who should pay to deploy it' may see it sit on the sidelines while mass damage is done. My biggest hope that typical Geo politics will not prevent a solution being deployed though is tied to the fact that the biggest companies now are global and thus they will be impacted everywhere so they may pressure all the worlds gov'ts to come up with solutions, and Corporate pressure is the one things that can unite all gov'ts.

We see that in Texas now as off shore Oil and Gas assets are calling for a united gov' t approach to protect their offshore assets from damage due to climate with tax payer money. Any irony yes, as they deny it when needed, but when they see their assets, as robust as they are built, may now not be sufficient robust to deal with increasing severity of storms they can get Dems and Republicans alike to agree to use taxpayer money to save their profits.

That (sadly) may be the key to use saying the rest of humanity on this planet.

Something in another thread made this click for me:

Your refusal to accept that "demand curve" is the wrong terminology has nothing to do with right or wrong, does it? You 100% know you were objectively wrong. But because I'm mocking you for your embarassing screwup of basic economic terminology, you are just going to pretend you didn't screw up on purpose......right?

No. The benefits from cheap, reliable and plentiful energy have massively out weighed any negatives. 6 Billion people are currently suffering because they lack cheap, reliable, plentiful energy.

I want human flourishing, the green movement wants to limit human impact on earth.

Shifty, do you think Canada should spend money supporting clean energy projects in third world countries? Or is this just #drillbabydrill profiteering marketed as faux-humanitarian concern?

Do you not believe in climate change at all or don't believe it's a significant concern? Can you see that people who do think it's a significant concern are acting in good faith if they think future human suffering will vastly outweigh the benefits of getting those billions of people into the middle class slightly faster through fossil fuels?

Its a refusal to let you derail uke.

You cannot escape that what we were debating was the impact of price increases on Cdn Oil and Gas and your view that blocking pipelines, and thus making it more expensive to ship and buy, would therefore have an impact on world demand and consumption. You even said it 'duh' to suggest anyone was foolish not to understand the impact of price on demand.

What I countered was not a denial of the economic theory, but the reality of actual situation at play where that increase in Cdn pricing has no impact on changing the curve of the demand (as I said) and only harms Canada (lost revenue picked up by others) while keeping our product more polluting.

Once you could not refute my argument as I had proved you wrong and you dropped saying denying pipelines would reduce world demand you then switched to pretending I was arguing over the language and economic theory. You keep repeating htat as if we were ever arguing that and I was not and never was. I was always speaking to the curve of the demand today and for generations to come which will continue to be up and to the right and that is factually accurate.

But apparently your tactic has worked at least a little in making Bobo think we were arguing what you suggest. So there is that.

Oh look, you screwed it up again! A "demand curve" (you've oddly switched to calling it "curve of the demand"....do you think that is different?) is down and to the right.

Let me make it as simple as can be: Do you understand that a "demand curve" is a graph of price vs quantity and not consumption vs time?

Err no, I think you just screwed up basic econ 101 language, and are now digging in and refusing to admit you were wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

He Believe in unlimited increases of ressources on a planet with limited supply being sustainable and cannot create problems ……

1+1 = infinity is real for him .
It’s a new kind of math he just discover .

You are correct we live on a planet with limited supply yet demand (population) keeps growing . Unless we do something about demand the planet may be doomed. As well you have folks like Al Gore in 2006 predicting many climate disasters which never occurred. So every 10-15 years we get told we only have 10 years to do something yet we keep not meeting the goals we set.
Who knows if we have 15 years or 500 years ?

The problem is everyone thinks we have an infinite supply of the components to male batteries for electric cars. As well they think Green Energy will power all these cars.


Folks like Uke want to destroy our economy while supporting dictators and countries with no human rights and little concern for the environment. They turn a blind eye to how we obtain conflict minerals and instead are more concerned with me calling Demi Lavato by the wrong pronoun

We can do this all day.

Lets just copy and paste our same replies 1000 times in this thread.

No uke you are wrong. Speaking about the demand and how if you examine it as a curve, as I did in the first post i referenced, it is fine to say that curve of that demand is up and to the right.

Do you agree we can look at and plot the demand and if we do and it goes up and to the right, we can state that?

If so you agree we can state the curve of that demand is up and to the right.

