More Worrisome Than Global Warming.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Actually, that’s exactly wrong. It’s precisely because we can imagine doing things in better ways tomorrow that we don’t see the need to take draconian measures currently. Especially given the lack of a good showing of causation for the observed effect.

vroom wrote:
See, now it makes sense. You’ve made up what I’m talking about instead of paying attention to previous discussions or even asking me what I might suggest we do. You think I’m suggesting “draconian” measures?[/quote]

The Kyoto Protocols qualify as draconian measures. If you don’t support those, please proffer the specifics of your prefered “financial incentives” program.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Again, this is the point. Right now, you, Al Gore and the rest of the Kyoto-protocolers claim that we have fewer than 10 years to figure out how to stop global warming. How convenient – we just need to everything and follow the former VP’s prescriptions.

vroom wrote:
Whoa. Wait a minute. I think you are arguing against Al Gore. In case you suspect otherwise, I’m not Al Gore hiding behind a screen name, though the thought does having me laughing right now.

Have you seen me say that I thought we had less than 10 years to do anything? The answer to that would have to be “no” since I never had suggested that. How come you are arguing against what you see as the viewpoint of the “enemey” instead of my viewpoint?

Is this your politics showing? Are you getting all the talking points against Al Gore and applying them to me because you think my position must be the same as his, because I don’t agree with you?

Come on Boston, you are much smarter than this…[/quote]

No - if I recall correctly, I’ve seen you defend Gore’s movie and general positions, and the Kyoto protocols. If not, please, again, let us know about the costs of your preferred economic coercion package. Perhaps yours is more reasonable.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
However, most people see global warming as possibly worrisome but not for a long time, which means we can concentrate on more pressing matters - including those I listed, but perhaps more importantly including the ones in the Lomborg article.

vroom wrote:
No, the items you listed, or at least some of them, are a joke. Global warming is a legitimate concern, at this time, though many portions of it are still under debate. Equating it with the import of a joke is an irresponsible thing to do. Perhaps as irresponsible as saying that the sky is falling by implying that we only have ten years to do anything.

Whoa. Did you notice that? I think I just criticised Al Gore! Wow, maybe I’m not lying when I say I am not Al Gore hiding behind a screen name? Something to think about anyway.[/quote]

Don’t worry – the list wasn’t intended to address your vague rantings to “do something” or other, the specifics of which are apparently undefined (all the better to promote it). Actually, you don’t need too many specifics – just estimate a rough percentage of GDP that each country that signed on for your preferred plan would be expected to sacrifice by its implementation. We already have some estimates for Kyoto. I won’t ask for any estimated benefits, because we’re not here to get into probability functions and unknown effects…

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
While you’re correct that we can address multiple problems at once, we do have limited resources, and should focus efforts on items that do the most good. When you factor in the costs to economic growth that would be entailed by enacting carbon limitations on developed countries (becuase China, India, Brazil et al won’t enact them – not that the EU or Canada is keeping up with its commitments to enact them either…), you’re just further shrinking the available resources.

vroom wrote:
See, when you have to go to the political talking points around developing countries not being held to the same standard at first, you show your colors again.

There is a reason that developing countries were given a temporary reprieve during those talks. In any case, if you weren’t blinded by the possibility of unfair economic advantage, you’d see that we could impose duties, sanctions or other measures to “encourage” them to catch up to the rest of us over time.[/quote]

You know, it might not seem like it to you, but dismissing key arguments as “talking points” doesn’t make you more persuasive. How do you plan to get reduced CO2 emissions if you exempt China, India and Brazil from your coercion scheme? And it’s wonderfully easy to overcome a free-rider problem with sovereign states once you set one up…

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The further problem is that many so-called greens - maybe including vroom but maybe not - are actually what the Limies on the other side of the Pond like to call “watermelons” ? green on the outside, red on the inside. They don’t care especially about carbon limitation – they want to control economic growth and human activity.

vroom wrote:
Ahahahaha. Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Look, just because you are a neo-liberal person who worships at the alter of the free market transaction, that doesn’t mean that you too don’t covet control. Free markets can only exist under the control of law which greatly limits many behaviors. Oh no, control of human activity, blah blah, I’m crying now.

I have nothing against economic growth or human activity at all. Fuck, if you’ve ever paid any fucking attention at all you’d know that I’ve come out for more nuclear power stations several times now. That is hardly the stance of someone who is against technology, commerce, industry or anything else you might worship.[/quote]

I’m glad you’re for nuclear power. That doesn’t really speak to commerce or industry particularly, but the expansion of nuclear power would definitely be a plus from a net CO2 emissions standpoint. And also from the standpoint of becoming more self-sufficient for energy supply.

Actually, I read an interesting hypothesis the other day: the U.S. should set up a bunch of nuclear power plants and an improved energy grid to become a net energy exporter. I don’t know how plausible that is, but it’s definitely interesting.

BTW, w/r/t law and free markets, there’s certainly a difference between some legal ground rules, such as property rights and a police force to protect peoples persons and property, versus a micromanaging government. One doesn’t have to be an anarchist to believe the government should limit itself to its core functions, or whatever approximation of those core functions is politically feasible at the time.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Watermelons assume that any serious problem requires economic planning and “collective action.” And you wondered where all the Marxists went…

vroom wrote:
Zzzzz. Spare me your paranoia about leftists, communists, marxists or whatnot. While they are out there, they are certainly not going to be in a position to do anything scary to you and I in our lifetime. Maybe some future generation will be less wary, but seriously, you sound silly.

Whether or not some left wing wackos are concerned about global warming, or pretend to be concerned about global warming, has absolutely nothing to do with what we should do if we feel the issue is in fact one that we need to be concerned with.[/quote]

It isn’t the Marxists, its the central-government-planning style policies that are the biggest cause of concern. Sold via safety, of course.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
However, let’s concede, solely for the sake of argument, that global warming threatens humanity in the long run. Do we really think the EPA and the U.N. bureaucracy are the people to stop it?

When various historical populations faced extinction because of over-hunting, the ones that invented animal husbandry and switched from hunting to farming survived. Perhaps some Gore-like tribal leaders might have said, “We must eat less deer,” but the smart money was on raising your own livestock. Global-warming alarmists love the self-flagellation that comes with declaring human beings in general and capitalistic Western civilization in particular to be the problem. They’re less keen on admitting that they might be the solution as well.

vroom wrote:
My god man, you are truly going nuts. Gore-like tribal leaders? Ahahahaha. Look, an unprecedented conglomeration of nations decided that it was an issue and that they should try to take actions to limit emissions. Sure, in many regards they have failed, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from those failures and find means to do so.

You are trying to paint incredible conspiracies and doom and gloom on top of trying to curb the GROWTH of CO2 release (with, yes, some rollback).[/quote]

No conspiracies necessary. Al Gore is a convenient name to drop into the examples because of his hysteria mongering and proposed solutions.

BTW, how have the members of that unprecedented conglomorate of nations (which, actually, is a lesser number than the the membership of the U.N., so I guess it’s precedented) been doing with their targets for CO2 emissions? In what regards have they succeeded? By getting together for a kumbaya sing-along of agreement to do something? Call me when they actually do something. And then we can start discussions of effectiveness…

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Rather than trying to undermine the wealth creation and intellectual vitality that come with markets, why not take a fraction of the billions greens/watermelons want to spend on mandatory CO2 caps and announce plan to invest in new technologies aimed at the C02 issues - or even with other possible causes of global warming - with a goal timetable of the middle of this century (like Kennedy with the space race)?

vroom wrote:
I don’t think it matters what way the CO2 growth rate is constrained. Perhaps the way to achieve such constraint is to develop technology that allows such caps to be achieved. Wow, that almost sounds similar to what you are saying. I think you are assuming I want some huge government program which shuts down all industry or something.

