|
A few things.
Regardless of you being on a sub-par intellectual level to any of the above posters, I am still going to make a small note here: destroying coal industry doesn't directly boost oil sales, first of all it will lead to increase of nuclear power use. Coal and oil isn't all interchangeable, plus oil deposits will start running dry in about 60 years. To even consider someone like Al Gore to be a mastermind behind all of this with a measly billion dollar investment you have to be clinically insane.
- Current oil reserves will run dry in 60 years. We have many more untapped sources that we aren't allowed to go after.
- It seems silly to ignore the fact that certain scientists / firms will benefit massively from proving climate change will screw us all. This needs to be considered when looking at the actual sources of any possible climate change.
- Nuclear power is held back because of fear and the Not in my backyard syndrome, even though they are very very safe nowadays.
|
Ouch.
New Hampshire's largest newspaper, the Union Leader, announced Sunday that it was endorsing Newt Gingrich in the 2012 GOP primary race. This comes as a blow to presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who up until recently has been heavily favored to win the state's important primary.
Union Leader editorial page editor Andrew Cline said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that Romney is a "very play-it-safe candidate" which is not what America needs right now. "Perhaps in the late 19th century, perfect."
"He doesn't want to offend anybody, he wants to be liked, he wants to try to reach out and be very safe," said Cline. "And that's not very realistic, but imagine what that would be like as president."
The paper, which has a record of passing over frontrunner candidates, narrowed down its choices to Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, eventually going with Gingrich because of his political experience, Cline said.
Source
|
On November 28 2011 12:34 Pillage wrote:A few things. Show nested quote +
Regardless of you being on a sub-par intellectual level to any of the above posters, I am still going to make a small note here: destroying coal industry doesn't directly boost oil sales, first of all it will lead to increase of nuclear power use. Coal and oil isn't all interchangeable, plus oil deposits will start running dry in about 60 years. To even consider someone like Al Gore to be a mastermind behind all of this with a measly billion dollar investment you have to be clinically insane.
- Current oil reserves will run dry in 60 years. We have many more untapped sources that we aren't allowed to go after. - It seems silly to ignore the fact that certain scientists / firms will benefit massively from proving climate change will screw us all. This needs to be considered when looking at the actual sources of any possible climate change. - Nuclear power is held back because of fear and the Not in my backyard syndrome, even though they are very very safe nowadays.
This is a very reasonable approach however it is not what TheBomb has taken. The whole point of the Carbon tax is push for alternative fuel sources. Oil becomes more expensive so electricity generation will initially move from coal to gas not oil, so his point is irrelevant.
There will be no increase in Nuclear Power in Australia unless there is a change of government (even then the opposition plans to repeal the legislation). I believe the government's vision is for greater gas usage and movement towards carbon free energy production.
Yes scientists will benefit from global warming grants, but so do denialist scientists. Not from government funding but private. You could try and argue this is a sign that the government is pushing an agenda. To that I would say that in Australia around 10% of grant applications receive some level of approval. If you don't get a grant is probably because your research plan is simply not good enough.
|
This is a very reasonable approach however it is not what TheBomb has taken. The whole point of the Carbon tax is push for alternative fuel sources. Oil becomes more expensive so electricity generation will initially move from coal to gas not oil, so his point is irrelevant.
I'd prefer to let the market do this itself. I don't really see the benefit of Cap and Trade schemes, all they seem to do is put companies in supreme positions over others. ( Think GE vs Exxon Mobil, Mining companies, etc). I fear how the market will retort should something like this go through. Lots of raw material corporations would suffer greatly.
Yes scientists will benefit from global warming grants, but so do denialist scientists. Not from government funding but private. You could try and argue this is a sign that the government is pushing an agenda. To that I would say that in Australia around 10% of grant applications receive some level of approval. If you don't get a grant is probably because your research plan is simply not good enough.
I suppose what I was trying to get across was that everyone has an agenda, and that I pretty much take any news with a grain of salt these days, with the absurdly sensationalist American Media.
