Climate Change and the Nanny State

Do we need the government to save us from ourselves?

David Harsanyi | September 23, 2009

If Jesus raised the dead tomorrow, our science czar probably would be too busy calculating the carbon footprint to find salvation.

But who needs Christ when the flock is blessed with sound moral guidance from men and women whose lifework has been cajoling 50 percent plus one to push a button?

From our extravagant health care choices to our risky financial behavior to our ill-conceived love of profit to, most tragically, our immoral penchant for air-conditioning our homes, we need help. I need help.

This week, prepping for the upcoming Copenhagen climate change talks, Dr. Steven Chu, our erstwhile energy secretary, crystallized the administration's underlining thinking by claiming that the "American public ... just like your teenage kids, aren't acting in a way that they should act. The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is."

Did you know that Cabinet positions come equipped with a handbook detailing how Americans "should act"? If teenagers—irresponsible bunch of weasels that they usually are—are in need of moral supervision, an environmental train wreck like me needs an intervention.

After all, President Barack Obama warned me this week that a failure to address the problem of "carbon pollution" could create an "irreversible catastrophe." (Yeah, Oxygen, you're next.) Chu recently referred to Earth as "the great ship Titanic."

Chu will deploy bureaucrats to more than 6,000 public schools to, um, teach children about "climate change" and efficiency. They probably won't mention that the Energy Department was found to have wasted millions on inefficient use of energy by an independent auditor this year. (Listen, even our parents aren't perfect.)

Chu the adult likes to say that coal—which as we speak is likely powering your computer, your office, and your house and allows your kids to sit in their schoolhouse without freezing their little toes off in early fall—is his "worst nightmare."

Coal. Not an energy that is running its course or one that the market will replace. This energy source accounts for more than half of electricity production in the entire nation.

Chu, a physicist and Nobel Prize winner—and, unlike me, a deadly serious person—believes that "all the world's roofs should be painted white as part of efforts to slow global warming." Guess what? Not one white roof in my community. What's the holdup? Do we have to pass a law?

We do. Because you are hopeless, petulant, immoral, and clueless. Your nightmare starts with banning a plastic bag at the grocery and ends with a job-killing cap-and-trade scheme. It starts with a public service announcement from a third-tier celebrity and ends with you scouring the earth to find a light bulb that lights something.

For you, the immoral-inclined, there is hope. According to a new Gallup Poll, Americans believe that government is too intrusive. Gallup data show that 57 percent of Americans say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals. Forty-five percent say there is too much government regulation, and only 27 percent say the amount of regulation is about right.

There is one question we all have to answer: What's more important, negligibly reducing "carbon pollution" through coercive policies or protecting personal freedom and allowing real markets to work? That's the trade-off. Parenting won't change the question.

Remember when George W. Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, claimed that the president saw the American people "as we think about a 10-year-old child"? His comment, understandably, caused much mockery and disdain.

The problem, apparently, wasn't the paternalist sentiment; it was the parent offering it. What we needed was a brainy, grown-up administration to harangue and regulate us into submission.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Comments

John Tagliaferro|9.23.09 @ 12:15PM|#

But as David Harsanyi writes, since when did Cabinet positions come equipped with a handbook detailing how Americans "should act"?

When the Messiah was elected. Before that, there were no handbooks on the way Americans should act. Obama saved us.

|9.23.09 @ 12:25PM|#

Oh let's hear it from indivudal freedom.

I just wished more of the public also took on a bit more individual responsiblity. They could start with their personal finances, and then move on the the finances of the government.

shit maybe they could even get informed, so when their politicans told them lies they could call them out on it.

But...

Football, and then American Idol is on, and we know that when it comes to priorities, that shit is way more interesting than ecomomics, or politics.

Sigh... Maybe the liberals are right

Tony|9.23.09 @ 12:27PM|#

Well, Americans really are the stupidest people in the western world. Reason magazine is always willing to do its part to feed the ignorance on the subject of climate change. I don't know for sure, but magical markets working on there own--made up of Americans--don't seem to be adequate to address the problem. I'd rather have informed scientists and policymakers fixing the problem than hoping my fellow Americans will do it collectively on their own when they don't even know the earth goes around the sun on a good day.

Mike M.|9.23.09 @ 12:29PM|#

Chu, a physicist and Nobel Prize winner-and, unlike me, a deadly serious person-believes that "all the world's roofs should be painted white as part of efforts to slow global warming." Guess what?