What a joke.[/quote]

No, just governmental coercion of industry, at a cost to the citizenry. To what level you’re comfortable with it you apparently don’t wish to elucidate.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The NAS has recently broached the topic, asking scientists to investigate “geo-engineering.” We could create orbital mirrors to deflect sunlight ( http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002242.html ), bio-engineer algae to absorb CO2 ( http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:17352492 ), or put additives in jet fuel that would cool the atmosphere ( Page Not Found ).

vroom wrote:
Well, we could do some of those things. I think the mirror bet would be the safest one. Releasing bio-engineered algae and having it suck up too much CO2 could be a problem. Release chemicals we think are safe to exert a cooling effect (if possible) could also have unexpected consequences, similar to the ozone depletion effect of the past.

There are dangers with adding our own bright ideas into nature. What people are talking about now is reducing the releases resulting from our technology, in the form of CO2, so that we aren’t fucking around with nature so much. However, I’m certainly not against research into additional ways to deal with the issue.

However, I would suggest, or reiterate, that drastic new actions, which could themselves have unintended consequences we haven’t though of (as most technologies seem to do) would be more dangerous than simply finding ways to restrict our CO2 output over time.[/quote]

Again, vroom, it all depends on the ways you’re talking about accomplishing your goal. To reiterate: most people aren’t against lowering CO2 emissions conceptually – it’s a matter of what it’s going to cost and what the benefits are going to be.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Of course, I rather expect that if people are more watermelon than green, they’ll oppose strenuously any market-based solution that might move us away from imposing statist controls.

vroom wrote:
Oh, mirrors in space is a market based control is it? [/quote]

They could be. We have private satellite companies, and private companies are beginning to try to get into the space travel market. It doesn’t have to be purely free market, which it obviously wouldn’t be if the government was defining the goal of the research and providing funding – but it should be market-based.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Anyway, aren’t pollution credits an accepted method of creating a market based solution out of a policy direction? I know they’ve been used in the past anyway.[/quote]

Yes, those are good – especially given the alternatives of the previous system.

[quote]vroom wrote:
If you think I’m a so-called “watermelon” you are truly a retard. Maybe if you listened to what people are actually saying sometimes, instead of jumping to the conclusion that they are representing the boogeyman, oh, sorry, I mean Al Gore or the communists, then perhaps you’d have a chance to actually converse rationally with people on some topics.[/quote]

Maybe if you actually put forth a position one wouldn’t be ascribed to you. You’re the master of typing paragraphs of nothing - and then preening as if you’ve written something profound. Just how much GDP would be an acceptable sacrifice for what percentage of CO2 reductions in vroomland?

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Pookie,

I get somewhat amused when people get concerned that things take more energy put in than they give out (so to speak) with respect to discussion of alternatives.

How much energy does it take to create fossil fuel? A lot, though it was done over time a long time ago.[/quote]

Exactly. That’s why it’s pretty much “free energy” today.

And that’s why most alternatives aren’t viable solutions; you can’t solve an energy crisis by using more of it to produce less. Might as well simply use the oil and get as much bang for the buck from it.

Look, I’m not arguing that we have to implement Kyoto per se, but I do suggest it is high time we put more than lip service into this issue. There are options available to the world that involve reductions in energy consumption without eliminating technology or industry.

What are those options? From what I can see, any savings in energy is quickly reinvested somewhere else. Our cars are a lot more efficient than they were in the 70s; but there are now more of them on the roads; computers are more efficient too; but they’re also faster and more numerous; just about any example of increased efficience (ie, same work for less energy) you can find in the past 20, 30 or 40 years, has been overwhelmed by an increase in usage, or productivity.

People, but especially industries and companies don’t see energy savings as an end in itself; they see it as available potential for increased productivity. And if they don’t, well their competitors will and the market will punish them.

The risks are great enough that it would make sense to create some financial incentives to encourage change in this regard. However, no, we can’t do that because people make foolish arguments about the costs of making changes.

I can’t see that being workable. How exactly would those “financial incentives” work?

Our current situation is entirely based on financial incentives. Companies using more and better technology tend to outperform less tech-savvy competitors. More tech = more energy use; but the cost of the energy is more than offset by the increased productivity and profits.

Financial incentives have been created in the past to achieve goals. They leverage the efficiency of the market to solve a task.

Could you give a more specific example of how that could work?

The fews one I’ve heard from various environmentalists on TV won’t survive contact with reality.

Heaven forbid we put any effort into this at all – because we might have to admit we could be taking unwise risks, and that would somehow make the world implode it seems.

I think plenty of people are willing to make efforts; but those efforts have to be in the sense of workable solutions. Asking people to give up their cars and use public transit will not work. Asking people to give up their “entertainment centers” with big-ass TVs and thousands watts sound systems won’t work; asking them to freeze in winter and sweat in summer won’t work either. Asking companies to give up technology is equivalent to asking them to give up whatever “edge” they have in their field, it won’t work either.

You can probably find a way to compensate with taxes and subsidies; but that will simply drive away the companies that aren’t tied to some local ressource for their business.

We are an energyvore society; we need new energy sources to augment and eventually replace our current ones. I don’t think any policy geared towards “reducing” energy consumption could realistically work mid and long-term.

But if you’re aware of a workable plan; I’d be interested to know what it is.

[vroom]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is a key point you are forgetting. If Canada and the US have financial incentives to burn less oil it will simply be burned by China, India etc. They will burn it less cleanly than we will causing real environmental problems.

These financial incentives will actually be a burden on our economies.
[/quote]

Zap, this is an extremely myopic view. Countries, including Canada and the US, certainly are able to influence the policies of other countries.

It is possible that China will attempt to take advantage of such a thing, since they do so with everything else, but it is also possible that world pressure and opinion will move them somewhat, as they seem to move from time to time a bit now.

In any case. It may be possible that if 2/3 of the word were to take the issue seriously, that this would have a large impact on things… so that the problem itself would be less of an issue.

I certainly am not ignoring the issue, but I just take a slightly less purposely pessimistic view, which just happens to support sitting on our asses and doing nothing.

The whole argument of the right seems to be based on the fact that there are countries that aren’t being held to the same standard. You know, if Canada and the US (or Europe) were to develop appropriate technologies and knowhow, it isn’t like it couldn’t be sold.

You guys don’t seem to understand that markets shift, new needs and products emerge, people buy them. Things aren’t static and I’m suggesting a simple push in the right direction. I’m not suggesting we have to lockstep to Kyoto or that we only have 10 years or anything like that… so don’t jump on that happy horseshit like BB tried to do.

It is possible you are right, that nothing will change, but then again you’d better be right that there won’t be any consequences that cause humanity to suffer. However, this is pure conjecture on your part and has nothing to do with what is actually possible.

[vroom]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The Kyoto Protocols qualify as draconian measures. If you don’t support those, please proffer the specifics of your prefered “financial incentives” program.[/quote]

Oh, I see you are going to be a dufus some more. Yes, I personally will solve the global warming crisis for you and jot it down while I’m cooking dinner, I’ll get right on that.

Anyway, one financial incentive program would be to offer tax credits to businesses that installed various technologies in their processes or similarly to consumers that purchased certain types of products.

Wow, fuck, that sounds pretty onorous! Nobody is forced to do anything, but people are given a financial incentive to change the way they act.

Holy fuck, it’s a goddamned miracle. No coercion, no force, and a market force, and no reduction in GDP! Hell, perhaps an increase in GDP because of the new industry created to serve the new demand.

