Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Can reducing greenhouse emissions be a gas? Ron Bailey thinks so.
|8.10.05 @ 2:23PM|#
But denying people what they want is a 'Good Thing'. We have
become to hedonistic and libertine in our world today. People
should be made to suffer for their own good. It builds character,
or something.
/snark off
M1EK|8.10.05 @ 2:41PM|#
This is a friggin' joke. More 'voluntary' pollution standards
from Our Man Bush, and the randroids can't get on board fast
enough.
And the comments about Europe really miss the boat - there's a long
lead time to payback on any investments in less CO2-intensive
energy development, i.e., Germany's strong investment in wind and
solar started to be made a while back but most of those facilities
aren't even built yet.
Here's a tip: the only thing that will work is a tax on carbon
emissions. Tax goes up a bit each year until it reaches a level at
which a general equilibrium of (current emissions - some big chunk)
is reached. Let the market then figure out what the best energy
technologies are.
If more libertarians were honest about externalities instead of
just being frustrated suburban Republican SUV drivers who like to
smoke pot, a carbon tax would be seen as the easy no-brainer. But
instead we get troglodytes like the first commenter who devolve
into Rush Limbaughisms.
drf|8.10.05 @ 2:43PM|#
"Rationing is also painful�it means denying people something
that they want."
so is going to the gym to run off these extra fucking pounds i have
and to keep my hypertension in check. I'd want to sit around,
watching movies and drinking beers.
While I understand the Sheeple don't understand sacrafice and don't
like it (Carter's "put on a sweater" speech comes to mind), we can
easily see the most ardent, over-zealous liar global warming
exploiter using a Hypertension-style comment above. It seems like a
straw man for a straw man who's greased up on the slippery slope,
ready to get humped like a rented blow-up noam chomsky doll.
While I do regard many (see below) of the global warming types with
skepticism, I do not find that line of argumentation particularly
compelling, especially given the first sentence of the article,
"Assume dangerous global warming is happening".
If the case against anthropogenic warming is so strong, and if the
case set by the global warming cassandras is as weak as many would
have us believe, we wouldn't need that type of argumentation.
But this is like the 2nd hand smoke argument. I personally dont
like smoke, but i tend to puke at the lack of principles on the two
extremes of that argument, too.
Any thoughts?
cheers,
drf
Kevin Carson|8.10.05 @ 2:49PM|#
Cheap energy (and cheap transportation) don't fuel growth and
development. They fuel the consumption of energy and
transportation, and make it less costly to use these factors
inefficiently. They render the firms that rely most heavily on
these factors artificially competitive against smaller firms
producing for decentralized local markets. Cheap energy and cheap
transportation simply inflate the distance between things, and
render the economy more dependent on energy and transportation than
it would otherwise be.
The solution is not Kyoto statism, but for fuel and transportation
prices to fully internalized costs. That means funding the
interstates with weight-distance tolls on trucks, and eliminating
the U.S. political role in guaranteeing access to the Persian Gulf
and Caspian oil reserves.
M1EK|8.10.05 @ 2:53PM|#
Kevin,
Amen. Although you'd probably want a railroad stimulus of some kind
at the same time in order to prevent an economic logjam, given the
difficulty the individual railroads would have in handling
increased traffic (to say nothing of the impossibility for them to
build new rail lines without some government intervention).
|8.10.05 @ 2:54PM|#
Cheap energy (and cheap transportation) don't fuel growth
and development.
Sure they do. Cheap anything frees up resources that can be
invested in something else. Spending more to obtain the same thing
is a deadweight cost that drags down growth.
Ah, the old shibboleth of "fully internalized costs." Well, if we
offset fully internalized costs with fully internalized benefits
first, then we can talk.
M1EK|8.10.05 @ 2:57PM|#
RC,
"Cheap anything frees up resources that can be invested in
something else."
Point is it's not any cheaper overall; just cheaper to the guy
wasting the energy. The rest of us pay in the form of higher taxes
(fund current war in Iraq; high property and sales tax
contributions to roadways for commuters and freight-truckers;
etc).
