For a lot of people it's hard to think of things at massively different scales from the human scale. But, yes by the technical laws of physics, windmills would exert AN influence on weather, and so would a butterfly flapping it wings in the Amazon, however both are rendered insignificant because the effect they exert is such a small influence on the events of worldwide weather. Windmills are not a global warming risk and by replacing carbon fuels they are a net positive. And Coburn is one of the idiots. Don't believe me? Watch (hilarious at 2:10) <embed style="display:block" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:429643" width="288" height="247" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="window" allowFullscreen="true" flashvars="autoPlay=false" allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" bgcolor="#000000"></embed>
And just to repeat myself again, do you agree, disagree or not understand what Joe Barton was saying? And furthermore, what does that have to do with Germany's energy policy? If you want to discuss energy, here is a link to BP's most recent energy review: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/ex...cal_review_of_world_energy_2013_workbook.xlsx But since you probably don't have much experience with data analysis and spreadsheets for that matter, here is the link to the web-based report: http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013.html
It doesn't have to, relatively speaking, it's a battle between fossil fuels and alternatives on marginal cost. You increase the marginal cost on one, while technological factors decrease the cost of the other, you hit an equilibrium of social and private cost much earlier than if you relied on market mechanisms (which effectively discount future generations to near nothing).
How do you value innovation in your economic equation? Who would have predicted the shale gas revolution? Do we want elected politicians and lifetime government employees using their infinite wisdom to "pick winners" by "increasing the marginal cost" of some technologies?
Question: if you are so concerned about leaving debt to future generations, why are you not so concerned about leaving them nothing in terms of natural resources? last I checked you can't eat money. Now that that's done, I'll take your questions one by one. 1) How do you value innovation in your economic equation? Supporting new technologies is by definition innovation, and I'm much more comfortable with that investment being made in fields where there is tons of room to grow rather than in fields that are treading water to maintain ludicrous profits. Of course, forcing old fields to adapt to their horrendous social costs and antiquated way of doing business spurs a whole host of innovation as well, or death. See: Napster->record label death->Spotify as an example or historically->Congress supporting telegraph lines, then supporting telephone lines 2) Who would have predicted the shale gas revolution? Ironically enough given your line of thinking, the federal government. 3) Do we want elected politicians and lifetime government employees using their infinite wisdom to "pick winners" by "increasing the marginal cost" of some technologies? Given your stance on shale gas, I believe your own answer to this is a resounding yes. However, they aren't picking winners: they are doing the age-old duty of government, which is to apply social benefits and costs to private mechanisms. That fossil fuels have significant social costs cannot be denied: even if one does not believe in global warming for some reason, conventional pollution, and finite reserves for future generations would suggest so.
Is there an advantage to hitting your so called equilibrium earlier than with market mechanisms? And again, you are proposing this idea because you think solar energy and not something else, such as fusion, is the future of energy. That sounds like fortune telling to me.
Cleaner air, cleaner water, better resources for future generations, better health, less panicked mass immigrations driven by weather patterns, better growing conditions for food, stronger and more sustainable societies. You should note that I haven't come out strongly in favor of any particular alternative, but I have come out strongly in favor of the notion that there should be space given for them. For example, fusion's sunk costs can only probably be justified with market mechanisms when fossil fuels will have run out almost entirely...a very sub-optimal outcome.
Just to let you know, I consider methane hydrates to be the answer to our energy needs in the nest 25-50 years. So, I guess I should make a bullet point rebuttal to keep track of everything: Tuning methane into H2O and CO2 doe snot make air and water dirty. People choose to live in places they perhaps shouldn't, i.e. near volcanoes, fault lines, hill sides prone to landslides, hurricane prone coasts, etc. That has nothing to do with burning methane. We are growing more food than ever, so no point in debating you here. Society has gone on this long (5000+ years), what makes you think it is suddenly going to stop? I also find it intriguing that none of your points cover the advantages in energy production. Is there any efficiency gained, or any production volume or some advantage in terms of energy that is gained in this big shift you are talking about?
