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
Are Green Jobs an Economic Black Hole?
President Obama in a speech at the Southern
California Edison Electric Vehicle Technical Center last month
favorably cited Spain as an example of how to boost an economy by
creating green jobs. "Around the world, nations are racing to lead
in these industries of the future.... Spain generates almost 30
percent of its power by harnessing the wind, while we manage less
than one percent," said Obama.
A new study by researchers at Spain's King Juan Carlos University suggests that the president may want to rethink Spain as a model for stimulating the economy with green jobs. Among the report's findings are:
[W]e find that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created...
while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with exactitude to claim that the U.S. would lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals the tendency that the U.S. should expect such an outcome...
The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job...
Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.
These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.
Of course, one study does not prove that federal green job creation is an economic black hole, but a still small voice in your head should be asking, if governments are so good at creating jobs and picking winning technologies, why doesn't the Soviet Union still exist?
Whole Spanish green jobs study is available here. Read it and weep. See also my colleague Jacob Sullum's excellent column on the dangers of green job fetishism here.
|4.7.09 @ 1:00PM|#
if governments are so good at creating jobs and picking
winning technologies, why doesn't the Soviet Union still
exist?
Because they were not creating "green" jobs, silly!
Gosh!
|4.7.09 @ 1:00PM|#
You can't get around the hard realities of the market. If "green
technology" were the most efficient thing to do, people would be
doing it. You wouldn't need government subsidies. The reason why
you need to subisidize it is because it is not the most efficient.
If you use a less efficient way to do something, you are poorer for
it. There is no way around that.
Now the nitwit leftists vaguely remembers the term "externality"
that he heard somewhere in that marxist, homosexual aboriginal
prospectives on economic theory class he took freshman year. He
uses it like a tailsman to justify any and all enviro
fantasies.
The reality is of course that the externality has to be greater
than the ineffiency used to eliminate it for it to be relevent. In
this case it is very doubtful that reducing the externality of a
few tons of CO2 outweighs the cost in inefficiency.
|4.7.09 @ 1:09PM|#
The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent
€571,138 to create each "green job", including subsidies of more
than €1 million per wind industry job...
A government spending money on "creating" a job is the same as
wasting money. Jobs are not created for the sake of putting someone
to work, which is the objective of the government's largess - those
"green" jobs are the economic equivalent of opening and filling
trenches. Jobs are created because of investment in productive
activities; jobs are a RESULT of economic activity, not the
raison d'être.
Gilbert Martin|4.7.09 @ 1:09PM|#
The political math of government mandated transfer payments is
that the plus side is counted and touted but the minus side is
ignored.
The Obama butt-boy media can be reliably counted on to follow that
political calculation in any and all reporting they do.
Elemenope|4.7.09 @ 1:10PM|#
Now the nitwit leftists vaguely remembers the term
"externality" that he heard somewhere in that marxist, homosexual
aboriginal prospectives on economic theory class he took freshman
year.
Way to hug the stereotype so tightly you kill it.
|4.7.09 @ 1:11PM|#
John,
If "green technology" were the most efficient thing to do,
people would be doing it.
Oh, the lefties and enviro-crazies will retort with the canard that
things should not be left to economic efficiency, because, well,
we're destroying the planet! We have to
act!
|4.7.09 @ 1:14PM|#
Way to hug the stereotype so tightly you kill it.
LMNOP - no reason to accuse John of hugging gay communist native
austrailians.
the innominate one|4.7.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Your spelling has improved, John, but the word you're looking for is "talisman". Try counting to 20 instead of only 10 before hitting the submit comment button.
the innominate one|4.7.09 @ 1:17PM|#
Also, "perspectives", not "prospectives"; those are two different words.
flix|4.7.09 @ 1:18PM|#
kudos to the guys at IJM and Mr. Calzada, they've just exposed themselves to a lot of enviro-hate...
High Every Body|4.7.09 @ 1:19PM|#
domo,
Is a tailsman like the gay equivelant of a wingman or wing
girl?
|4.7.09 @ 1:23PM|#
Nooo
FTG... destroying the planet is not
efficient...
Let me know how is the planet being "destroyed", first, before you
make such assertion.
|4.7.09 @ 1:24PM|#
"Way to hug the stereotype so tightly you kill it."
You have no sense of humor.
Point taken on talisman.
|4.7.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Nooo,
FTG... destroying the planet is not
efficient...
Actually, what you say is correct: Destroying the planet is not
being economically efficient. By the way, wasting money in
unproductive endeavors is NOT being economically efficient, ergo,
wasting money (like the Government does) IS the same as destroying
the planet.
Agree?
phalkor|4.7.09 @ 1:31PM|#
Good lord, the argument that "if it were efficient it would have
been done already" is so fucking tired. Granted, government
largesse is an empty-headed, dick-tugging excercise that produces
toxins such as dependence and wasted resources.
The answer is that private capital efforts can and will find models
for localized energy generation. The "will" is there. The
technology, expertise, and experience are not. It needs time, it
needs failures to build upon. Propping up this "green" industry
smacks of self-indulgence of self-important politicians.
|4.7.09 @ 1:31PM|#
domo,
Is a tailsman like the gay equivelant of a wingman or wing
girl?
Dude - I think it's the female equivilent of "cocksman"
|4.7.09 @ 1:36PM|#
As near as I can tell the proper term for "boost[ing] economy by
creating green jobs" is patronage.
It's just patronage for a different group of folks from a different
administration.
And it's still a reward for delivering political support.
No change here.
|4.7.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Good lord, the argument that "if it were efficient it
would have been done already" is so fucking tired [...] The answer
is that private capital efforts can and will find models for
localized energy generation.
Economic efficiency means simply that the investment is more
productive (profitable) than it is costly. You are basically
agreeing with this concept here, yet you chastise people for
bringing this concept up in an argument. Why the contradiction?
Barak|4.7.09 @ 1:41PM|#
I'm a smart man, smarter than most of you. So sit down, shut up, and do as your told.
|4.7.09 @ 1:42PM|#
One problem is that anything environmentally friendly that happens in the private sector is attributed to government action, not to prosaic things like, say, demand. We're cleaner than China because we want to be, not because of any stupid government mandate. If people would understand the difference between cause and correlation, we might not see so much nonsense.
|4.7.09 @ 1:44PM|#
"Good lord, the argument that "if it were efficient it would
have been done already" is so fucking tired. Granted, government
largesse is an empty-headed, dick-tugging excercise that produces
toxins such as dependence and wasted resources."
If I invented some fabulous form of energy that was cheaper,
renewable and polluted less than current forms, would I need big
daddy government's help or would I get rich on my own? Absent the
government trying to stop me in order to protect entrenched
interests, a pretty likly possibility granted, I wouldn't need the
government's help for anything. you may think it is a "tired
argument", but sometimes life is like that. Telling someone that
the power of gravity is going to keep them from flying by flapping
their arms is a pretty tired argument to. But that doesn't make it
any more likly for you to get off the ground.
|4.7.09 @ 1:46PM|#
"We're cleaner than China because we want to be, not because of
any stupid government mandate."
No. We are cleaner than China because we are rich enough to afford
it. Because we are rich, we can afford to pay higher electrical
bills and get cleaner air in return. If we were poor, we might want
to spend our money elsewhere and put up with the bad air.
Environmentalism is a luxury.
|4.7.09 @ 1:49PM|#
Well, if we weren't wealthy enough, we might be willing to live a little dirtier. It still comes down to demand.
|4.7.09 @ 1:53PM|#
We are cleaner than China because we are rich enough to
afford it.
more specifically, while wealth has a declining marginal utility, a
clean environments value remains constant.
phalkor|4.7.09 @ 1:58PM|#
I meant what I typed, but I don't think I was understood 'xactly
right. The argument is tired, but not wrong. At this point, large
networks of renewable energy generation haven't been attempted at
the scale that big daddy gov'ment wants to shove down our
collective throats. It's a fucking setup for a collossal
failure.
Time is the cure. There are small and large businesses developing
the necessary business plans as we speak. Once gov'ment throws a
bunch of money at their chosen industry leaders to build some
overpriced and inefficient "state-of-the-practice" facility the
whole industry stagnates. Another words*, the game is rigged and we
all lose when the government writes and rewrites the rules.
*the use of "another words" is purposeful abuse of my chosen
tongue
|4.7.09 @ 2:05PM|#
[W]e find that for every renewable energy job that the State
manages to finance, Spain's experience cited by President Obama as
a model reveals with high confidence, by two different methods,
that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average,
or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add
those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources
would have created...
Doesn't anybody proof-read this shit? It took me ten minutes just
to figure out what this sentence is saying. I mean, talk about
inefficiency...
|4.7.09 @ 2:05PM|#
Actually, what you say is correct: Destroying the planet is
not being economically efficient. By the way, wasting money in
unproductive endeavors is NOT being economically efficient, ergo,
wasting money (like the Government does) IS the same as destroying
the planet.
