Interesting economics

Taxes eliminate not a single tonne of carbon. Regulation backed. by reporting can do that – hence what I propose. So, tell me, how do you think people can stop buying carbon driven products unless business is forced to change. And please do recall – most demand is created by advertising. Take that into account please.

Quite so. Our demand for domestic comforts and transport – the two major emitting sectors of the economy – is entirely and solely drive by advertising, isn’t it? I’d never desire food not central heating without it.

James. I never said any number should be discounted, I said provide in full. I dd not allow for discounting because in the case of climate costs increase over time and do not fall. Discounting pretends otherwise. Hence why full provision is required.

Seriously, an accountant who doesn’t understand discounting this badly? Dear God.

10 thoughts on “Interesting economics”

  1. “Businesses have to eliminate carbon in what they sell”.

    Well, that’s the pencil industry fucked. And every other industry.

    “business is responsible for the sessions [emissions?] they enable in my plan – not just those made to the point of sale”

    How is a company supposed to know how its products are being used? On the one hand, I could use oil to manufacture a state-of-the-art solar power facility. On the other hand, I could round up all the pandas and dolphins of the world and use oil to burn them alive. Safe in the knowledge that BP would cop the blame.

    Even by Ritchie’s standards, this is a stinker of an idea.

  2. It’s as if he doesn’t understand that discounting enables you to work out how much you should pay now to be able to pay these higher future costs…. It’s like watching a guy in a wheelchair playing blind man’s buff in a room full of booby traps. Everything he says is wrong. Cumulatively it is a tangled web of contradictory nonsense.

  3. Diogenes

    ‘ It’s like watching a guy in a wheelchair playing blind man’s buff in a room full of booby traps. Everything he says is wrong. Cumulatively it is a tangled web of contradictory nonsense.’

    Absolutely spot on. The man also seems to be suffering from failing memory as he will contradict himself in the sane post on a regular basis…

  4. You know, if the first premise is bollocks, all that flows from it will struggle even to reach that level of sense.

    The first premise in this case IS bollocks. There is no measurable man-made climate change and if there was, warmer is better.

  5. most demand is created by advertising

    What about demand for those things that are subject to advertising bans?

  6. VP
    he will contradict himself in the sane post on a regular basis…
    Don’t get many (any?) of those from him anyway.

  7. You increase the price of something due to how much carbon is emitted in its creation.

    As technology to reduce carbon emissions becomes available, producers will incorporate that – the tax simply makes it more profitable to do so earlier.

    How is this a hard concept for an accountant to grasp?

  8. Taxes eliminate not a single gram of sugar in food.

    So that’s the case for the “sugar tax” gone then. So there’s that to be pleased about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *