NY Times Op-Ed Page of Climate Change & Dirty Coal

Paul Krugman praises the cap-and-trade bill just passed in the House of Representatives as "a remarkable achievement" and convicts anyone (but especially the 212 nay voters) who doesn't want to get with the program (which is fat with corporate welfare, among other nauseating details) guilty of planetary treason:

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason—treason against the planet....

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an "existential threat" to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole—but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is.

Whole bit here.

To its credit, on the same page, the Times ran a really interesting piece by environmental writer Gregg Easterbrook about how super-pure green thinking and classic governmental screwups are holding up implementation of proven technologies that could reduce carbon emissions from coal-generated electricity by two-thirds. Rather than go ahead with "'integrated gasification combined cycle' power," pols and others are pushing a phoney-baloney and sure-to-be-useless boondoggle called FutureGen:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he opposes integrated gasification plants—only new solar, wind and geothermal facilities should be allowed. Environmentalists who correctly point out there can never be absolutely "clean coal" thus end up in the position of opposing coal that's far cleaner than what we are using.

Yet coal use is a future certainty. Half of our power comes from coal, versus about 2 percent from solar and wind: in the next few decades, green power simply cannot grow quickly enough to eliminate the need for coal. We have two choices: do nothing and wait for FutureGen while coal-caused carbon emissions continue unabated; or start building improved coal-fired plants that reduce the problem. Which seems more forward-thinking?

The Easterbrook piece is well worth reading.

I wonder if Krugman judges Easterbrook guilty of planetary treason?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    It's true: I'm a traitor to the Earth. But when the Martians came with their bribes--flying cars, immortality, power rings--I could not resist. Forgive me!

  • ||

    I saw that bit about "treason" today in the NY Times and, sadly, was unsurprised by it. Is Krugman now America's biggest, most shrill a-hole?

  • ||

    Krugman is Bertram Scudder incarnate

  • hammeredHead||

    How does this guy get to write about two fields that he knows nothing about?

  • ||

    That was hyperbole-but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

    The irony, it burns.

  • SpongePaul||

    I am a treasonous denier and stand by it. The earth has warmewd and cooled and swung to extremes throught its entire time in the univers. humans have about oh a 1% impact on the atmosphere. Al gore is a Fucktard!!!

  • ||

    Next he'll call us traitors for opposing the creation of housing bubbles in recessions.

  • Naga Sadow||

    FOOLS!!! XENU WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS PLANETARY TREASON!!!

  • Naga Sadow||

    Nooooooo!!! I meant Gaia, dammit! Gaia!

  • ||

    Since Krugman is completely full of shit in his own ostensible specialty (economics), his opinion on climatology carries no weight whatsoever.

    -jcr

  • hamilton||

    Krugman vs. Easterbrook is patently unfair given the latter's superior writing ability and functioning brain, but I am no longer able to enjoy Easterbrook because he's a Patriots-hating nincompoop.

  • ||

    How does this guy get to write about two fields that he knows nothing about?

    He writes what the powers that be want to hear. There will always be a place for the Krugmans of the world, as long as there are power-seekers who desire the appearance of legitimacy.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Krugman won a Nobel!!! He is an expert on EVERYTHING now, don't you get it?!?

  • twistedmerkin||

    I am no longer able to enjoy Easterbrook because he's a Patriots-hating nincompoop.

    The Patriots suck donkey cock.

  • hamilton||

    Shut the fuck up Gregg.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    the really sad part is that the odds that Krugman actually read and understood the bill are zero. so, his shill-ness is all the more apparent because he's simply passing along a message. if he actually read the bill, that'd be different, but he didn't, so he's accusing those of us of treason for opposing something neither side has read.

    what a fucker.

  • ||

    I'm amused by the increased use of "existential" in the media. While there's not necessarily anything wrong with the word (except the questionable validity of it in this context), it always makes me think of the philosophical movement and an alternate meaning of the term:

    [A] philosophical attitude associated esp. with Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Sartre, and opposed to rationalism and empiricism, that stresses the individual's unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices.



    I could swear that it's this meaning of existential that Krugman is using--non-rational and non-empirical--but maybe I'm mistaken.

  • hammeredHead||

    Thanks for clearing that up for me. If it pays well, I would be happy to do it. No Nobel though. Guess I have to work on that next. It looks like Economics and Climatology are both fields where one's bullshitting ability carries much wieght.

  • ||

    The best part about the clean(er) coal vs. dirty coal debate is that the environmentalists own ardor is what will bring them down. They are insisting on a standard of CO2 capture that is practically impossible to achieve before significantly more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere. By that time, worrying about global warming will be like collecting beanie babies - a few people will still do it, but most people will have given it up and pretend they were never involved.

    If they had endorsed clean(er) coal and actually reduced some of the emission - when the end of the world doesn't come, they could at least try and take credit for it. As it is, AGW via CO2 will be hoisted on it's own puritannical petard.

  • JB||

    Fuck Krugman. He is a waste of carbon.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason-treason against the planet...."

    On the contrary, it is Krugman who ia communist traitor to the country, along with Pelosi and all the rest of the Congressmen and Congresswomen who voted for the legislation.

    Oh and Obama is a communist traitor as well.

  • ||

    If global warming is a scientific issue, and good science is characterized by a constant questioning of tests and results, then questioning global warming is our duty. So maybe that makes it only quasi-treason.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    so we can retire the Bush Administration caricature-catch-phrase:

    "Why does/do X hate America?"

    and we can now institute a new phrase:

    "Why is/are X treasonous against the planet>?"

  • DADIODADDY||

    Paul Krugman- Planetary Douchebag or maybe Captain Planetary Douchebag?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    DADIODADDY - you're just a traitor to the planet.

    Why do you hate Gaia?

    in seriousness, I can't believe this was even published. this HAS to be the dumbest thing I've read in the MSM in my lifetime. That is a no-shit statement.

  • \\,||

    If global warming is a scientific issue, and good science is characterized by a constant questioning of tests and results, then questioning global warming is our duty. So maybe that makes it only quasi-treason.



