There are plenty of debates here about (Anthropogenic) Global Warming that I peruse with interest and usually don’t wade into. The science is frankly above my head. I was strongly persuaded by An Inconvenient Truth, yet I’m willing to entertain the possibility that the consensus might be wrong.
But it actually doesn’t matter to me whether the identification of ‘the problem’ is bullet-proof or not, because the solution is so compelling anyway:
[ul]We should be rapidly pursuing (& subsidizing) renewable energy sources like solar and wind.[/ul][ul]Our new buildings should be designed to use far less energy, and old ones should be retrofitted.[/ul][ul]We should be rapidly pursuing (& subsidizing) alternative fuel vehicles.[/ul][ul]We should be rapidly pursuing (& subsidizing) mass transit.[/ul][ul]We should be increasing CAFE standards.[/ul][ul]We should use less water.[/ul][ul]We should be living closer to work.[/ul][ul]We should be eating local and reducing demand for beef & pork.[/ul][ul]We should keep population growth in check.[/ul][ul]etc…[/ul]
These priorities - especially the first 4 - are good for the economy independent of their environmental impact. They will create stable high-paying jobs, and they will support our continued strategic position at the forefront of science & technology. Plus, every incremental step towards energy self-sufficiency will help disentangle us little by little from the eternal political problems in the Middle East. Lastly, there is a larger social good in behaving conservatively with respect to natural resources (I hope we all agree).
So, my point for debate: even if you’re skeptical about AGW, the ‘green economy’ is win-freakin’-win baby.
I generally agree with you. One thing I will point out though is that while some policy solutions for global warming align with other goals, such as energy independence, others do not. For example, the energy independence goal would align well with aggressively pursuing getting more of our electricity from coal (and using that electrical power to even displace some of the oil used for transportation, through electric vehicle for example). However, this is clearly not aligned with dealing with the global warming issue…at least in the absence of a way to cost-effectively sequester the CO2 produced in burning the coal.
But, yeah, I think the “green economy” will have a lot of benefits…and that those countries who get ahead of the curve will reap the most benefits. So, I thin Bush’s stalling on dealing with climate change isn’t doing our economy any particular favors, even leaving aside the consequences of climate change.
using less water
eating locally
living closer to work
Living closer to work spreads out developed areas (those nasty industrial parks will move toward employees, into previously open space); development should be concentrated. Better mass transit, more energy efficient transportation, and more flexible work schedules would handle the transport-to-work energy cost.
I will not live on muskrats and turnips for six months out of the year. Hell, if I saw a muskrat I’d probably bean it with a turnip.
OTH, I don’t buy Chilean berries, I get a lot of protein from dairy, and I avoid processed food stuff.
As for water, our building practices are to blame; we must stop hard-topping large areas, and forcing water (rain, snow melt, even garden watering) into waste drainage rather than into the water table. Our building codes should allow using gray-water for ornamental irrigation (so I don’t have to lug my dish rinse water across the kitchen to toss it on the mulch pile).
This is the perspective of a New Englander, for whom a long commute is 20 miles, eating locally would be chewing on pine-park for half the year, and water is just a PIA for almost as long. (I carefully shovel the snow on my driveway into the garden, so it will melt back into the water table.)
I am in favor of higher gas prices; for the first time in years I see significantly fewer cars than trucks & SUVs on the highway with me.
I actually approach it from the other direction. I agree that the problem exists. What I don’t agree with is that any of the solutions are compelling in terms of economic growth.
Really? How did you come to that conclusion? If oil is cheaper than wind, then it’s not good for the economy to use wind instead of oil (independent of the environmental impact). If wind is cheaper than oil, we’ll start using wind, regardless of environmental impact.
This helps the economy how? Do you think people intentionally build buildings today which are so energy inefficient that it costs more in extra energy than it would have cost to make them more efficient? From a purely cost-benefit standpoint, what makes you think that buildings need to be more energy efficient?
