And disappointing that you keep pointing to selective, “choke point” legislation examples as evidence that broader attempts will have anywhere near the same effectiveness.
Underwhelming still, those examples are based on changes that are, as Scientists like Richard Alley and economists like Nordhaus pointed out, relevant examples; you are still only using the “compelling” argument of “because I said so”
No, GIGO, I’m not “saying so.”
You are almost wholly right about legislative/regulatory solutions for recognized, technology-based or techno-solvable problems with identifiable pressure or “choke” points. No argument. Regulation has worked well in those cases. It will probably continue to work well in those cases.
My focus is on broader problems that are far more social than technological, don’t have any evident technology-based solution, require cooperation of great masses of people with no good “pressure point” at which law would have much more effect than it does on, say, freeway driving speeds, are not widely perceived as problems that are solvable (or even need solving), and which have historical parallels where legislation was ignored or even actively mocked.
While AGW has a number of approaches that fall into your camp, there are quite a few issues that fall more into mine. And as I have said in other threads if not this one, climate change is *not *my primary focus. (Actually, it’s my… a close family member’s field.) However, I don’t think your approach, by itself, is going to lead to effective change, amelioration and adaptation to climate change.
So I credit you with validity in most if not all of your points… but they aren’t *my *points.
It remains mostly your opinion, as it turns out my background is in computers and education, but had several years of social studies and history. When an economist I followed early on on this issue becomes president of the American Economist Association I do think that people like him already investigated how societies are more likely to react to legislative changes regarding this issue, and then a lot of the changes in society cascade out.
I am traveling right now in the old country and yesterday I saw a traveling salesman selling energy saving bulbs in the local market, what it seems to me is that a lot is missing in your approach about what does convince the people to change. In the case of efficient light bulbs a change did indeed happen in the lighting industry when government regulations and industry might showed to many that making that change is now more economical as the old bulbs are now more expensive (in energy and hours of use) or harder to find.
People are less willing to complain about change when it is clear that virtually all people are involved, and that the majority are aware of why the change is needed.
And that takes us back to what you are attempting to continuously avoid. The biggest obstacle now not in the public opinion, nor in the willingness of the executive to set regulations, it is with a Republican party that has been hijacked by powerful interests into preventing other needed regulations from happening.
This discussion never was, for me, about light bulbs.
Nor about the current logjam in Congress.
Clearly, you think a progressive/green Congress churning out efficiency and anti-AGW legislation is what will save the world, and I salute you and leave you to it.
That is the absolute core of everything I’ve said above: that consensus and conviction *drive *legislation to codify change. Without that “aware majority,” legislation is useless or worse.
There is always a minority that objects to a regulation. But if the proponents are an actual minority, ramming legislation through in midnight sessions has always led to failure or disaster. Legislation is the consensus of the people, made into a tool that can effect their will. Never - or close to never - the other way around.
That your background is computers says much. The Comp Sci crowd tends to see the world as something that can be compartmented and organized; mechanical if not simple behaviorism at most. There is a single, simple “patch” for every problem. (Not.)
I think you want to see only incomplete arguments coming from your opponents, as I pointed before that is not the whole solution to the problem at hand.