    Just like questioning evolution!

  • Michael||

    And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason-treason against the planet....

    This is absolutely the most infuriating claim that I hear dribbling from the mouths of environmentalists. That we're somehow betraying precious, defenseless Gaia. What the fuck has the planet ever done for us? Aside from floods, earthquakes, tidal waves, droughts, hurricanes and the occasional disease epidemic - absolutely nothing. Everything that we have, everything that sustains us and enriches our lives has been put here by humans. So suck ass, Paul Krugman. Mother Earth is here for us to do exactly as we see fit, and my own lifestyle is ribbed for her pleasure.

  • ||

    Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is.

    Gee whiz, Krugman; maybe you should should get some Vag-On [Apply Directly to the Vagina! Apply Directly to the Vagina! Apply Directly to the Vagina!] Pain Reliever.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Krugman briefly considered whether it was hypocrisy to call legislators planetary traitors, but continue to live his lavish, carbon-heavy lifestyle, including typing these very words.

    Nah, he thought, hypocrisy is only for Republicans.

  • ||

    Paul Krugman- Planetary Douchebag or maybe Captain Planetary Douchebag?

    Krugman: Captain Planetary Hyperbolic Superdouche

  • Warty||

    By a remarkable coincidence, the Khmer phrase for "don't bother to read that, it'll only waste your time" is paal kroug min. Amazing.

  • Xeones||

    Yo, fuck Nobel laureate Dr. Paul Krugman, Ph.D.

  • ||

    "If global warming is a scientific issue, and good science is characterized by a constant questioning of tests and results, then questioning global warming is our duty. So maybe that makes it only quasi-treason.



    Just like questioning evolution!"

    Two completely different things. Evolution has been scientifically proven but that man is contributing greatly to global warming and climate change and that the situation will be disastrous in the future due to man's contribution has not been proven.

  • ||

    That was hyperbole-but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

    I am a traitor too. I just walked around the house intentionally turned on all the incandescent lights in the house in the middle of the day. I am eating some bean salad and intend on releasing more greenhouse gases than a well corn fed cow.

  • ||

    If this be treason, make the most of it!

  • ||

    I hope Krugman wasn't one of those "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" a year ago.

  • Tricky Prickears||

    (which is fat with corporate welfare, among other nauseating details)

    300 pages of "add-ons" from the Dems in the "final hour". This is why I hate politicians. Fuck Krugman. As much as I want to see a transition from fossil to renewable, I'd have voted NO to this piece of crap "legislation". But just as bad as the Dems filing it with a bunch of shit, was the Republicans and those same old tired arguments of denial. All being made by Reps from Texas and Oklahoma (with a few exceptions).

  • Neu Mejican||

    Re: evironmentalists-

    They are insisting on...

    Who, specifically, are "they?"

    This is a bigger movement than libertarianism.

    Just as it is vacuous to state that "libertarians are traitors to the planet..." sweeping statements about some mythical cabal of environmentalists are just so much hot air. A substantial portion of environmentalists are not concerned with method, but with results. Painting environmentalism with some broad "left-big-government-loving" brush demonstrates little understanding of topic.

    imho.

    Everything that we have, everything that sustains us and enriches our lives has been put here by humans.

    The antidote to hubris, to overweening pride, is irony, that capacity to discover and systematize ideas. Or, as Emerson insisted, the development of consciousness, consciousness, consciousness.-Ralph Ellison

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Neu - talk to your boy - hyperbole about traitorous deniers is met and matched by hyperbole about Big-Government enviros.

    And I would posit that you're one of the rare ones: most enviros are Watermelons. Green on the outside and red on the inside.

  • yo||

    Yo, fuck [Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel recipient] Dr. Paul Krugman, Ph.D.

    FTFY.

    And fuck Nobel laureate Al Gore.

  • Chad||

    To its credit, on the same page, the Times ran a really interesting piece by environmental writer Gregg Easterbrook about how super-pure green thinking and classic governmental screwups are holding up implementation of proven technologies that could reduce carbon emissions from coal-generated electricity by two-thirds. Rather than go ahead with "'integrated gasification combined cycle' power," pols and others are pushing a phoney-baloney and sure-to-be-useless boondoggle called FutureGen.

    Wow, Nick! Wow! Let's do 10 seconds of research before we blog, please

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FutureGen

    FutureGen IS an IGCC plant. IGCC is a "proven" technology for making plants more efficient, but only marginally so. IGCC is about 60% efficient for the best plants, while the newest regular coal-burning plants are 45-48% efficient. That 15% improvement in efficiency translates into a 25% reduction in emissions, not the 2/3 that you claimed.

    IGCC is more efficient but also much more expensive, while is why it is not common and several projects have been cancelled.

    IGCC is more compatible with carbon capture, however, because the CO2 concentration in the flue gases is high, making capture easier. IGCC+carbon capture is considred likely to be cheaper than tradional plants+carbon capture, which is precisely why it is being attempted at FutureGen.

    I fully support FutureGen. Not because it will be viable, but precisely because it won't. I want this idiotic idea to be proven a failure as soon as possible. Of course, carbon capture will work in an engineering sense, but simple math indicates that there is no way it can compete against wind in terms of price. This is precisely why the coal companies are demanding the whole venture be subsized so heavily.

  • Neu Mejican||

    TAO,

    Last time I checked MOST (something like 75%) of Americans identify themselves as environmentalists. I am gonna guess I am not that far from the average.

  • Chad||

    bookworm | June 29, 2009, 2:09pm | #

    Evolution has been scientifically proven but that man is contributing greatly to global warming and climate change and that the situation will be disastrous in the future due to man's contribution has not been proven.


    Wrong. Science can never prove anything. It can just amass evidence support certain theories and refuting others.

    You are asking the wrong question, though. We do not wait for proof or certainty before we act, in any element of our life. Why are you demanding such in this case?

  • Warty||

    Hey everyone, let's give up our high standard of living to save the world!

    What??? Why are you demanding such a high standard of proof?

  • ||

    Heh, that's what passes for a logical argument with people like Krugman: "If you don't believe beyond question it's treason!"