Methane hydrates are uneconomical given current economic variables, so you seem to be reinforcing my point...in fact, most research is being conducted on a governmental basis, which seems to suggest a strong role in government "throwing money" at a solution, as was the case with shale gas. Nobody will bother looking into methane hydrates seriously until the easier fossil fuel reserves run out with the private market, and by then, if the pollution won't have killed us, the rush to have to rejig a whole system into another fuel will. Methane is also still potent as a greenhouse gas, and we don't know much or anything about hydrates and their polluting capability. All we have are theories at this point. Countries are abandoning research in the field, incidentally, which is probably an ill omen... Regardless, to rebut your rebuttal: it does create quite a bit of that nasty old greenhouse gas effect well, yes it does, because by aggravating weather conditions beyond the natural comfort of human beings, you are encouraging rough and rapid immigration patterns. this is a bit like blaming Syrians for living in a region prone to having their leader massacring others We also have more income than ever---it might have something to do with the fact that we have more people than ever---and that will not change (barring major starvation brought on by lack of hydrocarbons which power every element of the food chain). So many are starving now, will the world be able to catch up with degrading or stagnant food capacity? The shortsightedness ever since the Industrial Revolution. 5000 years is a drop in the pan of life on Earth, nevermind the universe. In no way should it be construed as a time period of any significance. Taxing carbon encourages energy efficiency. beyond that, I find it intriguing that none of your points cover the hand-off of finite resources to future generations. I would think it an advantage to create a system that can sustain itself for centuries, perhaps eons, rather than for decades, but the private market clearly does not.
You're such an altruist. We need to worry about ourselves, not greenhouse gases or what will be happening five generations from now. People have been burning coal, oil and gas for centuries with success and failure, but life has gone on since then. Not worried about greenhouse gases since we seem to be fighting a cooling period which seems totally odd since Al Gore has been telling us for the past 15 years that the planet is heating up uncontrollably. The Earth does not care about the comfort level of humans. That is an egotistical view of things - to think the world must meet our standards of comfort rather than us adapt to it. 5000 years is all we have, what else should we compare it to? The life of the universe? Are you even being serious at this point? Taxing carbon reduces consumption.
That seems like a pretty shortsighted argument. I mean people were using lead in cosmetics and food for centuries too. That appears to be a short term trend while over the long term warming and declining sea ice has been the trend. To argue that we are seeing a cooling period based on one year would be like saying the Texans are having a great season looking at the first half of the Seattle game. Yes the Earth doesn't care about our comfort level but we as humans do. Our whole civilization developed under a very narrow range of climate and geography. Even a relatively minor, as compared to the geological age of the planet, change to that will have very dire consequences to our civilization. That said I do agree we probably need to adapt. My own feeling is that we have probably passed the tipping point regarding climate change and that it is impossible for us to make any changes now that would stop or reverse it. That doesn't mean though that we should just continue to accept the status quo regarding energy. There are many reasons besides greenhouse gases to switch to renewables and conserve energy. That is the point. If you reduce consumption that increases the impetus to look for other energy sources and improve efficiency.
Consuming food with lead utensils poses an immediate health risk (and previous generations probably did not know better). Emission of greenhouse gases does not pose an immediate health risk. I just find it short-sighted (and egotistical) for people to hold the past 50-years of data against 15,000, 50,000 and 100,000 year cycles. I generally subscribe to indeterminacy. I think some people are jumping to conclusions too quickly. We have heard global cooling, global warming, and now back to global cooling. I guess that is where global climate change comes in handy - these people can hedge their bets either way. Civilizations developed all over the world in different geographic and weather conditions. For example, Japan and Norway developed in far different conditions, as did the Roman and Mayan civilizations.
Your four points smack of short-term thinking. and of course taxing carbon reduces consumption---inefficient consumption that is. There's no point in debating these points if your solution for air and water pollution that is degrading life now is to propose a wild alternative that needs government support to get off life support, and then disregard it---neither is there a point if you think the only people we should care about are ourselves, and damn it, future generations will manage. I only wish people who were cavalier like this on environmental issues would be the same on issues like debt and inflation, at least those are monetary constructs. The reality of a world without oil is much harder to escape then one without certain fiat currencies.
I am taking it one-day-at-a-time. Everything is short-term because that is how it works: we stand on the shoulders of the previous generation. No society thinks on a 500 or 1000-year time scale. The reality is that society is not prepared to leap-frog the necessary transitions to get to the next phase in energy generation. I, at least, am confident that future generations will get there - just not the way you describe it.
No, I do not. People like Henry Clay understood that the constitution was not perfect - which is why it is amendable. Another way of saying this is that their long-term plans for future prosperity were not perfect - like allowing people to own other people.