There are essentially zero externalized benefits from subsidizing
energy wasters.
|8.10.05 @ 3:19PM|#
Actually, M1EK, drf, I wasn't commenting on global warming, per
se, but the tendency of many liberals/environmentalists who think
we shouldn't be so happy with our succes. In fact, we should be
ashamed of it. Also those conservatives/religious nut-jobs who
think we don't kowtow enough to irrational beliefs in religion,
'traditional' marriage, and the like. And maybe even trying to bait
mr marius just a little. :)
As far as climate change, I'm pretty much in agreement with Hakluyt
(see his posts from yesterday) that we don't really know yet, but
that I could be persuaded with sufficient proof. However, I don't
see that as being very easy, considering how complex of a system
climate is. I also think the gov't needs to lessen some of the
onerous barriers to nuclear energy so that we can increase it's use
for our needs. I'm also in favour in looking at alternate fuel
sources, especially in vehicles, although that is another difficult
proposition.
I could go on, but I think that's a good start.
|8.10.05 @ 3:26PM|#
When a computer model can tell me whether I will need an umbrella six days from now with greater than 50% accuracy, I will start listening to its predictions for half a century in the future.
drf|8.10.05 @ 3:32PM|#
Lowdog - i was trying to express your views too, along with a
general skepticsm towards the strong believers on all sides - it
didn't work. You expressed it much better, avoiding the canadian
spelling and all.
:)
|8.10.05 @ 3:34PM|#
I also think the gov't needs to lessen some of the onerous
barriers to nuclear energy so that we can increase it's use for our
needs
Lowdog, You mean the barriers like not subsidizing, if not
completely picking up the tab, for the entire cost of insurance on
these plants? Or do you mean the barriers like paying for the cost
of transporting and maintaining nuke waste sites? Which onerous
barriers are you talkin' bout? I suspect you'll point to the laws
prohibiting any new reactors. Tell you what, I'll vote for
repealing those laws if you'll invoke some free-market mojo on
Nuc-energy and have them pay for their own damn insurance and waste
disposal.
M1EK|8.10.05 @ 3:35PM|#
JMoore,
"When a computer model can tell me whether I will need an umbrella
six days from now with greater than 50% accuracy, I will start
listening to its predictions for half a century in the
future."
You betray a stunning ignorance of the distinction between global
climate and local weather. Please go get some education,
quickly.
|8.10.05 @ 3:38PM|#
M1EK,
Are you a meteorologist, or do you base your stance on reports of
what other people reported to reporters?
You betray a stunning ignorance of basic civility. Please go get
some class, quickly.
|8.10.05 @ 3:39PM|#
M1EK
You display a stunning ignorance of the limits of computer
modelling. Please stop watching "The Day After Tomorrow."
|8.10.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Sorry drf, I misread your post. Now that I re-read it, I don't
think you were really commenting towards me in particular.
I also want to say that there's no fucking way I'd support Kyoto.
What a bunch of dumb shit that is. Sure, make those countries that
are actually becoming advanced enough to actually be rolling back
our pollution levels curb their production so their progress stops.
Great idea.
Honestly, I don't know enough about it from the scientific side to
have any great revelation about how we're going to help the
environment. I just think that continuing advancement in wealth
leads to advancement in technology and allows people to have to
free time to realise that maybe we should do something. And I'm not
even talking about climate change, but just making sure we keep
some trees and other 'wild' areas around to enjoy.
If all you're worried about is where you're going to get your next
meal, or how to stay warm, you couldn't give a shit less about that
poor endangered tree or owl over there.
|8.10.05 @ 3:40PM|#
Isn't there a tax on all nuke power specifically to cover the
storage and transport of waste?
Not exactly a subsidy....
wellfellow|8.10.05 @ 3:41PM|#
"You betray a stunning ignorance of the distinction between
global climate and local weather"
Yes, they are distinct. And yes, computer models can hardly predict
either.
|8.10.05 @ 3:43PM|#
Thank you, Pollard. I meant to say that, but I decided to take the low road as well.
|8.10.05 @ 3:52PM|#
Anvilwyrm
Isn't there a tax on all nuke power specifically to cover the
storage and transport of waste?
I believe I've heard that having paid the tax the plant operators
are then relieved of meeting the actual costs of storage and
transport.
Given the govt's record and its interest in promoting nuke energy
in the past it is likely that they have lowballed the cost
estimates and the public will be left on the hook for meeting the
shortfall.
