That is an interesting paperthat the article links to. What it shows is that there are some policies that reduce global warming but are a net loss economically and some that would be a net benefit. So we need to be sure we choose the correct policies.
The great thing about the market is if alternatives really are cheaper than the switch will occur minimal disruption as if guided by an invisible hand.
That depends on how you calculate the cost. For instance, what would mitigation of the Athabaska River basin cost? What would motor fuel cost per gallon if it actually carried its weight? How much of the actual direct and indirect cost of fossil fuel usage is subsidized or handwaved away? Global climate change is one of those costs that we – or our children – will eventually have to pay; the longer we rack up an increasing balance on that debt, the more we will have to pay. It is unlikely that we can keep rolling it over as we have been.
I remember what happenedwhen the invisible hand was guiding Enron.
I have to insist; in a world where the alternatives are already cheaper in many areas, and are still a better choice when we take into account the real cost of using our atmosphere as a sewer, it is clear who are the weakest link; and they are almost all of the Republicans in congress and Republican Governors.
AND put pressure on environmentalists and liberals (like Sanders) who are shortsightedly against nuclear power. We need to stop using fossil fuels but we’ll need to replace that power with something.
How bout we charge the baby boomers and gen xers for all the debt they’ve saddled us with, at least those numbers are quantifiable.
The best thing that Sanders could do right now for the environment would be to come out in favor of nuclear power. Some liberals will only listen to other liberals, even if they’ve lost the nomination for presidency.
I have a couple of issues here. First, the cost we are paying for fossil fuels currently does not reflect socialized costs of the environmental impact. Second, the technology to bring down the cost of alternative fuels is driven by adoption. A good way to deal with both of this issues would be a “fee-bate”, where we charge fees on older, polluting technologies and use the money to subsidize new, clean technologies.
So you think yesterday’s price of gasoline reflects the risks of rising sea levels decades from now? Can you explain how that works?
And if tomorrow’s scientific estimate of sea level rise changes, presumably you think the “invisible hand” would magically reach back and guide yesterday’s gas prices. That’s an even better trick.
To be fair, they’re going to do the same thing to their children. Unless you know about some modification to the basic genetics of humans that was made in the last decade or two, it’s a fair assumption that our children are going to act much like us, our parents, their parents, and all our other ancestors and progressively kick the can down the road for anything that isn’t an immediate emergency.
Hillary Clinton isn’t going to do any more for nuclear power than Sanders either. So we can vote for Republicans, who often don’t think AGW is a problem but support a viable solution, or Democrats who do think that but oppose a viable solution.
It comes down to the question of whether we want to do something about the problem, or just use it for political gains and change the subject when cost-benefit analysis gets mentioned.
And Democrats do not have the political will to engage in serious mitigation or investment in practical solutions.
Regards,
Shodan
The environmental benefits trump any economic disbenefits. We’ve got to stop worshipping at the altar of corporate profits.
“Think Globally, Act Locally”
We shouldn’t be waiting for this change to happen at the top … sometimes we have to change at the bottom first: Oregon outlaws coal fired electricity
Barring any Federal interference … Oregon will be on the road to a fossil-fuel-free future … this started with individuals using alternatives, then neighborhoods, then communities, then counties … and now the whole State.
Mitigating climate change starts with you … not World Government[sup]©[/sup] …
The invisible hand does not guide individual companies it guides the market as a whole. Enron failed because they were counting on the government setting up a market for carbon offsets to combat global warming. They were wrong about that and the invisible hand guided capital away from them and toward companies that could better use the capital.
That was not the claim being made. He said that alternatives were already cheaper, not alternatives are cheaper if you include all of the externalities. The market would work better if the externalities were priced in, that is why I support a pigouvian tax on carbon dioxide producing fuels. I still don’t think anything can be done since global warming is a global problem and expecting people to make themselves poorer to help foreigners is not something that is realistic historically.
Not the whole picture, Sanders opposes nuclear power, while Clinton does approve them under a framework of controlling emissions.
Yeah, one can say that she was first in favor, then against it, now in favor. One however has to go for the **current **campaign to see where the promise is and it is clear that support for nuclear will continue, Bernie is really the only major candidate that definitely opposes nuclear power.
Sorry, but denying that there is a problem also means that no extra support for new nuclear plants and no support whatsoever of solar and wind is in their minds.
And your point as usual is disregarded as it it was not based on good information.
Cite for that? In reality the treaties and the IPCC does projections based on the idea that indeed we can not go cold turkey and the changes will be mostly gradual, but they have to happen and many researchers and economists point that the real fear mongers are the ones that tell us that making people poor is a requirement for the change. Not so.
[QUOTE] Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - "leave it to future generations." In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. [/QUOTE]No, that isn’t clear. She changed her mind, three times, and she hasn’t made any promises, and there is no assurance that she would keep such a promise if she did make it.
As usual for Democrats, she has no serious commitment to any practical solution.
Regards,
Shodan
Cite for Enron counting on government setting that cap-n-trade for them?