You can say 'but... but... text book concepts always measure Demand curves versus price so any use of those two words can only be used to speak to that text book concept but I won't agree.

I won't agree 1 time and I wont agree, 1000 times, So every time you tell me I am wrong, I will explain to you why, in fact you are wrong. I may just cut and paste over and over.

So I suggest you do same. Just write your argument 1000 times and cut and paste and I will my reply until the mods shut the thread as we are not going to agree and thus I will never accept you telling me I am wrong.

Or we agree to disagree and move on.

We need to deprioritize cars in general. Getting off cars is harder in rural areas but electric is still going to be better than ice.

You can certainly plot "consumption as a function of time" but that is not called either a "demand curve" or a "curve of demand", which refer to a very specific thing - price vs quantity - and you are misusing the terminology to conflate the two.

This is crucial because you can talk about consumption, about quantities that is, in the absence of a discussion of price. But you can't talk about demand absence of price. It isn't one fixed point "the demand" that shifts up and down as time goes on. It is an entire curve, depending on prices, and that entire curve can change in time as I linked an image of.

In short: you have made a simple econ 101 mistake. That's fine. You can simply admit you are not using basic words correctly or you can't. Given our experience with "BioWoman" my guess is you will never admit you used the word incorrectly.

like what predictions ?
fwiw i think more we go and more we see him being right on the long run which is what he predicted ....
i never recall him predicting end of the world scenario in the next 15-20 years...

Yes to me increasing supply of oil wont change anything to the problems we have and i think we have a surpopulation problems too that would be far worst if every human on this planet consume as much energy consumption as we do.
That is why its seem far more better for us to decrease our energy consumption than to increase it and find alternative sources.

obv it will take time since the world as usual started to late for it.

The thing i dont get it about those that are full pro oil energy and save the world nonsense narrative with it is that creating a renewable cheaper energy source would help far better the rest of the world then the path of :
lets consume even more oil...

?

I'm not caught up in anything. I only chose to comment when I did because after you misused "demand curve", you amazingly doubled down when uke gave you an actual definition of the term, telling him he was wrong. I guess it's just that natural adversarial thing you guys do with each other, that you can't simply acknowledge and/or correct the error and move on. I mean, uke's right that even now, your graphs are not showing demand over time, but consumption - I made that mistake as well.

You seem strangely hung up on this 'doesn't fit the textbook/lefties don't understand economics' point. The actual energy demand curve DOES fit the textbook definition, of course. The point you're making doesn't in any way supplant that - you're just going beyond a demand curve to look at consumption over time, while a demand curve is limited to a single point in time. But consumption going up over time in spite of increasing cost doesn't necessarily mean that price hasn't, or can't, impact(ed) demand. To take it to a really silly extreme, if oil jumped to a million dollars a barrel tomorrow, demand would immediately plummet.

As I said in the rest of my post that you replied to, which I assume you missed since you asked "It is an attempt to derail only and the only question is Bobo, did he catch you up in it?":

That doesn't make them right, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.


The catastrophist have been horribly wrong and have caused terrible damage. 6 billion people live in energy poverty with 3 billion of them using less any than your refrigerator. The only moral solution/policy is to liberate energy and allow those people to flourish. Also studies show as GDP increases so does concern for the environment.

Gore had predicted some islands would be fully under water by now and the levels have increased barely at all. Mt Kilimanjaro would have no snow on it. There are a few others as well

For a guy so worried about climate change and Ocean levels surprises me both he and Obama bought Ocean Front property mansions

You are referring to a defined term or label.

I am describing a behaviour.

My initial point was and still is, that if you look at the demand and you plot it in a graph, and that graph happens to a line graph, the curve of the demand will be up and to the right.

You then reply to that "Demand Curve' has a definition... blah... blah.. blah and you then PRETEND you can dictate any discussion of the how the curve of the demand will be plotted must be only be addressed in that way.

It is absolutely fine to say to someone 'here is the data on demand ...please plot it... now lets look at the curve of that demand'.

You interject with your 'no, you can only address things the way I would, you have no flexibility. I am boss', when you are not.

And it is a constant problem with you. You think that the way you would do something HAS TO be the way others do and you proceed to tell they are wrong when they don't (Carlin Meme).