So yes, in a nushell it's probably a subsidy.
|8.10.05 @ 3:53PM|#
I take exception to Kevin Carson's comment "Cheap energy (and
cheap transportation) don't fuel growth and development."
If the locations made more accessible by the transportation
investment contains the same things (jobs, resources, manufacuting
capacity) as your surrounding region, this may be true. However, if
the transportation investment allows your local economy to access
things that aren't locally available, or are more expensive
locally, than the transportation investment can enhance overall
growth, even given the cost of that investment.
drf|8.10.05 @ 3:56PM|#
Howdy Lowdog!
we both jumped on that rationing sentence. That's why - but no i
was only throwing out some stuff. Still, you were expressing what i
can't seem to say well at all.
And I generally share the wealth idea with you, too. But - how can
we get firms or customers to be forward thinking about this. I mean
renewable energy (highly efficient solar cells on tops of buildings
etc. or wind power that kicks ass or something like this - sure,
now it's a pipe dream) and suchlike would change the inputs used in
production. It would reduce costs.
There is a positive allure to funding efficient solutions that can
be immediately applied to the developing world, for example. We can
skip the leaded gas 2 stroke noisy dirty engine phase there. We can
skip, maybe, some growing pains in the developing world. Maybe. Yes
- this idea is compelling, and I like the idea of being able to
cross Western Avenue and not choke. I like the idea of not worrying
about brown outs because Com Ed fucks up. I'd like to be able to
just clean off the cell on the roof and go from there.
I kinda like the idea of an airconditioner that cools more and
costs less. I like these ideas. It means that the opportunity costs
from electricity drops. I like that.
How do we get there? Yes government can coerce private industry.
Yes some brave, wealthy soul could come up with a solex agitator (a
la "Man with the Golden Gun") or something. Do I see Standard Oil
of Ohio undertaking such a risk? No. Do I see some other private
company doing it either? No.
Might this be like AA in the 50s, where something was needed to
prime the pump to tell the crackers to fuck off? Maybe. I don't
know. Might we need a pump primer to start this off? Maybe. Again,
I don't know.
And what are the short term and long term costs and benefits here?
AVOIDING the immediate "cost benefit" analysis as a means of
throwing out any hope for renewable energy - but without government
provided distortions can the market failure here be avoided? Can
there be some sort of acceptable cost-benefit point?
Maybe permits is a good solution. Markets do quite well for
themselves.
But my skepticism of the hardcore people on all sides is still
there. The tone of the debate around this subject doesn't help
matters.
|8.10.05 @ 4:02PM|#
Anvilwyrm
Isn't there a tax on all nuke power specifically to cover the
storage and transport of waste?
Dont know all the details but I do know Ive read that insurance
companies wouldnt touch the nuclear plants so the Feds stepped in
and covered the risk.
drf|8.10.05 @ 4:08PM|#
Dammit, Ruthless - you're bringing in reality to my fantasy
world above. Since corporations wouldn't stick their necks out that
far, the money would come from government programs. We can see
where this discussion would be headed, then.
Joe: and isn't that the concept behind WalMart's Distribution
centers? (transportation)
cheers,
drf
|8.10.05 @ 4:12PM|#
Matt
Dont know all the details but I do know Ive read that insurance
companies wouldnt touch the nuclear plants so the Feds stepped in
and covered the risk.
Liability is a separate issue.
It's covered by the Price-Anderson Act
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Price-Anderson+Act) which
limits an operators liability in case of a nuclear accident to a
very low sum.
Price-Anderson is disliked by libertarians and environmentalists
alike.
|8.10.05 @ 4:31PM|#
So could the increasing transportation costs of agricultural products get to the point where it offsets the sundry subsidies and allows "developing" nations to actually develop? Maybe Kyoto is worth a second look after all.
|8.10.05 @ 4:33PM|#
drf,
That's the theory behind all transportation hubs, public and
private. They're costs, but bring benefits.
drf|8.10.05 @ 4:37PM|#
thanks, Joe!
now if we can get some theory into practice about how the baggage
collection/distribution at O'Hare follows the "benefit" part
:)
cheers,
drf
|8.10.05 @ 5:28PM|#
M1EK:
"Here's a tip: the only thing that will work is a tax on carbon
emissions. Tax goes up a bit each year until it reaches a level at
which a general equilibrium of (current emissions - some big chunk)
is reached. Let the market then figure out what the best energy
technologies are."