    A devastating rhetorical attack, right up there with "you're a poopy-head!"

  • Tricky Prickears||


    Wrong. Science can never prove anything. It can just amass evidence support certain theories and refuting others.

    Newton's Laws of Motion, Conservation of Energy. Scientists set the bar so high for themselves in order to quell religious arguments, that it's biting them in the ass, now. Nobody can "prove" an electron exists, but you can see them (striking the phosphor screen) every time you turn on your TV (well, the old CRTs). But Krugman is still an asshole.

  • alan||

    Easterbrook wrote an article for The New Republic twenty years ago about how hyperbolic charges and misplaced emphasis on Apocalyptic scenarios over successes like clean water and clean air hurt the Greens.

    It probably had the most impact on my thinking as I was still a libertarian leaning but still snot nosed liberal kid at the time (subscribed to the thus said publication) with pretty conventional ideas on environmentalism.

  • ||

    The climate change fanatics like Chad remind me of TARP: "we have to DO SOMETHING NOW!!!" Really? Can't we be a little more cautious?

    Oh, we can't because if we're cautious you might not get what you want rammed through using panic. Got it.

  • ||

    "We do not wait for proof or certainty before we act, in any element of our life. Why are you demanding such in this case?"

    If you are not a Christian and a Christian tells you that you are going to hell for not converting, do you commit yourself to Christianity just in case it might be true? It seems like you are applying this rationale regarding global warming. You think we should switch to non-carbon sources of energy just in case there are serious problems down the road due to our output of CO2. The burden is on those who make the claims. Why should we wreck our economy by converting to nonfossil forms of energy when the technology isn't here yet to make that big a difference in CO2 output with the exception of nuclear power which so many leftists including Obama are opposed to? Before we do that, you need to prove your case. Before I commit to Christianity, I need proof that it's true.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Worth a read:

    http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008131.html

    Key point: Yes, there are serious questions about how much it will cost to build new coal plants that can capture and store CO2, how soon will it happen, and whether or not the technology can scale up quickly enough to really make a difference.

    The real question to put to Easterbrooks analysis is what gets the best bang for the buck. The money to improve coal may be better spent on other solutions. This same issue is central to the debate about nuclear as well. These large centralized capital intensive solutions may not always make financial sense when compared to distributed, less capitally intensive options.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Neu - it's easy to self-identify as an environmentalist. After all, how can you be against plants and deer and cute little animals? But that's far afield from understanding what environmentalism entails.

  • Xeones||

    I want this idiotic idea to be proven a failure as soon as possible.

    Funny, that's precisely why you haven't been banned from Hit'n'Run, Chaaaaad.

  • Warty||

    Just hurry up and invent fusion already, science assholes. Jesus Christ.

  • ||

    T + REASON = TREASON!

    I knew it!

    Chad! Dude! I don't know why you don't want to burn coal. It's treason now! and treason is the most badass crime against the state there is? you are a badass aren't you? Why don't we just try to burn up all the coal really fast? It's like SUPER TREASON!

    Why is perfect always the enemy of the good. No serious discussion of energy policy should demonize and/or outright ignore our existing structure and capabilities. By turing this debate into a good/evil debate and using cool words like TREASON we are losing focus.

    Losing focus is cool if you are staring at clouds, but this is heading for a BIG MISTAKE. The enviro-vangelistas as well as the denialist nutjobs need to stop the pissing contest. The urge to DO SOMETHING NOW will be the end of us all.

    Treason = cool

  • Fluffy||

    You are asking the wrong question, though. We do not wait for proof or certainty before we act, in any element of our life. Why are you demanding such in this case?

    It's not simply a matter of endorsing / denying the existence or seriousness of AGW.

    Even if you accept the science behind AGW, that does not translate into immediate acceptance of this particular bill.

    Even if it were proven to me incontrovertibly that AGW exists, I would still oppose the bill because:

    1. As written it's a huge exercise in corporate welfare.

    2. Cap and trade is an affront to both liberty and equality.

    3. Because China's CO2 emission growth will be untouched, the bill imposes gigantic costs but will not actually significantly ameliorate AGW globally.

  • Timmy||

    Chad, go fuck yourself.

  • David Small||

    Chad, I'd expect them to at least prove that anthropogenic GW is likely. And to that they haven't. Now, go back to complaining about how you're forced to live in the suburbs and use Windows 95.

  • Neu Mejican||

    TAO,

    That is the point. When the label "environmentalist" is used, it is treated like it is a coherent philosophy or doctrine of some sort. What it actually is is a loose group of people (the majority) that place high enough value on minimizing harm to the environment that they think some costs are worth considering to achieve that goal. It is a goal oriented, pragmatic at its core movement. It is not about methods, but results for the vast majority of environmentalists (i.e. people).

  • GinSlinger||

    Chad, Sure FutureGen is a IGCC, but it's also a desert topping. While IGCC may make perfect acceptable floor waxes, the boondoggle is that we're paying for them to try their hand at desert toppings as well.

    There's a difference between reach and grasp.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Because China's CO2 emission growth will be untouched, the bill imposes gigantic costs but will not actually significantly ameliorate AGW globally.

    Is this strictly true?
    Does the bill not calculate the costs of upstream materials in the carbon total?

    Really, I haven't had a chance to look yet, the carbon calculation should be for the whole cycle leading up to your particular output, so as long as the US is China's main customer, this should have an impact on how China make things as well. So, for instance, when Matel makes Barby, they don't get a carbon credit for the fact that their plant is in China.

    Right?
    Surely the bill pays at least his much attention to the goal.

  • Generation Fucked||

    Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is.

    The minute you walked in the joint,
    I could see you were a man of distinction,
    A real Big Spender,
    Good looking, so refined.
    Say, wouldn't you like to know
    What's going on in my mind?
    So, let me get right to the point,
    You spend the dough like it grows on trees.
    Hey, Big Spender, spend...
    A little time with...me...me...me!

  • ||

    I just committed treason...in my pants.