Jackass.

No - if I recall correctly, I’ve seen you defend Gore’s movie and general positions, and the Kyoto protocols. If not, please, again, let us know about the costs of your preferred economic coercion package. Perhaps yours is more reasonable.

I’ve defended the position that humans appear to be accelerating the effect of global warming and that there is (possibly disputed) evidence supporting this. I’ve noted a few times that Canada was a signatory of the Kyoto protocol.

You want to claim more, you go and dig it out and (making sure it isn’t a sarcastic comment like hoping for global warming because it will make Canada an economic powerhouse) point it out. I have certainly argued against you or other right wing talking point spouters, but that doesn’t mean I’m Al Gore.

Don’t worry – the list wasn’t intended to address your vague rantings to “do something” or other, the specifics of which are apparently undefined (all the better to promote it). Actually, you don’t need too many specifics – just estimate a rough percentage of GDP that each country that signed on for your preferred plan would be expected to sacrifice by its implementation. We already have some estimates for Kyoto. I won’t ask for any estimated benefits, because we’re not here to get into probability functions and unknown effects…

What in hell are you talking about? I know that you’ve read political talking points giving horror stories about the costs of reducing CO2 emissions, but wow, are you buying it hook line and sinker.

If you go back and look, you’ll see that fiscal policy can have large effects on the economy. Basically, shifting resources from one area of the economy to another. It does not have to create a negative impact on the GDP at all, as production efforts are shifted to meet consumer demand, or alternately, spare productive capacity is put to use to meet the new demand areas, thereby raising GDP.

Free trade causes such shifts all the time, and those are obviously “good” right? Personally, I am for free trade, but I do think they should be phased in. As with the environment, fast changes represent a disaster to those in it. It takes time for employes of failed companies to find new jobs, acquire new training and so forth… especially if entire industries are collapsing quickly.

Enough of the talking point GDP cut bullshit already.

Production efforts shift to meet consumer demand all the time and nobody panics about it. What a pile of fucking horseshit. Really, step away from the political spin and let a bit of reality through.

You know, it might not seem like it to you, but dismissing key arguments as “talking points” doesn’t make you more persuasive. How do you plan to get reduced CO2 emissions if you exempt China, India and Brazil from your coercion scheme? And it’s wonderfully easy to overcome a free-rider problem with sovereign states once you set one up…

I’m not dismissing your arguments when I call them talking points. I am pointing out where they are coming from and the fact that they are very heavily slanted – and not exactly related to reality. They sound like they mean something, but they really don’t.

Listen carefully, I’m interested in reducing the accelerative effect of global warming that appears to be a result of human activity. This means that activities that slow the growth of CO2 emissions are constructive.

It doesn’t require a global reduction in CO2 output to have a positive effect.

[quote]I’m glad you’re for nuclear power. That doesn’t really speak to commerce or industry particularly, but the expansion of nuclear power would definitely be a plus from a net CO2 emissions standpoint. And also from the standpoint of becoming more self-sufficient for energy supply.

Actually, I read an interesting hypothesis the other day: the U.S. should set up a bunch of nuclear power plants and an improved energy grid to become a net energy exporter. I don’t know how plausible that is, but it’s definitely interesting.[/quote]

I’m not sure where you can export it to, because Canada probably isn’t going to be a purchaser. Perhaps a large project running a transmission line all the way down to Argentina? That would possibly allow Brazil and Mexico to forgo some CO2 production if it was cost competitive.

BTW, w/r/t law and free markets, there’s certainly a difference between some legal ground rules, such as property rights and a police force to protect peoples persons and property, versus a micromanaging government. One doesn’t have to be an anarchist to believe the government should limit itself to its core functions, or whatever approximation of those core functions is politically feasible at the time.

Boston, the govenment can and does get involved in myriads of things all the time, without creating massive overheads. Every time the tax laws are changed they promote various economic behaviors and exert a suppressive effect on others.

Incredibly huge projects that don’t have a commercially viable means of starting up are often performed by governments. Think NASA. Think the early creation of railroads in the USA and Canada.

It is very appropriate for the government to initiate some industries for policy or other reasons. I believe Canada has a viable tarsands project because it was kickstarted a long time ago at a fairly large expense. I don’t think it had a negative effect on GDP since it was probably debt financed.

Consider the original electric utilities or the phone utilities. Over time, when they are a viable commercial entity they get released to the public open markets that western economies entail.

It’s basic economics. There are times the government should intervene, and then there are times they need to get out of the way. Free markets don’t solve all problems, but they are incredibly efficient when they are able to function – when there is in fact a market ready to operate.

Wow, sounds like I’m pretty against commerce still. FFS. Dude, you are so barking up the wrong tree if you think I’m not a fan of open market based western economic systems.

It isn’t the Marxists, its the central-government-planning style policies that are the biggest cause of concern. Sold via safety, of course.

There is a difference between direct command and control of the economy and the exertion of market forces to create entirely new markets and capabilities in order to meet the needs of the nation going forward – when the markets themselves are not appropriately able to do so naturally.

Just about any industry, in our own system, has various regulations which are important. There is no such thing as the totally unregulated market, and we don’t need it. We need to let the markets be efficient whenever a market is available.

It is indeed the role of government to govern, within the structure of the government – that means an open market economy in western nations. It doesn’t take marxist leanings to recognize a strategic initiative and encourage the creation of new industries and markets. The Internet is a good example of a government program that migrated to the open market.

[/quote]No conspiracies necessary. Al Gore is a convenient name to drop into the examples because of his hysteria mongering and proposed solutions.[/quote]

Repeat after me. Vroom is not Al Gore.

BTW, how have the members of that unprecedented conglomorate of nations (which, actually, is a lesser number than the the membership of the U.N., so I guess it’s precedented) been doing with their targets for CO2 emissions? In what regards have they succeeded? By getting together for a kumbaya sing-along of agreement to do something? Call me when they actually do something. And then we can start discussions of effectiveness…

Whether or not progress has been made has very little to do with whether or not it is a good idea to find ways to make progress. Please, toss out the politics and discuss the real issues if you could.

No, just governmental coercion of industry, at a cost to the citizenry. To what level you’re comfortable with it you apparently don’t wish to elucidate.

Oh please. Let’s stop with the nonsense. Are you feeling coerced by NASA? Some people are. Are you feeling coerced by public universities? Some people are. Perhaps a suitable means of getting involved in this is to sponsor research. Government sponsored research, for areas where there are no markets yet (such as the earlier vestiges of IP/Internet technology) is commonly done. Is that a problem for you?

Again, vroom, it all depends on the ways you’re talking about accomplishing your goal. To reiterate: most people aren’t against lowering CO2 emissions conceptually – it’s a matter of what it’s going to cost and what the benefits are going to be.

If that described you then you should man up and state that fact clearly. Although you and some others like to claim I don’t take a stand it is usually that I am arguing particular points. You guys fill in my stance with whatever fantasy ideas you like, instead of simply asking what it might be.

It’s comical. Usually what you fill in as my stance comes straight from politically motivated spin and fear mongering (GDP crushing, for example).

There are any number of non-draconian steps that governments can take to help spur consumer demand and cause the development of a new industry that can later (or sooner) be released to the open markets.

They could be. We have private satellite companies, and private companies are beginning to try to get into the space travel market. It doesn’t have to be purely free market, which it obviously wouldn’t be if the government was defining the goal of the research and providing funding – but it should be market-based.

Holy fuck. So, any old idea you have, as long as somehow market related is great, but any I have are evil marxist based items bent on command and control of the economy. You really are sounding like a whacko. My off the cuff ideas are just as market based as yours. Wake up man.