Technically, I believe that this suffers from the fallacy of the
excluded middle.
Not that its wrong, necessarily.
We are cleaner than China because we are rich enough to afford
it.
more specifically, while wealth has a declining marginal utility, a
clean environments value remains constant.
I prefer to say that a clean environment is a luxury good. It won't
win a competition for resources until your society has surplus
resources to devote to it.
This came home to me during the fighting in Sarajevo years ago.
When Sarajevo was a prosperous city, it had lots of trees. When it
was ground zero of a civil war and people were freezing, those
trees got cut down for firewood. Given a choice between not
freezing and having lots of trees, people will choose to not
freeze.
|4.7.09 @ 2:05PM|#
Oh, and I can only assume by the ellipsis at the end that that sentence kept going on!
|4.7.09 @ 2:07PM|#
The unemployment rate in Spain is now about 14%, has been rising for a year, and is expected to continue to rise.
Willie Nelson|4.7.09 @ 2:12PM|#
"If you use a less efficient way to do something, you are poorer
for it. There is no way around that."
I said the wrong way,
Ain't the right way,
But it's, one way.
|4.7.09 @ 2:17PM|#
So, I create 3 million green jobs, and those 3 million people
vote for Democrats to thank me. And 6 million jobs are destroyed,
and those 6 million people vote for Democrats so that welfare
benefits will be increased.
I'm not seeing the downside yet.
Xeones|4.7.09 @ 2:20PM|#
So if i build a windmill on top of my house to sell clean energy to my neighbors, the gummint will subsidize me? Wait, what do you mean i can't do that? In that case, black hole it is.
|4.7.09 @ 2:22PM|#
"This came home to me during the fighting in Sarajevo years ago.
When Sarajevo was a prosperous city, it had lots of trees. When it
was ground zero of a civil war and people were freezing, those
trees got cut down for firewood. Given a choice between not
freezing and having lots of trees, people will choose to not
freeze."
Poverty is the greatest threat to the environment. Another good
example is agriculture. If you are rich enough to have big,
efficiant corporate agriculture, you use a lot less of your land to
feed your people and can afford to take land out of production and
have things like nature preserves and national parks. If you are
poor and have to rely on subsistance farming, you use every bit of
land you can to keep from starving.
|4.7.09 @ 2:23PM|#
Wait, what do you mean i can't do that?
I think you can actually sell electricity back. the meters move
both ways, and I saw a news story here recently where a guy showed
the reporter a check he got from the untility company.
High Every Body|4.7.09 @ 2:26PM|#
Did I miss the Don Quixote ref? Someone had to think of this before me.
</|4.7.09 @ 2:29PM|#
if governments are so good at creating jobs and picking
winning technologies, why doesn't the Soviet Union still
exist?
RED BAITER!!
robc|4.7.09 @ 2:30PM|#
domo,
He didnt say "sell to util co", he said "sell to neighbors". The
first you can do, the 2nd, not so much.
|4.7.09 @ 2:35PM|#
it's more or less the same thing if they spot you the delivery costs, right? I mean, the juice is fungible...
Xeones|4.7.09 @ 2:37PM|#
I think you can actually sell electricity back.
Probably. On the other hand, though, i'm not sure the city of
Norfolk will be cool if i put a 200-foot windmill on my 1/8 acre
lot.
|4.7.09 @ 2:42PM|#
"The unemployment rate in Spain is now about 14%, has been
rising for a year, and is expected to continue to rise."
A point Obama fails to mention.
|4.7.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Not only is it an economic black hole now, when the market won't
have anything to do with it, it'll be an even bigger black hole
once the government starts running it.
The state's primary motivation is going to be to "create jobs".
Which means they'll deliberately be trying to employ as many people
as possible, not by creating a profitable industry, but by
shoveling as much subsidy money as possible at it. The result will
be similar to that which has occured in the space industry:
Expensive, inefficient, technology that can't compete in the
private sector, and industries run by a bureaucracy that is more
interested how to maximize their political influence than in making
profitable technologies.
Sure, we might develop some new windmill designs, but they'll be
expensive, unreliable, and unable to compete with the cheap,
reliable, windmills produced in India, if anyone actually bothers
to buy windmills at all. The reason they will be expensive and
unreliable? Because expensive and unreliable technology requires
MORE PEOPLE to build and maintain. Ergo, more "green jobs".
robc|4.7.09 @ 2:52PM|#
it's more or less the same thing if they spot you the
delivery costs, right? I mean, the juice is fungible...
Wholesale vs retail. A lot more profit if you get a cut both ways
by selling directly.
|4.7.09 @ 2:52PM|#
PapayaSF-
Off topic. After reading a link supplied by Paul and reconsidering
the thrust of your posts and one from TAO, I changed my mind on
Ward Churchill. He is a fraud and should be fired.
High Every Body|4.7.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Sure, we might develop some new windmill designs, but
they'll be expensive, unreliable, and unable to compete with the
cheap, reliable, windmills produced in India, if anyone actually
bothers to buy windmills at all.
Outsourcing our new windmill jobs to India already are you?
Paul|4.7.09 @ 2:53PM|#
What RC Dean said.
If I'm dying of thirst, the potability of water becomes a secondary
concern.
|4.7.09 @ 2:53PM|#
"Around the world, nations are racing to lead in these
industries of the future.... Spain generates almost 30 percent of
its power by harnessing the wind, while we manage less than one
percent," said Obama.
That's 30% (actually a little less ) of the Spain's electrical
power, not all their power. Perhaps that was understood, since the
speech was at SoCalEd, but it seems that I see this "mistake"
(conflating electrical power with all power) often.
Xeones|4.7.09 @ 2:56PM|#
You may be right, domo. Well, i've got a big ol' tax refund coming -- know any good windmill contractors?
|4.7.09 @ 2:59PM|#
Actually, what you say is correct: Destroying the planet is
not being economically efficient.
Well it could be. You could envision some sort of "Independence
Day"-type Aliens, carving up the Earth for all its minerals.
They really should buy the mineral rights from us, and if it's not
worth the cost then they won't bother destroying the planet.
But they might not bother with property rights, since we already
decided that they can't have title to their own planet (See the UN
Outer Space Treaty). In fact they could claim self-defense.
|4.7.09 @ 3:10PM|#
robc, the thing I wonder is if they actually do sell at retail, and pay whole sale to those few people who net negetive electricity juice? What is the bid offer spread? inquiring minds...
|4.7.09 @ 3:12PM|#
xeones, I can't help you. My windmill design experience stops short of balsa wood and duct tape.
High Every Body as Don Quixote|4.7.09 @ 3:15PM|#
I shall prepare my trusty steed in anticipation of your windmill.
|4.7.09 @ 3:23PM|#
If enemies were preparing to invade and wreak havoc on American
cities, none of you would object to massive government mobilization
to counter the threat. Because that's a legitimate province of
government, after all.
Assuming for the sake of argument that global warming is as big of
a threat to American cities (and everything else) as science says
it is, you guys would still argue for letting the market work its
magic? Of course you take the easy way out and deny the
science.
The efficiency of greenhouse gas emitting energy production comes
at the cost of environmental harm, which isn't priced into the
equation. If it were, we would rapidly find these sources quite
inefficient.
|4.7.09 @ 3:23PM|#
Check it out
Apparently, you can get paid for "clean energy credits" in some
areas, as opposed to the commodity value of the bulk electricity
you generate.
|4.7.09 @ 3:27PM|#
The efficiency of greenhouse gas emitting energy production
comes at the cost of environmental harm, which isn't priced into
the equation. If it were, we would rapidly find these sources quite
inefficient.
Cite please, Tony. I am sympathetic to your logic, but need factual
data on the marginal cost of environmental harm. Once we have that,
we can estimate how much more "clean energy" would cost and do a
quick comparison.
|4.7.09 @ 3:31PM|#
"Assuming for the sake of argument that global warming is as big
of a threat to American cities (and everything else) as science
says it is, you guys would still argue for letting the market work
its magic? Of course you take the easy way out and deny the
science."
It has not been established by science just how much effect man's
output of CO2 has on the climate. There is some effect, but is it
as serious as some would have us believe?
|4.7.09 @ 3:31PM|#
Assuming for the sake of argument that global warming is as
big of a threat to American cities (and everything else) as science
says it is, you guys would still argue for letting the market work
its magic?
Yes. Because the market is demonstrably better at allocating
resources than the government will ever be.
Next!
|4.7.09 @ 3:33PM|#
factual data on the marginal cost of environmental
harm
I'd say the loss of coastal cities and an eventually uninhabitable
planet have rather subjective costs.
|4.7.09 @ 3:34PM|#
The efficiency of greenhouse gas emitting energy production
comes at the cost of environmental harm, which isn't priced into
the equation. If it were, we would rapidly find these sources quite
inefficient.