A tax on carbon emissions. Sounds simple in theory... how do you
plan on making it work in practice? Who's going to collect the tax?
From whom? Will this require tailpipe carbon meters?
Who's going to set the tax rate? How? What's thier objective?
Maximize tax revenue, minimize emissions? Achieve a "general
equilibrium" of something? What exactly should that something
be?
Where will the tax revenue go? What should it fund?
You're going to have to fill in a few more details if you want to
make a convincing argument in favour of such a tax.
M1EK|8.10.05 @ 5:40PM|#
Pollard,
It's not difficult to discern what pretty much every climatologist
not in the pay of the Exxon guys is saying. You're nothing but a
lousy liar if you're trying to assert that the science about GW
isn't settled to the degree that they pretty much all think
something needs to be done.
And no, I won't waste civility on liars.
M1EK|8.10.05 @ 5:42PM|#
Russ,
Carbon taxes are pretty easy - you can hit motor vehicle fuels even
more reliably and fairly than the current half-assed
pretend-we're-funding-roadways-but-oh-no-we-need-a-bunch-more-money
gasoline tax model. Coal is trivial to tax; as is natural gas.
Pretending that a carbon tax is too hard is disingenuous - it's
easier than what we do today with plenty of other taxes.
M1EK|8.10.05 @ 5:49PM|#
JMoore,
"M1EK
You display a stunning ignorance of the limits of computer
modelling. Please stop watching "The Day After Tomorrow.""
You're a liar. Climate modelling is, today, capable of getting very
close to current climatological conditions when fed in past
historical data; the lie that models can't even get to current
conditions (a necessary part of the claim that they're still not
good enough) hasn't been true for at least five or ten YEARS
now.
A recent article from the well-known liberal rag the Washington
Times:
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050606-111933-8954r.htm
General discussion on climate models' accuracy, with information
about the 'shrinking gap' between observations and model
predictions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming
|8.10.05 @ 6:02PM|#
Russ R:
Taxes should be levied per gallon of fuel times the emissions
effiency of the instrument. This will cover everything from
manufacturing to cars. Many cities already have mandatory tests for
emissions.
The money collected from the taxes pays for the carrot to develop
zero emissions technologies.
Of course, the money would probably end up paying for anti-drug ads
on TV. Carrots in the hands of any government invariably get turned
into sticks.
M1EK|8.10.05 @ 6:07PM|#
Brad,
Even if the revenue is used for general spending, it's still a
positive instrument in reducing the negative externality. More
typically, it can displace other, more damaging, forms of taxation.
(pay for roads more out of gas taxes and less out of property taxes
= less subsidization of driving, for instance).
|8.10.05 @ 6:19PM|#
M1EK:
"Carbon taxes are pretty easy - you can hit motor vehicle fuels
even more reliably and fairly than the current half-assed
pretend-we're-funding-roadways-but-oh-no-we-need-a-bunch-more-money
gasoline tax model. Coal is trivial to tax; as is natural gas.
Pretending that a carbon tax is too hard is disingenuous - it's
easier than what we do today with plenty of other
taxes."
You've only answered the first of my questions... so you'll tax
fuels at source rather than measuring and taxing emissions
directly. No problem. I'll buy that part.
How will you you how much to tax fuels to pay for this alleged
externality?
|8.10.05 @ 6:22PM|#
Correction: How will you know how much to tax fuels to pay for this alleged externality?
|8.10.05 @ 6:24PM|#
I am constantly amazed how so many alleged "libertarians" jump
on the global warming bandwagon. Yeah, let�s tax the hell out of
gasoline and any kind of carbon based energy. Let�s make it so
expensive that no one but the very rich can afford to drive a car
bigger than Smartcar. Let�s make truck transportation so expensive
that the cost of food goes through the roof. Let�s make electricity
so scarce and expensive that few people can afford to use it. Yeah,
that will be one hell of a free society.