Edit: Grammar
Edit2: No one will get my joke >.< , so I removed it
|
Oh you are playing with fire 
You are completely correct regarding everyone having an agenda. Not much you can do about that other than reading a lot.
Regarding abuse of the system, I have the following stance. If a government decides it needs to limit carbon dioxide production, it either has to use a market based mechanism or direct intervention. Sure the market is inefficient and prone to distortion, that is why you have a regulator. The same thing was used to remove fleurocarbons in the 90's. It just requires strong oversight. The advantage is that whilst it is complicated it is much cheaper than direct intervention, and becomes cheaper with time. It's a choice between two evils.
Edit: Nice cover up 
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=95875¤tpage=705#14087
|
Regarding abuse of the system, I have the following stance. If a government decides it needs to limit carbon dioxide production, it either has to use a market based mechanism or direct intervention. Sure the market is inefficient and prone to distortion, that is why you have a regulator. The same thing was used to remove fleurocarbons in the 90's. It just requires strong oversight. The advantage is that whilst it is complicated it is much cheaper than direct intervention, and becomes cheaper with time. It's a choice between two evils.
I'm ok with regulations regarding things like CFC's being removed from aerosol cans. It's a simple piece of legislation, requires minimal bureaucracy to enforce, and doesn't become skewed by slimy lawyers with fancy interpretations of certain pieces of said legislation. At the end of the day it does its job and doesn't create a huge shitstorm in the process. Carbon trading I don't think can emulate this as its muuuch more complicated. Imagine companies trading derivatives on top of carbon credits......
When government makes middle-of-the-road legislation like this in the market, pandora's box is opened, but nobody has any idea what's going to come out. It can be good, but many times it ends up with someone getting hosed and prices going up across the board for anything connected to the industry (Healthcare, Banking, etc) as a result of subsidization.
Edit: I cannot put together coherent sentences today, wtf
|
On November 28 2011 13:13 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +Regarding abuse of the system, I have the following stance. If a government decides it needs to limit carbon dioxide production, it either has to use a market based mechanism or direct intervention. Sure the market is inefficient and prone to distortion, that is why you have a regulator. The same thing was used to remove fleurocarbons in the 90's. It just requires strong oversight. The advantage is that whilst it is complicated it is much cheaper than direct intervention, and becomes cheaper with time. It's a choice between two evils. I'm ok with regulations regarding things like CFC's being removed from aerosol cans. It's a simple piece of legislation, requires minimal bureaucracy to enforce, and doesn't become skewed by slimy lawyers with fancy interpretations of certain pieces of a said legislation. At the end of the day it does its job and doesn't create a huge shitstorm in the process. Carbon trading I don't think can emulate this as its muuuch more complicated. Imagine companies trading derivatives on top of carbon credits...... When government makes middle-of-the-road like this in the market, pandora's box is opened, but nobody has any idea what's going to come out. It can be good, but many times it ends up with someone getting hosed and prices going up across the board for anything connected to the industry (Healthcare, Banking, etc).
Exactly, complications (details) are excellent places for
1. unintended consequences
2. intentional but not easily seen corruption
Phased in bans (like CFCs) or Taxes are reasonably simple but won't work for greenhouse gasses because the costs are far too high.
but to the OP... Gringrich does appear to be non-Romney flavor of the month, but there is still a month before any votes are committed.
If any one of the non-Romneys can maintain their position after the first few states vote, then they will probably get the nomination. (and vice versa)
|
but to the OP... Gringrich does appear to be non-Romney flavor of the month, but there is still a month before any votes are committed.