This is not an argument for funneling money to a bunch of people to
build windmills and solar panels. The carbon externalities of those
technologies (especially solar) may in fact be higher than coal,
due to the costs of production.
For instance, the batteries in electric cars are manufactured
through a global supply chain that involves extraction of rare
minerals, material production, and transportation around the globe
for manufacturing and assembly.
Unsurprisingly, things that are more expensive to produce tend to
have a larger carbon footprint.
Similarly for solar panels - producing an efficient solar panel
involves a complex supply chain that has significant energy inputs
at every stage.
|4.7.09 @ 3:35PM|#
"Now the nitwit leftists vaguely remembers the term
"externality" that he heard somewhere in that marxist, homosexual
aboriginal prospectives on economic theory class he took freshman
year. He uses it like a talisman to justify any and all enviro
fantasies. "
And right on que we get Tony
"Assuming for the sake of argument that global warming is as big of
a threat to American cities (and everything else) as science says
it is, you guys would still argue for letting the market work its
magic? Of course you take the easy way out and deny the
science.
The efficiency of greenhouse gas emitting energy production comes
at the cost of environmental harm, which isn't priced into the
equation. If it were, we would rapidly find these sources quite
inefficient."
So Tony, how was that Marxist, homosexual aboriginal perspectives
on economic thought class?
In order for your arguement to work, you have to no only assume
that global warming is in fact valid science, you also have to have
some solid idea of what the costs associated with man made global
warming will be. Otherwise you are just guessing and are very
likely to get the wrong answer.
|4.7.09 @ 3:37PM|#
Yes. Because the market is demonstrably better at allocating
resources than the government will ever be.
Demonstrably? Really? If this were true vis a vis global warming,
the market ought to have started moving toward green energy 30 or
more years ago. But the market comes with entrenched interests and
infrastructures and just plainly doesn't factor in global
environmental harm.
Alas, the bogeyman you guys make government out to be is the only
entity powerful enough to allocate resources correctly in such
instances, since the market hasn't done a damn thing about global
warming and I don't see how it ever will on its own.
How I wish all the world's problems could be solved by intoning
ideological platitudes...
|4.7.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Really, Tony, trying to analogize between a foreign invasion and climate change is weak. Too weak to build any kind of argument on.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 3:39PM|#
I'm surprized they were able to get Donovan McNabb to pose for that Green Jobs Now poster.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 3:40PM|#
"I'd say the loss of coastal cities and an eventually
uninhabitable planet have rather subjective costs."
Never Gonna. Happen.
|4.7.09 @ 3:41PM|#
Tony,
You assume that action is always preferable to inaction. What if
the cost of preventing man-made global warming are greater than the
costs of mitigating it? No way is the science good enough to give a
definitive answer to that question. Given that fact, we are better
off doing nothing.
|4.7.09 @ 3:42PM|#
you also have to have some solid idea of what the costs
associated with man made global warming will be.
How much does human civilization cost? Let's just say one gazillion
dollars.
If green energy implementation costs less than a gazillion dollars,
I'd say it's a good investment.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 3:42PM|#
"Demonstrably? Really? If this were true vis a vis global
warming, the market ought to have started moving toward green
energy 30 or more years ago."
It. Did.
|4.7.09 @ 3:42PM|#
What a crock! What's the government going to do, pray away the
warming trend? The hysteria to throw out the free market in favor
of "doing something" about global warming is such an obvious ploy
to generate a crisis to justify certain political ends that it
doesn't bear discussion.
If the warming is a real problem, we'll deal with it as it comes.
The catastrophism is bunk, so we'll have time to figure out the
best response. That's true for the private sector and for any
government action.
|4.7.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Yes. Because the market is demonstrably better at allocating
resources than the government will ever be.
Demonstrably? Really?
Yes. The correlation between functioning markets and economic
growth and efficiency is very well demonstrated by the historical
record. You should give it a look.
If this were true vis a vis global warming, the market ought to
have started moving toward green energy 30 or more years
ago.
Tony, you are assuming your conclusion here, namely that global
warming is a problem. You are further assuming that the onset of
catastrophic global warming will be so immediate that the markets
can't address it. These are articles of faith, not empirical
premises with which to refute anyone's economic or policy
prescriptions.
How I wish all the world's problems could be solved by intoning
ideological platitudes...
Trust me, Tony, we know you wish all the world's problems could be
solved by intoning ideological platitudes.
|4.7.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Never Gonna. Happen.
Not true. Eventually the sun will expand to engulf all the inner
planets. And your all-mighty market god isn't doing anything to
stop it.
|4.7.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Really, Tony, trying to analogize between a foreign invasion
and climate change is weak. Too weak to build any kind of argument
on.
Why? Both are grave threats to the homeland. But you guys give your
blessing to massive government mobilization for one but not the
other.
|4.7.09 @ 3:44PM|#
the bogeyman you guys make government out to be is the only
entity powerful enough to allocate resources correctly
And what, pray tell, is the "correct" allocation of
resources?
Shall it be determined by popular vote? What makes you think that
the majority has any idea what an efficient allocation of resources
look like?
What makes you think the optimal allocation is even knowable
according to any formula?
What if it is a constantly moving variable dependent on rapidly
evolving technology and localized information?
|4.7.09 @ 3:45PM|#
It. Did.
No. It. Didn't.
There see I can put periods in the middle of sentences too. But I
have 3 so that makes me more right.
|4.7.09 @ 3:46PM|#
Assuming for the sake of argument that global warming is as
big of a threat to American cities (and everything else) as science
says it is, you guys would still argue for letting the market work
its magic? Of course you take the easy way out and deny the
science.
Cite? This claim certainly isn't anything like the scientific
consensus found in the IPCC AR4.
The efficiency of greenhouse gas emitting energy production
comes at the cost of environmental harm, which isn't priced into
the equation. If it were, we would rapidly find these sources quite
inefficient.
The costs of CO2 emission in the survey done by the IPCC found
estimates lying between -$3 per ton of CO2 and $95 dollars per ton
of CO2, with an average of $12 per ton. Since that amounts to about
12 cents per gallon of gasoline, I am curious where you get your
idea of what the costs are.
|4.7.09 @ 3:48PM|#
If the warming is a real problem, we'll deal with it as it
comes.
You can't deal with it as it comes. By the time there are
sufficient abnormal environmental effects to convince even you guys
that the threat is real, it will be too late to do anything about
it.
I know you don't believe this because to be scientifically literate
on this subject would call too many of your economic assumptions
into question, but I don't get why we can't even have a debate
assuming that the science on global warming is correct, for the
sake of argument. Just one person want to tackle it, or are you all
gonna continue to downplay the threat so that you can wedge free
market fundamentalism into the issue?
|4.7.09 @ 3:48PM|#
"I'd say the loss of coastal cities and an eventually
uninhabitable planet have rather subjective costs."
That's some of that exaggerated hype. Gore claims that the sea
level could rise 20 feet by the end of this century. IPCC doesn't
come anywhere near that claim. I believe their expectation is more
in the range of around a foot. What scientist is claiming that our
planet will become inhabitable because of man's output of CO2?
There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the Cretaceous and
the dinosaurs had no problem surviving, at least until the
asteroid.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 3:49PM|#
"If green energy implementation costs less than a gazillion
dollars, I'd say it's a good investment."
But what if green energy implementation costs only three dollars
less?
|4.7.09 @ 3:49PM|#
Tony,
Demonstrably? Really? If this were true vis a vis global
warming, the market ought to have started moving toward green
energy 30 or more years ago. But the market comes with entrenched
interests and infrastructures and just plainly doesn't factor in
global environmental harm.
Maybe the reason is that there IS no environmental hard from Global
Warming that is discernible. You're, unfortunately, begging the
question, by assuming the market has "failed" just because it has
not taken into account an issue that has no demonstrable harmful
effects yet.
Alas, the bogeyman you guys make government out to be is
the only entity powerful enough to allocate resources correctly in
such instances,
There is NO reason to think that, considering the government has
failed MISERABLY in other resource allocation activities, that
combating "global warming" is the one the government can achieve
correctly. You're just guessing.
How I wish all the world's problems could be solved by
intoning ideological platitudes...
How ironic of you.
|4.7.09 @ 3:50PM|#
"Maybe the reason is that there is NO environmental harm from
Global Warming that is discernible."
There. Fixed it.
|4.7.09 @ 3:52PM|#
"I don't get why we can't even have a debate assuming that the
science on global warming is correct"
You keep saying "science on global warming" as if all scientists
are in agreement on this. They're not. What if Gore and Hansen are
wrong? Should we destroy our economy for nothing? More data is
needed before we destroy our economy for nothing.
|4.7.09 @ 3:52PM|#
Demonstrably? Really? If this were true vis a vis global
warming, the market ought to have started moving toward green
energy 30 or more years ago. But the market comes with entrenched
interests and infrastructures and just plainly doesn't factor in
global environmental harm.