Do you have any idea what it costs to retrofit existing buildings? Any idea that the ‘low hanging fruit’ that makes good economic sense isn’t already being done or being planned due to energy price increases?
Could you explain how subsidizing something that the market won’t support improves the economy?
How did you determine that this will help the economy? Do you know how much it will cost to make cars more fuel efficient? Do you think that the auto industry needs an additional push, other than the one currently being provided by the market? If so, why? Remember, we’re speaking purely on economic terms here.
Bob Lutz (Chairman of GM) has said that the easy stuff in fuel economy has been done. To go further, we have to do expensive things like turbocharge small engines, make car bodies out of aluminum, etc. He may or may not be right, but I fail to see how you can make the flat assertion that mandating higher CAFE standards improves the economy.
Really? Where? I will stipulate that there are areas where too much water is being used because it is subsidized by the government. By all means, get rid of the subsidies. But in other areas, why is it a given that they should use less water? How does this improve the economy?
So… Tearing down an existing infrastructure and rebuilding it again helps the economy? That sounds a lot like ‘creating jobs’ by hiring one group of people to dig a big hole and another group to fill it in. The only way you can convince me of this is to show that the energy savings will more than pay for the cost of all the destruction, and for that matter that the energy required to do this will be more than recovered by the new energy efficient location scheme.
Oh, and you’ll also have to explain what we do when the economy changes and new, different jobs are created. Gonna relocate everyone again?
Think it through. If I want to start up a computer company, and I need 100 programmers, I’m not going to find them all within a mile of my company. So I have to attract them with salaries and benefits to encourage them to travel to my business. There’s no unviersal way you can just make everyone live close to work. Not without forcibly relocating the entire population into high density living areas. Sorry.
‘Eating Local’ is terrible for the economy. Mechanized agriculture on gigantic farms is what has created the boom in food availability and caused costs to shrink. Eating local means abandoning economies of scale. It would be an economic disaster if you forced it on everyone. Also, if you’re going to restrict food imports with tariffs, you’re going to raise the cost of food in both countries and damage both economies. Artificial restrictions on trade do not in any way help the economy.
You mean like that one-child policy in China? You do realize that the U.S. is barely exceeding replacement birthrates, and Europe’s natural birthrates are negative, right? That Japan is facing an economic crunch because of a shrinking population?
And since we talking pure economics here, you’ll have to explain to me how reducing the number of human workers in a country helps the economy. Humans create wealth. They innovate and invent. They trade with each other. I know of no economic model which shows that a country’s economy improves as the number of people within it decline, or that high population densities lead to poverty. If that were the case, Hong Kong would be destitute.
If we stipulate that what you are talking about is laws and taxes to pay for these things outside of what the market is doing, then you have to explain why doing this is better for the economy than what ‘the economy’ has already chosen to do.
Really? You can pass a law and just create jobs? Cool! Actually, what you will do is divert jobs from another area to this one. There are no free lunches. If you pay for your program with taxes, then you are diverting money from where it naturally wanted to flow in the economy to where you want it to be. This does not create jobs. It destroys jobs in one area and moves them to another. And in fact, because these jobs had to be coerced, you’re making the economy less efficient.
As for keeping our place at the forefront of science and technology… Are you going to turn non-scientists into scientists? If not, you’re going to have to hire them away from what they are already doing. How have you determined that your research is more important to keep the country at the forefront of science and technology than the work that scientist is already doing?
Or, it will reduce our influence in the middle east. In the meantime, China will be happy to step into the void and become the power player in the Middle East, pushing it in directions they want it to go in. And all that oil gets burned anyway. In fact, if our solution doesn’t include China and India, the only effect of us using less oil will be to lower demand for it, which will lower the price, which will benefit the Chinese and give them an incentive to burn even more of the stuff.
But you’re not conserving them. All you’re doing is moving yourself to a high-cost energy infrastructure, freeing up the low-cost energy to be consumed by the rest of the world. It all gets burned anyway.