You don't pull reductions in emissions out of your ass. They come
from somewhere. You either get them through increased efficiency or
by decreasing the use of fossil fuels. Efficiency is a great way to
do it. There are always economic reasons independent of government
intervention to be more efficient, so there is probably not much
more efficiency that doesn't already occur. You are left then with
reducing consumption, with is another way of saying reducing the
standard of living. Economic power and affluence is, while not the
only measure, certainly a large measure of freedom. Affluence gives
us the freedom to choose the lifestyle that suits us. Someone who
is living at or near subsistence level isn't very free even before
government restrictions on his freedom which inevitably come. Money
and affluence equals freedom. Anytime someone is advocating the
reduction in standard of living and affluence, they are really
advocating the reduction in freedom.
|8.10.05 @ 7:17PM|#
M1EK - using wikipedia for a source isn't gonna cut it. That
article could have been written by anyone. Like someone who's
already bought all-in to 'global climate change is
happening'.
Also, try looking this
article. It discusses sunspot cycles and their effect on earth
climate. While they can infer a lot, there is still some they don't
know.
I'm sorry, but we're still a long way off from having an accurate
climate model. And even though they're different, it's still
important to note we can't predict localised weather, either. Why
is that so hard to fathom?
And again, I'm not saying global climate change isn't happening,
but stiffling growth is not the best way to stop it if it is.
|8.10.05 @ 7:42PM|#
Just think of all the other benefits of a carbon tax. All by itself it would eliminate obesity and clean the air. "It's the carrot stick that's good in all low-carb diets, introducing the carbon tax!" (canned cheers in background) sponsored by the meat growers association.
|8.10.05 @ 7:53PM|#
John:
Trust me, I am as for affluence and freedom as much as the next
capitalist. I agree that there is a direct correlation between
affluence and freedom. But freedom is NOT having the money to go to
the store to buy a DVD or a houseboat, it is being legally allowed
to do as such. Do not confuse material capability with legal
freedom: they are two entirely different concepts.
In the borderlands between free markets and public domain, there
are many slippery slopes that need careful attention. For example,
I should be allowed to carry a firearm, but what about a rocket
launcher? I should be allowed to get stoned out of my mind, but
what about driving a semi while doing it?
I have a right to breath clean air as much as you have a right to
drive an SUV. We must clearly define property rights for each
person's share of a public asset such as clean air. Setting up
semi-market based system of taxing usage or rewarding efficiency is
a good step: the border must be defined, so define it by use.
This would also address another problem with costs for which no
market has accounted. The federal government built a huge roadway
system for which the populace was taxed (roughly) evenly. This
created an artificial demand (i.e. not market created) for vehicles
most effective at utilizing the roadway system: cars and trucks
rather than planes and railways (or even, say, a phone call rather
than a trip in person).
Every time you drive your car on the road, you are cashing in on
taxes paid by people that do not drive as much. These costs
(pollution, road building) should be accounted for so that the
market is not artificially unbalanced. You can do that with the
carrot or the stick, but Bailey is right, the carrot is probably
better.
|8.10.05 @ 9:12PM|#
Boy is this ever a weird blog for Reason.
I am amazed that so many people have bought in so thoroughly to the
idea that government has the need and ability to reduce
human-generated CO2 emissions. You really want to screw-up the
environment? Let the government fix it.
Yes, there is a human caused component to global warming, but it is
difficult to quantify, and there is no consensus on how much effect
the CO2 reductions will have. Latest estimates show that even
draconian cuts in CO2 will have a barely noticeable effect on
global warming.
So we're going to suffer trillions of dollars in spending and a
loss of personal freedoms, just because some people want to live
next to the ocean. Here's a cheaper idea: buy their houses and
build a dike -- to handle that whopping 2 foot rise in sea
level.
Instead of advocating MORE taxes, how about CUTTING taxes to
generate non-fossile-fuel incentives. Let individuals make their
own choices about this stuff.
Never thought I'd see the day so many so-called libertarians would
be arguing about how to create more taxes.
|8.10.05 @ 9:44PM|#
You're nothing but a lousy liar if you're trying to assert
that the science about GW isn't settled to the degree that they
pretty much all think something needs to be done.
Yet another example of M1EK's charming tolerance
of different opinions. Wtf is it with this guy? I am starting to
think it's just pathological; everyone that disagrees with him on
climate, transit, the environment in general, or anything else, is
either paid by the oil industry, a GOP shill, a "liar for hire" or
all three. Can we please stop feeding this pathetic troll? Even if
you agree that GW is a serious problem that requires action, do you
really want someone who makes that kind of statement on your
side?