Plainly either your assumptions about potential harm or the market
for reduction thereof are wrong. My money is on you.
I'd say the loss of coastal cities and an eventually
uninhabitable planet have rather subjective costs.
I'd agree. When you come up with a believable worst case scenario
(not one based on Al Gores computer animations that he
ripped off from "the day after tomorrow") Let me know, and
we'll start the tally.
|4.7.09 @ 3:53PM|#
I don't get why we can't even have a debate assuming that
the science on global warming is correct, for the sake of
argument.
Okay, Tony, I'll repeat what I wrote last time
you asked for actual policy suggestions...
Here's my policy proposal: Do nothing except research the issue
more.
The US should stop all talk of carbon taxes or markets. California
and its ilk should suspend all such measures.
At Copenhagen this year, do nothing to extend Kyoto or build a new
one. Use the global recession to save face if necessary.
Reconvene in ten years and see where the science is.
The bottom line is this:
Wealth grows exponentially. CO2 emission grows linearly with
wealth. Temperature grows sublinearly with CO2.
It is unwise to bet against an exponential.
And that is why environmental economic models of the future that
employ any reasonable discount rate find that only the most modest
measures to curb GHG emissions are economical in the long run. The
policies they suggest are essentially fine-tuning the policy of
doing nothing.
I support the second best policy of doing nothing because I don't
trust government enough to give it the power to fine-tune
anything.
Furthermore, future developments can only reduce the relationship
between wealth and CO2 to a sublinear one. New energy technologies
as they become economical will be less carbon intensive than
current ones, and fossil fuel depletion will make carbon intensive
technologies less economical as time goes by.
And what of the scenario of the low probability catastrophe due to
excess warming? That's when you cash in the insurance policy of
high-gain geoengineering in response to the catastrophe, if and
when it becomes necessary.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 3:54PM|#
"No. It. Didn't."
Are you saying that automobiles ane no more fuel efficient than
they were in 1979? What about home heating?
Look, Tony, virtually everything (washers, dryers, power plants,
trains, factories, etc.) is more energy efficent that in 1979. And
for the most part, those efficiencies were market-driven.
Market. Driven.
phalkor|4.7.09 @ 3:55PM|#
I'd say the loss of coastal cities and an eventually
uninhabitable planet have rather subjective costs.
Tony almost made me choke on a peanut M&M there! You were
prompted for "factual data" and this is what you came back with.
Furthermore, you admit to the costs being subjective. Stop it!
You're killing me!
Personally, I agree with you. There are a few coastal cities I
could do without and I view the eventual BIBLICAL FLOODING as a net
positive. The planet won't become inhabitable, for you and your
ilk, possibly, for humans as a whole, unlikely.
If you perform simple mass balance of different events and
processes on Earth you will see humans aren't such a big deal. You
may think we are, hell I do, but then again, I'm human. Try to
think of humans as a natural phenomena that too will pass from this
hunk of rock.
It seems like we are responding to wanton environmental destruction
with wanton economic and freedom destruction. We need to stop these
lose-lose scenarios before we lose sight of the big picture.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 3:56PM|#
"By the time there are sufficient abnormal environmental effects
to convince even you guys that the threat is real, it will be too
late to do anything about it."
[Citation Needed]
|4.7.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Tony, as I've commented before, I'm content to believe that
man-made global warming is a real phenomenon, and that it can be
mitigated by pricing the externalities of greenhouse-gas emissions
into the market. (Not by shovelling money at rent-seeking
corporations).
I think it would be more interesting if you could supply some sort
of credible basis for pricing the marginal costs of carbon
emissions. That would provide at least SOME credible basis for
setting a carbon tax rate, instead of just letting governments pull
a number out their ass. if governments can just make shit up, the
latter is likely to be abused.
|4.7.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Yes, my scientific credibility is threatened because I don't
follow the lead of Mr. Gore and several apocalyptic filmmakers.
Where's the science on catastrophism or on the appropriate
response to global warming? Oh, wait, there isn't any good science
on that. Yet you claim otherwise? Why?
Politics is a poor substitute for thinking or for science.
|4.7.09 @ 3:57PM|#
More data is needed before we destroy our economy for
nothing.
Now who's assuming a catastrophe without evidence? Plus, the
economy has been pretty much raped for no reason already.
Why is an economy dependent on suckling Saudi Arabia's spigot
considered a healthy one anyway?
George Carlin|4.7.09 @ 4:03PM|#
"Try to think of humans as a natural phenomena that too will
pass from this hunk of rock."
Once again, for Tony's benefit:
"We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to
save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the
whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save
the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the
planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We
haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the
fucking planet?
I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of
fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous
environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the
only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle
paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos.
Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They
don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in
the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A
clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some
day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow,
unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with
the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference.
Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet
is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you
ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and
a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand?
Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy
industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years
versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think
that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in
jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just
a-floatin' around the sun?
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all
kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes,
plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots,
magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of
thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and
meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion,
cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags,
and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The
planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE
ARE!
We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we
won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a
little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here
and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another
closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The
planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface
nuisance.
You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii,
who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's
doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people
in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under
thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat
to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia,
Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and
then wonder why they have lava in the living room.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're
gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause
that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the
water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true
that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply
incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The
earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out
of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one
of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to
be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for
itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer
to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we
here?" Plastic...asshole.
So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now.
And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I
think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something
to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized,
collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A
collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something.
What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend
yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see...
Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses.
And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new
strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus
could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures.
Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to
all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along.
And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little
reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.
Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream,
can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees,
whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will
ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I
call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa.
Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at
all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while."
|4.7.09 @ 4:03PM|#
If enemies were preparing to invade and wreak havoc on
American cities, none of you would object to massive government
mobilization to counter the threat.
I would.
Because that's a legitimate province of government, after
all.
That's not the case. What the government can do is call the militia
and that is it. It is up to the militia to defend the
territories.
Assuming for the sake of argument that global warming is as
big of a threat to American cities (and everything else) as
science says it is,
Wait, assuming for the sake of argument is not the same as
accepting the premise to be true. "Science" has not said anything -
some scientists argue that a) Global Warming is real
(which is not controversial) and that b) it may be driven by human
activity (which is VERY controversial).
So, assuming for the sake of argument that AGW is happening . .
.
[...] you guys would still argue for letting the market
work its magic?
Yes. Of course we would. Because for a simple reason: The *Market*
is the network of millions of MINDS making decisions, which is a
more powerful system than whatever government bureaucrats who
mostly cannot be more clueless than Barney Frank or Il Duce's pet
bitch, Pelosi, can even conceive.
Of course you take the easy way out and deny the
science.
No, YOU deny the process that science takes to learn things and
jump into the AGW bandwagon, put your fingers on the ears and chant
"The science is settled! The science is settled!".
The efficiency of greenhouse gas emitting energy production
comes at the cost of environmental harm, which isn't priced into
the equation.
That's false - first, because you cannot PRICE something that is
not exchanged, so saying that one does not price "environmental
harm" is a red herring. Second, because CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it
has NOT been proven to harm the environment and most likely the
future data will show it has little effect on Global Warming,
considering CO2 has an infrared energy absorption limit which the
current concentration already reached.
If it were, we would rapidly find these sources quite
inefficient.
I beg to differ - efficiency is a function of value obtained, and
the value can only be known in exchange; and the ONLY way to know
that more value is obtained for the cost is through the profit-loss
test. You are talking about something that generates emotional
responses in your being, but that does not make the particular
issue one of economic efficiency. You will have to deal with your
fears YOURSELF.
phalkor|4.7.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Stop trying to kill me Tony...stop it now. You remind me of one
of my liberal friends who when faced with an opinion which he
disagreed with always got louder and became more prone to pointing
out scary bogeymen. He once made me shoot beer out my nostrils
(last time was chocolate milk in 3rd grade).
The point is, Tony, you are hazardous to my computer and all other
objects occupying my desk. Stay safe.
|4.7.09 @ 4:04PM|#
How much oil do you think we get from the Middle East? From the
entire region, not just Saudi Arabia?
Allowing leftwing talking points to be your facts will get you into
trouble. Think, man, think!
Medic|4.7.09 @ 4:04PM|#
I love to smile and nod at my hard corp garola eating buddies.
They are certin we will destroy the planet. I laugh shake my head
and say...." She will destroy us, before we come close to really
hurting the Earth."
we need a good plague, or natural disaster!
Bring on the Locust, the zombies and the fog of doom.
|4.7.09 @ 4:04PM|#
Why is an economy dependent on suckling Saudi Arabia's
spigot considered a healthy one anyway?
