[QUOTE=Polerius]
BTW, I find it interesting that the Right is very good at spotting alarmism from the Left (e.g. on the environment), but is horrible about spotting alarmism from the Right:
"We’re all going to be turned into Communists!!! Terrorists are going to kill us all!! Give us trillions and trillions of dollars to protect you from these dangers!
You want some billions to help some poor kids get health care? No way! We need trillions to wage war and make sure the terrorists don’t kill us allllll!!!"
[/QUOTE]
What baffles me is how many people refuse to see the obvious: it’s the same thing.
The right does it with terrorism. The left does it with AGW. That is not to say that terrorism and AGW aren’t issues that need to be addressed, but both sides so distort the facts in an effort to advance their own agendas that it requires a monumental effort to wade through these distortions to see just where the truth lies, and that’s an effort that most people aren’t going to make, besides which, if they DO make the effort, it becomes clear that there is not universal agreement on either of these topics, and the proper course of action probably lies - surprise! - somewhere in the middle.
As for the market being a viable solution, I think those denying that it can be are deluding themselves by viewing the world through corporation=bad! tinted glasses. I’m not in the market for a new car right now, but I probably will be in a year or two. If we (mankind) continue to consume the easily refined oil at a breakneck pace, the price of oil is going to go up and up as easily cracked reserves are exhausted and more expensive methods of refining oil move to fill the resulting shortfall. If gas is 3,4 or more dollars a gallon, a high mileage hybrid is going to be a hell of a lot more attractive to me(and I suspect to many, many other people). That’s supply and demand in action. The supply of cheap oil falls, resulting in more expensive gas, which in turn causes the demand for high mileage hybrids to go up, so manufactures will produce more hybrids to meet those demands and as a happy byproduct of all this, carbon emissions will fall. All of this is quite easy and natural and doesn’t demand one single bit of government interference. (Note: I’m not saying this would solve the carbon issue, but it is an example of how purely market driven forces will work to help reduce carbon emissions). As more and more people become more concerned about AGW, the demand for “green” products will increase, and corporations will move to meet those demands(Actually, this is the one positive aspect of the AGW hysteria as it’s being pushed by the left. Ironic, no?). Finally, spiraling fuel costs will force corporations to look for less expensive alternatives. I expect a resurgence in nuclear sources for power generation(and about fucking time I say), along with more and more alternative fuels for cars and trucks (bio-diesel? hydrogen engines? something we haven’t even heard of yet as it’s till on the drawing boards?), and that, right there, is the only hope we have of reigning in the developing world’s carbon emissions. We (the West) got rich off of cheap oil in the last century. Now it’s their turn, and they are NOT going to stop, no matter how man UN resolutions are passed, UNLESS something cheaper comes along. The market is what will drive the development of those technologies, NOT the government. The government has one tool in it’s arsenal: regulation, and the more stringent regulations become, the harder industry will resist them , try to weaken them or try to find ways around them. I would much rather that money and effort be put into R&D on things that actually will solve the problem, and that is what a market based approach encourages.