No it is not. The hidden assumption here is that central planners can see profit where the market can’t, and that central planners should muck about with the resources of the economy and make it more efficient through the sheer power of their superior intellects. I don’t think I need to highlight the number of times this has been tried, and how many times it has failed.
There are good environmental reasons to search for better alternatives to oil, and good economic reasons to do so. And in fact, companies are investing billions in that effort now. What you are saying that there are good economic reasons for doing so at a rate greater than what is already occurring, using the power of government to force the issue. You have provided zero evidence that this is actually the case, and we have good reason to believe that it’s not.
AFAIK, we are doing this already…but I agree, we should continue to look into both of these as I feel that both will be part of the eventual mix of technologies that replace the current hydrocarbon based power generation.
Where we might disagree is exactly where the bar should be set to subsidize this technology with general funds…and exactly how those subsidies should be granted.
Well, I agree in theory, but in practice you are talking about something that is going to be expensive both in the short and medium term. If you posit new standards for new buildings then this is going to increase the price pretty much across the board (unless you think the buildings would be cheaper)…I could live with that. However, to retrofit existing structures would be extremely costly in the short term and I definitely wouldn’t support that. Offer incentives for people to do it…sure. But force through such a program? Not a chance.
We are doing this already…and so is the auto industry both in this country and throughout the world. Again, in theory I agree with you, but as with the first bullet point we may disagree on the nuts and bolts of how much and how.
Again, we already subsidize mass transit. I disagree that more should be put into this as I think it would be way to costly for the possible return on societies investment, at least here in the US. YMMV.
Completely and utterly disagree…I think they should be tossed out and new methods used. I think that CAFE was one of the (granted many) factors that lead to the current craze of SUV’s…and I think it’s a perfect example of the government screwing the pooch with unintended consequences.
Well, I can’t but agree with this considering where I live (I often tell people with pools and trees and such from back east to take a good look around…it’s a freaking DESERT here guys!), at least in theory. Personally I think more effort should be put into water reclamation here in the Great South West.
Again, in theory I agree…but how would you propose to make people do this? And if you could…where would they all live? Would you force people to move? And where would they move exactly? Would you force companies to build high rises in the cities…and use eminent domain to seize the property needed to build all those high rises? You are talking about not just a major shift of population but of culture and society here…and such things are both expensive and fraught with pit falls for that unintended consequences stuff. Better to let people figure out for themselves what they should and shouldn’t do based on their own needs, desires and capabilities.
I dislike immensely telling people what they should and shouldn’t do…and being told by someone what I should and shouldn’t do. If you want to eat locally grown produce and reduce your consumption of beef and pork my thoughts are…more power to you! It’s no skin off my nose (and it means more beef and pork for me!)…just don’t try and tell me what I should do. Especially with the governments gun to my head.
How? And in the US (and Europe, Japan and most other industrialized nations)…why? Our population increase in the US is barely above replacement level…and in Europe it’s below replacement level. What more do you want? As for China and India (even assuming their problem is long term and not self correcting…considering both nations thoughts on female children), what do you propose exactly? We can’t MAKE them reign in their populations…not without war anyway.
While I disagree with most of your points, I agree that whether you are for or against the whole GW/AGW theory, a green economy can be a win/win…which is why it’s only a matter of time before it happens. If it becomes expected by society AND if it saves money in the long run (which many of the ‘green’ technologies seem to promise) then why do people think businesses need to be forced to do them? Why does the government need to get involved if these technologies are both societally acceptable AND cost effective? I can see a shift to companies at least paying lip service to going green these days (even WalMart seems to be jumping on the bandwagon)…it’s not a great leap to see companies, already talking about it, taking a deeper look and implementing some of these green/efficiency technologies, especially with new plants stores, when they replace their logistics infrastructure, etc etc. It’s only a matter of time IMHO.
I don’t get this - in my mind, living closer to work generally does mean concentrating development. More people live close to work in a city like San Francisco than live close to work in a distant suburb like Pleasanton, the suburban structure allows development of “bedroom communities” with few jobs except in the service industry that supports the bedroom community (fast food, mall employees, and local government) while the urban communities have the majority of industry and commercial jobs that people commute to from the bedroom community.