Because it has allowed the massive economic expansion since the
50's, and there is plenty more there. Plus, they are foolishly
willing to trade their precious resources for a few measly
inflating fiat dollars that we won't even let them repatriate
freely. By the time they get the joke, we will have nuclear, or be
buying tar sands from the Molson Drinkers.
Plus, the economy has been pretty much raped for no reason
already.
I'm still eating well, you?
robc|4.7.09 @ 4:06PM|#
Not true. Eventually the sun will expand to engulf all the
inner planets. And your all-mighty market god isn't doing anything
to stop it.
Bah, the market will find a way to move the Earth (or our Dyson
sphere, or whatever) to a safe location by then.
|4.7.09 @ 4:06PM|#
I am trying to frame the argument in a way that doesn't require
us tediously poring over charts and graphs and citing the data.
This is a blog, not a dissertation. Because you'll just come back
with some fringe data that backs up your requirement for global
warming not being a catastrophic threat.
Forget global warming. It can be anything you like. Massive foreign
invasion. Alien invasion. Solar flare. Assuming catastrophic
environmental effects, do we just let the market do its thing, or
is government intervention ever justified?
|4.7.09 @ 4:06PM|#
I have a friend who is in the alternative energy business.
He's a libertarian leaning Republican who thinks global warming's a
crock and that Al Gore is a scoundrel and a liar.
He doesn't sell his wares to be "good for the planet" but because
he knows that at certain levels of implementation they can be good
for his customers wallets.
Mind you, living in Florida helps.
This, Tony, is "the market taking care of things." If your
expecting something more dramatic, you clearly don't understand how
the market works.
I'm not sure why you think you would know what "the market" is
doing about anything. There are thousands, if not millions, of
people working on energy solutions all over the world, right now.
For any number of reasons none of them feel any obligation to tell
you a thing about what they're doing.
Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it's not
happening. In fact, your attitude reveals an astounding level of
arrogance.
After all, how many people in 1977 or so were aware that in less
than ten years virtually every household in the country would be
within reach of owning a computer. And within less than twenty
would have access to huge amounts of information from anywhere in
the world.
And while the computer revolution and the internet have roots in
government programs they were by no means "NATIONAL
INITITIATIVES".
In fact if anything they were accidental byproducts.
robc|4.7.09 @ 4:08PM|#
But you guys give your blessing to massive government
mobilization for one but not the other.
Not true. I favor the minuteman approach to a foreign invasion.
When (not if) Canada invades, I will happily grab a rifle and
defend against the Canuckistanians. No need for government
action.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 4:10PM|#
"Il Duce's pet bitch, Pelosi"
Pelosi's pet bitch, Il Duce
Fixed it for ya.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 4:13PM|#
"I am trying to frame the argument in a way that doesn't require
us tediously poring over charts and graphs and citing the data.
This is a blog, not a dissertation. Because you'll just come back
with some fringe data that backs up your requirement for global
warming not being a catastrophic threat."
Well fringe or not, at least it's data.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 4:14PM|#
"Forget global warming. It can be anything you like. Massive
foreign invasion. Alien invasion. Solar flare. Assuming
catastrophic environmental effects, do we just let the market do
its thing, or is government intervention ever justified?"
So how do you propose the government protect us from solar
flares?
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 4:16PM|#
"For any number of reasons none of them feel any obligation to
tell you a thing about what they're doing."
But some of them do:
www.awea.com
www.nrel.gov
robc|4.7.09 @ 4:17PM|#
letting the market work its magic
I can only respond to this phrase with a quote:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic."
Apparently Tony isnt sufficiently advanced enough to understand
free markets.
George Carlin|4.7.09 @ 4:18PM|#
"I adore George Carlin. Nihilism is good for comedy, not so good
for policy."
Thanks for the compliment, Tony.
You on the other hand, are full of shit.
|4.7.09 @ 4:19PM|#
So how do you propose the government protect us from solar
flares?
Will the net magnetic flux that results from the coordinated
hand-wringing of 4 billion true believers suffice?
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 4:19PM|#
"Nihilism is good for comedy, not so good for policy."
Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Congratulations on
beginning your journey to self-discovery.
robc|4.7.09 @ 4:19PM|#
do we just let the market do its thing, or is government
intervention ever justified?
In my less anarchistic moments I have stated that if global warming
ever reaches its "Pearl Harbor" moment, then I would favor a
"Manhattan Project" to solve the problem.
It hasnt and I dont.
Like with foreign wars, I need a Pearl Harbor first.
The Manhattan Project was inefficient, but probably necessary.
Paul|4.7.09 @ 4:21PM|#
Off topic. After reading a link supplied by Paul and
reconsidering the thrust of your posts and one from TAO, I changed
my mind on Ward Churchill. He is a fraud and should be
fired.
Yeah, that site link was an excellent point-by-point breakdown of
the whole Ward Churchill affair. I tried to avoid the 'freeper'
posts about him and find something clearly objective.
|4.7.09 @ 4:26PM|#
This is a blog, not a dissertation. Because you'll just come
back with some fringe data that backs up your requirement for
global warming not being a catastrophic threat
Am I the only one who finds this a little rich coming from the guy
who said:
I'd say the loss of coastal cities and an eventually
uninhabitable planet have rather subjective costs.
I mean, there is data, right? I know there has GOT to be some
actual data that shows rising seas will displace half of humanity,
right? Science magazine? Peer reviewed? It couldn't possibly be
that the movies you watch are made up non-sense, because Al Gore
vouched for it, for gods sake! He invented the goddamn
INTERNET!
|4.7.09 @ 4:27PM|#
"Because you'll just come back with some fringe data that backs
up your requirement for global warming not being a catastrophic
threat."
Which is consensus and which is fringe? Is science determined by
whichever greatest number of scientists take whichever position?
Most scientists were once skeptical about continental drift. Did
that make it wrong?
|4.7.09 @ 4:30PM|#
"It couldn't possibly be that the movies you watch are made up
non-sense, because Al Gore vouched for it"
Al Gore is on record as saying he would exaggerate if it wins
people over to his point of view.
|4.7.09 @ 4:33PM|#
What's irksome to me is the degree to which this discussion has
been co-opted and politicized by the left. I think most people and
most scientists agree that we're in a warming trend, with X%
possibly due to human contributions. But what that all means is
really unclear. For instance, I've been hearing most of my adult
life perfectly legitimate claims that we're on the verge of
plunging into another ice age. What if that's true? A little sanity
around this issue would be nice.
Also, one thing we do know about climatology is that minor events
can have major effects, but not always expected effects. What
happens if we make the problem worse by trying to tamper with a
complex and chaotic system that we don't understand very well?
Until AGW became a political football, the general consensus on
climatology was that we were profoundly ignorant. Now certain
people want to treat it as a precise and complete science. What
changed in twenty years? It ain't computer modeling, because we
still don't track adequate data to make those models anywhere near
accurate.
As for the proposed "solutions", every one of them ignores the fact
that countries like China, India, Russia, Indonesia, etc. are not
going to go along. The U.S. and Europe committing economic suicide
won't save the world, even if Goretology is precisely and exactly
correct.
|4.7.09 @ 4:34PM|#
Well fringe or not, at least it's data.
And it's useless unless placed in the context of all the other
data.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 4:38PM|#
"And it's useless unless placed in the context of all the other
data."
Got any to share with the class?
|4.7.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Lemme sum up the responses:
1) The threat isn't real, so the discussion is moot.
2) The threat is real, but we don't know how big a threat, so the
discussion is moot.
3) The threat is real and catastrophic, but we're all just here for
a season. Light up a fat one and watch history unfold.
Anything to avoid addressing the fact that the market can't do
everything, and sometimes won't do something necessary.
Kreel Sarloo|4.7.09 @ 4:42PM|#
Tony, your last sentence there sums it up.
You really don't have a clue, and it's a waste of fucking time
trying to give you one.
And as someone above said your a fucking arrogant fuck, to
boot.
|4.7.09 @ 4:43PM|#
Got any to share with the class?
No because if you were interested in having an objective opinion on
the matter you'd have done the research yourself. It's like arguing
with creationists. They require everything in the universe to be
proved 100% (and for me to provide all that evidence) before they
feel justified in dropping their superstitions. Similarly market
fundamentalists willfully ignore science if it poses irreconcilable
problems for their first principles. The burden of proof isn't on
me. Most climate scientists agree that global warming is real,
manmade, and potentially catastrophic. I am not interested in
arguing data as if you guys were seriously motivated by a
disinterested pursuit of truth.
|4.7.09 @ 4:44PM|#
I hear a sound at my window. I think it might be someone
breaking into my house, because the sound is consistent with a
break-in. I set off twenty pounds of dynamite to forestall the home
invasion.