If any one of the non-Romneys can maintain their position after the first few states vote, then they will probably get the nomination. (and vice versa)
He's got his work cut out for him as he's got a lot of skeletons in his closet, but I'm still sure he could win the nomination.
|
On November 28 2011 13:19 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 13:13 Pillage wrote:Regarding abuse of the system, I have the following stance. If a government decides it needs to limit carbon dioxide production, it either has to use a market based mechanism or direct intervention. Sure the market is inefficient and prone to distortion, that is why you have a regulator. The same thing was used to remove fleurocarbons in the 90's. It just requires strong oversight. The advantage is that whilst it is complicated it is much cheaper than direct intervention, and becomes cheaper with time. It's a choice between two evils. I'm ok with regulations regarding things like CFC's being removed from aerosol cans. It's a simple piece of legislation, requires minimal bureaucracy to enforce, and doesn't become skewed by slimy lawyers with fancy interpretations of certain pieces of a said legislation. At the end of the day it does its job and doesn't create a huge shitstorm in the process. Carbon trading I don't think can emulate this as its muuuch more complicated. Imagine companies trading derivatives on top of carbon credits...... When government makes middle-of-the-road like this in the market, pandora's box is opened, but nobody has any idea what's going to come out. It can be good, but many times it ends up with someone getting hosed and prices going up across the board for anything connected to the industry (Healthcare, Banking, etc). Exactly complications (details) are excelent places for 1. unintended consequences 2. intentional but not easily seen corruption Phased in bans (like CFCs) or Taxes are reasonably simple but won't work for greenhouse gasses because the costs are far too high.
So you can't phase out CO2 production because of the complications, costs and the fact that almost everything produces CO2 (figuratively speaking). Therefore if you want something done, it has to limit the amount produced. I can understand the concerns, they are justified and very real. The problem is that there are few alternatives, most of which will based on current information, cost far more.
The advantage of trading is that ultimately the government does not pick winners are losers. Companies can choose their level of polution based on their willingness to pay. Any other scheme requires people picking winners which is always more expensive. I am sure we will hear about system abuse once it comes into place. The thing is, the alternatives are likely to be worse.
|
On November 28 2011 13:27 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +
but to the OP... Gringrich does appear to be non-Romney flavor of the month, but there is still a month before any votes are committed.
If any one of the non-Romneys can maintain their position after the first few states vote, then they will probably get the nomination. (and vice versa)
He's got his work cut out for him as he's got a lot of skeletons in his closet, but I'm still sure he could win the nomination.
He comes across as part of the 'brainy' group (him, Huntsman, Paul) and he is probably the most likely to win from them. [I'd sort of hope to see Paul get going but I doubt it]
Both the major contenders from the 'folksy' group (Cain and Perry) got some serious problems, If Cain was able to 'acquit himself' in the court of public opinion regarding the harassment claims he'd probably be able to make a comeback. I doubt Perry can recover from his mistake, all candidates make gaffes, but that was terrible.
But who knows, by Christmas, Santorum could be the major contender. (wouldn't be surprised)
|
On November 28 2011 13:31 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 13:19 Krikkitone wrote:On November 28 2011 13:13 Pillage wrote:Regarding abuse of the system, I have the following stance. If a government decides it needs to limit carbon dioxide production, it either has to use a market based mechanism or direct intervention. Sure the market is inefficient and prone to distortion, that is why you have a regulator. The same thing was used to remove fleurocarbons in the 90's. It just requires strong oversight. The advantage is that whilst it is complicated it is much cheaper than direct intervention, and becomes cheaper with time. It's a choice between two evils. I'm ok with regulations regarding things like CFC's being removed from aerosol cans. It's a simple piece of legislation, requires minimal bureaucracy to enforce, and doesn't become skewed by slimy lawyers with fancy interpretations of certain pieces of a said legislation. At the end of the day it does its job and doesn't create a huge shitstorm in the process. Carbon trading I don't think can emulate this as its muuuch more complicated. Imagine companies trading derivatives on top of carbon credits...... When government makes middle-of-the-road like this in the market, pandora's box is opened, but nobody has any idea what's going to come out. It can be good, but many times it ends up with someone getting hosed and prices going up across the board for anything connected to the industry (Healthcare, Banking, etc). Exactly complications (details) are excelent places for 1. unintended consequences 2. intentional but not easily seen corruption Phased in bans (like CFCs) or Taxes are reasonably simple but won't work for greenhouse gasses because the costs are far too high. So you can't phase out CO2 production because of the complications, costs and the fact that almost everything produces CO2 (figuratively speaking). Therefore if you want something done, it has to limit the amount produced. I can understand the concerns, they are justified and very real. The problem is that there are few alternatives, most of which will based on current information, cost far more. The advantage of trading is that ultimately the government does not pick winners are losers. Companies can choose their level of polution based on their willingness to pay. Any other scheme requires people picking winners which is always more expensive. I am sure we will hear about system abuse once it comes into place. The thing is, the alternatives are likely to be worse.