So how does living close to work spread people out?
While there are different types of locavore, I’ve never heard of anyone with a limit as small as 20 miles, generally people seem to choose larger radii - 100 or 150 miles seems more common. But just like vegetarianism, only the fanatics would insist on total conversion. There’s no reason to go to the extreme. Eating local food just one day a week, or 3 seasons out of the year, would still fit the criteria mentioned in the OP.
I never said anything about passing laws. I’m talking about re-prioritizing government spending.
The market didn’t give us dams, bridges, highways, rural electrification, etc. We’re talking (for the most part) about public works. I assume you’ll stipulate that the Hoover Dam created jobs at the time, and was good for the economy in the long run. Yes, our success DOES depend in part on “central planners” with foresight (like the military) — that’s not a bad thing.
My main concern about the OP is the general thrust of “we know what’s good for you, and we’re going to make you do it”. The problem is that you want to spend my money on your goals.
Key Lime Guy, you say:
While these are all noble ideals, in practice it turns out to be harder than in theory. Government subsidies have not been a raging success in the past. As a rule of thumb, when the government gets involved the costs rise, as in general the Government is less efficient than the market.
You also have do deal with the Law of Unintended Consequences. When I used to teach this stuff, I often used the example of the residents of the frozen northlands. They used to use dogsleds to hunt caribou, now they use snowmobiles. Now, in your opinion, which one is harder on the caribou? Well, it’s obvious, since the snowmobiles are faster and can travel further, the hunters would be able to kill many more caribou with snowmobiles than with dogsleds.
Following the Law of Unintended Consequences, it turns out that dogsleds are much, much harder on the caribou than snowmobiles.
Why?
Because snowmobiles run on petrol, and dogsled teams run on … caribou mean … lots and lots of caribou meat …
Because of this Law, I’m reflexively suspicious of simple “solutions” to complex problems. Take biofuel. While it sounds good, among the outcomes to date are increased food prices and destruction of tropical forest to make way for palm oil biofuel plantations.
Now, I’m not saying that renders biofuel meaningless, or that we should immediately stop all biofuel production.
I am saying that simple prescriptions like “We should be rapidly pursuing (& subsidizing) alternative fuel vehicles” often have consequences that in some cases are exactly opposite to what we want to achieve. Spending my money to encourage the chopping down of tropical forests is not something I’m wild about.
#1) I agree if looking at long-term solutions. While looking at 4.15/gal for the cheapest gas, I was wondering what it would take to run a car on flywheels that could be recharged via solar or wind turbine.
#2) New buildings yes (double paned glass, etc.) but for older buildings? Maybe more expensive than the energy savings.
#3) The problem is that hydrogen is simply not that efficient in producing energy and batteries contain lead, cadmium, etc. that needs to be desposed of. The real solution? See #1
#4) How do you get people to use mass transit? Buses never run on time and it would take an assload of transfers to get to work by bus anyways. Metrorail? The color lines simply don't connect and even if they did, how do I get from the terminal to work? Not gonna happen in a sprawling metropolis like Los Angeles.
#5) Needs to be in conjunction with #2. By the way, you can thank Jimmy Carter for giving control of alternate fuel development to the oil companies. You need to rectify that first.
#6) More gray water. Sometime you should see the hoops I have to jump through and to spend to use gray water on flower beds in California. #7) Guaranty me a job within 5 miles equal to the job I can get now and you got a deal. Oh, and that guaranty carries over if I move and/or find a better job. #8) What is local because beef, chicken, vegetable, fruit, etc. may not be grown locally. And if you want to talk about the economy and crops (forgettting GW for a second), look at the subsidies sugar farmers get - and along those lines AND AGW, research Brazilian E85 and why we don’t have it here in the US. #9) Mandated castration? If I can make the list, count my vote.