  • ||

    Clarify something for me here - Cap and Trade is just another name for Carbon Credits, right? If so, why hasn't the validity of the scheme been thoroughly questioned?

  • ||

    I just committed treason...in my pants.


    You just made the cool list!

  • Xeones||

    If so, why hasn't the validity of the scheme been thoroughly questioned?

    What are you, some kind of... TRAITOR? There's no time for questions! We have to act NOW!

  • ||

    Last time I checked MOST (something like 75%) of Americans identify themselves as environmentalists. I am gonna guess I am not that far from the average.

    Careful with that self description thingee,

    Last I checked most Americans described themselves as regular churchgoers.

    Last I checked most Americans were not, in fact, regular churchgoers.

    Whaddya think the percentage of parents who describe themselves both loving and responsible is? ;-)

    As someone from the rational wing of the movement, I'm with you on not painting all environmentalists with the same brush.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Neu - that's because you see coherency with the "face" of the environmentalist movement, and the problem is that the underlying premise (we must not damage the environment) is *never* questioned: why is it desirable to "minimize harm to the 'environment'"?

    Hell, what IS the "environment", anyways? If the definition of environmentalist is one who wishes to "minimize harm to the environment", I would contend that's a string of pretty words with absolutely no meaning to any of them.

  • ||

    "These large centralized capital intensive solutions may not always make financial sense when compared to distributed, less capitally intensive options."

    But just how much energy can we expect to get from the distributed, less capitally intensive options?

  • Mike||

    You suck, Krugman. Nobody who supports this bill has any business calling himself an economist. What the hell does "treason to Earth" mean anyway? The Earth is a large rock. How can you betray it? Environmentalism is a religion, and Krugman is just shouting "shun the unbelievers!"

  • Kyle Jordan||

    You know, I feel stupid after I read something from Paul Krugman. To even somewhat comprehend his stance on most things is to willfully break from logic and coherent thought.

    It's a testament to the empty headedness of mankind that someone like Paul Krugman can hold any sort of esteem as a "great thinker" much less a Nobel Laureate.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    you know, I know that people cringe with the "Environmentalism is a Religion" thing gets tossed about, but you can prove it. Ask your closest so-called environmentalist this:

    "If we could pave over the entire earth and conclusively prove that this would better humanity by leaps and bounds over leaving the earth the way it is, would you support doing it?"

    If he or she gets all bent out of shape about, you have a religionist.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    OK, one final thing:

    SEPARATE THE NOBEL PRIZE FROM KRUGMAN THE EDITORIALIST. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

    Sorry for the shouting, but Linus Pauling deserved every Nobel he got. He was also batshit crazy about medical stuff.

  • ||

    Just for the record, planetary history tells us that at one time CO2 was 15-18% of the atmosphere. It fell as a result of biological processes. Any talk of irreversable or runaway global warming due to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere completely ignores this basic fact.

    IOW, the fearmongering hyperbole of crap like that Krugman op-ed validates my decision to diregard and mock the luddite (it was paradise before technology) and fundie (OMG! WE'RE ALL GONNNA DIE!!!) wings of the environmentalism movement.

    There is a sever shortage of thinking adults attempting to deal with this problem. Pants wetters and delusional thinkers abound though.

  • Seward||

    Neu Mejican,

    Last time I checked MOST (something like 75%) of Americans identify themselves as environmentalists.

    Which is basically a meaningless statistic. After all, if I asked people if they were for warm, fuzzy puppies and free speech most would say yes. Of course we know that large segments of the public (perhaps even majorities) are for all sorts of content control when it comes to speech (and not just in the broadcast spectrum).

  • Kyle Jordan||

    "SEPARATE THE NOBEL PRIZE FROM KRUGMAN THE EDITORIALIST. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD."

    No.

  • David Small||

    Neu Mejican, you may want to get one of these nuclear reactors for your backyard ...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

  • Seward||

    Neu Mejican,

    What it actually is is a loose group of people (the majority) that place high enough value on minimizing harm to the environment that they think some costs are worth considering to achieve that goal.

    Most people are not really willing to pay much of a cost - this was demonstrated when gas went up to $4.00 a gallon. Drilling in all sorts of formerly no go areas suddenly became palatable to a majority of a public.

    It is a goal oriented, pragmatic at its core movement. It is not about methods, but results for the vast majority of environmentalists (i.e. people).

    Environmentalism is fuzzy, wuzzy feelings for most people. Which is why most people do not pay attention to any sort of environmental legislation; they just don't care that much to concern themselves with the practical nature of the issues. It is like most things, an amorphous "do good" mentality that only comes into focus when there is some sort of personal involvement.

  • ||

    Fusion. There is no substitute.

  • ||

    Those that want to deny their fellow man the energy he needs to be free has absolutely no concern about how much co2 a certain technology emits. If they did we'd be 100% nuclear by now.

  • ||

    I'd say "Those who" but I don't consider those people human.

  • ||

    Fusion. There is no substitute.

    And it's only 10 years away!

  • ||

    Xeones | June 29, 2009, 2:43pm | #

    I want this idiotic idea to be proven a failure as soon as possible.

    Funny, that's precisely why you haven't been banned from Hit'n'Run, Chaaaaad.



    One day I will buy you the best slice of carrot cake in the country for this.

  • ||

    Only ten years? Progress! It used to be "only" twenty years away!

  • ||

    TAO,

    I will stop the Nobel Prize Krugman jokes when the left stops mentioning it as a reason to take his editorializing seriously. That and the "Dr. Krugman" trope are both used by the left as an argument from authority for Krugman's wacky politics.

    And to cut off anyone else who wants to the make the "but he's a Dr.!!!" argument... I have worked with and for university academics for 20 years. Outside of a classroom setting, any non-MD who insists on being called "Dr." is considered a massive douche. In a rare defense of Krugman, I'll lay good money that he never demands to be called "Dr. Krugman."

  • ||

    for example: Doctor Ross Geller.

  • Chad||

    David Small | June 29, 2009, 2:45pm | #
    Chad, I'd expect them to at least prove that anthropogenic GW is likely.