Well trading is Far more open to manipulation than taxes. If it was just X$ per ton of CO2 produced for anyone, then that amount can be scaled up to provide revenue for the necessary adjustments (or just to lower other taxes/pay off government debt so the economy can grow faster and be better able to adapt itself.)
|
On November 28 2011 13:38 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 13:27 Pillage wrote:
but to the OP... Gringrich does appear to be non-Romney flavor of the month, but there is still a month before any votes are committed.
If any one of the non-Romneys can maintain their position after the first few states vote, then they will probably get the nomination. (and vice versa)
He's got his work cut out for him as he's got a lot of skeletons in his closet, but I'm still sure he could win the nomination. He comes across as part of the 'brainy' group (him, Huntsman, Paul) and he is probably the most likely to win from them. [I'd sort of hope to see Paul get going but I doubt it] Both the major contenders from the 'folksy' group (Cain and Perry) got some serious problems, If Cain was able to 'acquit himself' in the court of public opinion regarding the harassment claims he'd probably be able to make a comeback. I doubt Perry can recover from his mistake, all candidates make gaffes, but that was terrible. But who knows, by Christmas, Santorum could be the major contender. (wouldn't be surprised)
Do you guys think he will be vulnerable on being obstructionist with no real agenda. Particularly given he is seen as responsible for the government shut down in the 90's. It would seem that his history gives Obama a legitimate reason to campaign on obstructionism. That seems to be were he is heading anyway and having a republican nominee who has a history for shutting down the government gives plenty of ammunition. Thoughts?
|
On November 28 2011 13:38 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 13:27 Pillage wrote:
but to the OP... Gringrich does appear to be non-Romney flavor of the month, but there is still a month before any votes are committed.
If any one of the non-Romneys can maintain their position after the first few states vote, then they will probably get the nomination. (and vice versa)
He's got his work cut out for him as he's got a lot of skeletons in his closet, but I'm still sure he could win the nomination. He comes across as part of the 'brainy' group (him, Huntsman, Paul) and he is probably the most likely to win from them. [I'd sort of hope to see Paul get going but I doubt it] Both the major contenders from the 'folksy' group (Cain and Perry) got some serious problems, If Cain was able to 'acquit himself' in the court of public opinion regarding the harassment claims he'd probably be able to make a comeback. I doubt Perry can recover from his mistake, all candidates make gaffes, but that was terrible. But who knows, by Christmas, Santorum could be the major contender. (wouldn't be surprised)
I don't think that Cain's problems are the sexual harassment allegations so much as republican voters are a little bit concerned about Cain's lack of depth. There's not much there beyond 999. Now, this isn't anything new. However, the real problem is that Cain doesn't appear to have made any attempts to get up to speed on other issues. For example, his answers on foreign policy questions have not really evolved or improved over the past few months when it was readily apparent that he needed some improvement. A lot of voters who were initially willing to give Cain a pass initially aren't willing to do so anymore.
As for Gingrich, I've said for months that he's the smartest guy on the stage at any debate. He's very well-spoken and he knows the issues cold. I think Gingrich is here to stay. I'm not particularly concerned about any skeletons in his closet because he's been so well vetted over his political career. All the dirt on him is out in the open. I don't think that it will matter in the general election if he's the nominee. People know what they'd be getting.
