<?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: Balancing Risks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/</link>
	<description>The Sweet Release of Reason</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:11:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Pithlord</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/#comment-13205</link>
		<dc:creator>Pithlord</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1363#comment-13205</guid>
		<description>The economic effects of a revenue-neutral carbon tax depend a lot on how inefficient the taxes it replaces are. In British Columbia, we were able to eliminate a really stupid tax on corporate capital.

Libertarians should prefer a carbon tax to most other taxes, since it is (a) a genuine attempt to address an externality, (b) more economically neutral than most taxes and (c) on a tax base that is bound to shrink, since the economy in the future will inevitably be less carbon-intensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The economic effects of a revenue-neutral carbon tax depend a lot on how inefficient the taxes it replaces are. In British Columbia, we were able to eliminate a really stupid tax on corporate capital.</p>
<p>Libertarians should prefer a carbon tax to most other taxes, since it is (a) a genuine attempt to address an externality, (b) more economically neutral than most taxes and (c) on a tax base that is bound to shrink, since the economy in the future will inevitably be less carbon-intensive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pithlord</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/#comment-13206</link>
		<dc:creator>Pithlord</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1363#comment-13206</guid>
		<description>The economic effects of a revenue-neutral carbon tax depend a lot on how inefficient the taxes it replaces are. In British Columbia, we were able to eliminate a really stupid tax on corporate capital.

Libertarians should prefer a carbon tax to most other taxes, since it is (a) a genuine attempt to address an externality, (b) more economically neutral than most taxes and (c) on a tax base that is bound to shrink, since the economy in the future will inevitably be less carbon-intensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The economic effects of a revenue-neutral carbon tax depend a lot on how inefficient the taxes it replaces are. In British Columbia, we were able to eliminate a really stupid tax on corporate capital.</p>
<p>Libertarians should prefer a carbon tax to most other taxes, since it is (a) a genuine attempt to address an externality, (b) more economically neutral than most taxes and (c) on a tax base that is bound to shrink, since the economy in the future will inevitably be less carbon-intensive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pithlord</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/#comment-13207</link>
		<dc:creator>Pithlord</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1363#comment-13207</guid>
		<description>The economic effects of a revenue-neutral carbon tax depend a lot on how inefficient the taxes it replaces are. In British Columbia, we were able to eliminate a really stupid tax on corporate capital.

Libertarians should prefer a carbon tax to most other taxes, since it is (a) a genuine attempt to address an externality, (b) more economically neutral than most taxes and (c) on a tax base that is bound to shrink, since the economy in the future will inevitably be less carbon-intensive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The economic effects of a revenue-neutral carbon tax depend a lot on how inefficient the taxes it replaces are. In British Columbia, we were able to eliminate a really stupid tax on corporate capital.</p>
<p>Libertarians should prefer a carbon tax to most other taxes, since it is (a) a genuine attempt to address an externality, (b) more economically neutral than most taxes and (c) on a tax base that is bound to shrink, since the economy in the future will inevitably be less carbon-intensive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Zrimsek</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/#comment-13204</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Zrimsek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:16:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1363#comment-13204</guid>
		<description>OK, so why won&#039;t Lomborg cut it? And the Senate that voted 95-0 against even considering anything like Kyoto must have included some influential people from the left, no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, so why won&#8217;t Lomborg cut it? And the Senate that voted 95-0 against even considering anything like Kyoto must have included some influential people from the left, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Zrimsek</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/#comment-13208</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Zrimsek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1363#comment-13208</guid>
		<description>OK, so why won&#039;t Lomborg cut it? And the Senate that voted 95-0 against even considering anything like Kyoto must have included some influential people from the left, no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, so why won&#8217;t Lomborg cut it? And the Senate that voted 95-0 against even considering anything like Kyoto must have included some influential people from the left, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Zrimsek</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/#comment-13209</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Zrimsek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1363#comment-13209</guid>
		<description>OK, so why won&#039;t Lomborg cut it? And the Senate that voted 95-0 against even considering anything like Kyoto must have included some influential people from the left, no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, so why won&#8217;t Lomborg cut it? And the Senate that voted 95-0 against even considering anything like Kyoto must have included some influential people from the left, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JA</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/#comment-13203</link>
		<dc:creator>JA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:50:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1363#comment-13203</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why don’t more people believe something like this?&quot;

Freddie&#039;s post is emblematic.  Global warming is not a precautionary issue, it is a moral one.  The former lends itself to the balancing of risk and reward; the latter type does not.

Moralizing an issue reduces deliberative freedom by scrubbing out shades of gray.  Too bad if the situation calls for an etcher&#039;s needle; everybody around you carries hammers and chisels.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why don’t more people believe something like this?&#8221;</p>
<p>Freddie&#8217;s post is emblematic.  Global warming is not a precautionary issue, it is a moral one.  The former lends itself to the balancing of risk and reward; the latter type does not.</p>
<p>Moralizing an issue reduces deliberative freedom by scrubbing out shades of gray.  Too bad if the situation calls for an etcher&#8217;s needle; everybody around you carries hammers and chisels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JA</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/#comment-13216</link>
		<dc:creator>JA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1363#comment-13216</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why don’t more people believe something like this?&quot;

Freddie&#039;s post is emblematic.  Global warming is not a precautionary issue, it is a moral one.  The former lends itself to the balancing of risk and reward; the latter type does not.

Moralizing an issue reduces deliberative freedom by scrubbing out shades of gray.  Too bad if the situation calls for an etcher&#039;s needle; everybody around you carries hammers and chisels.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why don’t more people believe something like this?&#8221;</p>
<p>Freddie&#8217;s post is emblematic.  Global warming is not a precautionary issue, it is a moral one.  The former lends itself to the balancing of risk and reward; the latter type does not.</p>
<p>Moralizing an issue reduces deliberative freedom by scrubbing out shades of gray.  Too bad if the situation calls for an etcher&#8217;s needle; everybody around you carries hammers and chisels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JA</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/#comment-13217</link>
		<dc:creator>JA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1363#comment-13217</guid>
		<description>&quot;Why don’t more people believe something like this?&quot;

Freddie&#039;s post is emblematic.  Global warming is not a precautionary issue, it is a moral one.  The former lends itself to the balancing of risk and reward; the latter type does not.

Moralizing an issue reduces deliberative freedom by scrubbing out shades of gray.  Too bad if the situation calls for an etcher&#039;s needle; everybody around you carries hammers and chisels.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why don’t more people believe something like this?&#8221;</p>
<p>Freddie&#8217;s post is emblematic.  Global warming is not a precautionary issue, it is a moral one.  The former lends itself to the balancing of risk and reward; the latter type does not.</p>
<p>Moralizing an issue reduces deliberative freedom by scrubbing out shades of gray.  Too bad if the situation calls for an etcher&#8217;s needle; everybody around you carries hammers and chisels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Miller</title>
		<link>http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/30/balancing-risks/#comment-13202</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:46:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=1363#comment-13202</guid>
		<description>Paul, human nature doesn&#039;t just apply to liberals...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul, human nature doesn&#8217;t just apply to liberals&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