At best you could say here, 'you know when you say the curve of the demand casually as you do, it could be confusing to people who may think you are speaking to a formal Demand Curve, even if you are not'. To which my reply would be 'noted. And don't care. The context given should be enough for them not to be confused'.

NO.

You are complicating this and that is creating errors.

My point was a simple one and I can ask you to do it now.

Plot for me on a line graph the Demand for Oil and Gas we have seen from today and going back the last 2 decades. Then connect those dots created the curve of that demand in a visual sense.

If you follow those instructions we will have a visual and from there we can easily predict the trend.

What it would look like if you did what i asked is this

You started with "demand curve". I told you this was wrong.
Then you said "demand of the curve", as if this is something different. Still wrong.
Now you have separated "demand" and "curve" into two different sentences, but it is.still.objectively.the.wrong.terminology.

You have shown a graph of consumption as a function of time. That is not a demand curve. Or a curve of the demand. Or a demand.........[insert filler].......curve. A demand curve is a plot of price against quantity. This is literally a day 1 econ 101 concept.

What do you mean specifically by the bolded? Wrong on what? If we let it rip on fossil fuels now to help bring people out of poverty, what good does that do if their children and grandchildren live in a world with increased poverty, famine, and war due to climate change?

Ok this is me complaining about something I really have no right to complain about but its the Canadian government so I'm going to complain anyways. I recently went on parental leave at my main job and so went on EI (university pays top up to 95%). I also make a side income on YouTube, but I didn't work much on YouTube during this period I just make passive ad revenue from my library. So money I make on YouTube counts against my EI (basically you take your self employment income and multiply by 50% and then subtract that from the EI benefit). But there were lots of confusing things about it and I ended up calling EI so many ****ing times, and each time was such a ****ing disaster and took over 3.5 months with seemingly endless multiple hour long phone call waits and the end result is I get basically nothing from EI for this period. I can't really complain about the result, because it is just a function of making too much in passive income, but every single part of the dealing with EI was so unbelievably frustrating and they are so terribly slow that someone who was really depending on the money would be completely ****ed. It is enough to make me a conservative that thinks the government can't do good things. Except the carbon tax, of course.

Sadly I hate to tell you this but if the Conservatives were in power you may be waiting longer on hold. Look what Harper did with Revenue Canada they are so poorly understaffed its unbelievable. Though the current government hasn't addressed that yet.

Kudos to you declaring your You Tube income

On a different note you had mentioned how me operating in BC would be a shock on the bureaucracy but so far other than it taking 5 months to get BC Builders License its been relatively pretty good. I now have a Condition BC Builders License and had a few trips to Kimberley and falling in love with the community.

Thinking that the civil servants in government are incompetent shouldn't be a Conservative-only belief. I don't see a silver bullet to solve poor employees (and the bureaucracy that is required to allow the lowest among them to adequately perform their jobs), but they shouldn't get a pass due to the party in power. Not to start an argument about it - this thread became much easier to just scroll through without reading once it became the same people arguing over fossil fuel - but I'd personally take a government's body of work into account when deciding if they'd be competent enough to implement something as ambitious as carbon taxation.

By the way, if you think that department is a mess, may I put forward that no government entity is as poorly-managed and staffed with dregs as the Canada Revenue Agency:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...ng-harassment/

"Staff in Canada Revenue Agency unit complain of bullying and harassment, report finds"

those are details with a probabilistic error on time that eventually will become true.

regardless:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

when i look at those graphs i just dont see how u can say sea level do not increase...on the contrary.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

"In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches 67 mm above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present)."

"Disruptive and expensive, nuisance flooding is estimated to be from 300 percent to 900 percent more frequent within U.S. coastal communities than it was just 50 years ago."

"In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high-population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and hazards from storms. Globally, eight of the world's 10 largest cities are near a coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans."

"In urban settings, rising seas threaten infrastructure necessary for local jobs and regional industries. Roads, bridges, subways, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage treatment plants, landfills—virtually all human infrastructure—is at risk from sea level rise."


the wake up call will be brutal.


fwiw, it do not mean he was wrong .

rejecting 100% of his message (which actually was not his own but a sharing scientific message btw..) because of some details that is impossible to predict accurately at 100% rate (like the stock market) is pointless.

better be prepare to face a crisis then to wait it to happen.