That said, I am a little surprised that so many voters are flocking to Gingrich while still forsaking Romney. If you really think about it, Gingrich has a lot of the same flaws that Romney does in terms of adopting political platforms that are anathema to conservatives -- his position on man-made global warming being the biggest offender.
|
On November 28 2011 13:43 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 13:38 Krikkitone wrote:On November 28 2011 13:27 Pillage wrote:
but to the OP... Gringrich does appear to be non-Romney flavor of the month, but there is still a month before any votes are committed.
If any one of the non-Romneys can maintain their position after the first few states vote, then they will probably get the nomination. (and vice versa)
He's got his work cut out for him as he's got a lot of skeletons in his closet, but I'm still sure he could win the nomination. He comes across as part of the 'brainy' group (him, Huntsman, Paul) and he is probably the most likely to win from them. [I'd sort of hope to see Paul get going but I doubt it] Both the major contenders from the 'folksy' group (Cain and Perry) got some serious problems, If Cain was able to 'acquit himself' in the court of public opinion regarding the harassment claims he'd probably be able to make a comeback. I doubt Perry can recover from his mistake, all candidates make gaffes, but that was terrible. But who knows, by Christmas, Santorum could be the major contender. (wouldn't be surprised) Do you guys think he will be vulnerable on being obstructionist with no real agenda. Particularly given he is seen as responsible for the government shut down in the 90's. It would seem that his history gives Obama a legitimate reason to campaign on obstructionism. That seems to be were he is heading anyway and having a republican nominee who has a history for shutting down the government gives plenty of ammunition. Thoughts?
His has this going against him, but he also achieved quite a bit working with a Democrat President. He's definitely savvy enough to get things done in Washington, but he's got baggage.
Obama could use that to his advantage heavily if he plays his cards right, as the republican party is chopped up pretty hard in between moderates who are fiscally conservative and socially on the fence, and the Tea Party, which is pretty right all across the board. Newt falls into the earlier category (He's conservative but by no means tea party, and I don't think he quite fits the neo-con trend). If Democrats go after him hard for the things he's done in the past, while peddling the statement that he's same old crony politician that Americans have come to despise, he could drop quite fast if he handles things poorly.
Perry and Bachmann have been out of the race for a long time, Rommney is too passive and is not driving any of his points home, as he merely deflects the attacks of others, which is good, but doesn't win people over. The consensus of Sanatorum is that he lacks charisma (Liberals think he's an Ass, I personally think he's to rough around the edges to get much done), and no Heavily religious people will even consider voting for Huntsman or Johnson. Cain is still in it, but his gaffes have proven costly and he can't quite seem to shake the harassment charges (even though they've pretty much proven to be unsubstantiated.) Paul lacks the support of the MSM and is hurting quite badly as a result of his stance on foreign policy.
|
On November 28 2011 13:43 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 13:38 Krikkitone wrote:On November 28 2011 13:27 Pillage wrote:
but to the OP... Gringrich does appear to be non-Romney flavor of the month, but there is still a month before any votes are committed.
If any one of the non-Romneys can maintain their position after the first few states vote, then they will probably get the nomination. (and vice versa)
He's got his work cut out for him as he's got a lot of skeletons in his closet, but I'm still sure he could win the nomination. He comes across as part of the 'brainy' group (him, Huntsman, Paul) and he is probably the most likely to win from them. [I'd sort of hope to see Paul get going but I doubt it] Both the major contenders from the 'folksy' group (Cain and Perry) got some serious problems, If Cain was able to 'acquit himself' in the court of public opinion regarding the harassment claims he'd probably be able to make a comeback. I doubt Perry can recover from his mistake, all candidates make gaffes, but that was terrible. But who knows, by Christmas, Santorum could be the major contender. (wouldn't be surprised) Do you guys think he will be vulnerable on being obstructionist with no real agenda. Particularly given he is seen as responsible for the government shut down in the 90's. It would seem that his history gives Obama a legitimate reason to campaign on obstructionism. That seems to be were he is heading anyway and having a republican nominee who has a history for shutting down the government gives plenty of ammunition. Thoughts?