Maybe if you actually put forth a position one wouldn’t be ascribed to you. You’re the master of typing paragraphs of nothing - and then preening as if you’ve written something profound. Just how much GDP would be an acceptable sacrifice for what percentage of CO2 reductions in vroomland?

My position is that is behooves us to take the matter seriously and try to reduce our impact on global warming. We are facing a large risk and we should take steps to help mitigate that risk. That’s the sensible way to act in most situations.

Attempting to characterize this as a GDP reducing issue is a complete bullshit tactic (which you have simply borrowed I’m sure). I’m not now and have never suggested that industries should simply be shut down or run at lower levels in order to reduce emissions. That is a complete joke and has nothing to do with realistic solutions.

Stop playing political games.

Is there unused production capacity in our economies? Usually… you bet! Could fiscal policy be used to create demand for new types of products? Sure. Could this create new products and industries that could be self-sufficient as consumer adoption continued? Certainly!

So, let’s see, this looks like a plausible way to increase GDP, create new industries, take the lead and show the world how it is done, export technology and products to other counties, and get a handle on CO2 emissions over the long run at the same time.

Oh, woe is me.

If you could step away from all the gloom and doom of the politically spun talking points you’d see that we can easily do such things. The problem would appear to be that there are people with a vested interest in things staying as they are, who don’t want us to take even baby steps in a new direction.

Please, think about it. I’m not in any way against open markets, capitalism and the rest. I’m not for big monstrous and expensive governments and programs. I am for finding ways to combat the growth of CO2 emissions in modern economies.

That shouldn’t be so damned scary to contemplate.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Exactly. That’s why it’s pretty much “free energy” today.

And that’s why most alternatives aren’t viable solutions; you can’t solve an energy crisis by using more of it to produce less. Might as well simply use the oil and get as much bang for the buck from it.[/quote]

Yes and no. One of the things that traditional economics is very bad at is allocating hidden costs to our activities.

So, while coal, oil and gas are quite cheap, the act of using them is quite possibly entailing a large hidden cost that doesn’t show up on any bill. Whether it is truly as cheap as it appears to be is certainly up for debate.

Anyway, as with oil and gas, we have other somewhat free sources of energy. Nuclear and geothermal, tidal and solar power or deritives such as wind, water movement or growing plants and animals.

What are those options? From what I can see, any savings in energy is quickly reinvested somewhere else. Our cars are a lot more efficient than they were in the 70s; but there are now more of them on the roads; computers are more efficient too; but they’re also faster and more numerous; just about any example of increased efficiency (ie, same work for less energy) you can find in the past 20, 30 or 40 years, has been overwhelmed by an increase in usage, or productivity.

This is a variation of the “we can only do what we already do” scenario. There are many things we can possibly change, if people are willing to accept a need to change.

It is possible to use electric vehicles for short commutes, but we all need the backrest crushing power expressed as squealing wheels and roaring engines, so none of us are willing to drive anything less.

(Let’s assume we bothered to use nuclear or hydroelectric generators since we are talking about CO2 problems. I know there are issues from some groups with any type of power generation chosen.)

I’m not looking for an overnight solution, so another example would be to change the municipal plans to encourage development of communities that did not require so much commuting.

For example, if we allowed the bottom floor of highrise apartments to have shops and services, such as dry cleaning, corner store, video rentals and so forth, a lot of vehicular may be reduced.

I know in some cities such things are already quite possible, but for many years most communities had well seperated industrial, commercial and residential areas that forced people to migrate from one to the other. Many business processes no longer involved industry or any onerous quantity of shipping, so they could be located closer than they used to be.

I know in my own city, that major arteries connecting one portion to another have absolutely no room allocated for pedestrians or bicyclists. It would be so easy to allow people to ride bicycles safely, but nobody is willing to spend city funding on it. Simply providing funding grants specifically for development of pedestrian and bicycle safe paths throughout a community would give people an option not to drive from time to time.

Look, I am not claiming I have all the answers, but people are looking at things without even trying to create options for people. Let people live closer to their jobs. Let service companies locate closer to residences. Let people choose to walk or bike instead of drive. Provide some incentives to encourage adoption of alternate vehicles – perhaps free or closer parking locations.

All it takes is a bit of creativity to give people incentives and options that apply to their daily lives. Heck, this one will raise a lot of ire, but tax standard light bulbs a little bit extra since flourescent lightbulbs are so much more efficient. People still don’t really buy the damned things because they cost more at the time of purchase.

People, but especially industries and companies don’t see energy savings as an end in itself; they see it as available potential for increased productivity. And if they don’t, well their competitors will and the market will punish them.

People and industries have very different motivations and pressures. As much as people like to make money, we also have a whole host of socially driven needs which help shape our purchases and decisions. So far I’m talking about giving people better options and giving them some minor incentives to choose them.

[quote]I can’t see that being workable. How exactly would those “financial incentives” work?

Our current situation is entirely based on financial incentives. Companies using more and better technology tend to outperform less tech-savvy competitors. More tech = more energy use; but the cost of the energy is more than offset by the increased productivity and profits.[/quote]

There are many different types of incentives that can coexist. I’m sure you read my comments to Boston if you are reading this.

New products and markets can develop, over time, with proper incentives. I’m not talking about some magic change the world in a day solution. Incentives which slowly shape the nature of the economy have a huge impact over time.

I think plenty of people are willing to make efforts; but those efforts have to be in the sense of workable solutions. Asking people to give up their cars and use public transit will not work. Asking people to give up their “entertainment centers” with big-ass TVs and thousands watts sound systems won’t work; asking them to freeze in winter and sweat in summer won’t work either. Asking companies to give up technology is equivalent to asking them to give up whatever “edge” they have in their field, it won’t work either.

I don’t know, I don’t think I’m asking people to give up anything. I think giving them options and giving them incentives to use those options will be pretty powerful over time.

I know the first electric vehicles on the market will be (have been) pretty sucky affairs. However, give the industry fifty years to mature and I’ll bet a lot of advances that nobody can elucidate today will have taken place. It’s the magic of the market and consumer desires. All we have to do is find ways to get such a market self-sustaining so that it can work for us.

We are an energyvore society; we need new energy sources to augment and eventually replace our current ones. I don’t think any policy geared towards “reducing” energy consumption could realistically work mid and long-term.

I disagree. I think an incredible amount of energy is used in situations such as heat generation or air conditioning. This is something that costs a lot – due to the cost of energy. It is getting to the point that we should and can be using better solutions.

Both consumers and businesses could take (more) advantage of the technologies available in this regard if they were incented to do so. Right now, it simply costs a lot of money to retrofit and provides benefits only over a long period of time, so why do it. I understand this, it’s exactly why many argue that things can’t or won’t change.

What won’t change is that people and businesses will always make decisions in their own best interest. What is necessary with such economic problems is to find ways to make it financially in someones best interest to adjust their decision to meet approprite and desireable goals.

Once the market gathers force and starts moving in such a direction, entirely new factors will develop, such as the social issues I referred to earlier. You know, whether your electric car has a fake exhaust pipe, an awesome sound system, low profile tires, a spoiler, underlighting and so forth.

But if you’re aware of a workable plan; I’d be interested to know what it is.

I have some ideas. Honestly, it doesn’t matter what my ideas are, but I wish I could do something about them. I’m sure somebody else will start to state the same things and much much more once the public starts to exert a real desire to achieve environmental goals.

One of our problems is that we, people, generally overlook small but significant steps that move us towards a solution. People buy into the all or nothing scenario and lack the vision to see how 50 million people choosing to ride their bikes instead of drive once a week can have an impact. How 1 million people a year adopting electric vehicles for local commuting could have an impact and create new markets.