    Please define what you would consider sufficient evidence. I don't think you understand what that would even entail, or how far we are beyond that point.

    The consensus view is very likely, which in common-sense terms implies around 90% certainty that AGW will cause significant negative effects. Within that band, consequences range from "annoying but tolerable" to "Mad Maxx" with varying probabilities.

  • ||

    NutraSweet, Krugman didn't spend 6 years in evil economist school to be called "mister".

  • Chad||

    Seward | June 29, 2009, 3:31pm | #
    I willing to pay much of a cost - this was demonstrated when gas went up to $4.00 a gallon. Drilling in all sorts of formerly no go areas suddenly became palatable to a majority of a public.


    $4.00 is chump change. Expect $1 increase per year for the next few years. And yes, the opposition to drilling is stupid. We should drill, charge royalties every which way to Sunday, and use the money to transition away from fossil fuels. Oil and natural gas are high-value fuels with no easy replacement. It is coal that we can and must stop burning.

  • ||

    They call me Doctor Tibbs!

  • Chad||

    Episiarch | June 29, 2009, 2:41pm | #

    Really? Can't we be a little more cautious?


    Caution is the exact opposite of what we are doing. And in any case, at what point would you decide we had enough evidence and it was time to act. You do realize, don't you, if that you are wrong (and you are), things get exponentially more expensive the longer we wait.

  • ||

    I believe that an asteroid is going to clobber the Earth before the end of the century. Therefore, I demand that we drop everything and develop a sophisticated and comprehensive defense system right now.

    That's a real risk, and except for the end of the century part, it's 100% sure to happen.

  • ||

    I didn't give you permission to address me, Chad.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Fusion? Fusion Pro Lib? Would you like a flying, time traveling, D'Lorean as well? ;)

  • ||

    Naga,

    If I partook of the fallacious belief that government can solve all problems, I'd have blown much of the stimulus money on fusion research. Sure, it might not work, but if it did, people would worship me as a god. I guess Obama skipped that step and became a god without actually doing anything. Must've been a Ghostbusters fan or something.

    Episiarch,

    Nice.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Pro Lib,

    Personally I would have thrown most of the stimulus money into Lab Whore research but thats the kind of guy I am.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    No, Chad, these government "solutions" are the opposite of measured, considered responses to potential problems. A bill was introduced that nobody had read. It imposes a "solution" that will do absolutely no good...didn't you read (whatever report that was) that stated that even if Waxman-Markey conforms 100% to expectations, you can expect, at most, a 1 degree C mitigation over one century?

    All you're doing is hobbling American industry for no good reason.

  • ||

    Naga Sadow, there is anecdotal evidence showing a link between flying, time traveling Deloreans and Parkinson's disease.

  • in the not-too-distant future||

    New York Times, June 29, 2023 - Washington, DC

    Representatives from most of the large trade associations were on Capitol Hill today, making their case for an allocation of carbon permits to representatives on the Energy and Environment Committee. "The car industry is hurting," Ray Young, CEO of General Motors, told the committee. "If our permit allocation is cut, we may not be able to make it through next year," he said. While GM has been privately controlled since 2023, it relies on sales of carbon permits to make a profit. Young and other industry executives are worried about a third year of reductions in carbon permits, and are hoping that Congress will make changes to the allocation formula, so that other, more profitable industries bear more of the burden of emissions reduction.

    One change advocated by the US Chamber of Commerce, among other groups, is ending the practice of counting agriculture as an "offset" against carbon emissions. Because agriculture is a carbon-intensive cost, they argue, allowing farms to sell emissions permits based on the size of their fields makes little sense. "You're basically subsidizing emissions, since it takes more carbon to grow an acre of wheat than you get out of the air." But with an election year coming up, it appears that this idea is a nonstarter in Congress. "Why can't polluters pay their fair share of the cost? The Republican party is pro-farmers and we wouldn't want to hurt them. That could stall the farming boom we have had for the past 10 years, and would stop the housing recovery just as it's getting started," said Tom Vilsack Vilsack, clone of former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. Vilsack Vilsack was referring to the rise in home values after carbon permits were given to all landowners who grow crops, prompting a wave of investment in land next to suburban areas. Though most of the crops grown are destroyed, the program is very popular among middle-class investors, some of whom have made great amounts of money buying land and selling carbon permits.

  • ||

    Naga,

    Well, I can understand that. My big question is whether we post something new for the next Lab Whore Day or just rerun last year's posting.

  • Chad||

    Pro Libertate | June 29, 2009, 4:10pm | #
    I believe that an asteroid is going to clobber the Earth before the end of the century. Therefore, I demand that we drop everything and develop a sophisticated and comprehensive defense system right now. That's a real risk, and except for the end of the century part, it's 100% sure to happen.


    We are spending money to research various options for asteroid defense right now. The urgency for such spending should be driven by the odds and consequences of such incidents, just as prepare for any disasters. The only difference with respect to AGW is that the odds are much higher for the same level of consequence.

  • Chad||

    The Angry Optimist | June 29, 2009, 4:30pm | #
    No, Chad, these government "solutions" are the opposite of measured, considered responses to potential problems. A bill was introduced that nobody had read. It imposes a "solution" that will do absolutely no good...didn't you read (whatever report that was) that stated that even if Waxman-Markey conforms 100% to expectations, you can expect, at most, a 1 degree C mitigation over one century?


    Solving this problem will cost us about 2% of GPD...a whopping year of growth. Clearly, our great-grandchildren will not be able to wait until 2101 for the economy they could have had in 2100.

    All you're doing is hobbling American industry for no good reason.

    I think they did a pretty darned good job of hobbling themselves.

  • David Small||

    Chad, considering that 10s of thousands of scientists dissent (http://www.petitionproject.org) from your AGW perspective, your very likely categorization seems more unlikely. That doesn't count carbon saturation levels, negative feedback loops, solar activity, nor nonhuman related climate trends.

    Also, wasn't it very likely in the 70s that we were headed into another ice age? How did that work out?

  • Brett Stevens||

    So much bloviation, so little facing of truth.