Actually a history of shutting down the government is probably a positive with most Republican primary voters. And the "no real agenda" probably won't be a criticism for him, after all back in the 90s he basically created an agenda as a congressional leader.
|
|
|
On November 28 2011 23:55 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 13:43 Probulous wrote:On November 28 2011 13:38 Krikkitone wrote:On November 28 2011 13:27 Pillage wrote:
but to the OP... Gringrich does appear to be non-Romney flavor of the month, but there is still a month before any votes are committed.
If any one of the non-Romneys can maintain their position after the first few states vote, then they will probably get the nomination. (and vice versa)
He's got his work cut out for him as he's got a lot of skeletons in his closet, but I'm still sure he could win the nomination. He comes across as part of the 'brainy' group (him, Huntsman, Paul) and he is probably the most likely to win from them. [I'd sort of hope to see Paul get going but I doubt it] Both the major contenders from the 'folksy' group (Cain and Perry) got some serious problems, If Cain was able to 'acquit himself' in the court of public opinion regarding the harassment claims he'd probably be able to make a comeback. I doubt Perry can recover from his mistake, all candidates make gaffes, but that was terrible. But who knows, by Christmas, Santorum could be the major contender. (wouldn't be surprised) Do you guys think he will be vulnerable on being obstructionist with no real agenda. Particularly given he is seen as responsible for the government shut down in the 90's. It would seem that his history gives Obama a legitimate reason to campaign on obstructionism. That seems to be were he is heading anyway and having a republican nominee who has a history for shutting down the government gives plenty of ammunition. Thoughts? Actually a history of shutting down the government is probably a positive with most Republican primary voters. And the "no real agenda" probably won't be a criticism for him, after all back in the 90s he basically created an agenda as a congressional leader.
But will it be baggage with independents? Republicans might flock to the idea of blocking legislation, but independents largely want things done in one way or another.
|
On November 28 2011 09:23 TheBomb wrote:
no he doesn't have majority shares in an oil company and doesn't want to destroy all competition to oil like coal.
I just wanted to point out the dangers of reading headlines of news articles several years old.
It is, in fact, completely true that at one point Al Gore owned a huge number of shares in a Tenn. oil company several years ago. It is also true that he only owned these technically and not purposefully. His father, Al Gore, Sr., passed away and Al Gore, Jr., happened to be the executor of his estate, which included these oil shares. Rather than keep the shares he ordered them to be sold.
Reading is really important to comprehending almost any topic. Don't read? Don't argue. It's just a waste of your time and others'.
|
United States7483 Posts
On November 28 2011 12:53 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +This is a very reasonable approach however it is not what TheBomb has taken. The whole point of the Carbon tax is push for alternative fuel sources. Oil becomes more expensive so electricity generation will initially move from coal to gas not oil, so his point is irrelevant.
I'd prefer to let the market do this itself. I don't really see the benefit of Cap and Trade schemes, all they seem to do is put companies in supreme positions over others. ( Think GE vs Exxon Mobil, Mining companies, etc). I fear how the market will retort should something like this go through. Lots of raw material corporations would suffer greatly. Show nested quote +Yes scientists will benefit from global warming grants, but so do denialist scientists. Not from government funding but private. You could try and argue this is a sign that the government is pushing an agenda. To that I would say that in Australia around 10% of grant applications receive some level of approval. If you don't get a grant is probably because your research plan is simply not good enough. I suppose what I was trying to get across was that everyone has an agenda, and that I pretty much take any news with a grain of salt these days, with the absurdly sensationalist American Media. Edit: Grammar Edit2: No one will get my joke >.< , so I removed it
The market is not going to do it themselves until it's pretty much really really late. In the free market, technology curves are 'S' shaped.
