Piffle, even the nuclear supporters do acknowledge what Clinton proposes is good, they still complain about the focus in solar power but the reality is that support of nuclear power is in Clinton’s proposal.
Again, it was not accurate to point out that Hillary was not going to do different than Sanders, there is a lot of difference on refusing nuclear completely and using it in a framework for solving the emissions issue.
And as an example of what happens in the current congress the progress of this bill shows that Republicans do not mind tossing the nuclear baby with the bathwater:
Unless you know something that I don’t, like a change to human genetics that was made in the last decade or two, we can safely assume that mankind is going to wait for change to happen at the top. It’s what we did, our parents did, their parents did, and all of our ancestors.
Anarchists may think that free cooperation is a great idea - and it may well be - but the human condition is such that we will always end up forming hierarchies. Most people aren’t alpha dogs. Nor would it probably be good if they were.
I’m not disagreeing with you here, just look at the development and expansion of these alternates in the past eight years here in the USA compared to the previous eight years. We do need change at the top in this matter but we still also need the average homeowner to go out and buy a rooftop solar array and a decent battery.
Ditch your air conditioner … 'cause you’ll be waiting a hell of a long time before air conditioners are outlawed.
Indeed, going for the example of the water works in developed nations the deniers and fear mongers of the day in old England told the people that the effort to get clean water and controlling diseases like cholera was going to drive the nation bankrupt, because the solution did require making massive works that were not possible for individuals. Well, it did not bankrupt the nation but in reality it increased the value of it.
It was calculated that for the priceless situation of seeing things like cholera to be a thing of the past in developed nations we pay about 1% of our GDP. And that is more or less what it is calculated that we will spent when dealing with the emission issue of today. And once again: It will get more expensive the if we do not act now or increase our efforts.
Reading this complete post and its “guided by an invisible hand” certainly gives a completely different impression from …
It now sounds like you’re applauding the *good luck * that alternate energy may be cheaper than carbon even without external costs accounted. I hope you see that’s a completely different claim than the “invisible hand” argument.
I agree that foolish consistency is a hobglobin, but that doesn’t mean you should jump from one contradictory cliché to another as seems convenient: you sacrifice any credibility with that.
TL;DR: If you acknowledge unaccounted externalities, why invoke the “invisible hand”? (Unless — and now I’m joining you in stretching clichés — it’s an Invisible Hand of God?)
Your cite is a little low on specifics. There was one passing mention of nuclear power, and nothing whatever specific on the topic. What specifically is she going to do to promote nuclear power (other than oppose practical measures like Yucca Mountain)?
Yes it is. Just like Democrats in general, she talks a semi-good fight but does nothing to actually promote a practical solution.
Sure the data exists. That doesn’t mean that we know what real world changes the very complex systems will result in. If those most concerned about climate change would just admit that, then I think more people would find common cause in taking many of the steps they advocate.
As pointed before, even Nordhaus reported that noticing how complex it is does not deny the steps that need to happen to deal with the issue. As pointed by experts the complexity of an issue is not a good reason for inaction, as even real life shows that some effects of the warming brought by our emissions are turning to be worse than expected.
Again, light on specifics. What is Hillary Clinton doing to increase the use of nuclear energy? Your cite only mentions grants to cities who reduce carbon emissions, and with only a passing reference to nuclear power.
OK, so she is going to give grants to cities. How much, and what nuclear power plants are going to be built? And what are we going to do with the waste, now that she has assisted in shutting down Yucca Mountain?
Again, I posted only to show how wrong you were on declaring that Bernie and Hillary were the same. Not much more is needed, suffice to say that there is nothing to show that Clinton will not do as Obama has done by giving grants and economical support to the nuclear plants under construction.
Speaking of waste even I support a waste facility in Arizona, but after lots of talk the Republicans in this very red state are not moving. Point is that in the end a lot of the opposition to nuclear power is bipartisan in nature or of the NIMBY kind.
Again, everyone can note also that you continue to ignore how Republicans **did **treat nuclear energy when it is supported as **part **of a solution to the issue.
If you’re relying on people lowering their quality of life, in the majority rather than just the occassional civic minded lefty, you’re not going to see a lot of change on the climate front. What a small percentage of individuals can do is simply insufficient.
Like it or not, the changes that need to be made have to be made at the top, and that’s going to be insufficient all the way up to where it becomes necessary to do better. Which is why it’s more likely that our eventual solution won’t be nuclear, nor carbon scrubbers in coal factories, nor battery powered cars, and instead it will be something like giant CO2 scrubber towers installed in strategic locations around the Earth, dumping iron powder into the ocean, or other geo-engineering solutions that allow us to directly manipulate CO2 levels in the sky without having to change our way of life.
OR, an individual scientist comes up with a market competitive technology that makes clean sources of energy a real option.
The cap and trade you mentioned was for acid rain reduction. The one Enron was pushing was for global warming prevention from this article "On Aug. 4, 1997, Lay and seven other energy executives met with Clinton, Gore, Rubin and other top officials at the White House to discuss the U.S. position at the upcoming conference on global warming in Kyoto, Japan. Lay, in a memo to Enron employees, said there was broad consensus in favor of an emissions-trading system.
Enron officials later expressed elation at the results of the Kyoto conference. An internal memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.”
The claim was being made that since alternative fuels were cheaper than having the government mandate change would not be costly. I pointed out that if that were true then the market would make the change without government involvement since the invisible hands guides the market to utilizing the lowest cost solutions.
However, I do not believe his claim that alternatives to fossil fuels are now cheaper, so I would like pigouvian taxes to price in externalities and make the market work better.
There is nothing to show that she is going to do anything but what Democrats do in general - talk out of both sides of her mouth, and do nothing of substance.
We have an entire State who will be coal-fired-electricity free in just 14 years … several million civic-minded lefties … and take a gander at what’s happening in California. We do have time to make these changes, a child born today will be having their own children before we even begin to notice climate change. We have 86 years to add five feet to our seawalls, and only where we need too. Places like Los Angeles International Airport are already 35 feet above sea level.
Of course, if we do have enough fossil fuels to last a thousands years, then maybe we’ll see some top-down action. If we want to see it done in our lifetimes, we will be disappointed.