You will die eventually. So, my guess is you will not be alive in 100 years, so there is no way to know if anyone will be laughing at anyone. Not sure why I had to explain this.
It depends on how you see yourself, as an individual are part of a species. I thought most people had children as some sort of attempt at immortality, where their genes and their ancestors genes live on ( and I guess they live on in the memory of their families) I have chosen to not have children, I'm the first person in a million years of my hereditary history not to. That being said don't you think it's odd that I, a hereditary heretic, support the notion that this generation owes it to the future generations not to f*** up the planet. I should be all "all your energy is mine". But the people who spout "family values" are the ones who don't seem to care.
Cohete is referring to an argument in economics that says sometimes it's okay to have policies that take benefits now even though they are suboptimal in the long-run because you must balance the abatement of suffering in the present with the maximization of benefit in the future. It's usually used to defend welfare policies. I think it has some applicability here, even if there's some ideological cross-over. On the one hand, we need to work toward a long-term strategy of environmentally-friendly energy production so we can preserve the planet for future generations, but on the other we don't want to make the long-term strategy so burdensome in the short-term that people suffer needlessly now. Natural gas seems to me a good bridge in that regard -- it pollutes but not as much as other fuels, and it can keep us running until other forms are built out. Reminds me of a TED talk in which Hans Rosling defends the role of the washing machine in the world despite the energy consumption it'll represent when the masses in third world countries all start using them. We must become more efficient and sustainable with our energy use, but we shouldn't just stop in the interim. <iframe src="http://embed.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine.html" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
Are you implying that harnessing the wind, an infinite resource(?), will lead to cooler temperatures?
You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? Anyway, there is no way for anyone to know if what Germany is doing is the best solution for long-term energy management. It really sounds like they are weening themselves off alternatives like coal and nuclear in favor of Gazprom. And in 100-years, fusion could be the next revolution in energy and the Germans will simple look like a bunch of boobs for building unnecessary alternatives like solar.
I need to clarify this point: it's a pet peeve of mine how often that quote is misinterpreted. What Keynes actually said: "In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again." What he meant: Long-term predictions are useless by and large if one cannot predict what is going to happen in the short-to-medium term, in the here and now. Broad statements that say, for example, that there will be Greece-like debt in America on 2041 don't add any value to any economic discussion. What he in no way meant: Long-term thinking is futile. In fact, Keynes thought often of the long-term implications of capital accumulation, just as a quick example.
Following up on my last post, arguing about the economic variables and predictions of Greece-like apocalypse for America in 2051 is a waste of everybody's time. This is more in line with what Keynes was trying to say. Lightly reminding people that we have very limited finite resources for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren isn't. It helps frame how a bridge can be pursued, so long as we remember it is merely a bridge, and not where humanity will always be. It's not a prediction really: it is more of a fact to say eventually, finite resources are going to run out.
Northside Storm, you seem to have proven my point. You have not given insight or prediction into the medium- and short-term energy industry. Instead have used some notion that the US will experience apocalypse in 2051. Anyway, everyone has their warm-and-fuzzy beliefs. For economists, their warm-and-fuzzy belief is hat everything can be solved by throwing more money at whatever issue they claim to have future knowledge over.
I just posted a funny picture of Joe Barton saying one of those incomprehensible "republican" things where every energy issue is spun to support the Oil and Gas industry that sponsors him. It's an example of how the responsible view of erring on the safe side for the future of mankind is set aside for for the next quarter's profit. Here are some more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joe_barton.html So I guess I don't know what you are referring to.
If Barton is correct, then in theory couldn't we capture all the energy in winds from hurricanes and tornados, weakening them to the point of not existing?
There's a difference between long-term thinking (ex: capital accumulation leads to more riches in the long-term for all, so there is a role for savings in the economy) and long-term prediction (ex: we need to reduce the debt by 20% this year, otherwise by 2041 we'll have reached 400%+ DEBT/GDP). Degrading finite and valuable fossil fuel resources for maximum gain is very poor long-term thinking. There is a role for conservation, energy efficiency, and alternative energy. That some countries are embracing those now should be no slight on their thinking. As for your last point, in this case, something can be solved by not only throwing money, but taking some as well in the form of carbon taxes
I don't know who Joe Barton is or care who he is. I just wanted to know if you posted that in vain or in serious pursuit of debate. Is the wind infinite? Are you serious? Will the wind slow down if it hits a brick wall? Are you serious? These are basic assumptions: wind is powered by the sun and the sun is not infinite, and for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. These assumptions should allow you to draw your own conclusions. I'll assume carbon taxes are your short- and mid-term energy outlook. A tax on consumption will reduce consumption. That may lead to efficiency of the carbon based fuel you are taxing, similar to how high oil prices have lead to efficiency in automobiles, planes and household appliances. The carbon tax will drag out the life of these fuels and make them more expensive. I don't think it will make solar energy anymore efficient or cheap.