Have I behaved rationally?
|4.7.09 @ 4:45PM|#
Anything to avoid addressing the fact that the market can't
do everything, and sometimes won't do something
necessary.
I would've thought having multiple legitimate rebuttals helps our
case, not the opposite. Does the converse mean that since you have
not supported you argument at all, you must be right?! Awesome,
I'll have to try that trick sometime.
Paul|4.7.09 @ 4:46PM|#
Has anyone actually visited the greenjobsnow.com site and spied
the creepy scrolling pictoral?
A kid in Prince George's county installs mercury laden CFL's,
people in Portland Or are "ready for green jobs" when they look
more ready for a stairmaster. A lone guy in Pittsburgh, PA manually
"harvests" sunflowers for Biodiesel. At the rate he's working,
he'll have 1 U.S. gallon made by fall 2011. Politicians are signing
an "i'm ready" petition. Woo, progress! Lots more people stand,
flat footed with "I'm Ready" signs.
Sort of reminds of the Onion article where fat people sit around in
front of the tv, waiting for a cure to obesity.
robc|4.7.09 @ 4:46PM|#
I've been hearing most of my adult life perfectly legitimate
claims that we're on the verge of plunging into another ice age.
What if that's true?
Ice ages come and go. Its periodic, we are in between. Another is
coming. This sames pretty safe to assume. Maybe, just maybe, the
Earth has somehow just now happened to exit from the periodic ice
age phase, but it seems unlikely.
So, Im assuming it is true. Im also assuming I wont live to see it
or, if I do, I wont even notice it. It will just be slightly
colder.
|4.7.09 @ 4:47PM|#
"Anything to avoid addressing the fact that the market can't do
everything, and sometimes won't do something necessary."
Still, it has not been proven that dramatic actions are
necessary.
|4.7.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Have I behaved rationally?
But ProLib, once the robbers are in your house, it's TOO LATE - you
have already been robbed! We have no way of knowing what
they will do once allowed in. If you blow up your house now, at
least you will still be alive, albeit cold, wet, and poor. Silly
shortsighted man, you will do anything to avoid the obvious
necessity of dynamiting your residence.
|4.7.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Yes, it's just like arguing with Creationists. Because AGW has
exactly the level of overwhelming proof associated with evolution.
The problem here, dude, is that you're arguing from faith.
You don't even understand the science you're claiming to spout.
Jesus. Skepticism is part of science; blind acceptance is
not.
I'm not skeptical about every single aspect of the AGW debate, but
I'm very skeptical about the "solutions" that some want to impose
on the rest of us. Extraordinary claims--like we're all going to
die from AGW--require extraordinary evidence.
|4.7.09 @ 4:53PM|#
"A kid in Prince George's county installs mercury laden CFL's,
people in Portland Or are "ready for green jobs" when they look
more ready for a stairmaster. A lone guy in Pittsburgh, PA manually
"harvests" sunflowers for Biodiesel. At the rate he's working,
he'll have 1 U.S. gallon made by fall 2011. Politicians are signing
an "i'm ready" petition. Woo, progress! Lots more people stand,
flat footed with "I'm Ready" signs."
It reminds me of Gerald Ford's "Win against Inflation Now"
buttons.
|4.7.09 @ 4:57PM|#
You don't even understand the science you're claiming to
spout.
I'm not spouting any science. The only empirical claim I've made is
that global warming is real, manmade, and potentially catastrophic.
This is the consensus of the world's climate scientists. If you
want to argue something different, don't bother with me; I don't
trust you over the global scientific consensus.
MNG|4.7.09 @ 4:59PM|#
Presto Magico Mystical Marketo, what have we done to anger you O Lord? Caress us with your Insivible Hand, help us to value efficiency through exchange, deflect meteors and smite the thousands of scientists from around the world who know what the hell they are talking about, unlike us.
|4.7.09 @ 4:59PM|#
The burden of proof isn't on me. Most climate scientists
agree that global warming is real, manmade, and potentially
catastrophic.
Well, it is actually, since your ilk are the ones who want to
impose economically disasterous solutions to the problems you
allege. We are sitting here saying "huh? Why?" and you come up with
nothing better than "Obama won, it's settled"
Everyone intones affirmatives in rapt agreement when the proposals
are all fuzzy and theoretical. Just wait until Obama starts picking
losers in the marketplace. See how smart he and government
intervention seem then. "We should have clean energy" sounds great.
"You will drive an 800 lb GM shitcoup, leave the thermistat at 63
this winter, pay four times as much for the privilege, STFU and
smile about it - so we can have clean energy" won't go down as
well, I suspect.
MNG|4.7.09 @ 5:00PM|#
"The problem here, dude, is that you're arguing from
faith."
Yeah, the side that thinks what most scientists say on the subject
are indeed arguing in faith.
Faith in scientific experts. Nutty that.
What's your faith based in? Ideological passion?
|4.7.09 @ 5:00PM|#
"Most climate scientists agree that global warming is real,
manmade, and potentially catastrophic."
There we go with "most" again. If "most" believe it's the case,
well then, by damn it must be true.
|4.7.09 @ 5:01PM|#
Extraordinary claims . . . require extraordinary
evidence.
Certainly. So any claim that the vast majority of climate
scientists on earth have the basic premise of global warming theory
completely wrong requires extraordinary evidence.
MNG|4.7.09 @ 5:02PM|#
What do you guys think is up with the thousands of PhD experts
who say you're wrong on this? Collective insanity? Alien mind
control world domination plot? George Soros bought them off?
Demonic mass possession?
WTF?
Isn't it interesting that the only scientific consensus you guys,
amateurs at science all, happened to have the genuis and skill is
seeing through, is one you have a passionate ideological reason to
oppose?
|4.7.09 @ 5:03PM|#
The only empirical claim I've made is that global warming is
real, manmade, and potentially catastrophic. This is the consensus
of the world's climate scientists.
True, if by "potentially catastrophic" you mean that there is a low
probability that in many centuries there will be some high cost to
humanity.
But how does that jibe with...
Assuming for the sake of argument that global warming is as big
of a threat to American cities (and everything else) as science
says it is
...or...
I'd say the loss of coastal cities and an eventually
uninhabitable planet have rather subjective costs.
...or...
How much does human civilization cost? Let's just say one
gazillion dollars.
HTML offers the very convenient unempirical tag. I suggest
you use it. Often.
|4.7.09 @ 5:05PM|#
Consensus on what? You realize that the only consensus at all is
that things are warming up right now? That's a far cry from what
you're claiming here. That goes for you, too, MNG, with your
passionate ideology to support AGW. You're projecting.
The extraordinary claim is that we have to take on some sort of
desperate measures to stop a catastrophic event. Without the
catastrophe--which has almost no consensus--the rest of it falls
apart.
I could just as easily talk about an asteroid colliding with the
Earth, which would be far worse than anything we are likely to do
to the climate. Why aren't we sending all of our money to the
government to stop that threat? In fact, why aren't we doing
anything significant about it? It's a 100% probability that we'll
eventually get hit by a comet or asteroid.
|4.7.09 @ 5:10PM|#
economically disasterous solutions
For ExxonMobil maybe. This is your article of faith, that doing
something as reasonable as correcting the market for it to account
for environmental harm will destroy the economy. And the economy
(in all its pristine holiness) is more important to maintain than
our ecosystem.
|4.7.09 @ 5:15PM|#
For ExxonMobil maybe.
There we go. Now we get the real anti-corporation, anti-profit,
political motivation that underlies your supposed passion for
"science." And you wonder why we suspect the veracity of your
claims...
Kreel Sarloo|4.7.09 @ 5:16PM|#
MNG
Where is this consensus among scientists that we have to embark on
a massive command and control tax and spend regime to counter this
cliamte change?
It's only been in the last two or three years that there was even a
consensus on the science among members of the IPCC and
that's a lot less shaky than the executive summaries of their
reports would have anyone believe. So I can't imagine that there's
any where near a consensus, or even any firmly held opinions at
all, on a rememdy.
And yes, most people only know what's in the executive summaries,
not what's in the reports themselves, because most people, you
included, don't have anywhere near the grounding to understand
them.
In fact most people really only know what some media
outlet has told them about what the executive summaries say.
Sorry, MNG, but you're not on any firm er ground than anyone else
is here.
Between your arrogant and selfrighteous attitude posting here and
the fact that for the most part you spout very little else but Al
Gore alarmism, I will now go to ignoring you.
|4.7.09 @ 5:18PM|#
"the economy (in all its pristine holiness) is more important to
maintain than our ecosystem."
If every African, Asian and South American has the kind of energy
consuming lifestyle that developed countries do
then there arn't enough fossil fuels to go round
therefore alternative energy gets cost effective
more economic growth!
more green!
|4.7.09 @ 5:22PM|#
"your supposed passion for "science.""
take a look at the other thread for science
confused the shit out of me and I'm supposed to be a
scientist
there more new ice but
less ice overall
so Old ice is melting
and we're getting more new ice
so is the amount of new ice each year staying the same and the
amount of old ice decreasing
then why would old ice melt if new ice is forming?
