3 ms·

I wouldn't characterize the situation in either of those ways. I think we could all agree that non-renewable energy sources will run out at some point. Hence t

I wouldn't characterize the situation in either of those ways. I think we could all agree that non-renewable energy sources will run out at some point. Hence the name :). Or, to be more precise, the extraction of non-renewables will cost more than their utility. So, at some point we have to transition: first to a mix, and eventually to renewables only. I would venture that we could also agree that those who make their money from non-renewables have an interest in delaying this transition as long as possible. That's what I would do. So, there will need to be some sort of agreement to transition, and incentives to do so. This doesn't necessarily need to be a "large long-term centrally planned project to administer the solution as decided by the most prominent or respected thinkers" - you can use economic incentives to leverage the market to do so. Well, you can in one country at a time fairly easily, but globally - it's tricky. If (as it seems) use of non-renewables is also a cumulative pollutant and could cause large costs to society globally, then the smart thing to do would be to accelerate this process. This doesn't mean giving up "freedom for the promise of safety" - it means, again, using economic incentives, but balanced against the costs. This already happens, all the time. We aren't giving up freedoms. In my opinion, anyway. We don't need to give governments loads of new power. We need to agree this is what we want and instruct our governments to do it. They already tax, rebate, and subsidize many things (e.g corn crops). The difficulty is the tragedy of the commons - and that's what all the arguments are about. Lots of countries, lots of different incentives, different histories, etc.

guscost 11y ago
OK, first of all I appreciate the thoughtful response. I agree that the necessary transition from scarce hydrocarbons to something else, whenever that happens, is not likely to be totally pain-free. One of the traditional problems with markets is the turbulence that happens around these big paradigm shifts. America is in the middle of one right now as we transition to an information-based economy. I don't agree that the existing players in the hydrocarbon market have the ability to delay the change in the way that you're implying. In other words, resource availability is not a stepwise function that can just go from "available" to "not available" overnight. Rare things gradually get more expensive, investment is gradually shifted into alternatives, and this is basically guaranteed to happen with oil as long as there is not a perfect monopoly or perfect collusion. Also I'm skeptical that the economic policies you're suggesting won't lead to giving up freedoms. In practice freedoms do get taken away very often when institutions obtain the power to do so (e.g. the regulatory blockade on nuclear power, the ratcheting emissions rules for automobiles that will make a legal gasoline-powered car physically impossible in the near future, the outright ban on fracking in NY). I think this has a good chance of happening even if the initial plan is just to influence the market. A possible scenario: Some bad idea is encouraged for whatever reason by policy makers, and the economic policy isn't able to overcome the fact that it is a bad idea, so the decision makers cling to the sunk cost and pile on more regulations, until they start taking away freedoms. For the record I'm not a big fan of the current agricultural policies we have in general, even though I do think imposing a tariff or offering an incentive is infinitely preferable to a ban.
- cromulent 11y ago
  Well, just to be clear: I believe that in the same way my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose, my freedom to pollute ends at the boundary of my property. There are still a lot of externalities that are not born by those that incur them or profit from them. This is a market inefficiency. History has shown that there are plenty of people who are willing to profit in the short term and ignore such externalities, and who will fight hard to avoid paying for any large scale pollution problems. There are many examples. That is why it is necessary to put the burden of proof on the industry. That's why I see regulation as being a necessary evil. That is why a ban on fracking in NY is fine (in my opinion) - in the big picture, it shouldn't matter. If fracking is OK, time will tell and the ban will be removed. The gas can only be removed once, so who cares when? The companies are big enough to focus elsewhere in the meantime. In the US, the Citizens United vs FEC case ensured that much money can be spent on influencing the government. Much more money has been spent by the fossil fuel lobby than the renewables lobby - they have more money to spend. I don't doubt for a second that they are slowing down the shift to renewables as much as they can. It's happening right now, and it is real. This is normal, and expected, and according to the rules. I don't expect them to act outside their own significant interests. However, I think that it is not in the best long-term interests of humanity and I am willing to tolerate some ineptitude and over-regulation to shift the balance.

guscost 11y ago

OK, first of all I appreciate the thoughtful response. I agree that the necessary transition from scarce hydrocarbons to something else, whenever that happens, is not likely to be totally pain-free. One of the traditional problems with markets is the turbulence that happens around these big paradigm shifts. America is in the middle of one right now as we transition to an information-based economy. I don't agree that the existing players in the hydrocarbon market have the ability to delay the change in the way that you're implying. In other words, resource availability is not a stepwise function that can just go from "available" to "not available" overnight. Rare things gradually get more expensive, investment is gradually shifted into alternatives, and this is basically guaranteed to happen with oil as long as there is not a perfect monopoly or perfect collusion. Also I'm skeptical that the economic policies you're suggesting won't lead to giving up freedoms. In practice freedoms do get taken away very often when institutions obtain the power to do so (e.g. the regulatory blockade on nuclear power, the ratcheting emissions rules for automobiles that will make a legal gasoline-powered car physically impossible in the near future, the outright ban on fracking in NY). I think this has a good chance of happening even if the initial plan is just to influence the market. A possible scenario: Some bad idea is encouraged for whatever reason by policy makers, and the economic policy isn't able to overcome the fact that it is a bad idea, so the decision makers cling to the sunk cost and pile on more regulations, until they start taking away freedoms. For the record I'm not a big fan of the current agricultural policies we have in general, even though I do think imposing a tariff or offering an incentive is infinitely preferable to a ban.

cromulent 11y ago
Well, just to be clear: I believe that in the same way my freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose, my freedom to pollute ends at the boundary of my property. There are still a lot of externalities that are not born by those that incur them or profit from them. This is a market inefficiency. History has shown that there are plenty of people who are willing to profit in the short term and ignore such externalities, and who will fight hard to avoid paying for any large scale pollution problems. There are many examples. That is why it is necessary to put the burden of proof on the industry. That's why I see regulation as being a necessary evil. That is why a ban on fracking in NY is fine (in my opinion) - in the big picture, it shouldn't matter. If fracking is OK, time will tell and the ban will be removed. The gas can only be removed once, so who cares when? The companies are big enough to focus elsewhere in the meantime. In the US, the Citizens United vs FEC case ensured that much money can be spent on influencing the government. Much more money has been spent by the fossil fuel lobby than the renewables lobby - they have more money to spend. I don't doubt for a second that they are slowing down the shift to renewables as much as they can. It's happening right now, and it is real. This is normal, and expected, and according to the rules. I don't expect them to act outside their own significant interests. However, I think that it is not in the best long-term interests of humanity and I am willing to tolerate some ineptitude and over-regulation to shift the balance.