The Climate-Industrial Complex
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/03/...
And that's it in a nutshell. The politicians are so out of touch with reality, they think they can hold back the sea and change the temperature of the world by writing things on bits of paper.
Then, if we aren't careful, we'll wind up with an over-subsidized wind turbine industry with nothing to do other than provide service to a niche market and lobby congress for more money for "research and development," promising that someday, maybe the right solution will come along.
Rent-seeking by a big company does not justify rent-seeking by a small company that hopes to become a big company, because success will make it another big rent-seeking company.
[1] This is a real problem that hasn't been solved yet. There are ideas about what to do, but none of them is a slam dunk.
Personally, I think Al Gore's a pretty smart guy and if he just wanted to get rich, there are easier ways...
But sure, lets agree that both sides have something to gain and move on. This silliness about the "Big Green" lobby is distracting from a meaningful discussion about global warming and how seriously to take it.
Al Gore married into his money. He's motivated by an urge to remain in the public eye and wield political power despite being rejected by the voters.
I disagree with this. The main thrust against any refutation of human caused global warming is always that the author is in the paid service of an oil company, lobby group. You cannot have it both ways. You can't allow people to use that argument to brand people who refute or discount human-caused global warming as paid skeptics, and then brush it aside when the argument is used in reverse.
This is a silly argument. My whole point was that we should move beyond questioning motives.
for his theoretical model on climate change, he's on the right path to win his second nobel prize ... in mathematics, no less.
I think it generates relatively expensive energy and creates an undue amount of risk for harm to people and the environment. If we're going to build new government-subsidized power plants, I'd prefer solar or wind.
Solar and wind cannot provide base-load power. Nuclear and coal plants can. Which should we build then if wind / solar is not practical?
That's the fact that absolutely blows the mind of the anti-nuclear types. And those that doesn't, it reveals that it was never about radioactivity at all; their objection to it is purely political (dig a little deeper and find that they object to all capitalist/industrial economy).
Further, I would love for you to explain how it's anti-capitalist to suggest that we shouldn't use government subsidies to build new nuclear plants? (Because that's pretty much all I said in the parent comment, and nuclear plants certainly don't get built without massive subsidies.)
I think that if the government is going to help fund new power plants to reduce our carbon output, then we can do better than nuclear. You disagree? Or would you rather argue with your straw man hippie stereotype?
1. The second law of thermodynamics is a beast.
2. Nuclear energy is amazingly clean, safe, and reliable compared to the alternatives and slightly more expensive than necessary because of political pressures.
I'm not dogmatic either way about nuclear. Do I think it's better than burning coal? Yes. Do I think that we should focus resources on developing truly renewable energy sources? Yes.
Nuclear energy is not so clean at the uranium mining sites, either.
Uranium mining sites are not so clean compared to where I live but are clean compared to a coal mine. The real question is whether they are cleaner than the alternatives.
My main point isn't that nuclear energy is perfect, just that it is an amazingly good choice to have.
Does anyone know of a good, comprehensive study on this? My google-fu is weak on this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletion#Pessimistic_u...
The chapter on renewable energy considers current technology, breeder reactors, and extraction of uranium from saltwater. His basic conclusion is that we have at least hundreds of years of Uranium at near-current consumption levels... which is probably enough time to develop fusion.
"... despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test." Really? Which evidence is that?
The name of the rhetorical flaw you've engaged in is "ad hominem attack".
That is to say, you didn't give a single disagreement with the facts presented, you just said "well, the person who said it is a pederast and a simpleton..."
For sure, it can not constitute an "ad hominem attack" unless you consider saying that people are predictable an "attack". I didn't even say I disagree with the conclusion (though I do).
"But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created."
You could have predicted that by knowing the author and the venue? And if that disqualifies him/them, why is anything Al Gore says at a climate change conference valid?
The UN's climate change committee's numbers. They found that action now was economically justified now only if they used a negative discount rate.
Do you want to argue that they dramatically overstated the costs now? Or, do you want argue that they understated the costs later? If you like both of their numbers, then you get to argue, as they tried, that spending $1 now to eliminate a problem that will cost <$1 to fix later is a good idea.
It's almost unheard of to use a negative discount rate because time is worth money.
The IPCC (ipcc.ch) also plays games with discount rates.