As long as political spin tells us that controlling ourselves with respect to growth of CO2 is the devil then we are likely to not take any steps. I can only imagine one or two groups with a financial incentive to keep things as they are…

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes and no. One of the things that traditional economics is very bad at is allocating hidden costs to our activities.

So, while coal, oil and gas are quite cheap, the act of using them is quite possibly entailing a large hidden cost that doesn’t show up on any bill. Whether it is truly as cheap as it appears to be is certainly up for debate.[/quote]

Well if they do contribute to GW in a truly significant way; then the obvious cost will be dealing with the problem when (if?) it becomes the nightmare environmentalists have been predicting since the late 80’s.

Anyway, as with oil and gas, we have other somewhat free sources of energy. Nuclear and geothermal, tidal and solar power or deritives such as wind, water movement or growing plants and animals.

Those alternatives sources currently suffer from quite a few problems if you intend to replace fossil fuel with them.

Solar and wind power lack “energy density”; it takes an enormous amount of wind turbines or solar panels to produce enough electricity for a small town.

Some of those sources are also intermittent. Solar panels can’t be used at night; and wind turbines require, of course, wind.

All of the alternatives you mentioned are not well adapted for transportation (cars, planes, boats, etc.) While electric cars are viable for short commutes; electric aircraft, trucks, boats, etc. are ill-suited to the rapid delivery of goods we’ve become reliant upon.

Transportation consumes between half to 2/3 of all energy produced; any viable solution has to take into account that problem.

If not, you’ll at best reduce energy consumption by 1/3 (which is still very good) and extend your fossil fuel usage period for transportation by some amount of years. It gives you more time to find a solution, but not much more.

What we need are better batteries; but research in that area is both costly and painfully slow. If you do a bit of research and reading on battery technology; you’ll become amazed at the sheer wonder that is the 5-gallon jug of gas.

Battery alternatives like fuel cells are too costly, don’t last long enough and require other finite ressources such as platinum in their manufacture. We’d run out long before we’d managed to equip all the world’s car.

Nuclear reactor, you’ll be sad to learn, already suffer from a lack of uranium. Yup, uranium is also a finite ressource and currently, the world demand already exceeds the production capacity. This is only expected to increase as oil gets costlier and rarer.

Nuclear reactors are also very costly to build and maintain; entail higher risks in case of accidents (3-Mile Island, Tchernobyl) and produce nearly eternal waste that has to be dealt with extremely carefully, lest you make a lot of funny looking kids.

It is possible to use electric vehicles for short commutes, but we all need the backrest crushing power expressed as squealing wheels and roaring engines, so none of us are willing to drive anything less.

Actually, a lot of people (at least here in Qc) are driving Yarrises, TDIs, Smarts and other “green” vehicles. But they’re still using energy; only at a reduced rate. Even electric cars, when plugged in, need for electricity to be produced somewhere. If it’s at a coal, oil or natural gas burning plant, well you haven’t really increased the efficiency by much. The coal plant might be more efficient than your internal combustion engine, but the losses from transmission lines and battery innefficiency will quickly gobble up that difference.

[quote](Let’s assume we bothered to use nuclear or hydroelectric generators since we are talking about CO2 problems. I know there are issues from some groups with any type of power generation chosen.)

I’m not looking for an overnight solution, so another example would be to change the municipal plans to encourage development of communities that did not require so much commuting.

For example, if we allowed the bottom floor of highrise apartments to have shops and services, such as dry cleaning, corner store, video rentals and so forth, a lot of vehicular may be reduced.

I know in some cities such things are already quite possible, but for many years most communities had well seperated industrial, commercial and residential areas that forced people to migrate from one to the other. Many business processes no longer involved industry or any onerous quantity of shipping, so they could be located closer than they used to be.[/quote]

Yes, but calculate the cost of rezoning and rebuilding all those cities. Not to mention that many people live in the suburb for the peace and quiet it brings; they won’t accept having a convenience store and a small mall built at the corner of the road.

I know in my own city, that major arteries connecting one portion to another have absolutely no room allocated for pedestrians or bicyclists. It would be so easy to allow people to ride bicycles safely, but nobody is willing to spend city funding on it. Simply providing funding grants specifically for development of pedestrian and bicycle safe paths throughout a community would give people an option not to drive from time to time.

Bike paths are nice. Except when it rains. Or snows. Or it’s very cold. Or you have large packages to carry. Or young kids. Or you need to dress nice for some occasion. etc.

I’m not saying it’s impossible; but it would require a major shift in many cultural habits long ingrained. If I were to bike to work every morning; my workplace would have to install showers, cause I tend to sweat a lot. It’d probably need to change clothes on arrival and departure. It would make my commute time a lot longer (from 15 minutes to maybe 1 hour… twice per day.) I wouldn’t mind the time that much (cardio would be done, right?) but rainy days and winter pose other problems.

Look, I am not claiming I have all the answers, but people are looking at things without even trying to create options for people. Let people live closer to their jobs. Let service companies locate closer to residences. Let people choose to walk or bike instead of drive. Provide some incentives to encourage adoption of alternate vehicles – perhaps free or closer parking locations.

All valid points; and some are already being done. The problem is that all of our current infrastructure is geared towards the car. Change can and will come; but it can’t be done overnight. Even Al Gore’s 10 years is way to little time. If that’s really the time we have (and I’ll bet you it ain’t; check back with me in 2016) then we are fucked. Might enjoy the ride into the sunset and get those matching Hummers H1 for the driveway.

All it takes is a bit of creativity to give people incentives and options that apply to their daily lives. Heck, this one will raise a lot of ire, but tax standard light bulbs a little bit extra since flourescent lightbulbs are so much more efficient. People still don’t really buy the damned things because they cost more at the time of purchase.

Or simply “legislate” the packaging, giving the cost over it’s lifetime. Cigarette packs in Canda have legally mandated packaging showing lovely cancer pictures on them; why not simply do the same with fluorescent bulbs? Or both. Clear packaging and a “surtax” although I think we’re already being taxed to death here.

But why not? We already tax fuel, cigarettes, alcohol, tires, etc. more than regular products; why not tax “bad” energivore product when a better alternative is available.

There are many different types of incentives that can coexist. I’m sure you read my comments to Boston if you are reading this.

Kinda got tired of separating the actual arguments from the ad hominem… sorry.

New products and markets can develop, over time, with proper incentives. I’m not talking about some magic change the world in a day solution. Incentives which slowly shape the nature of the economy have a huge impact over time.

As far as I can see, that’s already going on.

A lot of car commercials stress the high mileage per gallons some cars get.

If you shop for washers/dryers/fridges and other home appliances, most salesmen will point out the best “Energy Star” rated models (who for some reason are also always the most costly…)

[quote]I don’t know, I don’t think I’m asking people to give up anything. I think giving them options and giving them incentives to use those options will be pretty powerful over time.

I know the first electric vehicles on the market will be (have been) pretty sucky affairs. However, give the industry fifty years to mature and I’ll bet a lot of advances that nobody can elucidate today will have taken place. It’s the magic of the market and consumer desires. All we have to do is find ways to get such a market self-sustaining so that it can work for us.[/quote]

Well, with a 50 year time span to work in, it’s easier. Hopefully, we don’t run out of oil before then; or cook ourselves to death thru GW.

I disagree. I think an incredible amount of energy is used in situations such as heat generation or air conditioning. This is something that costs a lot – due to the cost of energy. It is getting to the point that we should and can be using better solutions.

Which are? Wearing your ski-doo suit inside the house during winter? Learning to love sweat and heat strokes? How do you control interior temperature if not with heating and air conditioning?