Somebody give a climatologist more
Nice big research grants
$$$chee-chiiiing$$$
before we're all doomed
phalkor|4.7.09 @ 5:25PM|#
It's a 100% probability that we'll eventually get hit by a
comet or asteroid.
I disagree, it's 100% possibility of Earth getting hit...sometime.
But I have rather good chances of not ever getting hit by anything
from space other than cosmic radiation.
From my perspective (young, more or less educated, professional in
a technical discipline) this issue is really juicy. Like ripe peach
juicy. I just wish people would adopt a more meta-, or rational
point of view. Unfortunately, this issue transcends reason and has
been turned into (as mentioned above) a political football.
It's almost always a BAD BAD thing to jump to the extremes of the
debate. Catastrophic predictions and total denial are not sound
positions.
My job is to predict earthquakes and their effects on
safety-critical structures. Some of my projects involve sites that
have little to no known seismic history. You neither design for
"the big one" or ignore seismic activity altogether. You instead
perform a probabalistic analysis and depending on input factors
arrive at a suitable design for a set level of risk.
With seismology, much like climatology, the models are nowhere near
complete enough to "know" that something will happen. However, as
computers get faster, and more empirical (that is by observation)
data is added the models improve. Truthfully "we just don't know"
is an acceptable answer.
We need to prepare for risks as they become palpable. Creating an
economic black hole with Cap'N'Trade and Green Jobs will mostly
serve to line the pockets of investors and force more people to be
completely dependent on the government for their living.
I, being the young, sometimes intelligent little whipper-snapper
that I am, had intents of taking advantage of these complex threats
through starting a small enterprise to help businesses adapt and
thrive. Big governmental intervention with big corporate interest
fucks that up for me.
|4.7.09 @ 5:26PM|#
if governments are so good at creating jobs and picking
winning technologies, why doesn't the Soviet Union do Japan/South
Korea/Taiwan/the PRC still exist?
Of course - as a general rule - markets do a far better job
allocating resources than governments. But you're heading towards
religious fundamentalism when you assert that must always
be the case. Sometimes it's just dumb luck, sometimes governments
create the infrastructure conditions that make their investment
picks look good in retrospect and the world just heads off in that
track. The Soviet Communist model is simply not comparable to the
statist Obama/Japan/PRC model. The Soviets were focused
overwhelmingly on building military superiority not on creating or
meeting consumer demand.
|4.7.09 @ 5:27PM|#
Re: global warming
You know that Greenland at one time really
Was Green, and mankind, polarbears, etc. adapted very well, up to a
cooling period that we are barely perceptibly coming out of.
the innominate one|4.7.09 @ 5:27PM|#
even in the worst case global warming scenario, it's extremely
unlikely the world will become completely uninhabitable for humans,
especially given that technology will continue to function.
coastal cities might have problems. maybe.
tony, stop confirming John's strawman fantasies about
environmentalists.
And right on que we get Tony
que: is Spanish for "what"
queue: a line, to form a line or to wait in line
cue: this is the word you wanted to use, mr. meletary loier.
|4.7.09 @ 5:27PM|#
There we go. Now we get the real anti-corporation,
anti-profit, political motivation that underlies your supposed
passion for "science." And you wonder why we suspect the veracity
of your claims...
Yes I just have it out for corporations and want to see them suffer
for no reason.
I doubt the veracity of a lot of people here because more often
than not their positions seem to originate not from any coherent
defense of liberty but from protecting extant corporate
interests.
Menstrual Retardation|4.7.09 @ 5:35PM|#
"No because if you were interested in having an objective
opinion on the matter you'd have done the research yourself."
I have (tip of the iceberg):
If you're wondering why North America is starting to resemble
nuclear winter, then you missed the news.
At December's U.N. Global Warming conference in Poznan, Poland, 650
of the world's top climatologists stood up and said man-made global
warming is a media generated myth without basis. Said climatologist
Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress,
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to
understand that the planet is not warming?"
I asked myself, why would such obviously smart guy say such a
ridiculous thing? But it turns out he's right.
The earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It's been falling ever
since; it dropped dramatically in 2007 and got worse in 2008, when
temperatures touched 1980 levels.
Meanwhile, the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research
Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Arctic ice
is back to 1979 levels. What's more, measurements of Antarctic ice
now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.
In other words, during what was supposed to be massive global
warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger. Just as an
aside, do you remember when the hole in the ozone layer was going
to melt Antarctica? But don't worry, we're safe now, that was the
nineties.
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html
|4.7.09 @ 5:42PM|#
phalkor,
I said "eventually." It may be very eventually, like three million
years from now, but it will happen if we do nothing at all. I
understand that there's a growing belief that North America got
clobbered by a comet a mere 13,000 years ago.
|4.7.09 @ 5:48PM|#
Global warming my ass, it only got up to 60F here today.
In Florida, in April.
What's Obama gonna do about that, I ask?
|4.7.09 @ 5:57PM|#
And besides, why the panic about globa;l warming anyway?
Have any of you given any though to what'll happen if the
Yellowstone Caldera blows its top?
Or the New Madrid Fault breaks loose.
I kid, of course.
Although I understand that the New Madrid Fault is active and has
been known historicaly for catastrophic seismic events.
I also understand that very little of the construction in the St
Louis area is built to a level of earthquake resistance.
It strikes me that there's a lot of panic over something about
which little is known while a very real threat is being
ignored.
Sort of like it never occurred to anyone in New Orleans to do
anything about hurricane preparedness until the levies broke and
the city was under twenty feet of water.
MNG|4.7.09 @ 6:01PM|#
"Where is this consensus among scientists that we have to embark
on a massive command and control tax and spend regime to counter
this cliamte change?"
I think every relevant professional scientific organization (like
the American GeoPhysical Union, etc) has issued a statement
that
1. Global warming is occuring
2. Humans contribute to it
3. Bad things could happen from this
Now as to the command and control, well I actually agree. My
position is that libertarians re fools to deny the science of AGW,
they don't have the tools to do so. But of course they should argue
for the strategy for dealing with it that best comports with
liberty and capitalist production.
However, I think libertarians need to be reasonable: if some
restrictions on liberty and capitalist production are called for to
avert possible harms then you have to be man enough to say "OK"
while of course advocating for the least restrictive way possible
of doing this.
I mean, recognizing facts about human aggression forces us to
conclude that a government program (the police) might be needed to
protect ourselves from it. The way some of you guys are arguing
it's like the libertarian should stomp his feet and say "No, the
science on human aggression is bullshit, accepting that will just
lead to a government program to deal with it, so we must not accept
it."
|4.7.09 @ 6:02PM|#
Damn right, Pro Lib. And what's anyone gonna do about it?
I tell you we're getting mighty upset here in Altamonte Springs,
which as you may know is one of the more pleasing outer suburbs of
Taintsville.
|4.7.09 @ 6:08PM|#
Yes, I'm familiar with the Greater Taintsville Metropolitan
Area. I live in Tampa, which should be underwater in a year or two.
Hopefully under warm water.
MNG,
Present me with compelling evidence of actual dire consequences if
I don't act now to buy the ShamWow, and I might discuss options
that don't coincide with my political and economic preferences.
Possible consequences are too speculative to justify the kinds of
radical tactics being proposed.
|4.7.09 @ 6:13PM|#
Why is an economy dependent on suckling Saudi Arabia's
spigot considered a healthy one anyway?
By the way, just to get yet another refutation of Tony's baseless
assertions out of the way, the US consumes 20.7 million barrels of
petroleum every day. Saudi Arabia accounts for 1.3 million of
them.
The largest producer of petroleum for US consumption? The US, of
course, at well over 3 times the contribution of the second place
producer, Canada.
MNG|4.7.09 @ 6:17PM|#
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
InterAcademy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany,
Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar,
Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South
Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United
States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
Geological Society of America
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Institute of Physics
American Statistical Association
All of the members of those organizations have released statements
or reports supporting (with varying levels of agreement of course),
that global warming is occuring, is in part human caused, and
should be addressed.
All of those guys are mistaken or part of some mad cabal to rule
the world through cap and trade systems, or all under mass alien
mind control, and you small brave group of amateur scientists with
an aversion to anything calling forth a collective response are the
ones seeing this clearly, interpreting the right data in the right
way, and ultimately are correct in your denials of such
things.
What sane man would think that?
MNG|4.7.09 @ 6:19PM|#
"Possible consequences are too speculative to justify the kinds
of radical tactics being proposed."
Depending on what you mean by "possible consequences" I doubt you
believe this in any meaningful way.
"Hmmm, smoking greatly increases my chances of cancer, but it's
only a POSSIBLE consequence no matter how likely, so I shall puff
away with confidence!"