Ummmm, wow. OK, let's say that this guy's cockamamie idea was somehow put into effect, and all our roofs were painted white, and as a result much less energy was needed to cool our homes during the summer.

What then happens in the wintertime? You know, that time of year when a lot less solar energy is striking the rooftops than during the summer?

Milton Stanley|9.23.09 @ 12:37PM|#

You write that Dr. Chu is now our "erstwhile" energy secretation? Do you mean to say he's no longer Secretary of Energy?

Milton Stanley|9.23.09 @ 12:41PM|#

You write that Dr. Chu is now our "erstwhile" energy secretary. Do you mean to say he's no longer Secretary of Energy?

|9.23.09 @ 12:50PM|#

The solution, Mike, is to mandate roof tiles that are white on one side and black on the other. Then once a year we go up on the roof and flip them over.

|9.23.09 @ 12:51PM|#

Remember, its "Climate Change" not "Global Warming" folks. That way no matter which way the temperature moves the environmental fundamentalists are still correct.
This is relevant to the current climate change we are experiencing - an unexpected, unpredicted cooling caused by uppity ocean currents which didn't get the Al Gore memo predicting that we would soon all be snorkeling above sky scrapers in Miami if we kept consuming energy like HE does.
Not a lot of headlines lately about top UN climatologists confirming this cooling trend. Wonder why? (Maybe because it makes all the media Cassandras look a bit foolish?). This unexpected cooling, they GUESS, might last for the next 10 to 20 years - but then the heating type of change will really, really kick in. They promise - unless another unpredicted influence on climate decides poop on the party and undermine Green fundamentalism even more. Don't you just hate Mother Nature sometimes?

|9.23.09 @ 12:54PM|#

the problem than hoping my fellow Americans will do it collectively on their own when they don't even know the earth goes around the sun on a good day.

This statement nicely illustrates the dangers of "belief in science." In my system of coordinates the sun goes around the earth every single day. Don't tell me anything about "science" if you cannot understand that my statement is just as correct as saying that the earth goes around the sun.

Xeones|9.23.09 @ 12:55PM|#

Tony, you really are an incredible buffoon. Shouldn't you be updating your livejournal or something?

Nicolaus Copernicus|9.23.09 @ 1:04PM|#

"I'd rather have informed scientists and policymakers fixing the problem than hoping my fellow Americans will do it collectively on their own when they don't even know the earth goes around the sun on a good day."

WTF???

Don|9.23.09 @ 1:04PM|#

You write that Dr. Chu is now our "erstwhile" energy secretation? Do you mean to say he's no longer Secretary of Energy?

I think he meant ersatz; a word on the same page in the dictionary.

Walter Jameson|9.23.09 @ 1:10PM|#

I defy anyone to name superhero that is lamer than captain planet.

Joe M|9.23.09 @ 1:10PM|#

Didn't climate change used to be referred to as weather?

Mike M.|9.23.09 @ 1:17PM|#

The solution, Mike, is to mandate roof tiles that are white on one side and black on the other. Then once a year we go up on the roof and flip them over.

Sweet, Othello roofs! Why didn't anyone think of this before?

Zeb|9.23.09 @ 1:18PM|#

"Didn't climate change used to be referred to as weather?"

No, but a lot of people these days seem to think that weather can tell them something about climate change.

|9.23.09 @ 1:18PM|#

@ Walter

Underdog. At least Captain Planet has a rank.

And why are you all even trying? You're just a bunch of whiny, idiot teenagers remember?

|9.23.09 @ 1:25PM|#

Climate = lots of weather, no?

Tweety|9.23.09 @ 1:29PM|#

I'm happy living in my gilded cage so long as master continues to provide food and water as well as keeping the thermostat at a responsible level.

Walter Jameson|9.23.09 @ 1:31PM|#

Underdog is a fictional character. I mean real superheroes, like Obama and Jesus.

(Captain Planet exists very much in all our hearts.)

David H.|9.23.09 @ 1:31PM|#

"You write that Dr. Chu is now our "erstwhile" energy secretation? Do you mean to say he's no longer Secretary of Energy?"

Actually, I was attempting -- in poor form -- to mock Dr. Chu for abandoning the job of "energy" secretary to become a professional anti-energy nag -- hence "erstwhile."

A failed attempt.

|9.23.09 @ 1:40PM|#

Good, no one's noticed my once a year gaffe.

|9.23.09 @ 1:45PM|#

@Tony

As someone who has been to rural and urban areas all around the world, I can tell you that Americans in general are--in general--the most thoughtful, intelligent group.