We might aim for more efficient heating and conditionning; but you’ll never get enough people to give them up (unless the costs truly become astronimical) to make a dent in consumption.

Both consumers and businesses could take (more) advantage of the technologies available in this regard if they were incented to do so. Right now, it simply costs a lot of money to retrofit and provides benefits only over a long period of time, so why do it. I understand this, it’s exactly why many argue that things can’t or won’t change.

It has to be “profitable” to the business to change. If the change amounts to a net loss; or to a return on investments in 10 years of more; you won’t have enough adoption for a meaningful impact.

From visiting various offices with my work; I note that just about every office have changed from CRTs to LCDs. 5 years ago, CRTs where the rule. Nowadays, they’re becoming quite rare. The advantages (clearer screen, less energy used, more desk space, looks “cooler”, etc.) added up to enough incentive, I guess, for most offices to make the change. Although I guess desk space was probably the main motivator here.

What won’t change is that people and businesses will always make decisions in their own best interest. What is necessary with such economic problems is to find ways to make it financially in someones best interest to adjust their decision to meet approprite and desireable goals.

Once the market gathers force and starts moving in such a direction, entirely new factors will develop, such as the social issues I referred to earlier. You know, whether your electric car has a fake exhaust pipe, an awesome sound system, low profile tires, a spoiler, underlighting and so forth.

An awesome sound system in a battery powered car is not such a hot idea.

How 1 million people a year adopting electric vehicles for local commuting could have an impact and create new markets.

Where do you buy those electric vehicles?

Even hybrids have jacked up prices and waiting lists. There’s already more demand than can be met. You can’t say that people don’t want to do their part.

As long as political spin tells us that controlling ourselves with respect to growth of CO2 is the devil then we are likely to not take any steps. I can only imagine one or two groups with a financial incentive to keep things as they are…

I think a lot of people are wise enough to recognize political spin when they see it. It would be nice if the issue hadn’t become so polarized and it was still possible to have open-minded discussion about it.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Those alternatives sources currently suffer from quite a few problems if you intend to replace fossil fuel with them.[/quote]

I never said otherwise…

[quote]Solar and wind power lack “energy density”; it takes an enormous amount of wind turbines or solar panels to produce enough electricity for a small town.

Some of those sources are also intermittent. Solar panels can’t be used at night; and wind turbines require, of course, wind.

All of the alternatives you mentioned are not well adapted for transportation (cars, planes, boats, etc.) While electric cars are viable for short commutes; electric aircraft, trucks, boats, etc. are ill-suited to the rapid delivery of goods we’ve become reliant upon. [/quote]

You may have noticed that my intent was not to propose a complete solution for all energy uses of the world in one fell swoop?

I don’t think I suggested that we use electric aircraft or other means that are particularly not suited for such a technology. Really, cut me some freaking slack already.

[quote]Transportation consumes between half to 2/3 of all energy produced; any viable solution has to take into account that problem.

If not, you’ll at best reduce energy consumption by 1/3 (which is still very good) and extend your fossil fuel usage period for transportation by some amount of years. It gives you more time to find a solution, but not much more.[/quote]

Pookie, we only have to take one step at a time, instead of taking no steps. Why do I have to solve every single aspect of the various issues involved in energy alternatives before some things can be tackled and addressed?

Why do I personally have to come up with solutions for any of this, just to have a conversation suggesting that there are things we can actually do, today, without much effort, to encourage the public to start choosing to make alternative travel decisions of their own free will.

[quote]What we need are better batteries; but research in that area is both costly and painfully slow. If you do a bit of research and reading on battery technology; you’ll become amazed at the sheer wonder that is the 5-gallon jug of gas.

Battery alternatives like fuel cells are too costly, don’t last long enough and require other finite ressources such as platinum in their manufacture. We’d run out long before we’d managed to equip all the world’s car.[/quote]

Dude, where the hell are you going? I was suggesting we use electric vehicles for short travel commuting. I understand the limitations of batteries, their weight, and so on. For low speed local commutes these vehicles could be suitable today with current technology.

Yes, there are other issues, that might have appropriate resources applied to them to have a hope of solving them, if there was a market for such technology. Pookie, all we have to do is create the market, the demand, and industry will find a way to solve the needs of the market in better ways (over time).

We don’t have to solve everything. We have to get people working on solving the right things… and you and I apparently can see what some of them might be.

Nuclear reactor, you’ll be sad to learn, already suffer from a lack of uranium. Yup, uranium is also a finite ressource and currently, the world demand already exceeds the production capacity. This is only expected to increase as oil gets costlier and rarer.

Has Canada run out of uranium then? I would imagine that there is a lot of uranium available, but that there are incredible issues with mining, concentrating, shipping, storing and so forth these days. I suspect the biggest problem is a political one though.

Nuclear reactors are also very costly to build and maintain; entail higher risks in case of accidents (3-Mile Island, Tchernobyl) and produce nearly eternal waste that has to be dealt with extremely carefully, lest you make a lot of funny looking kids.

No shit. However, the very radioactive materials have much shorter half-lives than the longer lived materials. Also, as you probably know, there are different types of reactors using different core technologies and different levels of risk involved.

Actually, a lot of people (at least here in Qc) are driving Yarrises, TDIs, Smarts and other “green” vehicles. But they’re still using energy; only at a reduced rate. Even electric cars, when plugged in, need for electricity to be produced somewhere. If it’s at a coal, oil or natural gas burning plant, well you haven’t really increased the efficiency by much. The coal plant might be more efficient than your internal combustion engine, but the losses from transmission lines and battery innefficiency will quickly gobble up that difference.

You are starting to sound like someone who is looking for excuses to throw up his hands and say nothing can be done. Wonderful. Good for you. Do you honestly think I don’t already understand these issues. I even suggested that it would be important to have alternate energy sources to use electric cars.

Yes, but calculate the cost of rezoning and rebuilding all those cities. Not to mention that many people live in the suburb for the peace and quiet it brings; they won’t accept having a convenience store and a small mall built at the corner of the road.

Man, you just aren’t getting it. I’m not suggesting they should rebuild. You do also realize that allowing certain things, rezoning, happens with the stroke of a pen right? That isn’t all that costly an activity.

LOL. I think people are very used to having a convenience store at the corner of the road. Look, people live with such things all over the world. I’d suggest local communities could limit the types of businesses or the hours of business if necessary. If you felt this issue was serious, you’d easily see that most of your arguments are just negative belly-aching and reasons to do nothing because some attempts might fail.

Holy negativism batman.

Bike paths are nice. Except when it rains. Or snows. Or it’s very cold. Or you have large packages to carry. Or young kids. Or you need to dress nice for some occasion. etc.

Ahahahaha. You are being incredibly retarded. Do you think I’m suggesting that people be forced to bike. I’ve suggested it would be nice to have as an option for those that choose to make use of it.

Stop being such a nitwit. This is sad.

I’m not saying it’s impossible; but it would require a major shift in many cultural habits long ingrained. If I were to bike to work every morning; my workplace would have to install showers, cause I tend to sweat a lot. It’d probably need to change clothes on arrival and departure. It would make my commute time a lot longer (from 15 minutes to maybe 1 hour… twice per day.) I wouldn’t mind the time that much (cardio would be done, right?) but rainy days and winter pose other problems.

Finally, something that isn’t just a complaint, sort of. Look, there are people that do such things. Amazing but true. Sometimes in the summer I rode my bike to work. It would be nice if communities or businesses provided facilities as you mention or even serious secure parking so decent bikes are not stolen or vandalized.

