3 ms·

There are some good points, however the emphasis needs to be on how green regulation is applied. The article seems to be complaining about "green" regulations

There are some good points, however the emphasis needs to be on how green regulation is applied. The article seems to be complaining about "green" regulations (which are outdated and inane), not against the idea of the necessity of sustainable technology. One quibble, more offshore drilling will not solve the problem, and causes problems, as in the Gulf of Mexico. It's also a drop in the ocean of energy demand. It solves nothing. You only need to look as far as global rising energy consumption (especially China) and the supply/demand curve. Basic economics. This means the sustainable energy problem needs to be solved, and what better place to solve it than in California? We need solutions without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For example, make it easier for entrepreneurs and relieve the tax burden to encourage businesses. Provide an environment where technology (even green technology) can thrive. Create incentives for people to adopt more environmentally friendly approaches to living, etc. I think there are plenty of examples where sustainable living & and strong economic fundamentals can coexist.

kiba 16y ago
All we need is for oil energy cost to goes up, than you'll get "green energy". Currently, it does not make sense to invest in green energy technologies. It doesn't need to be solved right now, but it will become urgent in the future. Urgency will increase flow of capital. Increased flow of capital mean we'll get technological solutions faster. Right now, we can put our money to other, more urgent things that's more important. Green energy is not that important, for now.
brc 16y ago
What's wrong with offshore drilling? Yes, GoM events do happen but are very rare. You can't go around being completely risk averse and not doing anything - this is the whole problem with the green ideology. Why not drill the oil and get the tax revenue, bring in the jobs, get a little industry going? This is what the article is about : refusal to let private enterprise get on with making, doing, exporting, building. As for alternative energy - by all means continue R&D but drop the tax subsidies and using the government to 'pick winners'. The subsidies starve other technologies of capital, funding and attention while prolonging the life of unsuccessful technology. The only way the energy problems are going to be solved is by letting free enterprise innovate and compete to a solution. Governments can't and shouldn't pick winners. Let any energy solution live and die on it's merits. To me your reply sounds as though you acknowledge the problem (green regulations and intervention) but aren't willing to accept that the solution is to wind it all back and let solutions develop naturally. Green regulations should be restricted to reducing pollution and preserving areas of natural beauty, not stomping on every little use of the earth to provide, and certainly not picking future energy direction. Set the rules of the game, then let private entreprise go and come up with the solutions. Oil will cease to be an issue once better, cheaper alternatives exist.
- shadowfox 16y ago
  Is there a reason we should regulate pollution and "areas of natural beauty" while deregulating everything else?
  - binspace 16y ago
    > while deregulating everything else Yeah, like deregulating energy. That turned out great for California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - brc 16y ago
    Pollution is something that affects quality of life and health of people. That's important. By 'areas of natural beauty' I basically mean national and state parks and other areas that provide quality of life for many people just through observation and enjoyment. It was a pretty ambiguous line, I admit, but what I really mean is : preserve some parts for the enjoyment of all and future generations. Don't close off existing farmland and already modified environments. Let farmers grow, miners mine, timber workers log. Use the resources wisely for the improvement of living standards.
- binspace 16y ago
  > refusal to let private enterprise get on with making, doing, exporting, building Agreed. However, blatant consumerism is causing massive global environmental damage. Industry & private enterprise should produce things that help society & the world, not pillage and destroy it. Face it, the economy was on hyper-drive for too many years. We have for too long deferred paying our debts and missed making fundamental changes to our economy and society that would make our society (not just the environment) more sustainable. Joblessness and a down economy would have happened with or without California regulations. > The only way the energy problems are going to be solved is by letting free enterprise innovate and compete to a solution. Governments can't and shouldn't pick winners. Let any energy solution live and die on it's merits. Exactly, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately the government has & still gives enormous subsidies to many environmentally (both sociologically and environmentally) damaging industries. For example, why is food so cheap to mass produce in a centralized location and ship, so we can enjoy fattening and nutrient-starved meals at our local Micky D's? Government subsidies. Why is oil so prevalent as our only energy source. Government subsidies of the auto industry. Let them go out of business so manufacturers make cars that people actually want. Why is planned obsolescence such a mainstay in consumer goods, when more practical solutions exist? The all-mighty dollar has served as a Siren's song to the unchecked finance gambling machine. Why do we have to spend billions of hours commuting, away from our families, when we can focus on making industries more localized and developing telecommuting technologies? And how about the military as a vehicle of subsidization. Why are we fighting two wars based on false premises while pillaging social security? Why is there a war on drugs? Subsidies. I would rather have subsidies spent on encouraging more sustainable behavior, as the world population's resource usage is rapidly increasing. It just makes sense.