Smart enough, in fact, that a majority of us don't believe the questionable and black-box science behind anthropogenic global warming suggestion and the huge government endowments that directly encourage its proliferation.

But you do, and you don't understand the faulty science that backs the idea, as you've demonstrated in previous threads. You just go along with the vocal white-coated welfare queens who support the idea.

Maybe you can put that in your LiveJournal when you get around to updating it.

Sean W. Malone|9.23.09 @ 2:03PM|#

Spot on Dan. I too have traveled rather extensively and find that far too much of the world (including the US) is populated by people who blindly accept whatever any person with perceived authority says. It's not at all unlike the behavior of groups of chimpanzees or baboons.

It is rather distressing however...

Tony|9.23.09 @ 2:11PM|#

Last night I saw an old friend dancing naked behind a thin layer of fabric and subsequently in underpants on the dance floor at Renegade. He won the boxer shorts contest. I had fun.

I heard rumors today that someone I think is cute, and who has a Ph.D. while still in his 20s, enjoyed my company last night and wants to see me again tonight. Trouble is, I've been invited to three different events tonight, and the one involving him was the last I heard about.

The party I shall be attending is at Morgan and Tega's. If possible I will find some time to meet up with this fellow so that I can get the disappointing rejection and/or heartless interference by my friends over with.

|9.23.09 @ 2:20PM|#

I defy anyone to name superhero that is lamer than captain planet.

I can't. The Scarlet Witch is pretty damned close though.

XXX|9.23.09 @ 2:24PM|#

"I defy anyone to name superhero that is lamer than captain planet."

President Obama

|9.23.09 @ 2:28PM|#

I still think that Secretay Chu is onto something here. I've stated on numerous occasion here that Americans are too stupid for self-government.

Of cousre I'm an admitted asshole.

XXX|9.23.09 @ 2:29PM|#

"Last night I saw an old friend dancing naked behind a thin layer of fabric and subsequently in underpants on the dance floor at Renegade. He won the boxer shorts contest. I had fun."

Hey stoolboy, the Renegade closed in May of 2004:

http://www.washblade.com/2004/5-14/news/localnews/rehobith.cfm

|9.23.09 @ 2:34PM|#

Remember, its "Climate Change" not "Global Warming" folks.


That's good! Now they won't have to reprint the pamphlets when the activities of man cause the next ice age!

Oh on the topic of lame superheroes...Mermaidman (with Barnacle Boy of course).

Santa|9.23.09 @ 2:38PM|#

Chu the adult likes to say that coal ... is his "worst nightmare."

Then be good, for goodness' sake.

Tony|9.23.09 @ 3:10PM|#

As someone who has been to rural and urban areas all around the world, I can tell you that Americans in general are--in general--the most thoughtful, intelligent group.

We're really, really stupid. And fat. When you're the greatest country on earth by default you don't have to do a lot to prove it. And we haven't, for a long time.

Smart enough, in fact, that a majority of us don't believe the questionable and black-box science behind anthropogenic global warming suggestion and the huge government endowments that directly encourage its proliferation.

But you do, and you don't understand the faulty science that backs the idea, as you've demonstrated in previous threads. You just go along with the vocal white-coated welfare queens who support the idea.

You mean every major scientific organization and just about every climate scientist on the planet? Seriously, what universe do you inhabit? A person so worldly you're not aware of plain scientific reality?

Maybe you can put that in your LiveJournal when you get around to updating it.

As soon as you change your diaper. Tell TAO too, it's getting pretty ripe in here.

|9.23.09 @ 3:48PM|#

"Well, Americans really are the stupidest people in the western world"

This is why it's best to just let left-wingers talk. The minute they get a chance to really soapbox, their smug inner elitist comes out. They reveal their true desire: a fascist state, run by them, where they tell us 'stupid' people how to live.

Incidentally, this is also why the left never manages to stay in power for very long. We're all just so stupid that we see through them and boot them out of office.

|9.23.09 @ 3:50PM|#

"You mean every major scientific organization and just about every climate scientist on the planet?"

Except all the ones who disagree, including the ones who have shown:

- Other planets in the solar system have experienced similar warming cycles
- The Earth can be shown to be cooling over the past few years
- That any warming patterns are probably entirely natural
- That mankind contributes less than 3% of total CO2 anyway
- That every action taken by 'environmentalists' has been disastrous

And so on and so forth. But don't worry about THAT kind of science. That's the BAD science. That's evil OIL COMPANY science!

We should all just trust in our president and support him, no matter what he does, right Britney?