Just about everything in life is a "possible consequence." What can
we do but have the best experts tell us how possible or not and act
thereupon?
MNG|4.7.09 @ 6:21PM|#
One typo, of course "all of the members" of all of those organiztions didn't release the statements/reports, they were released by the organizations, which usually decide them by polling the members, votes at meetings, or by the votes of representative governing bodies. My point is that they usually become the statement by reflecting the majority opinion of the membership. But of course, not all of the members.
|4.7.09 @ 6:31PM|#
"European Academy of Sciences and Arts
InterAcademy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany,
Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar,
Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South
Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United
States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
Geological Society of America
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Institute of Physics
American Statistical Association"
heheheh
we're all getting
quite a lot of cheese too :)
It is imperative that this technology is investigated as it could
provide a sustainable cost effective means of enhancing energy
efficiency, by reducing materials consumption and energy usage
whilst simultaneously reducing operating costs and enhancing
product lifetime. The deliverables will not only act to engender
the EU's goals under the framework for sustainable energy but
stimulate economic growth by developing new high tech jobs and
start up enterprises
ah cheese
tasty tasty cheese
:)
|4.7.09 @ 10:13PM|#
Here's another thing....
The fact that environmentalists wont even *consider* nuclear power
tells me they aren't serious about global warming anyway.
If we really had a global warming apocalypse breathing down our
necks, then the remote possibility of a marginal increase in cancer
rates at some unknown point in the distant future wouldn't be a
considered a serious objection to building more plants. But for
some wacky reason, they'd rather fantasize about windmills and
low-tech anarcho-primitivist lifestyles. Nuclear is verboten.
Ergo. They aren't serious. And if they aren't serious, why should
we be serious? Global warming's biggest promoters obviously don't
think it's a big enough problem to justify building more nuclear
plants, so why should we consider it a big enough problem to
justify intervention in the market?
It seems to me they are far more interested in using it as a
political weapon to enact all sorts of socialist policies then they
are in actually solving the problem.
|4.8.09 @ 12:08AM|#
It strikes me that there's a lot of panic over something
about which little is known while a very real threat is being
ignored.
Not as little is known as you assume. But if current science is
correct, global warming effects become a short-term certainty, not
just a statistical probability over a million years. It's just a
more dire and immediate problem. Like an armed invasion, or a mass
pandemic, or a hurricane, only multiplied planet-wide.
Sort of like it never occurred to anyone in New Orleans to do
anything about hurricane preparedness until the levies broke and
the city was under twenty feet of water.
This is almost offensive to a liberal who advocates for a strong
public sector to ensure that such things are kept functioning and
modern. Katrina was the moment the country decided to reject the
ideology of functionless government. Market interests just don't
provide everything a society needs, and I can think of no more
stark an example as dealing with catastrophic environmental
damage.
|4.8.09 @ 1:50AM|#
Market interests just don't provide everything a society
needs, and I can think of no more stark an example as dealing with
catastrophic environmental damage.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anyone is dealing with
catastrophic environmental damage, that the US has to deal with
catastrophic environmental damage, or that there is any scientific
consensus that there will be planet-wide catastrophic environmental
damage anytime in any of our lifetimes?
No?
Then please stop acting like planet-wide catastrophic environmental
damage is a scientific consensus that demands immediate government
policy action. It isn't and it doesn't.
|4.8.09 @ 2:03AM|#
Katrina was the moment the country decided to reject the
ideology of functionless government. Market interests just don't
provide everything a society needs, and I can think of no more
stark an example as dealing with catastrophic environmental
damage.
I never got that impression from Katrina. It was more about
competence in the aftermath than about "functionless" government or
markets.
As a matter of fact, it was NOT the market that built New Orleans
into the swamps below sea level. The swampland was drained by a
PROGRESSIVE government program. It was only with the exlicit
assitance of government that the area was even opened up for human
habitation in the first place.
Kreel Sarloo|4.8.09 @ 7:17AM|#
Tony seems to think that if he simply repeats the same mantra
that he learned from Al Gore over and over again it will somehow
become true.
Tell you what, Tony, forget "the consensus", cite one single,
that's right, ONE, member of the IPCC who
believes the apocalyptic vision and supports the extreme command
and control political solution you're proclaiming. That's all you
need to do.
Till then I will consider your fullofshitness to be firmly
established..
|4.8.09 @ 7:42AM|#
Tony,
Let's put it this way. A couple years ago the party line of global
warming activists was that we had to do something within a decade
or it would be too late.
Then I saw that James Hansen -- likely the most proselytizing of
the activist scientists, but at least actually a scientist -- also
cited the next decade as crucial for action. In disbelief I hunted
down what it was he really said and his reasoning.
His reasoning? Well, in the next ten years humanity will build lots
of coal fired power plants that won't be depreciated for fifty
years. If they are still running in fifty years, that will be a
problem.
In other words, it's an outright lie to claim that the next decade
is crucial. The middle of the century is what is crucial.
Considering that people in the middle of the century will be far
richer than we are, it will be cheaper for them to write off the
coal plants in the event they find that emitted CO2 costs more than
it benefits than it is for us not to build the coal plants today in
lieu of much more expensive energy sources or decreased power
production.
|4.8.09 @ 9:50AM|#
cite one single, that's right, ONE, member of the IPCC who
believes the apocalyptic vision and supports the extreme command
and control political solution you're proclaiming.
The IPCC (whose estimates some consider too conservative) claims
that if we were to do nothing, average global temperature would
increase from 9 to 11 degrees, "bringing severe impacts." They
estimate that an increase of more than 3 to 5 degrees will cause
the potential extinction of 30% of the species on earth.
The IPCC recommends comprehensive public policies that rapidly
bring clean energy to the market.
|4.8.09 @ 9:56AM|#
A couple years ago the party line of global warming
activists was that we had to do something within a decade or it
would be too late.
The consensus now is that some effects are unavoidable, and we will
see an increase in the average global temperature regardless of
what we do to mitigate global warming.
The middle of the century is what is crucial. Considering that
people in the middle of the century will be far richer than we are,
it will be cheaper for them to write off the coal plants in the
event they find that emitted CO2 costs more than it benefits than
it is for us not to build the coal plants today in lieu of much
more expensive energy sources or decreased power
production.
So your strategy is to hope that people 50 years from now are
richer? Look, reducing fossil fuel use is way, way overdue. Pushing
it down the road is the coward's way out and only increases the
damage that will be done.
Green energy is more expensive because fossil fuel energy is
subsidized by being allowed to cause massive environmental
disruption for free.
|4.8.09 @ 10:19AM|#
So your strategy is to hope that people 50 years from now
are richer?
If people 50 years from now are not richer, then the IPCC
predictions of how much CO2 will be emitted -- and how much warming
there will be -- are way overblown. The IPCC assumes that
people in the future will be richer, will demand more energy, and
will burn more carbon. If that is not true, then neither are the
IPCC concerns about warming.
Green energy is more expensive because fossil fuel energy is
subsidized by being allowed to cause massive environmental
disruption for free.
I have asked you at least twice for your estimate of that
environmental subsidy. What do you think it is, and why do you
think it is so large it makes green energy competitive?
Kreel Sarloo|4.8.09 @ 10:45AM|#
"The IPCC recommends comprehensive public policies that rapidly
bring clean energy to the market."
Citation, please.
Kreel Sarloo|4.8.09 @ 10:55AM|#
Tony, what I find funniest in your coming back and back is that
it really seems to matter to you what anyone at Hit and Run thinks
about this.
Last I checked there was absolutely no danger of any of us ever
having any influence on this or any other issue of public
policy.
It finally occurs to me that it's not enough for you to belong to
the faction (even as an insignificant blot) that's in control,
what's really important to you is blind obediance and conformity
with absolutely no dissension.
|4.8.09 @ 9:17PM|#
Unemployment in Spain is currently at 16% party due to the high cost of running any business here, caused byt the high cost of energy here, which is the direct result of the Socialist -and also former Conservative- Government's reluctance to increase nuclear power and subsidize so-called "green" alternatives instead.
|4.10.09 @ 3:44PM|#
I have reviewed this study and take few exceptions. The logic is
clear: Renewable energy (and other) subsidies either raise taxes,
the deficit or prices of energy. Renewables cost more than other
energy. Higher taxes and energy prices drive industry to other
places. Jobs are lost as result. It makes intuitive sense and we
have seen it with other well meaning schemes. Spain has a decade of
experience with this.
Past environmental legislation benefited local communities in terms
of air and water quality. Thus if jobs and factories were lost,
there was still some local benefit. This is not the case with CO2.
When jobs are lost because the factory moved to a place powered by
fossil fuels to avoid the price of wind and solar, greenhouse gases
still increase and we will be unemployed. China understands this
very well.
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