kiba 16y ago

All we need is for oil energy cost to goes up, than you'll get "green energy". Currently, it does not make sense to invest in green energy technologies. It doesn't need to be solved right now, but it will become urgent in the future. Urgency will increase flow of capital. Increased flow of capital mean we'll get technological solutions faster. Right now, we can put our money to other, more urgent things that's more important. Green energy is not that important, for now.

brc 16y ago

What's wrong with offshore drilling? Yes, GoM events do happen but are very rare. You can't go around being completely risk averse and not doing anything - this is the whole problem with the green ideology. Why not drill the oil and get the tax revenue, bring in the jobs, get a little industry going? This is what the article is about : refusal to let private enterprise get on with making, doing, exporting, building. As for alternative energy - by all means continue R&D but drop the tax subsidies and using the government to 'pick winners'. The subsidies starve other technologies of capital, funding and attention while prolonging the life of unsuccessful technology. The only way the energy problems are going to be solved is by letting free enterprise innovate and compete to a solution. Governments can't and shouldn't pick winners. Let any energy solution live and die on it's merits. To me your reply sounds as though you acknowledge the problem (green regulations and intervention) but aren't willing to accept that the solution is to wind it all back and let solutions develop naturally. Green regulations should be restricted to reducing pollution and preserving areas of natural beauty, not stomping on every little use of the earth to provide, and certainly not picking future energy direction. Set the rules of the game, then let private entreprise go and come up with the solutions. Oil will cease to be an issue once better, cheaper alternatives exist.

shadowfox 16y ago
Is there a reason we should regulate pollution and "areas of natural beauty" while deregulating everything else?
- binspace 16y ago
  > while deregulating everything else Yeah, like deregulating energy. That turned out great for California. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- brc 16y ago
  Pollution is something that affects quality of life and health of people. That's important. By 'areas of natural beauty' I basically mean national and state parks and other areas that provide quality of life for many people just through observation and enjoyment. It was a pretty ambiguous line, I admit, but what I really mean is : preserve some parts for the enjoyment of all and future generations. Don't close off existing farmland and already modified environments. Let farmers grow, miners mine, timber workers log. Use the resources wisely for the improvement of living standards.
binspace 16y ago
> refusal to let private enterprise get on with making, doing, exporting, building Agreed. However, blatant consumerism is causing massive global environmental damage. Industry & private enterprise should produce things that help society & the world, not pillage and destroy it. Face it, the economy was on hyper-drive for too many years. We have for too long deferred paying our debts and missed making fundamental changes to our economy and society that would make our society (not just the environment) more sustainable. Joblessness and a down economy would have happened with or without California regulations. > The only way the energy problems are going to be solved is by letting free enterprise innovate and compete to a solution. Governments can't and shouldn't pick winners. Let any energy solution live and die on it's merits. Exactly, that would be wonderful. Unfortunately the government has & still gives enormous subsidies to many environmentally (both sociologically and environmentally) damaging industries. For example, why is food so cheap to mass produce in a centralized location and ship, so we can enjoy fattening and nutrient-starved meals at our local Micky D's? Government subsidies. Why is oil so prevalent as our only energy source. Government subsidies of the auto industry. Let them go out of business so manufacturers make cars that people actually want. Why is planned obsolescence such a mainstay in consumer goods, when more practical solutions exist? The all-mighty dollar has served as a Siren's song to the unchecked finance gambling machine. Why do we have to spend billions of hours commuting, away from our families, when we can focus on making industries more localized and developing telecommuting technologies? And how about the military as a vehicle of subsidization. Why are we fighting two wars based on false premises while pillaging social security? Why is there a war on drugs? Subsidies. I would rather have subsidies spent on encouraging more sustainable behavior, as the world population's resource usage is rapidly increasing. It just makes sense.