Tony|9.23.09 @ 3:53PM|#

AtheistConservative,

I don't want authoritarianism in order to make up for the deficiencies in brainpower in this country. Actually I just want higher education standards.

To your other point, does ExxonMobil count as part of the giant global conspiracy to deceive you about climate change? Even they aren't denying it anymore.

Sam Grove|9.23.09 @ 3:56PM|#

Chu will deploy bureaucrats to more than 6,000 public schools to, um, teach children about "climate change" and efficiency.

This is how Wilson conned the American people into WWI, except I think he sent out a lot more, uh, speaker advocates.

Michael Ejercito|9.23.09 @ 3:58PM|#

I'd rather have informed scientists and policymakers fixing the problem than hoping my fellow Americans will do it collectively on their own when they don't even know the earth goes around the sun on a good day.

Those so-called informed scientists and policymakers have never heard of the TTAPS study, which is the most important scientifixc paper since Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

Smart enough, in fact, that a majority of us don't believe the questionable and black-box science behind anthropogenic global warming suggestion and the huge government endowments that directly encourage its proliferation.

Why is there no mention of the TTAPS study and its obvious implications?

That by itself proves there is an agenda to this.

I wrote a blog post on this, as a matter of fact.

|9.23.09 @ 4:04PM|#

@Tony,

Nice try with the "every" scientific organization, but what you don't realize is that most of these organizations exist for political reasons and there's very little political benefit to opposing the government's stance on an issue, especially if they're your main source of funding. What you also fail to mention, probably because you haven't bothered to investigate it, is that not a few of these agencies have backed off from their affirmative positions on AGW because of the complaints by their scientist members. The official positions are decided by the administrators, who may not necessarily have the appropriate expertise to reach an opinion from independent research and thought.

When I was young and stupid and in graduate school for physics, I used to believe in the anthropogenic global warming suggestion too, just because "so many scientists" supported it. But even that's a statement that's bullshit. Most scientists are appropriately agnostic about climate in general and are very frustrating at how much funding the essentially nonscientific field gets. Anthropogenic global warming an industry full of mutual back-scratching. Maybe we'll learn something useful out of the currently useless and laughably poor long-range models, but right now they're a collosal failure and waste of funds.

Check back when you're ready to talk science buddy.

Sean W. Malone|9.23.09 @ 4:28PM|#

Tony... Ready to talk real science? That's about as likely as Tony actually *citing* one of his mythical sources.

Tony|9.23.09 @ 4:44PM|#

Actually I think I'm being more honest by not citing the science... it's just too complex to adequately address on a blog. So it's an argument from authority, yes, but my authorities outnumber your guys' by a huge margin and include most relevant scientists and scientific organizations on the planet. And the world's oil companies, for that matter, who don't dispute the central facts anymore.

|9.23.09 @ 4:58PM|#

Fair enough: you stick to the shit Team Blue (aka "authority") feeds you. I'll stick to the actual science and the data.

And the oil companies have very intelligent, well-paid executives at their helm who are doing the climate goose-step to stay out of trouble with countries where they do business. They know how to survive and thrive in a corporatist system. If they throw 1% of their budget at alternative energy, it saves them from being the whipping boy of rabid environmental groups and punitive damages. BTW, the CEOs of Exxon and Shell are on record as saying they think carbon-driven climate change is bogus. But I see they've managed to fool you. Good for them?

Follow the money baby.

Sean W. Malone|9.23.09 @ 5:02PM|#

Tony, you are not being more honest by not citing the science. You are protecting yourself from having to make a legitimate claim actually supported by the data. You are more comfortable resting your arguments (all of them that I've ever witnessed, mind you, not just those about global warming) on authority because it absolves you of the responsibility you have to reason through things on your own. As a result it makes you a shill for dictators, authoritarians and other various oppressors who are more than happy to see a world filled with sheep easily led around by whoever they put in front of you with a fancy title or a fancy hat.

Your authorities, I should note, don't outnumber "ours" by a huge margin by the way, there is a great body of respected scientists who do not agree with the IPCC, and why should they? By the IPCC's own rules, the politicians - not the scientists - write the final policy recommendation and can edit any of the scientists' statements at any time (or simply omit those which are inconvenient). The fact that you think a government panel's recommendations have actual weight in any debate over reasoned, fact-based arguments is disappointing, albeit consistent with your overall acceptance of anything as long as it's said by an approved source.