    The real problem is overpopulation. This is what kills species by reducing their native habitat.

    And most of these people don't do anything noteworthy.

  • GinSlinger||

    olving this problem will cost us about 2% of GPD...a whopping year of growth. Clearly, our great-grandchildren will not be able to wait until 2101 for the economy they could have had in 2100.

    Doing all this will cost us a one time amount? And it's a measly $282B (where'd you get that number anyway?)? Really, Chad? You sure it won't mean a 2% reduction to GDP (per year)? And what, exactly, do you mean by "cost"? The direct costs (through higher energy prices)? The indirect costs (say for example by decreased output leading to higher consumer costs for virtually all goods)? Both?

  • Geotpf||

    I'm in favor of a ban of new coal power plants, due to the pollution aspects. The direct substitute for such is not (mainly) solar, wind, or geothermal, but natural gas and nuclear. Saying "if you don't build new coal power plants, the only other choices are wind, solar, and geothermal" is complete bullshit.

    Natural gas, although a fossil fuel, is much cleaner than coal, in both terms of "traditional" pollution as well as greenhouse gases. Nuclear is cleaner as well, although there are other worries with it, and building adequete safeguards to minimize those nuclear-specific problems tends to increase it's costs significantly.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Show your work, Brett.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Solving this problem will cost us about 2% of GPD...a whopping year of growth. Clearly, our great-grandchildren will not be able to wait until 2101 for the economy they could have had in 2100.



    What the fuck? First of all, assuming that all of the problems GinSlinger just pointed out didn't exist, did you fail to notice that's a 2% of GDP cost for, at most, a 1 degree mitigation? It's not even coming remotely close to solving an undetermined problem in the first place?

    Did you see that at all?

  • ||

    Chad,

    I know you're a façade and everything, but even fake people should know that the one thing not at all "proven" in the AGW debate is the timing (and severity of) the consequences. Timing on asteroids is an issue, but the potential consequences are known to be catastrophic.

    Incidentally, what we're doing to deal with asteroids/comets is very, very marginal. This for a cataclysm that will happen at some point in the future. The unlikelihood of it happening in the near future, notwithstanding, given its horrific potential consequences.

    I think you're Reinmoose, by the way. I usually blame thoreau for fake posters, but he's busy working on some sort of "laser."

  • Naga Sadow||

    Pro Lib,

    I thought Reinmoose was at an "undisclosed" location with Dick Cheney? Or was that HEB/Guy Montag?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    I love when Chad pretends he knows stuff... especially about economics. It's often the funniest part of my day.

  • ||

    That's Guy, I think. Reinmoose is a known forger, too.

  • Thomas Malthus||

    So much bloviation, so little facing of truth.

    The real problem is overpopulation. This is what kills species by reducing their native habitat.

    And most of these people don't do anything noteworthy.


    You tell 'em! I called it two hundred or so years ago, but they just kept breeding, and look what we have now.

  • Chad||

    GinSlinger | June 29, 2009, 4:50pm | #
    olving this problem will cost us about 2% of GPD...a whopping year of growth. Clearly, our great-grandchildren will not be able to wait until 2101 for the economy they could have had in 2100.

    Doing all this will cost us a one time amount? And it's a measly $282B (where'd you get that number anyway?)? Really, Chad? You sure it won't mean a 2% reduction to GDP (per year)? And what, exactly, do you mean by "cost"? The direct costs (through higher energy prices)? The indirect costs (say for example by decreased output leading to higher consumer costs for virtually all goods)? Both?


    The "costs" include higher product prices. We currently spend around 8% of our incomes on energy. These types of plans will increase prices by about a quarter, resulting in 2% more of our incomes being consumed by energy. That's hardly the apocalypse, and of course, our incomes will probably be about 2% higher next year than this year. So essentially all that will happen is that we have to slow down by one year so that we do things right. That's not a ridiculous thing to do.

  • GinSlinger||

    Chad, you idiot, do you not understand compounding?

  • Jim Morrison||

    You tell 'em! I called it two hundred or so years ago, but they just kept breeding, and look what we have now.

    Lions in the street, roaming,
    Dogs in heat, rabid, foaming.

    Not to touch the earth
    Not to see the sun
    Nothing left to do but
    Run, run, run.

  • Chad||

    The Angry Optimist | June 29, 2009, 5:07pm | #
    Solving this problem will cost us about 2% of GPD...a whopping year of growth. Clearly, our great-grandchildren will not be able to wait until 2101 for the economy they could have had in 2100.
    What the fuck? First of all, assuming that all of the problems GinSlinger just pointed out didn't exist, did you fail to notice that's a 2% of GDP cost for, at most, a 1 degree mitigation? It's not even coming remotely close to solving an undetermined problem in the first place?

    Did you see that at all?


    And when most everyone else around the world gives up their 2%? Hmmm....we are about a quarter of the world GDP, so what is four times one degrees? Yep, right about what we need.

    And don't give me the "We are too stupid to solve prisoners' dilemma" excuse that no one else will do anything. There are plenty of carrots and sticks out there.

  • GinSlinger||

    And when most everyone else around the world gives up their 2%? Hmmm....we are about a quarter of the world GDP, so what is four times one degrees? Yep, right about what we need.

    Show your work, please.

    Also, where did you pull the 2% of GDP number from? And have you yet realized that you're talking about a 2% reduction in GDP per year? and have you considered what a 2% reduction in GDP per capita does to the world's poor? Etc.

  • Chad||

    GinSlinger | June 29, 2009, 5:30pm | #
    Chad, you idiot, do you not understand compounding?

    Yes, but I doubt you do.

    How fast is our debt to the Saudis compounding?

    I am sorry to inform you that you are going to have to give up a couple grand a year to partialy mitigate the mess you made. Grow up.

  • ||

    I kinda want to see this pass and health care socialization. It will be interesting to watch society collapse.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Ginslinger,

    He can't show his work. It's all in his head.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Chad, why is it that you've been trolling about here for ages and you still can't do basic math, you still don't bother to show your work, and you still don't get even the most basic of basic economic issues?