The market has begun, slowly, moving towards electric cars instead of gas cars. The problem is that there's very little demand for them, because there are no recharge stations where you can pull up, plug in, and recharge your batteries. There's no incentive for companies to start building recharge stations because there aren't enough electric cars out there for building them to be worthwhile. End result is a mexican standoff between companies and consumers that perpetuates gas usage. The infrastructure required won't be built until the cost of gasoline is absurdly high and people refuse to pay it anymore, but it'll start being built then and the people who relied on gas will suffer for a good long time while they wait for everything to be built.
Some things only a government can really do. It's what economics refers to as an externality, a benefit to society that will not be be provided by the free market. The question is when is it worth our time and money to have the government take care of the issue: is gas too expensive already? Should we wait a bit longer for it to become more expensive?
When gas becomes too expensive, power companies will move towards alternative power sources as well, like wind/solar/nuclear. The question is, do we wait for them to do it themselves and suffer absurd electricity costs, or do we let the government step in?
|
On November 29 2011 02:44 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 12:53 Pillage wrote:This is a very reasonable approach however it is not what TheBomb has taken. The whole point of the Carbon tax is push for alternative fuel sources. Oil becomes more expensive so electricity generation will initially move from coal to gas not oil, so his point is irrelevant.
I'd prefer to let the market do this itself. I don't really see the benefit of Cap and Trade schemes, all they seem to do is put companies in supreme positions over others. ( Think GE vs Exxon Mobil, Mining companies, etc). I fear how the market will retort should something like this go through. Lots of raw material corporations would suffer greatly. Yes scientists will benefit from global warming grants, but so do denialist scientists. Not from government funding but private. You could try and argue this is a sign that the government is pushing an agenda. To that I would say that in Australia around 10% of grant applications receive some level of approval. If you don't get a grant is probably because your research plan is simply not good enough. I suppose what I was trying to get across was that everyone has an agenda, and that I pretty much take any news with a grain of salt these days, with the absurdly sensationalist American Media. Edit: Grammar Edit2: No one will get my joke >.< , so I removed it The market is not going to do it themselves until it's pretty much really really late. In the free market, technology curves are 'S' shaped. The market has begun, slowly, moving towards electric cars instead of gas cars. The problem is that there's very little demand for them, because there are no recharge stations where you can pull up, plug in, and recharge your batteries. There's no incentive for companies to start building recharge stations because there aren't enough electric cars out there for building them to be worthwhile. End result is a mexican standoff between companies and consumers that perpetuates gas usage. The infrastructure required won't be built until the cost of gasoline is absurdly high and people refuse to pay it anymore, but it'll start being built then and the people who relied on gas will suffer for a good long time while they wait for everything to be built. Some things only a government can really do. It's what economics refers to as an externality, a benefit to society that will not be be provided by the free market. The question is when is it worth our time and money to have the government take care of the issue: is gas too expensive already? Should we wait a bit longer for it to become more expensive? When gas becomes too expensive, power companies will move towards alternative power sources as well, like wind/solar/nuclear. The question is, do we wait for them to do it themselves and suffer absurd electricity costs, or do we let the government step in?
You should also consider that when fossil fuels do hit that threshold of being "Too expensive" demand for other sources will skyrocket, and money will be made hand over fist on these new resources. The energy / transportation companies know this, and they will be in an appropriate position to provide these new goods (electric cars , etc) to a hungry consumer base. It essentially boils down to supply and demand, and the market never fails at conforming to that. I'm not worried at all when it comes to the fossil fuels. (I am however very, very annoyed at everyone's profound fear of nuclear power.) When the transition period comes, everything will be fine. The demand just hasn't reached that level yet for many people, as many people still have found ways to make things work around higher fuel costs.
TL;DR Be patient, It's not going to get as bad as you think it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