What part of working to reduce the growth of CO2 entails that we don’t encourage people to consider new options with a combination of incentives and a reduction of obstacles. None of the stuff you are throwing out in this post is a serious issue, it is just a habit of feeling helpless that nothing can be done anyway.

We don’t have to solve the entire so-called energy crisis overnight to be moving in the right direction. It is not an all or nothing situation. I am not Al Gore.

All valid points; and some are already being done. The problem is that all of our current infrastructure is geared towards the car. Change can and will come; but it can’t be done overnight. Even Al Gore’s 10 years is way to little time. If that’s really the time we have (and I’ll bet you it ain’t; check back with me in 2016) then we are fucked. Might enjoy the ride into the sunset and get those matching Hummers H1 for the driveway.

Yeah, well, we really don’t know do we. Maybe we have 25 years. Well, what do you know, if we get started, then over time we can have more and more of an effect. I’m not trying to find solutions that happen overnight. I don’t think anybody will accept that big a change that quickly.

If we are on the right path and we find out time really is limited, then we can accelerate our progress… and at least we’ll already be on the path, making it easier to do so.

Or simply “legislate” the packaging, giving the cost over it’s lifetime. Cigarette packs in Canada have legally mandated packaging showing lovely cancer pictures on them; why not simply do the same with fluorescent bulbs? Or both. Clear packaging and a “surtax” although I think we’re already being taxed to death here.

Well, amazingly on the lightbulbs, we’ll actually save money based on electricity costs if we buy the flourescent ones. Somebody did a calculation on the forums. Given that, I don’t know whether the surtax on the dim bulbs would qualify as a penalty or not, if you see what I mean. Anyway, the tax could help provide grant money for paving bicycle lanes or other facilities that encourage less energy expensive behaviors.

But why not? We already tax fuel, cigarettes, alcohol, tires, etc. more than regular products; why not tax “bad” energivore product when a better alternative is available.

Yay. Positive thought! I knew you had it in you!

[quote]As far as I can see, that’s already going on.

A lot of car commercials stress the high mileage per gallons some cars get.

If you shop for washers/dryers/fridges and other home appliances, most salesmen will point out the best “Energy Star” rated models (who for some reason are also always the most costly…)[/quote]

I thought you were the one arguing that simply being a little more efficient wasn’t going to cut it. I agree things are moving towards more efficiency, but due to the cost of leaping into different technologies, it isn’t going to happen unless someone incents it to happen.

We need some technology changes and we need some behavioral changes.

Well, with a 50 year time span to work in, it’s easier. Hopefully, we don’t run out of oil before then; or cook ourselves to death thru GW.

Well, are you arguing that we are facing an immiment emergency that requires draconion actions? If so, I think Boston would really like to talk to you about your Marxist tendancies!

Which are? Wearing your ski-doo suit inside the house during winter? Learning to love sweat and heat strokes? How do you control interior temperature if not with heating and air conditioning?

Well, shit, do I have to solve all the worlds problems if I’m going to talk about it? Yes, one thing we do very poorly is deal effectively with the notion of infrared radition. Because it is invisible to us we basically ignore it. We should be allowing or reflecting infrared radiation based on the desired temperature on the inside, as an example.

Apparently, through recent readings, it appears that the human body radiates heat to the tune of about 500W. No, that’s just a point of interest to show I have actually been looking at emissivity and so forth recently.

It has to be “profitable” to the business to change. If the change amounts to a net loss; or to a return on investments in 10 years of more; you won’t have enough adoption for a meaningful impact.

This is tiring. I just said that. I just said they’d have to be incented. Why are you doing this?

As for LCD from CRT, it was an executive perk, which immediately created a desire for everyone (social forces)… and as the price falls and replacements are needed, then the heat, purported radiative effects, and size bonuses (smaller cubicles possible) start to take effect.

Maybe it’s other reasons completely, but you get the point. There are a series of issues, important to various people, that influence their decisions. As we figure them out, we find ways to incent them… and once the market is rolling on it’s own, then the industry will find ways to innovate and otherwise work the market. I know it isn’t defined in scientific terms, but it is the way of the market… once you have a market for something.

An awesome sound system in a battery powered car is not such a hot idea.

Oh, please, just spare me.

[quote]How 1 million people a year adopting electric vehicles for local commuting could have an impact and create new markets.

Where do you buy those electric vehicles?

Even hybrids have jacked up prices and waiting lists. There’s already more demand than can be met. You can’t say that people don’t want to do their part.[/quote]

I believe they were built (or at least designed) but simply not bought. I forget which car company created it… but it was shelved. One of the problems was that a special plug was requird… and guess what, no stations or homes had those plugs.

I’m sure they could be incented to haul out the old plans and start making them if the government were to jump start the market (yes, that would cost some money). I suspect it would be a good idea to find a way to use standard plugs and simply accept longer recharge times… as it is only a commute vehicle anyway.

I think a lot of people are wise enough to recognize political spin when they see it. It would be nice if the issue hadn’t become so polarized and it was still possible to have open-minded discussion about it.

I think a lot less people recognize political spin than would be healthy for the governance of most countries. It is too bad really.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
(stuff)
[/quote]

We need to trim down that monster post a bit, we’re wasting energy everytime we reply to it.

I think one of our disagreement comes down to whether we are doing something about GW currently. I feel we are; I simply think that whatever effort we do, it won’t be enough. Your point, as I understand it, is that with more effort, we could do enough to curb GW.

I think it comes down to whether you expect energy need to keep growing (as I do) or whether you can reduce energy consumption and then keep it flat, or nearly so, for a long enough period to, again, curb GW.

I feel that the money being spent trying to meet Kyoto goals is wasted. Or at least, inneficiently spent. I’d rather we invested massively in better technology (fusion, batteries, fuel cells, etc.) that is required to abandon oil and “feed” our ever growing energy needs.

Even if we do manage to avoid catastrophic GW, we’ll still run out of oil eventually and we’ll need that technology then. It’s alot easier to develop it while you have oil than when you run out of it.

So basically, I guess we’re in agreement that reducing GW is a good thing, we simply differ in the methods we think would work best to reach that goal.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
I feel that the money being spent trying to meet Kyoto goals is wasted. Or at least, inneficiently spent. I’d rather we invested massively in better technology (fusion, batteries, fuel cells, etc.) that is required to abandon oil and “feed” our ever growing energy needs. [/quote]

I don’t actually know what has been spent trying to reach Kyoto goals, nor do I know what it has been spent on.

However, I think that spending in future technologies is perfectly aligned with the issues I’m proposing, in that they can both be done and they complement each other.

I do think renewable energy resources should be utilized when and where reasonably possible. I also think we’ll always have some very energy dense requirements that will always require that we keep something like gasoline around.

Even if we do manage to avoid catastrophic GW, we’ll still run out of oil eventually and we’ll need that technology then. It’s alot easier to develop it while you have oil than when you run out of it.

No argument out of me. This is true for what I’m suggesting too!

So basically, I guess we’re in agreement that reducing GW is a good thing, we simply differ in the methods we think would work best to reach that goal.

I’m not sure there is much disagreement. I’m suggesting we should do what we can today with the technology we already have, and allow industry research to improve current technology while investing in future technologies.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t actually know what has been spent trying to reach Kyoto goals, nor do I know what it has been spent on.[/quote]

The cost is largely expenditures from companies trying to meet the reduced emission goals of their hosting countries and how these costs make them less competitive vs. companies in countries not participating in Kyoto, such as China or India. The cost is the aggregate of the direct expenditure, plus the estimated lost business from reduced competitiveness on the markets. At least, that’s my understanding of it. Maybe someone better versed in economics can chime in.

