Argh, I don't know whether you're making fun of the first study or just being humourous! :-D If it's the former, I think the people in the jelly bean experiment must have been able to know the numbers and percentages before they were blindfolded; otherwise, the plate with 100 jelly beans would have been chosen about 50 percent of the time (or whatever cognitive bias there is between left and right plates), rather than 33.333... per cent... that is, I think so...

And *chuckle* at the Belgian choppers.

-Oscar

This is hilarious! A small helicopter typically burns around 90lbs/41Kg of fuel per hour at cruise! So, after doing off the cuff, approximate chemistry, that helicopter emits 120Kg CO2/hr, so it needs to prevent 1200-2400 barbeques/hr to make up for it's emissions, assuming it's up there for a leisurly ride. (And imagine the emissions of the 1200 patrol cars busting the violators, phew.)

Now, just to make this even better, that's .20€/gram of CO2 based on the tax, meaning the helicopter itself should be doing the equivalent "damage" of 24000Euros/hour. The cost of 1Kg of fuel is about 2.61€, or .002€/g, a two-order-of-magnitude difference. Gee, talk about unfair!

Of course, Europeans are much better at math.

(As to the Stossel thing, I think the psychological effect of "I see *more* red beans comes into play. Just like the effect of cutting up a childs food to make them *think* they got more. Not sure if it actually works, but I'll let you know in a couple years. ;-) )

Oops, that's .002€/g of fuel, not CO2. The off the cuff fuel->CO2 I'm using assumes complete combustion, but we get 1g of fuel->3g CO2., so that's .0006€/g of CO2.

TCG: Good to hear from you again, friend!

I think the people in the jelly bean experiment must have been able to know the numbers and percentages before they were blindfolded...

Yes, I'm fairly sure that's what happened. But I just found the way he described it as humorous.

Zapman!

...it needs to prevent 1200-2400 barbeques/hr to make up for it's emissions...

Exact numbers aside, there's "random audit" effect here: How many people are barbequing on a given day, and what percentage will be discouraged by this law? And how often does the helicopter have to fly, and busts occur, to create a deterrant effect?

(Entirely aside from questions about the relationship between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature, etc.)

But your point is clear: If one hour of flying a helicopter is equal to several hundred or thousand BBQ, then it seems much more effect could be achieved by using choppers as little as possible. Given the choice between grounding helicopters and stopping backyard cookouts, which gets chosen? Answer: The one which won't impact the rich or the government.

Like most anti-global-warming strictures, it's clearly a feel-good measure, where the brunt is mostly borne by the middle class, not something with real bite.

I see *more* red beans comes into play.

Yup.

I do agree that the deterrent effect has to be played in, and the random checks, etc, but still, for every hour that helicopter is in the air, the whole system has to stop 1200 BBQs, just to be nice, since this doesn't cover take-off and landing (much more fuel), or the other processes that go into maintaining the helicopter, etc. None-the-less, if you look at the deterrent nature of speed-traps in this country, along side the much higher penalties, you could probably guess how many "illegal" barbequeues this will stop. :-)

And I agree also that the reduction should be considered (if you think CO2 is a serious problem, that is -- I don't at this point), but what the legislation says philosophically is very interesting.

It's basicly: "Well, it's really bad to emit CO2, but, hey, if you're wealthy enough to be able to send the government a big wad of money first, then we'll let you get away with it." It isn't clear to me how paying the government more money undoes the 'harm' caused by your backyard burgers.

Al Gore assures us he's living a carbon neutral life. Why? Because he bought some "green" stocks from a corporation -- of which he just happens to be CEO. (How very altruistic.) So, because he's sufficiently wealthy, we are told, he can consume 20 times the average family's power intake and still be "green."

So it's only those of us who aren't so fabulously wealthy who will have to make these "drastic cuts" and "changes in lifestyle" he's constantly advocating.

On this Easter, I'm reminded of a man who also said we'd sinned, but who was willing to go even further than we were to pay that penalty. He was willing to make lifestyle cuts, and live in a field. He was willing to suffer and even die for what he believed to be necessary. I hope someday, with his help, to be able to live up to his example.

He wasn't Al Gore.

It isn't clear to me how paying the government more money undoes the 'harm' caused by your backyard burgers.

Ignoring the rest of the debate for a moment (the tax sounds ridiculous, insanely invasive, and probably delivers no real benefit) I'd assume the supposed intention is to discourage an activity by making it more expensive, which would make more sense in other contexts. And since the government needs to collect a certain amount of money in taxes, they'd rather tax 'undesirable ' activites than desirable ones, similar to cigarette taxes.

Or maybe they just want an excuse to fly helicpoters and monitor people's backyards. I'm guessing the copters would be doing more than just looking for barbecues?

Never mind the helicopters. Where's the money going? To save the planet, or fund the state's day-to-day activities, as with any other revenue earned through fines? In other words, this law punishes, but doesn't solve.

Yep.