I have to recommend that you actually start using your own brain, and once or twice back up your arguments with actual facts, rather than regurgitating the bullshit fed to you by various world power-brokers. That is, unless you actually like the idea of being manipulated & controlled, and eventually dominated...

Gilbert Martin|9.23.09 @ 5:13PM|#

Smart enough, in fact, that a majority of us don't believe the questionable and black-box science behind anthropogenic global warming suggestion and the huge government endowments that directly encourage its proliferation."

Speaking of black box, check out this article about the shenanigans with the global temperature data set that the "science" of man-made global warnming is supposed to be based on:


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=

|9.23.09 @ 5:17PM|#

"I don't want authoritarianism in order to make up for the deficiencies in brainpower in this country. Actually I just want higher education standards."

... by which you mean you want everyone indoctrinated to think exactly like you.

"To your other point, does ExxonMobil count as part of the giant global conspiracy to deceive you about climate change?"

No, because the only active global conspiracy to deceive us about 'climate change' are the people pushing the ridiculously flawed theory of 'climate change'.

Your type amazes me. Billions of dollars in federal grants, politicians getting the chance to stick their fingers into every business pie, multi-million dollar movies, and celebrity status ... all if you pretend that this is a real threat (or lie to yourself convincingly enough that you believe it). But there's no incentive to push this lie. No, none at all. All the influence is on the OTHER side.

|9.23.09 @ 5:24PM|#

"So it's an argument from authority, yes, but my authorities outnumber your guys' by a huge margin"

And you have the temerity to call others stupid?

Science is not determined by plurality. In science, something is either proven or unproven. It's not a popularity contest. And the worst thing you can do regarding science is urge or take massive action on unproven theories.

Sean W. Malone|9.23.09 @ 5:28PM|#

Gilbert - watts up with that has been covering bad data collection for years. It's embarrassing.

Gilbert Martin|9.23.09 @ 5:39PM|#

"Billions of dollars in federal grants, politicians getting the chance to stick their fingers into every business pie, multi-million dollar movies, and celebrity status ... all if you pretend that this is a real threat (or lie to yourself convincingly enough that you believe it). But there's no incentive to push this lie. No, none at all. All the influence is on the OTHER side."

But, but those are all selfless public servants whose motivations are always AS PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW!

They simply can't be compared to the EVIL people in the private sector (or anyone else who disagrees in any way with their agenda).

Sean W. Malone|9.23.09 @ 5:45PM|#

Right Gilbert... "Follow the money", I mean, unless the money comes from millions of taxpayers who had no choice but to contribute to people.

Sean W. Malone|9.23.09 @ 5:46PM|#

Oops. That made no sense... I got distracted. Argh. Anyway, follow the money, so long as the source of that money is people acting voluntarily - stop following the money if the source of it comes from taxes that no one had any say in paying.

|9.23.09 @ 6:47PM|#

Chu will deploy bureaucrats to more than 6,000 public schools to, um, teach children about "climate change" and efficiency.

Reason #456,985 that I home school my children.

|9.23.09 @ 8:57PM|#

Sweet, Othello roofs! Why didn't anyone think of this before?

Like dew collectors out of Frank Herberts Dune universe. We must have some sort of photopolymer or photopgiment that could fill the role. I'm thinking something related to burnable discs.

Neu Mejican|9.24.09 @ 2:36AM|#

Sean W.

Really, if you're gonna argue about this topic you need to read more than blog postings. You are usually sharper than that.

Chad|9.24.09 @ 7:08AM|#

DanD | September 23, 2009, 1:45pm | #
@Tony

Smart enough, in fact, that a majority of us don't believe the questionable and black-box science behind anthropogenic global warming suggestion and the huge government endowments that directly encourage its proliferation.

You being too cheap, ignorant or lazy to read scientific journals is your own problem. The box is wide open for anyone who cares. You are even free to submit your own crackpot theories.

Chad|9.24.09 @ 7:11AM|#

AtheistConservative | September 23, 2009, 5:24pm | #
"So it's an argument from authority, yes, but my authorities outnumber your guys' by a huge margin"

And you have the temerity to call others stupid?

Science is not determined by plurality. In science, something is either proven or unproven. It's not a popularity contest. And the worst thing you can do regarding science is urge or take massive action on unproven theories.

Wrong. Holy God Damned WRONG. Science can never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever prove ANYTHING. Ever.

Given that you don't seem to understand this, it guess you have given me the temerity to call you stupid.

And when faced with uncertainty, you act based on the odds. You don't just sit there paralyzed waiting until you are absolutely sure (which will never happen anyway).