Some fines and penalties (in the form of lower emission targets) are also indicated for countries failing to meet their targets; although I don’t believe these factor much when people talk of the “costs” of Kyoto.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Well, amazingly on the lightbulbs, we’ll actually save money based on electricity costs if we buy the flourescent ones. Somebody did a calculation on the forums. Given that, I don’t know whether the surtax on the dim bulbs would qualify as a penalty or not, if you see what I mean. Anyway, the tax could help provide grant money for paving bicycle lanes or other facilities that encourage less energy expensive behaviors.
[/quote]

That was my post, thanks.

I only have time for massive response posts every once and awhile, so you’ll have to excuse my ignoring the massive expulsion of hot air above.

Here’s the thing: the higher overall cost of the inferior light bulbs is ALREADY an economic incentive for people to purchase the superior bulbs. If the market cost of energy increases, the energy-saving technologies are immediately incentivized as soon as they pay for themselves. You don’t need government programs to do something that the market already does – maybe some advertising to let people know the extent of the economic effect.

The basic point I’m making – and that I believe Pookie was making, though I cannot speak for him – is NOT that nothing should be done. As I said before, it’s that the costs of taking proposed actions should not outweigh the benefits. The other thing that makes me recoil is the use of penalties to enact measures I think will be fruitless based on their stated goals.

You can propose all sorts of alternatives and ideas, and some will probably be just dandy – but they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for costs and benefits, particularly if they are going to be imposed. Introducing/researching new technologies is my favorite solution because if they really work the incentives are built in and you won’t need coercive programs to get them adopted.

You don’t have to propose a comprehensive world solution vroom, but you do need to recognize that the ones that have been proposed, e.g. Kyoto, are the ones that have engendered the arguments because of the factors I mentioned above.

BTW, here’s a link on the estimated costs and benefits of Kyoto for the U.S.:

http://www.accf.org/publications/reports/sr-kyoto-climate-growth-oct98.html

Of course, this was done back when the debate was occurring, so you’d need to adjust the numbers for inflation and whatnot.

Bottom line, while it’s nice to get behind “doing something,” it’s just a lot of feel-good talk until you get down to the brass tacks of any particular proposal to actually do something.

[vroom]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That was my post, thanks.

I only have time for massive response posts every once and awhile, so you’ll have to excuse my ignoring the massive expulsion of hot air above.

Here’s the thing: the higher cost of the inferior light bulbs is ALREADY an economic incentive for people to purchase them. If the market cost of energy increases, the energy-saving technologies are immediately incentivized as soon as they pay for themselves. You don’t need government programs to do something that the market already does – maybe some advertising to let people know the extent of the economic effect.[/quote]

Boston, sometimes you have to make allowance for the fact that people making purchasing decisions are not carrying around a calculator and determining the cost/benefit ratio of their activities. I’ve never bought a flourescent bulb in my entire life. The cost difference, in the long term, is trivial to me. There is no perceived penalty and nothing strong enough to break my lifelong habits.

Businesses are very good at such things, most of the time, but humans are creatures with egos, desires and simply habits. We make decisions for many reasons and one of them is sticker price at the time of purchase.

Pretend otherwise if you wish…

[quote]The basic point I’m making – and that I believe Pookie was making, though I cannot speak for him – is NOT that nothing should be done. As I said before, it’s that the costs of taking proposed actions should not outweigh the benefits. The other thing that makes me recoil is the use of penalties to enact measures I think will be fruitless based on their stated goals.
[/quote]

If you want to argue against Kyoto itself, then go ahead and find someone who is pushing that method of achieving CO2 reduction goals.

You can propose all sorts of alternatives and ideas, and some will probably be just dandy – but they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for costs and benefits, particularly if they are going to be imposed.

Imposed? Are you talking about any of the items that I was discussing, since you wanted solutions. You may have noticed that what I proposed was options, not impositions. Really, why don’t you discuss what I’m talking about instead of what you think Al Gore is proposing?

Introducing/researching new technologies is my favorite solution because if they really work the incentives are built in and you won’t need coercive programs to get them adopted.

Yes and no on this. What you call hot air was really a discussion on known economic issues concerning the failure of markets to operate in certain conditions.

There are a lot of barriers for new technology to overcome, and if we want to deal with CO2 emissions growth it behooves us to help introduce (incent) new technologies and research so that individual companies are not taking such a large profit gamble to dabble in these new areas.

You don’t have to propose a comprehensive world solution vroom, but you do need to recognize that the ones that have been proposed, e.g. Kyoto, are the ones that have engendered the arguments because of the factors I mentioned above.

Boston, you should seperate your derision for Kyoto with the concept of combatting rising CO2 emissions. Come out and state you are for reducing the growth of CO2 emissions but not using the methodology of Kyoto perhaps.

This is not political unless you want to make it political. I don’t care what either party is proposing, I’ve put out a series of industry and community initiatives that are incentivized and market driven and geared towards shifting consumer behaviors and habits by offering them choices.

I haven’t seen you recognize that they fit into your criteria for reasonable solutions or criticize them as draconian Marxist measures. I’m not surprised, nor complaining, but you realize that is somewhat unfair? Beat the shit out of me for Kyoto, when I’m not arguing for it, ask for alternatives, and then simply ignore them because they are coming from a source you don’t like (namely me).

Good job!

Bottom line, while it’s nice to get behind “doing something,” it’s just a lot of feel-good talk until you get down to the brass tacks of any particular proposal to actually do something.

Be careful of trusting such estimates. Depending on who puts together the study and how the results are defined the costs vs benefits will vary widely. Using unused productive capacity to develop new technology and capital, via incentives, will have no negative GDP cost.

Please, if you want to continue to talk about this, address some of the economic issues I’ve brought up in this regard. I think they throw your viewpoint concerning fighting CO2 emissiosn growth right out the window, unless you are going to cling to Kyoto as the only issue you are willing to discuss.

Are you more interested in playing politics and bashnig Kyoto than thinking about CO2 emissions growth and how they can be countered without damage to GDP?

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]vroom wrote:
…
Are you more interested in playing politics and bashnig Kyoto than thinking about CO2 emissions growth and how they can be countered without damage to GDP?[/quote]

Playing politics is exactly what Al Gore and many others are doing. Kyoto was politics. Clinton and Gore knew it was a bad treaty and would never be ratified. They did nothing to meet the terms of it. It was merely a club to bash the evil Republicans that opposed it.

BB is a lawyer, it is likely he is not going to come up with any technical solutions.

He is smart enough to leave those to the engineers and scientists.

[vroom]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Playing politics is exactly what Al Gore and many others are doing. Kyoto was politics. Clinton and Gore knew it was a bad treaty and would never be ratified. They did nothing to meet the terms of it. It was merely a club to bash the evil Republicans that opposed it.

BB is a lawyer, it is likely he is not going to come up with any technical solutions.

He is smart enough to leave those to the engineers and scientists.
[/quote]

I think your nose is getting a little brown.

So, does this mean you’d be for ways of reducing CO2 emissions that weren’t based on GDP crushing methodologies, or are you stuck in politics too?

By the way, I’m not Al Gore. Maybe you missed that part.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
…

So, does this mean you’d be for ways of reducing CO2 emissions that weren’t based on GDP crushing methodologies, or are you stuck in politics too?

…[/quote]

I am pro-energy conservation regardless of the energy source.

I also think reducing CO2 emissions is a pipe dream. It isn’t going to happen.

[vroom]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am pro-energy conservation regardless of the energy source.
[/quote]

Cool.

I also think reducing CO2 emissions is a pipe dream. It isn’t going to happen.

Well, I don’t think it will happen all on it’s own… and it certainly won’t happen if we don’t work towards that as a goal.