<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We won&#8217;t solve global warming through voluntary effort</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kev.inburke.com/kevin/we-wont-solve-global-warming-through-voluntary-effort/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kev.inburke.com/kevin/we-wont-solve-global-warming-through-voluntary-effort/</link>
	<description>The golden age is before us, not behind us</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:03:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: D</title>
		<link>http://kev.inburke.com/kevin/we-wont-solve-global-warming-through-voluntary-effort/comment-page-1/#comment-147</link>
		<dc:creator>D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2009 03:04:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kev.inburke.com/?p=610#comment-147</guid>
		<description>&quot;The solution to the problem is to place a higher price on pollution, so that people and firms make environmentally beneficial decisions as a normal result of cost-benefit analysis.&quot;
Fancy words my friend, but a few questions:
1.  By what form of measurement do you suggest that we base price increases on?  In other words, how do we evaluate the price of pollution and what do we consider when determining how much to raise the prices?
2.  Do you believe that, economically, this planned increase could ever be more than a gradual adjustment?  Could the United States impose drastic price increases for a unit of pollution and still manage to balance economic concerns, or would we suffer drastically in the global marketplace?  Would this require a world-wide installment of price increases instead or would it still be an effective plan when implemented by individual countries.
3.  Do you have a Prius and shop at Whole Foods?  If so, why?
Nice writeup.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The solution to the problem is to place a higher price on pollution, so that people and firms make environmentally beneficial decisions as a normal result of cost-benefit analysis.&#8221;</p>
<p>Fancy words my friend, but a few questions:</p>
<p>1.  By what form of measurement do you suggest that we base price increases on?  In other words, how do we evaluate the price of pollution and what do we consider when determining how much to raise the prices?</p>
<p>2.  Do you believe that, economically, this planned increase could ever be more than a gradual adjustment?  Could the United States impose drastic price increases for a unit of pollution and still manage to balance economic concerns, or would we suffer drastically in the global marketplace?  Would this require a world-wide installment of price increases instead or would it still be an effective plan when implemented by individual countries.</p>
<p>3.  Do you have a Prius and shop at Whole Foods?  If so, why?</p>
<p>Nice writeup.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy McKenzie</title>
		<link>http://kev.inburke.com/kevin/we-wont-solve-global-warming-through-voluntary-effort/comment-page-1/#comment-146</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy McKenzie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:56:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kev.inburke.com/?p=610#comment-146</guid>
		<description>Good post. Number four is obviously the controversial one, and I doubt the correlation you are positing between whether people who actually buy carbon offsets will be less likely to support changes at the political level. I think that the effects of such actions are neither good, nor bad, but for the most part decidedly neutral. Sure, it&#039;s annoying when they think that they are doing something good, but that doesn&#039;t matter so much either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post. Number four is obviously the controversial one, and I doubt the correlation you are positing between whether people who actually buy carbon offsets will be less likely to support changes at the political level. I think that the effects of such actions are neither good, nor bad, but for the most part decidedly neutral. Sure, it&#8217;s annoying when they think that they are doing something good, but that doesn&#8217;t matter so much either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