It's one thing to call someone dishonest when there is evidence to
that effect - but to routinely throw that out as one's preferred
method of argument ought to be embarrassing to anyone with a
modicum of shame. To childishly believe you can win the debate by
begging the question and calling anyone in opposition a "lousy
liar" simply does not deserve the respect of a substantive
response.
|8.10.05 @ 9:47PM|#
Lowdog:
"And again, I'm not saying global climate change isn't
happening, but stiffling growth is not the best way to stop it if
it is."
Again, assuming that climate change is really happening, and
assuming that humankind's CO2 emissions are really a cause, and
assuming that global treaties or government policies could possibly
be effective, perhaps we shouldn't be asking "What's the best way
to stop it?", and ought to instead consider the question "Should
climate change be stopped at all?".
I have yet to see a good cost/benefit analysis of global
interventions to halt or reverse climate change.
|8.11.05 @ 1:10AM|#
M1EK:
You're nothing but a lousy liar if you're trying to assert that
the science about GW isn't settled to the degree that they pretty
much all think something needs to be done.
That's just not true. The problem with positing a link between
human activity and global warming is that there have been periods
of global warming when human activity couldn't *possibly* explain
it and these warming periods correlated well to solar activity as
do more recent warming episodes, including the current one:
"Sun more active than for a millennium"
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
"New Perspectives in Climate Science: What the EPA Isn't
Telling Us"
http://www.independent.org/tii/media/pdf/2003-07-28-climate_report.pdf
And speaking of "lousy liars"-There have been episodes where both
the political and scientific leadership among global warming
advocates have shamefully encouraged dishonesty on behalf of the
global warming cause. When the facts are really on your side, you
don't have to tell folks to lie.
|8.11.05 @ 1:52AM|#
...These appeals to dishonesty among GW advocates have been so outrageous and so void of compunction that we should examine very carefully any claims of these folks. Especially when they serve as pretext for plans to limit our liberty.
|8.11.05 @ 2:51AM|#
These appeals to dishonesty among GW advocates have been so
outrageous and so void of compunction that we should examine very
carefully any claims of these folks.
Oh ye of little faith. Don't you know it's scientists who
are making those GW predictions about the end of the world? You
mean to tell us you don't trust scientists?
|8.11.05 @ 7:02AM|#
Hello all
I love these discussions. :)
Is A-GW happening? These guys think so, and they are
climatologists, not politicians or biased corporates, nor wannabe
experts or enviro-nazis :
http://www.realclimate.org/
no alarmism or other bs with these guys, be prepared for boring
technical details.
But even if it isn't known, like the link between nicotine smoke
and lung cancer wasn't 'proven' for a looong time, reason strongly
suggests caution. We have known the basics of CO2 forced warming
since around 1900AD, it's the details that are mind numbing.
Details such as exact results. Many opponents to Kyoto treaty say
that the treaty (or any comprehensive action) will have no
significant effect on global warming and flooding by 2050 or so.
This is true. However the whole point is to get the ball rolling
-now- so that the humans can continue to enjoy civilization
-later-; as in around 2250AD, when the seas could be 30 feet higher
or 100 feet higher depending on our actions -now-...assuming the
models are good (and they are getting better)
As far as climate vs. weather modelling, here's a simple gambling
analogy: Climate prediction is to game selection (blackjack has
better odds of winning than roulette ec) as weather prediction is
to actual results and plays (die rolls, bet choices, cards drawn
etc). The first can be readily calculated, and the second is mosty
unpredictable.
---
We probably don't need to to tax gasoline any further...at least in
California (and the roads stillare inpoor condition!) :( But, I
think all here would agree that fossil fuels of all sorts should
have all their subsidies revoked.
If they do add a general fossil fuels tax, the revenue should go to
help upgrade home energy systems of those who would otherwise have
to turn off their power & gas.
Since I am not a hardcore libertarians (moderate really) and I
don't get coniption fits at the thought of government intervention.
I ask, "How can government help?"