Chad|9.24.09 @ 7:13AM|#

Sean W. Malone | September 23, 2009, 5:02pm | #
Tony, you are not being more honest by not citing the science. You are protecting yourself from having to make a legitimate claim actually supported by the data. You are more comfortable resting your arguments (all of them that I've ever witnessed, mind you, not just those about global warming) on authority because it absolves you of the responsibility you have to reason through things on your own

Sean, we rest our arguments on their DATA. When you pass your crackpot theories through peer-review, let us know. Until then, they are just crackpot crap that no matter how many times we refute, you just keep spouting. This is largely because you don't know enough to know when it has been refuted and are not honest enough to admit it if you did know.

Chad|9.24.09 @ 7:15AM|#

Sean W. Malone | September 23, 2009, 5:02pm | #

? By the IPCC's own rules, the politicians - not the scientists - write the final policy recommendation and can edit any of the scientists' statements at any time (or simply omit those which are inconvenient).

Yes, Sean. And this bolsters OUR argument, not yours, as the complaint from scientists is nearly universal in that their concerns were watered down by the politics, not exagerated.

Thanks for scoring points for us. Want to help us out more?

Gilbert Martin|9.24.09 @ 8:13AM|#

Don't waste your time on the windbag, Sean.

Michael Ejercito|9.24.09 @ 8:28AM|#

So it's an argument from authority, yes, but my authorities outnumber your guys' by a huge margin and include most relevant scientists and scientific organizations on the planet.

My authorities include Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich .

There is no doubt that the obvious quick fix would work. And yet, your people avoid discussing it like abstinence-only sex education activists avoid discussing condoms.

And when faced with uncertainty, you act based on the odds. You don't just sit there paralyzed waiting until you are absolutely sure (which will never happen anyway).

So Chad, when would be a good time to deploy the condom ?

Tony|9.24.09 @ 3:56PM|#

My authorities include Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich .

Neither of whom is/was a climate scientist!

|9.24.09 @ 4:25PM|#

Reason!? You're all having a laugh right? You rag, sorry mag, should be called "Delusional Fucks"

|9.24.09 @ 7:23PM|#

"Well, Americans really are the stupidest people in the western world"

"We're really, really stupid. And fat. When you're the greatest country on earth by default you don't have to do a lot to prove it."

Critical thinking is dead.

The aforementioned statements break so many critical thinking rules it's too sad to contemplate.

The irony is, Tony claims Americans are "stupid" and proceeds to make specious and impossible to verify blanket, well, stupid, statements himself.

Michael Ejercito|9.24.09 @ 8:37PM|#

Neither of whom is/was a climate scientist!

And yet, the TTAPS study is considered one of the greatest scientific papers since Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

|9.28.09 @ 9:03PM|#

Paul Erlich?!? Is that the same idiot who, about 30 years ago, was claiming that by 2000 U.S. population would be down to 40 million and dropping and the world would be full of dead people because of starvation? The same Paul Erlich who claimed about the same time that resources were being used up at prodigous rates and we're running out of everything? The self-same ding-bat who climbed on the "global freezing" "New Ice Age" bandwagon?? That dope is your authority? Okay. Well, just so I know who you're referring to as the boss genius of the universe here and so I'll know in which direction to kneel and pray. Paul Erlich, indeed!!

peter in dublin|10.6.09 @ 5:02PM|#

All energy efficiency based bans are wrong

You are more than right...

Where there is a problem, deal with the problem:
Energy can of course be supplied with whatever emission criteria is needed,
and consumers be allowed to use and pay for what they want, in their own homes.

It may sound good to "only allow efficient products".
Unfortunately, inefficient products may be popular for many other reasons, relating to
performance, appearance, construction, as well as cost, and actual savings
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards

Using light bulbs as example:

Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2008).
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product = no "savings"!

If new LED lights - or more efficient incandescents etc - are good,
people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.

The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter...
ordinary citizens -not politicians – pay for energy, its production, and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage - on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed -
and if there was an energy shortage of the finite oil-coal-gas fuels,
then
1 renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise
2 the fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.
Any government worried about say oil use can simply tax it
(and imported oil is not used in electricity generation).

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway,
for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles, heat factor etc with referenced research

About electricity bills:
If electricity use does fall, the power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn't compensate much in overall costs).
As with other consumption, those who use less tend to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).

Emissions?
Does a light bulb or any other electrical product give out CO2 gas?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about the CO2 relevance),
with a focus on transport and electricity:
ceolas.net/#cc10x