  • Chad||

    GinSlinger | June 29, 2009, 5:34pm | #

    Also, where did you pull the 2% of GDP number from? And have you yet realized that you're talking about a 2% reduction in GDP per year? and have you considered what a 2% reduction in GDP per capita does to the world's poor? Etc.


    The Stern report. Do your homework, please, as that number is all over the place. It also follows from simple back of the envelope calculations based on how much we spend on energy and how much prices will likely increase, as I noted above.

    Among the poor, there will be winners and losers. However, we could make nearly all of them winners by following through on our Millenium Development promises and devoting 1% of our GDP to the poor nations of the world. However, asking you to give up Starbucks AND downsize your SUV might be asking too much.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    oh my god, Chad, you're solidly a member of the "Making Shit Up" brigade. Answer GinSlinger's questions: where does the 2% come from? Do you have any evidence that each 2% decrease will match, one-for-one, with a 1 degree C mitigation?

    And spare me YOUR jingoistic "USA! USA!" nonsense. you cannot, short of a trade war or a real war, make the rest of the developed and developing world cooperate.

  • Chad||

    Sean W. Malone | June 29, 2009, 5:37pm | #
    Chad, why is it that you've been trolling about here for ages and you still can't do basic math, you still don't bother to show your work, and you still don't get even the most basic of basic economic issues?


    Sean, I have TAUGHT college-level math and once placed top ten in the state. I assure you, if you think I can't do math, the mistake is yours.

    Now, you could be asking "What is the net present value of a cash flow equal to 2% of GDP?", I would say that the answer is about 30% of GDP, or in our case, about $4 trillion.
    So there you go, there is an answer as a one-off cost. Does that help your understanding?

    And yes, correctly spending around that much money right now would essentially lick the problem.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    As I suspected, the Stern Report says 2% of GDP PER YEAR, Chad.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    *choke* - 4 trillion dollars. you just throw that amount of money around like it ain't no thang. Better start looking in your couch cushions, Chad.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Define "correctly spending".

  • Chad||

    The Angry Optimist | June 29, 2009, 5:38pm | #
    oh my god, Chad, you're solidly a member of the "Making Shit Up" brigade. Answer GinSlinger's questions: where does the 2% come from? Do you have any evidence that each 2% decrease will match, one-for-one, with a 1 degree C mitigation?


    I told you, 2% comes from the Stern report. The 1% figure was someone else's here but I ran with it. It is probably about right given what is contained in the Stern report and others, perhaps a little on the high side. It really depends on how much warming we will get.

    And spare me YOUR jingoistic "USA! USA!" nonsense. you cannot, short of a trade war or a real war, make the rest of the developed and developing world cooperate.

    Hell, you do realize that China is already ahead of us on the matter, don't you? And Europe and Japan are light years ahead. This bill doesn't even get us to their level, let alone put us in a position to pull them anywhere.

    And yes, we can use trade policy to push any laggards, especially as more and more of the big countries join in.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    For anyone who thinks Chad's math is fishy:

    From Cato.

  • Chad||

    The Angry Optimist | June 29, 2009, 5:45pm | #
    *choke* - 4 trillion dollars. you just throw that amount of money around like it ain't no thang. Better start looking in your couch cushions, Chad.


    It's a darned big number. That's like 14 months of current federal spending, somewhat more than the Iraq war, or five years of defense spending. Never have I said this was going to be cheap. But it isn't going to be back breaking, either.

    Did Iraq kill the economy? No. Neither will this.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    The Stern Report, which you have apparently uncritically accepted despite the wealth of criticism leveled at it.

    And, again, you're assuming the 2% GDP = 1 degree difference, as a one-for-one, when in all likelihood you're going to get diminishing returns for each 2% (per YEAR, remember) that you invest.

  • ellipsis||

    Four Trillion dollars per year is $13,333.33 for every man, woman and child, per year. $40k per year for a family of three.

    That's close to the median INCOME for US households. There's no way to pay that much in taxes; the economy would collapse in short order.

    The resulting rioting and burning would add more carbon that ever. Unintended consequences people, unintended consequences.

    And the Cap 'n Trade/carbon tax is just a step in that direction.

  • Chad||

    The Angry Optimist | June 29, 2009, 5:49pm | #
    For anyone who thinks Chad's math is fishy:

    From Cato.


    Heck, even CATO has it passing cost-benefit in two out of three cases. Thanks for making my point.

    I do want to point out, though, that the only downside to AGW that Cato seems to be considering is potential harm to GDP. Harm to the environment, society, or anything else is left out. Only the economy matters.

  • Naga Sadow||

    Hey Chad. That 2% bullshit is going to fuck shit up even worse as poor people are gonna have to burn a lot of wood to keep warm in the winter. What. A. Fucktard.

  • Chad||

    ellipsis | June 29, 2009, 5:55pm | #
    Four Trillion dollars per year is $13,333.33 for every man, woman and child, per year. $40k per year for a family of three.

    That's close to the median INCOME for US households. There's no way to pay that much in taxes; the economy would collapse in short order.



    True, which is why we shouldn't try to pay for it all at once, but over the next couple of decades.



  • The Angry Optimist||

    It has it passing Cost-Benefit if you think that AGW is going to cost 10% of GDP per year, and that defies the MAGIC CONSENSUS of economists on the costs, which, assuming that the science is correct, it will cost (ta-da!) 2% of GDP per year to do nothing.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Harm to the environment, society, or anything else is left out. Only the economy matters.



    Ah, so when in doubt, handwave and refer to vague, nonquantifiable figures such as "harm to society".

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Good fucking god Chad, you taught college level math???

    I am soo sad for your students :(

    I wonder if you were anything like my college statistics teacher who "taught" for 20 mins a class and spent most of it trying to be funny.

    Hmm... Anyway Chad, no - the mathematical and logical errors are not mine.

    First off - the Stern Report has been criticized a thousand different ways, and it is about the most hysterical of all "reports" you're likely to find - so thanks for cherry-picking! That said, it says that there will be a 1-2% reduction in GDP per annum.