Perhaps by Mandating that:
1. All (or most) gasoline engines E85 Ethanol Flex-fuel engines
within 5 years. (I am not fond of Ehtanol but it's there)
2. Most diesel engines be capable of running B100 (biodiesel). Most
can already, but there are some doubts about newer models, and you
don't want to use this in an airplane (it gets real cold). ( if it
takes off, we would need new pipelines for massive scale biodiesel
use; and meat would get more expensive, as animal grains competes
with veggie oil for cropland)
3. That the feedstocks of Vegetable oil and Alcohol used in the
above are not overspecified (example Soybeans and Corn are very
poor produces of these, yet there are in some cases mandates for
only useing these two crops :boggle:)
3. That Hybrid vehichles can have their batteries recharged by
plugging them into common outlets.
4. That a National set of gasoline fuels be used (instead of 50ish
varieties defined from state to state) to keep costs down, and
refining efficiency up.
5. Forget about hydrogen as an auto fuel...with the sole exception
of only water emitting at the tailpipe, it is all around
stupid.
6. Require better fuel efficiency monitoring displays or other
feedback on autos. Prius drivers get obsessed with their effiency
mostly because they have better feedback. This sort of thing would
also work on any auto, by simply improving the efficiency of the
driver. (some Prius owners claim they can get around 100 actual
miles per gallon burned.)
7. Get airlines to fly their planes about 10,000 lower. At 33,000ft
the air is fairly saturated with water; when jetliners fly through,
it creates high altitude clouds which block surface heat from
excaping into space. This is apparantly not as much of a problem at
lower altitudes; however it is a little less efficient, and
airlines would balk.
8. Require that power utilities bills each customer gets report on
how much carbon has released from that customer's usage. Novel
idea: have the uitility offer to sell Carbon Credits to their
customers for their CO2 output!! (see TerraPass below) If they
don't want it, they don't have to pay for it.
9. And that power utility customers be given a monthly choice on
what type power generation they want. ie one can select cheap as
dirt Coal, or expensive Solar, or a mix, etc. Market demand takes
care of the rest. Yearly contracts available too.
Outside of governemnt mandates, I have found:
http://www.terrapass.com/index.html
Buy this (somewhat expensive) bumpersticker, and Carbon Credits and
related carbon abatements efforts will be paid for. They should
offer this at all gas stations!
be well
-Sam
|8.11.05 @ 7:15AM|#
Seriously, don't feed that freaking troll M1EK. If he were alive in the early 20th century, he would have been going off about how eugenics were the wave of the future or some other bullshit. There is no reasoning with fanatics, or sheople of any stripe.
|8.11.05 @ 7:23AM|#
Sam,
You sound earnest, but you a very, very silly for mentioning
ethanol (and so is everyone who entertains the idea for even an
instant). Ethanol is one of the most economically and
environmentally unsound ideas ever. You basically have to be blind
or a math-illiterate to believe that ethanol is a solution to
anything. Basically, you'd have to plant the entire world's
farmland in corn to even partially provide for our energy needs.
One thing I do agree with is the elimination of subsidies for the
petroleum industry. But why not just eliminate all subsidies and be
done with it!
|8.11.05 @ 7:42AM|#
Real bill,
like I said, " (I am not fond of Ehtanol but it's there)". It's not
a very energy dense fuel and is awkward when used with
gasoline.
And not meaning to be snarky, you mentioned "corn" as if that were
the only source of ethanol. It's not. Corn is grown int he U.S. as
feed starch to animals for meat, the alchohol is a secondary
product made from the otherewise wasted sparts.
Brazil uses sugarcane to much greater effect to make it's
fuel.
Switchgrass, which once carpeted the Great Plains (grows well with
little water on marginal land, doesn't require replanting and
restores otherwise spent soil) seems to be the best option for
purposeful ehtonal production. Also there is still plenty of waste
biomass from a wide range of crops which can be used as feestock
for making Ethanol. There have also been develpments in better
yeasts for making alchohol, celluose breakdown techniques, and
other technologies. So I maintain that it is 'possible' for ethanol
to be a part of the market; but IMO not as desireable or as
productive as say vegetable oil based biodiesel.
Skoal!
-sam
|8.11.05 @ 11:00AM|#
We could just spread photo-reflective particles into orbit around the planet and block out the excess radiation. Similar things happen naturally such as in 1815 when Tambora erupted just at the start of the industrial revolution. Over time the particles will fall back and burn up in the atmosphere and if another dose is needed then so be it. Or is the concern not really about temperature?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245