    Unfortunately, you seem to have skipped that part in math 101...... so.... umm....

    What that means is that there will be a 2% reduction in GDP every year. You see, per annum means "each year" in latin. So, what that means, Professor Chad, is that this year, there will be a reduction by $4 T, and then next year, the GDP will be $4 T less, and we will lose another 2% of the new (lowered) GDP...

    Each year, the GDP gets smaller and smaller and smaller. And of course, how anyone could arrive at such a minuscule effect is absurd. If you checked out the rest of today's posts, you'd notice that according to the CBO, US Debt is about to take over 80ish % of our GDP in 10 years. How's that fit in with your magic plan?

  • GinSlinger||

    Assuming a 5% GDP growth as baseline (a lot of assuming already), $14T GDP will become $37.1T in twenty years. Now, if we reduce GDP by 2% per annum before allowing for a 5% growth rate (sheesh, it's hard to imagine that growth rate with all this going on, but let's give Chad's numbers the best possibility), the economy will reach $37.0T in 34 years. So much for your one year of GDP loss, Chad.

  • ||

    Chad,

    A little friendly advice. You shouldn'targue with people who are both smarter and more educated than yourself.

    You're becoming a lame joke and I just thought you should know that.

  • ||

    I believe Chad is taking the net present value of a perpetuity of a sum equal to 2% current GDP. if he gets 30% of current GDP as a one time cost from 2% running, thats a compounding rate of 15%, which is a little odd, but it's probably the right approach more or less.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Domo;

    In what world could America (or any other country for that matter) survive even a "one-time" cost of 30% GDP?

    Besides, we all know that it's not a one-time cost, because the policy won't achieve it's state aims. I think we all need to keep reminding people like chad that Medicaid was supposed to cost $10 Billion by 1990, and yet... in reality, it cost over $100 Billion. That's probably a good rule of thumb... Any cost someone like Chad claims some government run, freedom-crippling, "public good" enterprise will be... just multiply it by 10 for reality.

  • Chad||

    Sean W. Malone | June 29, 2009, 5:59pm | #
    Good fucking god Chad, you taught college level math???

    I am soo sad for your students :(

    First off - the Stern Report has been criticized a thousand different ways

    As it should be. That is how science is done.

    Of course, any competing analyses have been heavily criticized as well, usually more thoroughly and by people with serious credentials.

    Each year, the GDP gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

    There is no way to get through to those who do not want to see, is there.

    Today's GDP: 14T
    Today's GDP under C&T: .98*14T

    2100's GDP: 1000T
    2100's GDP under C&T: .98*1000T

    Let's say you spend 20% of your income, per year, on housing. Does your income decrease by 20% per year and vanish into nothing within a decade?

    And of course, how anyone could arrive at such a minuscule effect is absurd. If you checked out the rest of today's posts, you'd notice that according to the CBO, US Debt is about to take over 80ish % of our GDP in 10 years. How's that fit in with your magic plan?

    What does that have to do with C&T? Because voters are ignorant, short-term babies on some issues, we should be ignorant, short-term babies on more?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    It's amazing how you don't seem to grasp the concept of "compounding" at all, Chad. On the other hand, I have an investment deal to get you in on...

  • GinSlinger||

    I already did the math for you, Chad. As I said, you don't understand compounding.

    Your housing example is ridiculous on it's face. A better example is if your housing costs grow by twenty percent every year. Are you poorer the next year? Even if you get a raise, you're worse off than you could've been without the 20% increase.

  • ||

    I posted a bit of info about historical CO2 levels and such on the Denier Rise thread trying to get Chad to engage in a real discussion on the topic. He just completely ignored me and talked about the validity of the petition that invalidates his consensus theory. I believe it is best to ignore him.

  • ||

    In what world could America (or any other country for that matter) survive even a "one-time" cost of 30% GDP?

    I think you are mistaking for someone who agrees with Chad. I don't in the least. But I do know compounding. There are a couple questions possible:

    What is:
    1) a one time cost of 2% GDP
    2) a 2% reduction what GDP would otherwise be every year forever.

    1) is bad, its a fuckload of money, call it an iraq war
    2) is the death of progress

    Industrialized nations long run real growth rates are on the order of 2%, so under this burden, we would have to make ever advance, every technological leap from now and forever, just to tread water in terms of living standard.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Oh btw Chad, after spending so much time trying to explain the basics of price-signaling and supply & demand for you, only to have you spectacularly miss the point... I decided to at least not waste it and put it up for others to read. Just thought you should know, not that you're likely to understand the additional "case study" about the government causes of high-costs/shortages of flu-vaccination, but whatever...

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Nah... Domo, I'm not mistaking you for agreeing with Chad, I'm merely pointing out that any way you slice it that would be a literal genocide of the poor everywhere around the world as a result.

  • ||

    kill the poor huh? I wonder if anyone else has ever thought of that.

    Obama economics

    The First Global Revolution excerpts starting on page 81


    …New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and a new weapons devised….


    "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by HUMAN intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

  • ||

  • David Small||

    Chad, chew on this scientific certainty about AGW ...

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330911757213432

    I thought it was 90% likely?

  • ||

    Gabe whats that all about?

  • MJ||

    " Oil and natural gas are high-value fuels with no easy replacement. It is coal that we can and must stop burning."

    Interesting how the fossil fuel the USA is the richest in, is also the one fuel that we MUST NOT use.

  • mark||

    I'm thinking of becoming a coal lobbyist just to make you environmentalists mad.

  • ||

    domoarrigato,

    I just wanted people to see/read the Club of Rome pdf document for themselves and it looks like my first link was completely wrong...the second link doesn't go to the document anymore. In any case I got my copy off of scribd...it you use google you can find another copy, but if you want me to email the pdf just let me know.


    Page 86 in the pdf; page 75 in the actual pub. That is where the money quote is, however the other parts are also intersting. It is interesting to see how long some people have been trying to scheme to get a more centralized undemocratic method of controlling humanity.

    "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, "

  • cb||

    Easterbrook didn't contradict Krugman in the slightest.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement